Exhibit N - Draft Environmental Impact Report — Rialto City Council, January 27, 2026 (part 1 of 3)

LOCUST GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT

PROJECT
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2024061274

Lead Agency City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376

September 2025
g200OPE
"Brid
branEP so
7 C
12 A
' .9
4 This page intentionally left blank.

Locust Gateway Development Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

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

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

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

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

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

1.5 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ................................ .............. 1-4

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

2.1 Purpose of this Environmental Impact Report................................ ................................ ........ 2-1

2.2 Public Outreach ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 2-2

2.3 EIR Scope and Content ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 2-4

2.4 Documents Incorporated by Reference ................................ ................................ ................. 2-4

2.5 Lead Agency and Contact Persons ................................ ................................ ......................... 2-6

2.6 Environmental Review Process ................................ ................................ .............................. 2-6

2.7 List of Acronyms Used in the EIR ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-7

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

3.1 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-1

3.2 Project Setting and Location ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3-1

3.3 Surrounding Land Uses ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-4

3.4 General Plan Land Use Designations and Zoning ................................ ................................ .... 3-4

3.5 Project Objectives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 3-5

3.6 Project Characteristics ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3-6

3.7 Construction Phasing ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3-19

3.8 Required Permits and Approvals ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-19

3.9 Responsible and trustee Agencies ................................ ................................ ....................... 3-19

3.10 References ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-20

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

4.1 Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4.1-1

4.2 Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 4.2-1

4.3 Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 4.3-1

4.4 Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 4.4-1

4.5 Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4.5-1

4.6 Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 4.6-1

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4.7-1

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ....................... 4.8-1

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ............................. 4.9-1

4.10 Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4.10-1

4.11 Mineral Resources................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 4.11-1

4.12 Noise................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 4.12-1

4.13 Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 4.13-1

Locust Gateway Development Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto ii

4.14 Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4.14-1

4.15 Transportation ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 4.15-1

4.16 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4.16-1

4.17 Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ............................ 4.17-1

5.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Effects Found Not to be Significant ................................ ................................ ........................ 5-1

5.2 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ................................ ................................ ..................... 5-6

5.3 Significant and Irreversible Environmental Changes ................................ ............................... 5-7

5.4 Growth-Inducing Effects ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5-8

5.5 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ ..................... 5-10

5.6 References ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 5-11

6.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT ......................................................................... 6-1

6.1 CEQA Requirements for Alternatives Identification and Analysis................................ ............ 6-1

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

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

6.4 Alternatives Considered but Rejected ................................ ................................ .................... 6-4

6.5 Alternatives for Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6-5

6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................ ................................ .................. 6-29

7.0 PREPARERS AND CONTRIBUTORS ......................................................................................... 7-1

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

7.2 Contributors ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 7-1

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program ................................ ................................ ...... 1-5 Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation ................................ .................... 2-3 Table 3-1: On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning ................................ ............. 3-4 Table 3-2: Building Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3-8 Table 3-3: Automobile and Truck Trailer Parking Summary ................................ ................................ . 3-11 Table 4.1-1: Development Standards Consistency Summary ................................ .............................. 4.1-8 Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards ................................ ........................... 4.2-2 Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status ................................ ................................ ........ 4.2-7 Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns ................................ ............ 4.2-12 Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data ................................ ................................ .............................. 4.2-13 Table 4.2-5: Sensitive Receptors ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4.2-14 Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds ............................. 4.2-18 Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations ................................ .......... 4.2-18 Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions ................................ ................................ ................... 4.2-21 Table 4.2-9: Operational Emissions ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4.2-24 Table 4.2-10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates ................................ ................................ .............. 4.2-25 Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions ................................ ........................ 4.2-26 Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions................................ .......................... 4.2-27 Table 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment ................................ ................................ .................... 4.2-29

Locust Gateway Development Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iii
Table 4.2-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment ................................ ................................ ........................ 4.2-31 Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site ................................ .... 4.3-8 Table 4.3-2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted ................................ ................................ ... 4.3-16 Table 4.5-1: Energy Resources Used to Generate Electricity for SCE (2022) ................................ ........ 4.5-9 Table 4.5-2: Electricity Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 ................................ ...... 4.5-10 Table 4.5-3: Natural Gas Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 ................................ ... 4.5-11 Table 4.5-4: Automotive Fuel Consumption in San Bernardino County 2012-2022 ........................... 4.5-11 Table 4.5-5: Energy Use During Construction ................................ ................................ ................... 4.5-13 Table 4.5-6: Annual Energy Use During Operations ................................ ................................ .......... 4.5-16 Table 4.6-1: Regional Faults and Seismicity ................................ ................................ ........................ 4.6-6 Table 4.7-1: Description of Greenhouse Gases ................................ ................................ ................. 4.7-15 Table 4.7-2: Construction-Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ......................... 4.7-18 Table 4.7-3: Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................ ................................ ............... 4.7-19 Table 4.7-4: Connect SoCal Consistency ................................ ................................ ........................... 4.7-23 Table 4.8-1: Adjacent Properties ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 4.8-12 Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis ................................ ................................ .............. 4.10-8 Table 4.10-2: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Policy Consistency ................................ .......................... 4.10-22 Table 4.10-3: Rialto Airport Specific Plan Standards Consistency ................................ .................... 4.10-23 Table 4.10-4: Rialto Municipal Code Consistency ................................ ................................ ........... 4.10-24 Table 4.12-1: Typical Noise Levels ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 4.12-2 Table 4.12-2: Definitions of Acoustical Terms ................................ ................................ .................. 4.12-3 Table 4.12-3: Human Reaction and Damage to Buildings for Continuous or Frequent Intermittent Vibrations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 4.12-7 Table 4.12-4: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning ................................ ............................ 4.12-9 Table 4.12-5: Permitted Hours of Construction Work................................ ................................ ..... 4.12-10 Table 4.12-6: Existing Traffic Noise Levels ................................ ................................ ...................... 4.12-12 Table 4.12-7: Existing Noise Measurements ................................ ................................ ................... 4.12-12 Table 4.12-8: Sensitive Receptors ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4.12-13 Table 4.12-9: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels ................................ ........................... 4.12-17 Table 4.12-10: Project Construction Noise Levels ................................ ................................ ........... 4.12-18 Table 4.12-11: Opening Year Traffic Noise Levels ................................ ................................ ........... 4.12-22 Table 4.12-12: Typical Construction Equipment Vibration Levels ................................ ................... 4.12-23 Table 4.12-13: Cumulative Plus Project Buildout Conditions Traffic Noise Levels ............................ 4.12-25 Table 4.13-1: County and City Population Projections ................................ ................................ ...... 4.13-3 Table 4.13-2: County and City Housing Data ................................ ................................ .................... 4.13-4 Table 4.13-3: County and City Labor Force Data ................................ ................................ ............... 4.13-4 Table 4.15-1: Baseline Year (2024) Project-Generated VMT ................................ ........................... 4.15-11 Table 4.15-2: Cumulative Year (2050) Project-Generated VMT ................................ ...................... 4.15-11 Table 4.15-3: Baseline Year (2024) Project Effect on VMT ................................ .............................. 4.15-11 Table 4.15-4: Cumulative Year (2050) Project Effect on VMT ................................ ......................... 4.15-12 Table 4.17-1: WVWD Water Service Area Projected Population Growth ................................ ........ 4.17-10 Table 4.17-2: Current and Projected Water Supplies ................................ ................................ ...... 4.17-11 Table 4.17-3: Project Water Demand ................................ ................................ ............................. 4.17-16 Table 4.17-4: Historic and Projected Water Demand ................................ ................................ ..... 4.17-16 Table 4.17-5: Normal Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................ ............................. 4.17-17

Locust Gateway Development Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents

City of Rialto iv
Table 4.17-6: Single Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................ ................................ 4.17-17 Table 4.17-7: Multiple Dry Year Supply and Demand Comparison ................................ .................. 4.17-18 Table 6-1: Alternative 2 and Proposed Project Comparison................................ ................................ . 6-10 Table 6-2: Alternative 3 and Proposed Project Comparison................................ ................................ . 6-15 Table 6-3: Alternative 4 and Proposed Project Comparison................................ ................................ . 6-21 Table 6-4: Summary of Proposed Project and Alternatives Impacts ................................ ..................... 6-27 Table 6-5: Project Objectives Consistency Analysis ................................ ................................ ............. 6-28

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3-1: Regional Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 3-2 Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3-3 Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 3-7 Figure 3-4: Conceptual Fire Access Plan ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-9 Figure 3-5: Conceptual Truck Circulation Plan ................................ ................................ ..................... 3-10 Figure 3-6: Conceptual North and West Elevations ................................ ................................ ............. 3-13 Figure 3-7: Conceptual South and East Elevations ................................ ................................ ............... 3-14 Figure 3-8: Conceptual Enlarged Elevations ................................ ................................ ........................ 3-15 Figure 3-9: Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan ................................ ................................ ....................... 3-16 Figure 3-10: Conceptual Landscape Plan ................................ ................................ ............................. 3-17 Figure 3-11: Tentative Parcel Map ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 3-21

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A: Notice of Preparation and Comment Letters
Appendix B: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data Appendix C: Health Risk Assessment
Appendix D: Biology Resources Report
Appendix E: Cultural Resources Report
Appendix F1: Geotechnical Investigation
Appendix F2: Infiltration Testing Report
Appendix F3: Paleontological Resources Memorandum
Appendix G1: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix G2: Phase II Environmental Site Assessment
Appendix H1: Preliminary Drainage Report
Appendix H2: Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan
Appendix I: Noise Modeling Data
Appendix J: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Appendix K: Native American Tribal Correspondence
Appendix L: Water Supply Assessment

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-1

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 INTRODUCTION
The environmental impact report (EIR) process, as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.), requires the preparation of an objective, full-disclosure document to (1) inform agency decision-makers and the general public of the potential direct and indirect significant environmental effects of a proposed action; (2) identify feasible mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant adverse impacts; and (3) identify and evaluate reasonable alternatives to a project. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 (Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations), this is a Project EIR that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project, known as the “Locust Gateway Development Project.”

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The project site is located in the northern portion of the City of Rialto in San Bernardino County, California.

The approximately 40-acre project site is comprised of one inverted L -shaped property, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0239-19-223, located at the southwest corner of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street . The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped; with the exception of remnants of a World War II-era bunker and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site. The majority of the site is covered in non- native grassland and previously disturbed land.

Project implementation would include removal of existing on -site vegetation and building remnants to allow for the construction of a n approximately 664,859-square-foot (sf) warehouse, inclusive of approximately 7,713 sf of ancillary office space, 365 vehicle parking stalls, 398 trailer parking stalls, and a fence-secured dock area with 82 dock doors; see Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan in Section 3.0: Project Description. 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 Project would be constructed using concrete tilt-up panels with architectural treatments for visual relief along the building facades. The warehouse would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing.

1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project." The following objectives have been identified for the 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 a reas 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 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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-2
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.

1.4 ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED
CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires an EIR to “describe the 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 will avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the 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
The following alternatives are evaluated in Section 6.0: Alternatives to the Proposed Project.

1.4.1 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, landscape 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

1 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(b).
2 CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-3
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:
…is the circumstance under which the project does not proceed. Here the discussion would compare the environmental effects of the property remaining in its existing state against environmental effects which would occur if the project is approved. If disapproval of the project under consideration would result in predictable actions by others … this “no project” consequence should be discussed.

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).

1.4.2 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 schedule 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.

1.4.3 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 the 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.

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. 3 A business park is not a permitted use or a conditionally permitted use in the I-GM land use designation.

3 City of Rialto (1997). Rialto Airport Specific Plan . Table 8.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-4
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.

1.4.4 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 t o 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. Implementation of Alternative 4 would not use the entire 40-acre project site. Alternative 4 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.

1.5 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION

MEASURES
Table 1 -1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program provides a summary of the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project ; the Mitigation Program recommended to ensure that Project impacts are mitigated to the extent feasible; and the expected status of effects following the implementation of the Mitigation Program. The Mitigation Program is comprised of Laws, Ordinances and Regulations (LORs), Standard Conditions and Requirements (SCs) and Mitigation Measures (MMs). The Mitigation Program will serve to prevent, reduce, or fully mitigate potential environmental impacts. The more detailed evaluation of these issues, as well as the full text of the Mitigation Program is provided in EIR Sections 4.1 through 4.17.

Given the length of some measures in the Mitigation Program, some measures are summarized in the table. Each measure is identified by a number that can be used to reference the full text of the measure in the applicable EIR section. Where a measure applies to more than one topic, it is presented (either summarized or full text) in the primary section to which it applies and is then cross-referenced.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-5
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Section 4.1: Aesthetics
Impact 4.1-1: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.1-2: In non-urbanized areas, would the
Project substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and
its surroundings (Public views are those that are
experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area,
would the Project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.1-3: Would the Project create a new
source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.2: Air Quality
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) are existing requirements that are based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review.

LOR AQ-1. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.
 All on-site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
 All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.

Not applicable

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-6
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

LOR AQ-2. Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

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

LOR AQ-4. In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

LOR AQ-5. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
 Design buildings to be water efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.  Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.  To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-7
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-1: Low VOC Paints. The Project shall use “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
 All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.  Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.  Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
 For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
 Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.
 Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
 Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.
 Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-2: Require All-Electric Development. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Building Department shall confirm that building plans require the Project to use all-electric appliances, and end uses instead of natural gas. The Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-8
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
project shall not include natural gas utility lines or connections. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to reduce air quality emissions from natural gas.

MM AQ-3: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all handheld landscaping equipment used on site shall be 100 percent electrically powered. The logistics warehouse and parking lots shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement.

This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AQ-4: Transportation Demand Management: Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the tenant/facility operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include measures such as, but not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options.
 Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site.  Each building shall provide secure bicycle storage space equivalent to two percent of the automobile parking spaces provided.
 Each building shall provide a minimum of two shower and changing facilities as part of the tenant improvements.
 Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-9
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service.  Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
 Provide meal options onsite or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low-emitting and fuel-efficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

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

MM AQ-5: Non-Diesel Cargo Handling Equipment. The warehouse building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment.

Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show that all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission or alternatively fueled (i.e., powered by electricity or non-diesel fuels). The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Impact 4.2-2: Would the Project result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable state or
federal ambient air quality standard?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5 are applicable Less than Significant Impact With
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-10
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact 4.2-3: Would the Project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5 are applicable Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation
Impact 4.2-4: Would the Project result in other
emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.3: Biological Resources
Impact 4.3-1: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM BIO-1: Rare Plant Mitigation Plan. Parry’s spineflower (CRPR 1B.1) is present on site and impacts are unavoidable; therefore, compensatory mitigation shall be provided to offset impacts. A rare plant mitigation plan shall be prepared and implemented by the applicant or its designee. The plan will demonstrate the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, or restoring Parry’s spineflower habitat in areas to be managed as natural open space without conflicting with other resource management objectives. Habitat conservation, enhancement, or restoration will be at a minimum 1:1 ratio (acres conserved, enhanced, or restored to acres impacted).

If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes conservation of an extant population, the plan shall include at a minimum: (a) the location of the conserved habitat and an analysis of its suitability as compensatory mitigation; (b) an assessment of the extant Parry’s spineflower populations at the proposed conservation site; (c) a long-term management plan which includes objectives, management practices, monitoring protocols, adaptive management strategies, and reporting requirements; and (d) details regarding the establishment of a non-wasting endowment to perpetually fund management of the conserved land, or such other funding mechanism acceptable to CDFW.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-11
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding will occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.

MM BIO-2: Best Management Practices. To avoid impacts to special-status resources and inadvertent disturbance, the following monitoring requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented:
a. Construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads adjacent to the project site or the right-of-way accessing the site. b. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall screen, cover, or elevate at least one foot above ground, all construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of three inches or greater that are stored on site overnight.

These pipes, culverts, and similar structures shall be inspected by the project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.
c. Construction activities shall occur during daytime hours to the greatest extent feasible. If construction must occur at nighttime, lights shall be oriented in such a way that they direct light downward and toward the active construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted towards adjacent lands, and shields or deflectors shall be installed on lights to reduce light spill. Nighttime concrete pouring shall be performed in accordance with the City of Rialto Municipal Code.
d. A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species), with the exception of burrowing owls, from suitable habitat areas within the project development footprint to the maximum extent practicable immediately (e.g., within 24 hours) prior to initial vegetation removal activities. The biologist shall flush wildlife by walking through habitats to be imminently removed and towards adjacent open space. e. At the end of each workday during construction, the applicant, or its contractors, shall cover all excavated, steep-sided holes or trenches more than eight inches deep and that have sidewalls steeper than 1:1 (45

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-12
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
degree) slope with plywood or similar materials, or provide a minimum of one escape ramp per 100 feet of trenching (with slopes no greater than 3:1) constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. The applicant, or its contractors shall thoroughly inspect holes and trenches for trapped animals each workday.
f. Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site. g. If trash and debris need to be stored overnight during maintenance activities, fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof and weather-proof shall be used by the maintenance contractor to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Alternatively, standard trash receptacles may be used during the day but must be removed or emptied each night. h. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of work, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary visibility construction fence) prior to ground-disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the marked disturbance limits. The work limit delineation shall be maintained throughout project construction.
i. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in the associated landscaping.
j. Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared, which will include a training presentation and key fact sheet. The training will instruct construction crews to be aware of and recognize sensitive biological resources that may be encountered within, or adjacent to, the project. The training will provide workers with instructions to follow in the event a sensitive species is observed or suspected to be on site. Biologists shall provide WEAP training materials, including but not limited to the key fact sheet, to construction personnel before their commencement of work on the project. Additionally, all construction staff shall attend the WEAP training presentation prior to beginning work on site. Upon completion of the

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-13
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
WEAP training, each member of the construction crew shall sign a form stating that they attended the training, understood the information presented, and agreed to comply with the requirements set out in the WEAP training. Biologists shall provide updates relevant to the training to construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”) meetings, as needed.

The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW survey methods. If burrowing owls are not observed during clearance surveys or biological monitoring, no additional conditions are required to avoid impacts to burrowing owls.

The Project Applicant shall submit at least one burrowing owl pre-construction survey report to the satisfaction of the City to document compliance with this mitigation measure. For the purposes of this measure, ‘qualified biologist’ is a biologist who meets the requirements set forth in the BUOW Guidelines (CDFW 2012).

MM BIO-3B: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. If burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof are confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owls shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-14
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owls shall not occur within 500 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

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

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

MM BIO-4A: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys. At a minimum, two pre- construction nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to project implementation. Surveys shall occur within 1) one week; and 2) within 24-hours prior to any vegetation removal or ground-disturbing activities scheduled to occur during the Crotch’s bumble bee flight season (February through October).

Surveys shall follow the guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (2024b) and shall occur within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. The surveyors shall be qualified biologists familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-15
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
commencement of project activities with the potential to impact Crotch’s bumble bee. The ITP shall include, at a minimum, a description of project activities and equipment, proposed avoidance/buffers, identification of temporary and permanent impacts, monitoring requirements, relocation and/or translocation protocols, and compensatory mitigation measures.

Compensatory mitigation will be at a minimum 1:1 ratio (acres conserved, enhanced, or restored to acres impacted). ITP compensatory mitigation shall be satisfied by one or more of the following mechanisms: 1) purchase of credits at a CDFW-approved conservation or mitigation bank (if available); 2) execution of a Mitigation Credit Agreement; or 3) Permittee-responsible mitigation land acquisition.

MM BIO-4C: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct full-time monitoring during removal of suitable nectar plants that is scheduled to occur during the queen flight period (February through March), colony active period (March through September), and/or gyne flight period (September through October). The monitor shall have authority to temporarily halt or redirect activities as needed to avoid unauthorized impacts.

MM BIO-5A: Nesting Bird Surveys. To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing and ground-disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (generally February 15 through August 31), if feasible. Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three (3) days prior to any disturbance of the site, including but not limited to vegetation clearing, disking, demolition activities, staging, or grading.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-16
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment.

If nesting birds are documented, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist to avoid take of nesting birds.

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

MM BIO-6A: Special-Status Preconstruction Lizard Surveys. Within 30 days prior to the commencement of any on-site project activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct pre-construction surveys in suitable special-status lizard habitat throughout the project site. Project-related activities that would result in ground disturbance include any construction, vegetation removal, equipment and vehicle access, parking, and staging.

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

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

Impact 4.3-2: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat
or other sensitive natural community identified in
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-17
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or
by the CDFW or USFWS?
Impact 4.3-3: Would the Project have a
substantial adverse effect on State or federal
protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
No Impact None required. No Impact
Impact 4.3-4: Would the Project interfere
substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM BIO-5 is applicable. Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Impact 4.3-5: Would the Project conflict with any
local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM BIO-3A is applicable. Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
Impact 4.4-1: Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM CUL-1 Retention of Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of any permit for ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Rialto (City) that a qualified professional archaeologist meeting Secretary of the Interior professional qualifications (Project Archaeologist) has been retained.

MM CUL-2: Cultural Resource Management Plan. Prior to any ground- disturbing activities the project Archaeologist shall develop a Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP) to address the details, timing, and responsibilities of all archaeological and cultural resource activities that occur on the project site.

The CRMP shall be written in consultation with the Consulting Tribes and shall include the following: approved Mitigation Measures (MM)/Conditions of Approval (COA), contact information for all pertinent parties, parties’ Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-18
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the Project schedule.

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

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

MM CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project implementation, all earthwork and ground-disturbing activities shall halt within a buffer of the discovery established by the Project Archaeologist and the Project Archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find. The Project Archaeologist shall coordinate with the City and identify whether the resource is potentially

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-19
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
significant and if it requires further evaluation. Work on the other portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. If the cultural resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribes must be immediately contacted and consulted regarding potential significance and treatment of the resource. Specifically, the Consulting Tribes shall be contacted, as detailed within Tribal Cultural Resources (TCR) Mitigation Measure 3, regarding any pre-contact finds and shall be provided information after the Project Archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regard to significance and treatment. For any potential significant cultural resources, the Project Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the City to avoid or mitigate impacts to the resource. If significant pre-contact cultural resources, as defined by CEQA, are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to the Consulting Tribes for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The Project Archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly. Preservation in place (i.e. avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery to excavate the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis.

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-20
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Archaeologist and submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes for review. Final copies of the Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City, Consulting Tribes, and South-Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).

Impact 4.4-2: Would the Project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of
an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM CUL-1 through MM CUL-5 are applicable. Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation
Impact 4.4-3: Would the Project disturb any
human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Less than
Significant Impact
No mitigation is required.

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

Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.5: Energy
Impact 4.5-1: Would the Project result in
potentially significant environmental impact due
to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.5-2: Would the Project conflict with or
obstruct a State or Local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-21
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Section 4.6: Geology and Soils
Impact 4.6-1: Would the Project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC GEO-1. The Applicant shall submit to the City of Rialto Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review and approval, a site-specific design-level geotechnical investigation prepared for the project site by a registered geotechnical engineer. The investigation shall comply with all applicable State and local code requirements and:
a) Include an analysis of the expected ground motions at the site from known active faults using accepted methodologies;
b) Determine structural design requirements as prescribed by the most current version of the California Building Code, including applicable City amendments, to ensure that structures can withstand ground accelerations expected from known active faults; and
c) Determine the final design parameters for walls, foundations, foundation slabs, utilities, roadways, parking lots, sidewalks, and other surrounding related improvements.

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

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

The City shall review all Project plans for grading, foundations, structural, infrastructure and all other relevant construction permits to ensure compliance Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-22
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements.

Impact 4.6-2: Would the Project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving seismic related ground failure including
liquefaction?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC GEO-1 is applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact
Impact 4.6-3: Would the Project result in
substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.6-4: Would the Project be located on a
geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project,
and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC GEO-1 is applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact
Impact 4.6-5: Would the Project be located on
expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.6-6: Would the Project directly or
indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, or any permit authorizing ground disturbance, the Project Applicant shall, to the satisfaction of the City of Rialto Community Development Director, demonstrate that a qualified paleontologist has been retained to respond on an as-needed basis to address unanticipated paleontological discoveries. A paleontologist is defined as an individual with an M.S./M.A. or Ph.D. in paleontology or geology who is familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques, and who is knowledgeable in the geology and paleontology of the area.

In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, all earth disturbing activities within a Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-23
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
100-foot radius of the area of discovery shall be temporarily halted or diverted.

The qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. The paleontologist shall notify the appropriate agencies to determine procedures that would be followed before construction is allowed to resume at the location of the find. If in consultation with the paleontologist, City staff and the Project Applicant determine that avoidance is not feasible, the paleontologist shall prepare an excavation plan for reducing the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource important. The plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and the Project Applicant shall implement the approval plan.

Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations (LORs) are existing requirements that are based on local, State, or federal regulations or laws that are frequently required independently of CEQA review.

LOR AQ-2 and LOR AQ-3 are applicable.

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

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

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

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-24
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
LOR GHG-5. Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section

5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

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

LOR GHG-7. To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Impact 4.7-1: Would the Project generate GHG
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could
have a significant impact on the environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 are applicable.

MM GHG-1: On-Site Renewable Electricity Generation. Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate of Occupancy for the building tenant, documentation shall be provided to the City demonstrating that the Project has either: 1) installed solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on the site, or 2) otherwise acquired energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, such that either option will provide 100 percent of the expected building load which is anticipated to be approximately

1.42 kilowatt hours per year [kWh/year] per square foot). Alternatively, the Project may achieve 100 percent of the building’s expected energy load through a combination of on-site renewable energy generation and renewable energy purchase.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). Should SCE limit the facility size, the amounts above shall be limited to the amount of SCE’s approval. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-2: CALGreen Tier 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Rialto Community Development Department, Building and Safety Significant and
Unavoidable Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-25
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Division demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed 2022 CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.

MM GHG-3: Solid Waste Diversion. Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Project operator shall designate a solid waste management coordinator and implement a waste management plan to recycle and/or salvage nonhazardous debris to achieve a minimum 75 percent diversion from landfills. The City of Rialto Community Development Department, Planning Division shall confirm that sales or lease agreements includes contractual language that obligates tenants, operators, or future owners to comply with the solid waste management plan. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

MM GHG-4: Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan. The Project Applicant or designee shall implement a Water Use Efficiency and Conservation Plan that includes the following minimum requirements:

Indoor Conservation Features and Operations:
 Install low-flow Fixtures: Install low-flow toilets at 1.28 gallons per flush, faucets at 1.2 gallons per minute, showerheads at 1.8 gallons per minute, kitchen faucets at 1.8 gallons per minute. In common areas, install faucets at 0.5 gallon per minute and urinals at max of 0.25 gallon per minute/flush. (These fixtures use less water while maintaining efficient performance.)  Install dual-flush toilets: These toilets offer two flush options: one for liquid waste less than 1 gallon per minute and another for solid waste at

1.28 gallons per minute. (This allows the appropriate use of water for flushing needs.)
 Use water-efficient appliances: The Project Applicant or designee shall install energy-efficient and water-saving appliances with the ENERGY STAR label only.
 Good housekeeping and regular maintenance: The Project Applicant or designee shall regularly check and maintain plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and appliances to ensure they are functioning efficiently and not wasting water.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-26
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Outdoor Conservation Features and Operations:
 Install only “Smart Irrigation Systems” for community landscaping: The Project Applicant or designee shall use smart sprinkler systems that adjust watering schedules based on weather conditions, soil moisture, and plant needs to avoid over or wasteful watering. The Project Applicant or designee shall also incorporate seasonal specific controls to ensure watering occurs during the most efficient times of day.
 Adjustable Water Pressure Regulator: The Project Applicant or designee shall install pressure regulators to maintain optimal water pressure, preventing overuse and leaks.
 Drought-tolerant landscaping: The Project Applicant or designee shall include native and drought-tolerant vegetation that requires less water to thrive and is known to survive in the City of Rialto. The Project Applicant or designee shall replace drought-tolerant landscaping if it dies through enforceable Project CC&Rs and/or tenant lease agreements.

Impact 4.7-2: Would the Project conflict with an
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 are applicable.

Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact 4.8-1: Would the Project create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM HAZ-1: Asbestos Survey and Lead-Based Paint Survey. Prior to approval of a demolition permit by the City of Rialto, an asbestos survey and a lead-based paint survey shall be conducted pursuant to applicable local, State, and federal laws. All asbestos-containing building materials shall be removed prior to structure demolition. Abatement or paint stabilization techniques shall be applied prior to demolition. Such measures shall include removal and stabilization of loose, flaking or peeling paint. Measures shall be taken to ensure that paint chips are not generated in the demolition process. All work shall be performed by an abatement contractor who is certified by the California OSHA Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) with properly trained and registered workers. All abatement techniques shall be in accordance with Cal/OSHA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) protocol and Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-27
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
also in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules. All removed asbestos-containing building materials and lead- based paint shall be properly disposed of at a landfill certified to accept said materials, and waste shall be transported under the waste manifest by a certified waste transportation company. Once all of these materials have been removed, structure demolition may commence.

Impact 4.8-2: Would the Project create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM HAZ-2: Munitions Monitor. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit proof to the City of Rialto Director of Community Development of the retainment of a munitions expert. A munitions expert must be an individual that is qualified to perform appropriate tasks per DDESB TP-18 standards. The munitions expert shall be onsite to monitor grading activities for unexploded ordinances (UXOs) and discarded military munitions (DMMs) and provide daily safety briefings before the start of construction. If UXOs are encountered during this process, the munitions expert shall have the authority to halt all or a portion of construction activities and contact the City of Rialto Police department at (909) 820-2550 to report and determine proper UXO handling and disposal. The munitions expert shall have the authority to halt all or a portion of construction activities at their discretion until such time that an encountered UXO is deemed properly disposed of.

MM HAZ-3: Soil Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan (or equivalent document) to be implemented for construction of the Proposed Project. The objective of the Soil Management Plan is to provide guidance for the proper handling, onsite management, and disposal of impacted soil that might be encountered during construction activities. The plan would include practices that are consistent with the California Title 8, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal- OSHA) regulations, as well as appropriate remediation standards that are protective of the planned use. Appropriately trained professionals would be on site during preparation, grading, and related earthwork activities to monitor soil conditions encountered. The Soil Management Plan would provide guidelines for the following:

Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-28
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
 Identifying impacted soil
 Assessing impacted soil
 Soil excavation
 Impacted soil storage
 Verification sampling
 Impacted soil characterization and disposal
The plan shall outline how Project construction crews would identify, handle, and dispose of potentially contaminated soil; identify the qualifications of the appropriately trained professionals that would monitor soil conditions and conduct soil sampling during construction; coordinate laboratory testing; and oversee disposal. The Soil Management Plan shall also include requirements for documenting and reporting incidents of encountered contaminants, such as documenting locations of occurrence, sampling results, and reporting actions taken to dispose of contaminated materials. In the event that potentially contaminated soils were encountered within the footprint of construction, soils would be tested and stockpiled. The appropriate Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) would determine whether further assessment is warranted. The Soil Management Plan shall be submitted to the city and CUPA 45 days prior to the start of construction for review and approval.

MM-HAZ 4: Contaminated Soil Treatment. If previously unidentified soil contamination is observed by sight or odor or indicated by testing by a qualified professional using a portable volatile organic compound analyzer during excavation and grading activities, excavation and grading within such an area shall be temporarily halted and redirected around the area until the appropriate evaluation and follow-up measures are implemented, as contained in the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1166, to make the area suitable for grading activities to resume. In the event contamination is found, the Applicant shall notify the San Bernardino County Fire Department, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as applicable. The contaminated soil shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in-situ

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-29
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
(in-place), or otherwise managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulation.

Impact 4.8-3: Would the Project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
No Impact None required. No Impact
Impact 4.8-4: Would the Project be located on a
site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government
Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM HAZ-2 through MM HAZ-4 are applicable. Less than Significant Impact with
Mitigation
Impact 4.8-5: Would the Project impair
implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact 4.9-1: Would the Project violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade
surface or groundwater quality?
Less than
Significant Impact
No mitigation is required.

SC HYD-1. The Applicant or his/her designees shall obtain a General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity General Permit). The Applicant or his/her designees shall provide a copy of this permit to the City Public Works Department prior to the issuance of the first grading permit.

SC HYD-2. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non- stormwater pollutants during and after construction. To ensure compliance, a legal and fiduciary enforcement mechanism in the form of a Storm Water Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-30
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Quality Management Plan Agreement shall be executed with the City of Rialto.

This agreement shall additionally be recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Bernardino. The SWQMP shall specify BMPs specific to the project site, which shall be integrated into the stormwater conveyance plan. The plan shall identify specific strategies, including the following.
 Site design features, including maximizing open space, preservation of natural drainages, and minimization of impervious surfaces.  Source control features, including leveraging public outreach and education, use of appropriate landscaping, and covering trash storage areas.
 Treatment controls, including the use of underground chambers.

SC HYD-3. An Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared, and included with the Project’s grading plan, and implemented for the Project that identifies specific measures to control on-site and off-site erosion from the time ground disturbing activities are initiated through completion of grading. The Erosion Control Plan shall include the following measures at a minimum:
 Specify the timing of grading and construction to minimize soil exposure to rainy periods experienced in Southern California; and
 An inspection and maintenance program shall be included to ensure that any erosion which does occur either on-site or off-site as a result of this Project will be corrected through a remediation or restoration program within a specified timeframe.

Impact 4.9-2: Would the Project substantially
decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.9-3i: Would the Project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
Less than
Significant Impact
SC HYD-1 through SC HYD-3 are applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-31
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
Impact 4.9-3ii: Would the Project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.9-3iii: Would the Project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC HYD-2 is applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact
Impact 4.9-3iv: Would the Project substantially
alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through the
addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.9-4: In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, would the Project risk release of pollutants
due to project inundation?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC HYD-1 and SC HYD-2 are applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-32
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact 4.9-5: Would the Project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
Less than
Significant Impact
SC HYD-2 is applicable. No mitigation is required. Less than Significant Impact
Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning
Impact 4.10-2: Would the Project cause a
significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any plan, policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.11: Mineral Resources
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.12: Noise and Vibration
Impact 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?
Potentially
Significant Impact
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 demonstrating that the equipment has been maintained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.

Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-33
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Impact 4.12-2: Would the Project expose persons
to or generate excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.13: Population and Housing
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Section 4.14: Public Services
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
No mitigation is required.

Please also refer to SC TRANS-1.

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 Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-34
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
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 features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process.

Section 4.15: Transportation
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.15-2: Would the Project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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)?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.15-4: Would the Project result in
inadequate emergency access?
Less than
Significant Impact
No mitigation is required.

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.

Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-35
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
Impact 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) 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.

Potentially
Significant Impact
SC CUL-1, MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, and MM CUL-5 are applicable.

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 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, etc., (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 Less than Significant
Impact with
Mitigation

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-36
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
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 development/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 of 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 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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Executive Summary

City of Rialto 1-37
Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program
Thresholds
Level of
Significance
Before Mitigation Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures; Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Level of
Significance after
Mitigation
Section 4.17: Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 4.17-1: Would the Project 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.17-3: Would the Project 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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?
Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 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.

Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact
Impact 4.17-6: Would the Project comply with
federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste.

Less than
Significant Impact
None required. Less than Significant
Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 PURPOSE OF THIS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
This Environmental Impact Report (EIR ; State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2024061274) has been prepared to evaluate the potential environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Locust Gateway Development Project (proposed Project or Project). The EIR has been prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (California Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Chapter 3, §§ 15000 et seq.).

The City of Rialto (City) is the “public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving the project” and, as such, is the “Lead Agency” for this Project under CEQA ( CEQA Guidelines § 15367). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to consider the information contained in an EIR prior to taking any discretionary action. This EIR is intended to provide information to the Lead Agency and other public agencies, the general public, and decision -makers regarding the potential environmental impacts of the construction and operation of the proposed Project. As the Lead Agency, the City will review and consider this EIR in its decision to approve, condition the approval of, or deny the proposed Project.

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

2.1.1 Type of Environmental Impact Report
The City has determined that a Project EIR is the appropriate CEQA document for the proposed Project.

In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15161, a Project EIR “examines the environmental impacts of a specific development project. This type of EIR should focus primarily on the changes in the environment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases o f the project including planning, construction, and operation .” This EIR evaluates the potentially significant, adverse, and beneficial impacts on the environment resulting from implementation of the proposed Project. This document analyzes the environmental effects of the Project to the degree of specificity appropriate to the currently proposed actions, as required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15146 . The EIR analysis considers the activities associated with the Project, to determine the short- term and long-term effects associated with their implementation. This EIR discusses both direct and indirect impacts of the Project, as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Section 3.0: Project Description provides a detailed description of the construction and operational components of the proposed Project. Section 4.0 : Environmental Impact Analysis discusses the regulatory environment, existing conditions, environmental impacts, and mitigation program for the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15206 sets forth criteria for determining if a project is of statewide, regional, or area-wide environmental significance . As set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15206(b)(2)(E), the

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-2
proposed Project is a project of statewide, regional, and areawide significance because the site is greater than 40 acres and would have more than 650,000 sf of industrial-related floor area.

2.1.2 Standards of Adequacy Under CEQA
While CEQA Guidelines Sections 15120 through 15132 generally describe the content of an EIR, neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines contain specific, detailed, quantified standards for the content of environmental documents. CEQA Guidelines Section 15151 states:

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

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

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

The Lead Agency’s actions involved in the implementation of the Project are described in Section 3.0:

Project Description . Other agencies that may have discretionary approval over the Project, or components thereof, including responsible agencies, are also identified in the Project Description.

2.2 PUBLIC OUTREACH
In compliance with the CEQA Guidelines, the City has taken steps to maximize opportunities for the public and other public agencies to participate in the environmental review process. The scope of this EIR includes issues identified in consultation with th e City during the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comment

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-3
period, during the public Scoping Meeting, a nd environmental issues raised by agencies and the general public in response to the scoping process.

2.2.1 Notice of Preparation (NOP)
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. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15082, the City prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to affected agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period beginning on June 27, 2024, and ending on July 26, 2024 . Table 2.2-1:

Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation , summarizes the comments received from agencies/persons during the NOP process and provides a reference, as applicable, to the section(s) of this EIR where the issues are addressed. The NOP and comment letters are provided in Appendix A of this EIR.

This table identifies areas of controversy/unresolved issues and issues to be addressed in the EIR.

Table 2-1: Summary of Written Comments on Notice of Preparation Commenter Name Summary of Comment and Where Addressed
Agencies
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
(letter dated July 19, 2024)
 Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes in compliance with AB 52 and SB 18.

Note: SB 18 is not applicable to the Project. See Section 4.4: Cultural Resources and Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
(letter dated July 24, 2024)
Recommendations and Comments:
 Conduct an assessment of biological resources within and adjacent to the Project footprint.
 Provide a thorough discussion of the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts expected to adversely affect biological resources as a result of the Project.  Include an alternatives analysis.
 Identify mitigation measures and alternatives that are appropriate and adequate to avoid or minimize potential impacts, to the extent feasible.  A Lake and Streambed Alteration Program may be required due to a potential drainage feature along the southern portion of the Project site.  Recommends incorporation of water-wise concepts to ameliorate the Project’s water demands.
 Request to report any special status species and natural communities detected during Project surveys to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).  CDFW fees are required upon filing of the Notice of Determination.

See Section 4.3: Biological Resources and Section 6.0: Alternatives.

2.2.2 Scoping Meeting
Pursuant to CEQA Section 21083.9, the Lead Agency is required to conduct at least one scoping meeting for all projects of statewide, regional, or area- wide significance. A scoping meeting is for jurisdictional agencies and interested persons or groups to provide comments regarding, but not limited to, the range of actions, alternatives, and environmental effects to be analyzed. The City held a Scoping Meeting on July 11, 2024, at 6:00 PM at the Rialto City Hall Council Chambers, located at 150 S. Palm Avenue in the City of Rialto. No agencies or interested parties attended the Scoping Meeting; only City staff and the City’s EIR consultant were in attendance.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-4

2.3 EIR SCOPE AND CONTENT
This EIR addresses the potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and was prepared following input from the public and the responsible and affected agencies, through the EIR scoping process (Table 2.2-1). Based on the findings of the NOP, a determination was made to address potentially significant environmental effects on 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
The City has determined that the EIR for the Project would not require the assessment of Agriculture and Forestry Resources , Recreation, and Wildfire. Substantiation is provided in Section 1.0: Executive Summary.

2.4 DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE
Pertinent documents relating to this EIR have been cited in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15148 or have been incorporated by reference in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15150, which encourages incorporation by reference as a means of reducing redundancy and the length of environmental reports. The following documents are hereby incorporated by reference into this EIR and are available for review online. Information contained within these documents has been used for various sections in the EIR.

Rialto 2010 General Plan Update and General Plan Update and Related Zoning Ordinance Amendments EIR. The City’s 2010 General Plan Update EIR was certified and the General Plan was adopted in December 2010 as Resolution No. 5931. The 2010 General Plan presents a comprehensive plan to accommodate the City’s vision for the physical development of the City. The General Plan’s planning horizon is the year 2040.

The General Plan includes goals and policies to provide guidance for decision -makers on allocating resources, and describe the utilization , management, and conservation of natural resources, public services, and infrastructure. This document is available for viewing on the City’s website at:
 General Plan |https://www.rialtoca.gov/653/General-Plan 2023 City of Rialto Focused General Plan Update. The City prepared a Focused General Plan Update to the Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements of the General Plan to address new regulations. The City also prepared an Environmental Justice Element. The Focused General Plan Update and Negative Declaration were adopted on December 10, 2024.
 Focused General Plan Update | https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023-City-of-Rialto-Focused- General-Plan

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-6
City of Rialto Municipal Code, Title 18 ‒ Zoning. The Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal Code) regulates land use and activities within the City’s jurisdiction including through the Zoning Code (codified in Title 18). The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the City’s General Plan policies. The Municipal Code is referenced in this EIR to establish the baseline requirements according to the City’s Municipal Code regulations. The Municipal Code can be accessed online at:
 Municipal Code | RIALTO, CALIFORNIA - MUNICIPAL CODE | Code of Ordinances | Rialto, CA | Municode Library
 Municipal Code ‒ Zoning | Mini TOC: Title 18 - ZONING | Code of Ordinances | Rialto, CA | Municode Library

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

Lead Agency: City of Rialto
Community Development Department, Planning Division
150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Contact: Daniel Casey, Principal Planner
909.820.2525 ext. 2075
Email: [email protected]

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

This Draft EIR including technical studies is available for review during normal business hours Monday through Thursday at the City of Rialto Community Development Department. Copies of the Draft EIR and technical appendices are available at the reference desk of the following library and on the City’s website.  City of Rialto , Community Development Department, Planning Division , 150 S. Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376
 Rialto Library, 251 W. First Street, Rialto, California 92376  City website: https://www.rialtoca.gov/
The City will subsequently respond to environmental comments on the Draft EIR received in writing during the public review period through the preparation of a Responses to Comments document for the Final EIR. All persons who commented on the Draft EIR will be notified of the availability of the Final EIR and the dates of public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-7

2.7 LIST OF ACRONYMS USED IN THE EIR
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ACE Areas of Conservation Emphasis
ACF Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations
ADA Americans With Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AFV alternative fuel vehicle
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AQMD Air Quality Management District
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BMP Best Management Practice
BTU British Thermal Unit
BUOW burrowing owl
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CalGEM California Geologic Energy Management Division
CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CBEES California’s Building Energy Efficiency Standards CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CC&Rs Codes Covenants and Restrictions
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CDP Conditional Development Permit
CEC California Energy Commission

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-8
CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Superfund)
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFCs chlorofluorocarbons
CFGC California Fish and Game Commission
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California Geologic Survey
CH4 methane
CMP Congestion Management Program
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
COG Council of Governments
CPP Clean Power Plan
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRPR California Rate Plant Rank
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency (hazardous materials) cy cubic yards
CWA Clean Water Act
DA Development Agreement
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted decibel scale
DEH Department of Environmental Health, San Bernardino County DIF Development Impact Fee
DOF Department of Finance, State of California
DOT Department of Transportation
DPH Department of Public Health, State of California
DPM diesel particulate matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of California

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-9
DWQ Division of Water Quality, State of California State Water Resources Control Board DWR Department of Water Resources, State of California
EDR Environmental Data Report
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EJ Environmental Justice
EMMA Emergency Management Mutual Aid System
EO Executive Order
EPCRA Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act ESA Endangered Species Act
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FAR Floor Area Ratio
FCCA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FR Federal Register
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GHG greenhouse gas
GHGRP GHG Reduction Plan
g/hp-hr gram per horsepower-hour
gpm gallons per minute
Gt gigatonne
GWh gigawatt-hours
GWP Global Warming Potential
HCM Highway Capacity Manual
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HVAC heating, ventilation, and air quality

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-10
Hz hertz (noise)
I-GM General Manufacturing (Rialto Airport Specific Plan) I-PID Planned Industrial Zone (Rialto Airport Specific Plan) I Interstate
IBC International Building Code
in/sec inches per second
IRUWMP Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (Upper Santa Ana River Watershed)
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
ITP Incidental Take Permit
kWh kilowatt-hour
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn Day-Night average noise level
Leq Equivalent noise levels
Lmax Maximum sound level
Lmin Minimum sound level
LOR Laws, Ordinances, and Regulations
LOS Level of Service
LRA Local Responsibility Area
LST Localized significance thresholds
LUST leaking underground storage tank
MATES Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCE Maximum Credible Earthquake
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMT million metric tons
mph miles per hour
mpg miles per gallon
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
msl mean sea level
MWh megawatt-hour

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-11
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission, State of California NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMHC nonmethane hydrocarbon
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA Notice of Availability
NOC Notice of Completion
NOP Notice of Preparation
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPL National Priorities List
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NSR New Source Review Program (air pollution health effects) NZE near zero emission
O3 ozone
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, State of California OES Office of Emergency Services, of California
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
OS-L Landfill (Rialto Airport Specific Plan)
Pb lead
PCE Passenger Car Equivalent
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PM2.5 fine particulate matter (2.5 microns or less)
PM10 fine particulate matter (10 microns or less)
PPD Precise Plan of Design
ppv peak particle velocity
ppm parts per million
PRC Public Resources Code

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-12
PUC Public Utilities Commission
PV photovoltaic
UST underground storage tank
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model (FHWA)
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS root mean square
ROG reactive organic gases
RTIP Regional Transportation Improvement Program
RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCAG) RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel Efficient
SB Senate Bill
SBCOG San Bernardino Council of Governments
SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority
SC Standard Condition
SCAB South Coast Air Basin
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison
SCCIC South Central Coastal Information Center
sf square-foot; square feet
SIP State Implementation Plan
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SR State Route
SRA Source Receptor Area (air quality); State Responsibility Area (wildfire) SSC Species of Special Concern (biological resources)
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
SWQMP Storm Water Quality Management Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Introduction

City of Rialto 2-13
TAC toxic air contaminant
TCE trichloroethylene
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIA Traffic Impact Analysis
TMDL total maximum daily load
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TRC Tribal Cultural Resources
TRU transport refrigeration unit
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Act
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
UST Underground Storage Tank
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VdB velocity decibels
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
VOC Volatile organic compound
WAIRE Warehouse Action and Investments to Reduce Emissions Wh watt-hours
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supply Assessment
WVWD West Valley Water District
ZEV zero emission vehicle
µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-1

3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

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

3.2 PROJECT SETTING AND LOCATION
The project site is in the region of Southern California commonly referred to as the Inland Empire. The Inland Empire is an approximately 28,000 square-mile region comprising Riverside County, San Bernardino County, and the eastern tip of Los Angeles County. The Locust Gateway Development Project site (project site) is in San Bernardino County (County), in the northern portion of the City of Rialto (City). The City is largely urbanized and bordered by the unincorporated community of Muscoy to the north, the cities of San Bernardino and Colton to the east, the City of Jurupa Valley to the south, and the City of Fontana to the west. Figure 3-1: Regional Map depicts the project site in a regional context.

The approximately 40-acre project site is comprised of one inverted L -shaped property, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0239-19-223, at the southwest corner of the Locust Avenue and Lowell Street intersection; see Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map. Three major freeways provide regional access to the area: Foothill Freeway (State Route (SR) 210) to the south; Interstate 215 (I-215) to the east; and Interstate 15 (I-15) to the west. Local access to the project site is primarily provided from Locust Avenue to the east and Lowell Street to the north.

The project site is relatively flat with moderate topographic relief occurring along the southern boundary.

On-site elevation ranges from approximately 1,612 to 1,649 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from northwest to southeast. The project site is primarily vacant, with the exception of remnants of a World War II -era bunker structure and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site and an underground transformer on the northwestern portion of the project site along Lowell Street. The majority of the site is covered with chaparral plant communities, non -native grassland, and previously disturbed land.

The project site was vacant land until the 1940s when it was developed with rail spurs and bunkers used by the U.S. Army for the storage of weapons and ammunition until the 1960s. Since that time, the project site has been generally vacant with areas used for stockpiling and storage activities.

Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale Source: NearMaps, 2024.Source: NearMaps, 2024.

Figure 3-1: Regional Map
Source:Esri, 2024.Source:Esri, 2024.

Project Site
City Boundary
3 \A f
0ly
y
401 (1
4 Y
/ 18
9'210
83 Fontanao
C
Ontario 10O
Grand Terrace— o)60
60I —
1 I
I
I
I
V/
Crestline o
Loma Linda
O
San Bernardino o
Rancho
Cucamonga
Rialto)o
Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scale Figure 3-2: Project Vicinity Map
Source: Nearmap US, 2024.Source: Nearmap US, 2024.

Project SiteProject Site
Lowell StreetLowell Street
North Locust AvenueNorth Locust Avenue
West Summit AvenueWest Summit Avenue
West Persimmon AvenueWest Persimmon Avenue
North Alder AvenueNorth Alder Avenue
Lake Padden RoadLake Padden Road
North Locust AvenueNorth Locust Avenue
HE
f atlg % we
Id ir> i
, ■■ Diwun ---==c-ar i
Y t t.fe
Ili, -
J
I .3
1 a
,Gt
1(
!a
Fi 11n
L—i'a I
IT_Tw tit. a
5 I,
i I
I
s a .19
tens *
I
tg -
■
E E
1 mirlIT . “Tms
Le
JJ. 7 L
sl
L E -e
l' A
ds .
! 0.03 ane p lhe
Or
y £s I aI
y 4
Li ‘3I
4 k
*
J
BI
LS
I
ha PMmRWes",K
I♦
)V
>3
A 3| .8449
2=
I
1P M1
-dsgg
4,
3 Sr'u

3.,
2 ■ fbn
' "2) - 29; •
-Li
t
ey"
t
nn . 9
t. j
i
Js
V
as
HL7
gusdy ha i •
s1]
tea
J 1
hes is
- ;
s v
V'
-
J ite
(N,
F.43 8
9 TP
===R
Bl .
st
. S .
satu. J nt-e'd
s2
sel
Ms
S I
""
a
J tn '
$e
1 N 2— iu.
110)
nt‘
V
3 A1
- II——=====-
—L
th
(
m" = mt., i
illimpeeeaepags mrreaanrmmpnmatig
■
a q
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-4

3.3 SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site is located north of SR -210 in an area of the City comprised primarily of industrial, warehouse, manufacturing and office uses with single-family residences east of Locust Avenue and the Mid-Valley Landfill to the west. Table 3-1: On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning summarizes the surrounding land uses, corresponding land use designations, and zoning.

Table 3-1: On-Site and Surrounding Land Uses, General Plan, and Zoning Direction Existing Land Use General Plan1 Zoning2
Project
Site
Vacant land with chaparral plant communities
and non-native grassland
General Industrial Rialto Airport Specific Plan
General Manufacturing (I-GM)3
North
Lowell Street
North of Lowell Street: industrial uses including
concrete supplier, construction equipment
service provider, pipe manufacturer, corporate
office, recycling plant, and warehouse
Business Park Rialto Airport Specific Plan
General Manufacturing (I-GM)
South
Industrial uses including concrete mixing
operation facility, warehouse, and truck
container storage yards
General Industrial Rialto Airport Specific Plan
General Manufacturing (I-GM)
East
Industrial uses including water damage
restoration service provider, steel distributor
and fabricator, storage yards, warehouses
Locust Avenue
East of Locust Avenue: undeveloped parcel;
industrial uses including towing service,
warehouse, steel distributor, concrete
contractor; single-family residences
approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue
and accessed from Maple Avenue
General Industrial;
East of Locust
Avenue: Light
Industrial,
Residential
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
General Manufacturing (I-GM);
East of Locust Avenue:

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
Planned Industrial
Development (I-PID), Single
Family Residential
West
Lake Padden Lane (note: Lake Padden Lane
does not connect to Lowell Street; northbound
Lake Padden Lane becomes westbound Lake
Padden Lane/Summit Avenue north of
Robertson’s Ready Mix)
West of Lake Padden Lane: Industrial uses
including a concrete supplier, Robertson's
Ready Mix materials yards, and Mid-Valley
Landfill
General Industrial,
Public Facility
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
General Manufacturing (I-GM),
Landfill (OS-L)

1. City of Rialto. (Sept 2023). City of Rialto General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element . Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023- Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

2. City of Rialto. (2013). Official Zoning Map. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning -Map ---July- 2013. Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

3. City of Rialto. (n.d.). Rialto Airport Specific Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/568/Rialto -Airport-Specific-Plan---Zoning-Map-PDF. Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

3.4 GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING

3.4.1 General Plan
The City of Rialto General Plan 2010, as amended (General Plan) is the comprehensive planning document governing development in the City, and contains goals, policies, and actions describing the community's vision for economic viability, livable neighborhoods, and environmental protection. The General Pl an

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-5
establishes land use designations for land in the City and policies for the orderly growth and development of the City of Rialto. Among other purposes, the General Plan identifies policies necessary to protect and enhance those features and services which contribute to the quality of life of the community which it serves. Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning, of this EIR includes a discussion of the General Plan goals and policies relevant to the proposed Project.

The General Plan land use designation for the project site i s General Industrial. 1 The General Industrial
land use designation allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities requiring large areas of land with convenient access for trucks and rail. Permitted uses include manufacturing and processing, warehousing and distribution, chemical or petroleum products processing and refining, heavy equipment operations, and similar uses. The designation allows for a maximum Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) 2 of 1.0. The
Project’s proposed uses are allowed under the General Plan designation for the project site.

On December 10, 2024, the City adopted a Focused General Plan Update for the Land Use, Safety, and Circulation Elements and a new Environmental Justice Element in order to be i n compliance with new State regulations , as well as the City of Rialto Focused General Plan Update Initial Study/Negative Declaration. The adopted General Plan Update retains the General Industrial land use designation for the project site.

3.4.2 Zoning
The City of Rialto Zoning Map indicates the project site is zoned Rialto Airport Specific Plan. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in the Specific Plan area. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010.

The Rialto Airport Specific Plan serves as zoning for the remaining properties within the Specific Plan area, which are primarily located northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. 3 The Rialto
Airport Specific Plan designates the project site as 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.

3.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15124(b) requires "A statement of objectives sought by the proposed Project. A clearly written statement of objectives would help the lead agency develop a reasonable range of alternatives to evaluate in the EIR and would aid the decision-makers in preparing findings or a statement of overriding considerations, if necessary. The statement of objectives should include the underlying purpose of the project." The following objectives have been identified for the Project.

1 City of Rialto. September 2023. City of Rialto General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element , Exhibit 2-1 – Land Use Map, Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023- Land-Use-Element?bidId=. Accessed August 19, 2024. 2 Floor Area Ratio is the measurement of a building's floor area in relation to the size of the parcel. 3 In December 2005, the City adopted resolutions declaring the intent to relocate the Rialto Airport operations to other nearby facilities. With the closure of the Rialto Airport, major assumptions and portions of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan became obsolete. Through the Renaissance Specific Plan process, the text and graphics of the Rialto Specific Plan were amended to omit 1,439 acres, which is now the Renaissance Specific Plan. The remainder of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan continues to regulate the areas outside of the Renaissance Specific Plan, which includes the project site.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-6
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 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 9: Develop a project that does not contribute to surface and groundwater quality degradation by treating surface and stormwater flows.

3.6 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS
The Project would remove all existing on-site vegetation and grade the site to allow for the construction of a 664,859-square-foot (sf) building with 657,146 sf of warehouse space, 4,112 sf of ancillary office space in the northeast corner of the first floor, and 3,601 sf of ancillary office space on the mezzanine level. The Project would have an FAR of 0.38 and a maximum building height of up to 55 feet from finished grade; see Figure 3-3: Conceptual Site Plan. The Project would also have 365 passenger vehicle surface parking stalls, 398 truck trailer parking stalls split between two areas on the site, and 82 dock doors ; see Table 3-2: Building Summary. The dock doors are proposed along the warehouse’s eastern elevation facing the existing light industrial uses along Locust Avenue. Employee parking would be provided in the northwestern portion of the project site and along the southern and western sides of the warehouse.

Landscaping, fencing, and walls would be provided around the project site perimeter.

Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
76'-0" 388'-0" 197'-0"
110'-4" 236'-8"
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
42'-0"

DRIVEWAY
664,859 S.F.

BUILDING AREA

MATCH LINE

MATCH LINE MATCH LINE
SEE 2/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

N O R T H L O C U S T A V E N U E

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E
20'-0"

SETBACK
303'-2"
25'-9"
11'-0"

SETBACK

SPECULATIVE HIGH PILE STORAGE CONCRETE TILT
WAREHOUSE TYPE III-B, S-1/B OCCUPANCY.

UNLIMITED BUILDING AREA PER CBC 507: 60' SIDE

YARD & ESFR SPRINKLER SYSTEM
FIRE INGRESS DOORS AT NO GREATER THAN 125' O.C.
6'-0"
1641'-0"
SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
SEE 2/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
40'-0"
35'-0"
30'-0"
40'-0"

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

ARCHITECTURAL

OVERALL SITE PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

S T E V E K H O N G A R C H I T E C T 4 0 0 0 W E S T E R L Y P L A C E S U I T 1 0 0 N E W P O R T B E A C H C A L I F O R N I A 9 2 6 6 0 PROJECT MANAGER: STEVE HONG
714 - 822 - 1171, [email protected]

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

EV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
1641'-0"
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 388'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 55'-0"
11'-2"

SETBACK
82 DOCK DOORS
22'-2"611'-8"
30'-1"

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
25'-2"
42'-0"

DRVIEWAY
12'-0"
TYP.TYP.TYP.
797'-3" 6'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
1004'-4"
27'-0"
60'-0"
12'-0"28'-6"
28'-7"
8@9'=72'-0"46'-0" 6'-0" 10@9'=90'-0" 6'-0" 10@9'=90'-0" 6'-0" 10@9'=90'-0" 6'-0" 10@9'=90'-0" 21'-0" 40'-0"
29'-0"
20'-0"
58'-0"58'-0"20'-6"
90'-1"20'-2"
TYP.TYP.

TYP.
10'-1"
60'-0"20'-0"
111'-1"TYP.26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
38'-0" 130'-0"
185'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
67'-7"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
65'-0"
10'-0"
20'-0"35'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"5@9'=45'-0"51'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"5@9'=45'-0"29'-5"40'-1" TYP.

TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.TYP.

TYP.
12'-0"
TYP.
55'-0"
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.
1641'-0"
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 28'-0"
26'-0" 20'-0" 20'-0" 26'-0" 20'-0"
388'-0"
65'-0" 55'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 55'-0"

POTENTIAL
OFFICE82 DOCK DOORS
6@9'=45'-0" 6'-0" 9'-6" 11@9'=99'-0" 9'-6" 9@9'=81'-0" 6'-0" 6@9'=54'-0" 8@9'=72'-0" 10'-0" 26'-0" 9'-6" 11@9'=99'-0" 9'-6" 26'-0" 10'-0" 8@9'=72'-0" 10'-0" 26'-0" 20'-0" 31'-0" 10@9'=90'-0"
10@9'=90'-0"
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

MATCH LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
12'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
714'-10" 105'-3"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
132'-6" 73'-0"
29'-6"
10@9'=90'-0"
10'-0"26'-0"22'-6"8'-6"
208'-11"
R40'-0"
R40'-0"
39'-11"
61'-0"
40'-0"
24'-0"
122'-0"
55'-0"
20'-0"

SETBACK
46'-7" 55'-0"
114'-8"
99'-7"
14'-2"
29'-0"37'-3"
21'-1"

SETBACK
6'-0"
TYP.

SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
58'-0" 54'-6"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
38'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
185'-0"
130'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
48'-4"
TYP.
150'-0"
20'-0" 40'-0" 59'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

R40'-0"
R40'-0"
TYP.
72'-0"134'-0"132'-0"
14'-8"
45'-0"
129'-10"
TYP.
5'-4"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"5@9'=45'-0" TYP.

TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
236'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
79'-0" 20'-0"102'-6"
31'-10"
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
435'-7"
TYP.
11'-2"

SETBACK
65'-0"
35'-0"
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.
30'-6"
167'-8"
TYP.
35'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

R32'-0"
R25'-0"
20'-0"31'-11"30'-0"15'-0"
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
629'-11"
R20'-0"
R12'-0"
R12'-0"R20'-0"
R20'-0"
TYP.

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
TYP.
6'-11"20'-0"24'-5"
10'-0"
20'-0"

ARCHITECTURAL

ENLARGED SITE PLAN
1" = 50'-0"
SCALE
1ENLARGED SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GENERAL NOTES
SITE PAVING WITH HEAVY BROOM FINISH. SEE CIVIL FOR
PAVEMENT THICKNESS.1

KEYNOTES

DECORATIVE PAVEMENT AT ENTRY - COLORED CONCRETE W/
SAW CUT PATTERN.2
PRIMARY BUILDING.3
PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE WALKWAY WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH.4
CONCRETE SCREEN WALL 14 FT.5
WROUGHT IRON FENCE 8 FT.6
8'H BLACK PAINTED VEHICULAR ROLLING GATE WITH KNOX PAD
LOCK. MANUALLY OPERATED. PROVIDE CONDUITS FOR FUTURE
OPERATOR.
7 5'-6" X 6' X 4" THICK CONCRETE LANDING PAD AT ALL EXTERIOR MANDOORS WITH MEDIUM BROOM FINISH.8
FUTURE MONUMENT SIGN WITH ELEC. CONDUITS.9

EMPLOYEE BREAK AREA, TENANT FURNISHED UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE.10
TRASH ENCLOSURE.11
PUMP HOUSE.12
EXTERIOR CONCRETE STAIR.13
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF ELEC. TRANSFORMER WITH
BOLLARD PROTECTION AND LANDSCAPE SCREENING.14
RETAINING WALL.15
LEGEND

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE WALL, FACE OF

CONCRETE CURB OR GRID LINES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,

2. ENTIRE PROJECT SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED WITH A SMART AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SITE DRAINAGE, TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES.

4. FOR PAVING SECTIONS, CONCRETE CURBS, SWALES AND GUTTERS SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.

5. PROPERTY LINE ARE REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.

6. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE DELINEATED WITH A MIN. 6"
CONCRETE CURB.

STANDARD PARKING STALL 9' X 20'
CLEAN AIR, VANPOOL / EV 9' X20'
SHORT TERM - BICYCLE RACK 8% OF PARKING STALL.16
DESIGNATED SMOKING AREA - 25' AWAY FROM ANY ENTRY.17
ADA PARKING VAN 12' X 20' OR STANDARD 9' X 20' WITH 5' CLR AISLE

PROPERTY LINE
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. MAX 5% SLOPE AND MAX 2%
CROSS SLOPE WITH 48" MIN. CLEAR, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

WITH ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP

LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

APPLICANT/OWNER

PROJECT ADDRESS / APN

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
ATTN: ADAM SCHMID 310.765.3265
2101 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 6250, EL SEGUNDO CA 90245
EMAIL: [email protected]

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
TBD W. LOWELL STREET AND N. LOCUST AVE. RIALTO CA 92377 NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR (1) SPECULATIVE 664,859 SF TYPE III-B, S-1/B OCCUPANCY WAREHOUSE WITH ESFR FIRE SPRINKLER
SYSTEM. PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS CONSIST OF

CONCRETE TILT SCREEN WALL, TRASH ENCLOSURE, PUMP

HOUSE, SITE LIGHTING STANDARDS, WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND
HARDSCAPE/LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY STANDARDS.

PROJECT DATA

VICINITY MAP
210 FWY

ALDER AVE
N. LOCUST AVE
W. CASMALIA ST

BOHNERT AVE

PROJECT SITE
ENLARGED SITE PLAN1" = 50'-0"
SCALE
2 TRUE
NORTH

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
1641'-0"
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 388'-0"
60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 55'-0"
11'-2"

SETBACK
82 DOCK DOORS
22'-2"611'-8"
30'-1"

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
25'-2"
42'-0"

DRVIEWAY
12'-0"
TYP.TYP.TYP.
797'-3" 6'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
10'-1"
60'-0"20'-0"
111'-1"TYP.26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
38'-0" 130'-0"
185'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
67'-7"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
65'-0"
10'-0"
20'-0"35'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.TYP.

TYP.
12'-0"
TYP.
55'-0"
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

MATCH LINE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
SEE 1/DRC-A1.10SEE 1/DRC-A1.10

MATCH LINE
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
12'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
714'-10" 105'-3"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
132'-6" 73'-0"
29'-6"
10@9'=90'-0"
10'-0"26'-0"22'-6"8'-6"
208'-11"
R40'-0"
R40'-0"
39'-11"
61'-0"
40'-0"
24'-0"
122'-0"
55'-0"
20'-0"

SETBACK
46'-7" 55'-0"
114'-8"
99'-7"
14'-2"
29'-0"37'-3"
21'-1"

SETBACK
6'-0"
TYP.

SEE 1/DRC-A1.20
58'-0" 54'-6"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
38'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
185'-0"
130'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
48'-4"
TYP.
150'-0"
20'-0" 40'-0" 59'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

R40'-0"
R40'-0"
TYP.
72'-0"134'-0"132'-0"
14'-8"
45'-0"
129'-10"
TYP.
5'-4"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"10@9'=90'-0"6'-0"5@9'=45'-0" TYP.

TYP.
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
236'-0"
TYP.

TYP.
79'-0" 20'-0"102'-6"
31'-10"
TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.
435'-7"
TYP.
11'-2"

SETBACK
65'-0"
35'-0"
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
TYP.
30'-6"
167'-8"
TYP.
35'-0"
TYP.

TYP.

R32'-0"
R25'-0"
20'-0"31'-11"30'-0"15'-0"
26' WIDE FIRE LANE
629'-11"
R20'-0"
R12'-0"
R12'-0"R20'-0"
R20'-0"
TYP.

ELECTRICAL
ROOM
TYP.
6'-11"20'-0"24'-5"
10'-0"
20'-0"

ARCHITECTURAL

ENLARGED SITE PLAN
1" = 50'-0"
SCALE
1ENLARGED SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GENERAL NOTES
SITE PAVING WITH HEAVY BROOM FINISH. SEE CIVIL FOR
PAVEMENT THICKNESS.1

KEYNOTES

1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE WALL, FACE OF

CONCRETE CURB OR GRID LINES UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE,

2. ENTIRE PROJECT SHALL BE PERMANENTLY MAINTAINED WITH A SMART AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

3. SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION REGARDING SITE DRAINAGE, TOPOGRAPHY AND UTILITIES.

4. FOR PAVING SECTIONS, CONCRETE CURBS, SWALES AND GUTTERS SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.

5. PROPERTY LINE ARE REFERENCE ONLY. REFER TO CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR HORIZONTAL CONTROL.

6. LANDSCAPE AREAS SHALL BE DELINEATED WITH A MIN. 6"
CONCRETE CURB.

PROPERTY LINE
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL. MAX 5% SLOPE AND MAX 2%
CROSS SLOPE WITH 48" MIN. CLEAR, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE

WITH ADA ACCESSIBLE RAMP

LANDSCAPE, SEE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS

APPLICANT/OWNER

PROJECT ADDRESS / APN

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES
ATTN: ADAM SCHMID 310.765.3265
2101 ROSECRANS AVENUE, SUITE 6250, EL SEGUNDO CA 90245
EMAIL: [email protected]

CONCRETE TILT SCREEN WALL, TRASH ENCLOSURE, PUMP

HOUSE, SITE LIGHTING STANDARDS, WROUGHT IRON FENCE AND
HARDSCAPE/LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS PER CITY STANDARDS.

PROJECT DATA

VICINITY MAP
210 FWY

ALDER AVE
N. LOCUST AVE
W. CASMALIA ST

BOHNERT AVE

PROJECT SITE
ENLARGED SITE PLAN1" = 50'-0"
SCALE
2 TRUE
NORTH

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

SITE AREAI
y U TTTU I IJu BUILDING AREA
a Loxe
1ST FLOOR
Phil 111 j 1111 ft 111 m
X 1ST TOTAL
L___ 2ND FLOOR
TUmmmmmmmmm‘M •
'll III II III II III II

PROJECT FACT
(HO BM

FAR MAX
| FAR PROVIDED

CLEAR HEIGHT
HU 11 ii i nil f
£ muIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn ZONING

ORDINANCE
1 MAX BUILDING HEIGHT

LANDSCAPE SETBACK
(0 b 1,

PARKING REQ
JN]Sanaa Sahi tig; ( ) me .7
7«
-9.", vcer
he
282
•in* i
17 L.- f
“s
1'1

TRAILER
RPg j □
Tukarss©)
L.■ — ,7
□
I □-=l □23d
41 — r
8— U
L
IM
1 ■4 s
ITT
_____. -
lllllllll
III III fl III I III
AILIILAILILILIIIIIIIIL RaarzrriO.
adden
tructi □
□ □
□
9X20
9X20
12X20’
9X20
10X20’
12X20’
9x20
Fnt
k
i i
□ □ □ □ □
SF
SF
□ □ □ □
FRONT

SIDE/REAR

BASE OF BLDG
31 10
324
365

PROJECT PROVIDED

PARKING PROVIDED

WAREHOUSE
OFFICE
20‘
10‘
10 54
365
1/250 SF
1st 10K 1/1000 SF
ABV 10K 1/2000 SF

IIIIIIAAIIIAIAIAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
wl ■ -= m -i —i • -— — _ ia -! - . J A

AUTO PARKING

STANDARD

AOA ACCESSIBLE

ADA VAN ACCESSIBLE

EVCSSTD

EVCSADAAMB

EVCSADAVAN
EV CAPABLE_
TOTAL
1,737,741

39.89 657,146
4,112
SF
Acres
Jsorowy.Gron(Rel)

AUTO PARKING
OFFICE

WAREHOUSE

WAREHOUSE
TOTAL
Airport Specific Plan (I-GM) -M-2
Resolution No. 1653 (Indoor Storage Facilities)

0.38 36‘
_S
• tJ___
53 rs
| • —a — US
11 ‘J
_ I
“ Y 2
s
; i W0d
g TA,
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-8
Table 3-2: Building Summary
Warehouse
(sf)
Office
(sf)
Mezzanine
Office (sf)
Total
Building
(sf)
Truck Trailer
Parking Stalls
Automobile Parking
Stalls Loading Docks
Required1 Proposed Required2 Provided
657,146 4,112 3,601 664,859 398 365 365 9 82

1. Parking Space Requirements per Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.050J. One (1) space for every 1 0,000 sf of gross floor area up to 10,000 sf, plus 1 space for every 2,000 of floor area beyond 10,000 sf.

2. Loading Space Requirements per Rialto Municipal Code Table 18.58.030B. Six (6) loading spaces required for i ndustrial uses 320,000 to 400,000 sf, one additional loading space each 100,000 sf or fraction thereof above 400,000 sf. sf = square feet
Source: Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58 .

The proposed Project is currently planned as a “speculative project.” Therefore, the future tenants of the building are not currently known. Without knowing the identity of a future tenant, the exact number of future employees or hours of operation cannot be determined. Therefore, this EIR and associated technical reports use approximate potential on-site employees, hours of operation, and vehicular traffic generation based on the proposed Project’s characteristics ( i.e., square footage). This EIR and the associated technical reports have assumed uses and intensities that may be greater than what might actually be expected at buildout and operation, which provide a conservative estimation of impacts.

3.6.1 Access and Parking
Project Access
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. Emergency vehicles would have access to the project site from all five of the proposed driveways as shown in Figure 3-4: Conceptual Fire Access Plan. All drive aisles would accommodate standard fire lane turning radiuses and hammerhead turnaround maneuvers for emergency vehicles and fire services. As shown in Figure 3-5: Conceptual Truck Circulation Plan, trucks access would be provided at Driveways 1, 2, and 3 on Lowell Street and Driveway 4 on Locust Avenue. Driveway 1, the westernmost driveway on Lowell Street, would be 40 feet wide and provide access to the western portion of the project site, which includes the employee parking lot. Driveway 2, the central driveway on Lowell Street, would be 40 feet wide and would be the main driveway access for trucks entering the project site . Driveway 3, the easternmost driveway on Lowell Street, would be a gated 40-foot-wide access point to the secured truck trailer storage parking lot in the northeastern portion of the site. Driveway 4, which is located on Locust Avenue, would be a gated 40-foot-wide assess point and would provide additional access to the secured northeast truck trailer storage parking lot. In instances where there are schedule delays related to trailer drop off or pick up, trucks on the site can enter the trailer parking lot via an internal secured access to ensure that all truck parking would occur on the project site. All entry gates on the project site would be equipped with Knox Boxes for access by the City of Rialto Fire Department and Police Department for emergencies. The driveway shown on the site plan on Lake Padden Lane would be provided exclusively for emergency access purposes with no truck or passenger vehicle access.

Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scale Figure 3-4: Conceptual Fire Access Plan
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
388'-0"
1641'-0"
42'-0"

DRIVEWAY
664,859 S.F.

BUILDING AREA

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

N O R T H L O C U S T A V E N U E

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
40'-0"

GATE W/
KNOX
40'-0"

GATE W/
KNOX
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
60' SETBACK LINE TYP
60' SETBACK LINE TYP
60' SETBACK LINE TYP
60' SETBACK LINE TYP
TYPE III-B / S-1 OCCUPANCY UNLIMITED BUILDING
AREA JUSTIFICATION: 60' YARD + ESFR

SPRINKLER SYSTEM
ALL BUILDING EXTERIOR WITHIN 150' OF F.D.

HOSE REACH FROM FIRE LANE
2 PTS OF ACCESS REQ. MIN.
5 PTS OF ACCESS PROVIDED
F.D. ACCESS PT
F.D. ACCESS PT F.D. ACCESS PT
F.D. ACCESS PT
26'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
40'-0"

GATE W/
KNOX
26' FIRE LANE
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
26' FIRE LANE
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
F.D. ACCESS PT

ARCHITECTURAL

FIRE ACCESS PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

Fire Access Point
Driveway 1Driveway 1 Driveway 2Driveway 2 Driveway 3Driveway 3 Driveway 4Driveway 4
.J
—
F - V Jh..mmma Ik
l
V U
— W "TI
__ 2 JX_________ _ —
SlmTTTr
om (HHHH) m 1S
JTunuunununononnnnnnonnnndndumuunumnmmg

1.]].]].1-.03
5 4
4XbolllllllIIIIAAIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIe
|_a 4
r
Pr— -=I
7 1 -redf 5
Tubnler Sisal©
d
.. -
- JS (bw
Di
aolPDY
. El
(ODnn
r
T T T
=
rt —
—
Padden
n
III
3 _____
1 ha
L
n =
Efca
e
' aWCsMtauyssmCCS.
. I ( )nng
as
•g
met
-
AL4-L1L2
dl@
1 s% 0
I
i
Bu - 1 r m
st skerktk e.5 —1.l1191 3
ICFFLL
■ —L (3nW() g
guanen(Rlello)n 5
(N,
"Jus
byF1
-
■
) J=ruru» a = H#E
' i J t
DASoinan Sao ub()
"n
— l
________
"]1
Fu 11 nn । in 111 Hi 1111111 n i in HI 11 m ii i II
1 Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
40'-0"

DRIVEWAY
42'-0"

DRIVEWAY

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

N O R T H L O C U S T A V E N U E

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E
406'-6"

TRUCK QUEUING LANE

ARCHITECTURAL

TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GREGG ELECTRIC
608 W. EMPORIA STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91762
DIRECT: 909-983-1794
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: JOHN BRENNAN
KIMLEY-HORN | 3801 UNIVERSITY AVE,
SUITE 300 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
DIRECT: 619-744-0144|
MOBILE: 619-300-5087
ATTN: DAVIE COWAN
[email protected]
TRUE
NORTH DRC-A1.02
Figure 3-5: Conceptual Truck Circulation Plan
Source: SKH Architect, 2025.Source: SKH Architect, 2025. |3 ! mmmmmld IIs |
------- -_ -TEl
i
ni!iii!in QIIL? QIILL?>■8 0111lld
"TT’lI 11III RI If
iHHHiniiiinifiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii -n II 'i.'I, .. ....... 1..... ............ I.........e oos I
somad So tint). m.
| )----
________ I
u
1 18T J=E#IU SEH#D, 01
cuCE 17 --thitr dl EHf
“miEE I
11 Tulkrsiss©
(Ecetuuurecx
. Oue+l
0= pr
i e
IMill|
55a— — 4 A52
2 -d 3t
46 r
- U i
4 F
Tling
H -H-
■
44 (Fezahrl()
II III HBI III III Hfl III III I Hfl III III III 8 III III III igrowelii
ts IO
GiP
1 J
------ - ----—
B l —H +t
—
+Hi=
fl
18 1
[
Mt ’ ■» ‘ i
uel
19 o‘8 T.EE.

Me
DC ___ I___
=et
mmmmmeo
a
Pi 241
Bt — J
.)
I
JSCavy
JGuan (Rell)'
*

3. ge i
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-11
Project Parking
All passenger vehicle and truck trailer parking would be provided on the project site. The Project’s parking is divided into three sections: employee/visitor parking, secured northeast truck trailer parking, and loading bay truck trailer parking. Table 3-3: Automobile and Truck Trailer Parking Summary identifies the vehicular parking requirements in the Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Section 18.58 that are applicable to the Project and what is proposed as a part of the Project.

Table 3-3: Automobile and Truck Trailer Parking Summary Parking Area Required/Provided
Employee/Visitor Parking
Warehouse (657,146 sf):

First 10,000 sf: 1 space per 1,000 sf
Above 10,000 sf: 1 space per 2,000 sf
334/334 automobile parking stalls
Office (7,713 sf):
1 space per 250 sf
31/31 automobile parking stalls
Total 365/365 automobile parking stalls
Truck Trailer Parking
Secured Northeast Truck Trailer Parking 286 truck trailer parking stalls Loading Bay Truck Trailer Parking 112 truck trailer parking stalls Total 398 truck trailer parking stalls
sf = square feet
Source: Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.58.050.

Per Municipal Code Section 18.58, the Project would be required to provide 365 passenger vehicle parking spaces. As proposed, the Project would include 365 passenger vehicle parking spaces (282 standard stalls, 10 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) stalls, and 73 electric vehicle (EV) stalls) for employee and guest parking. Passenger vehicle parking stalls are proposed on the northwestern portion of the project site and along the south and west sides of the warehouse building, with pedestrian access around the perimeter of the parking lots. The secured northeast truck trailer parking lot is proposed along Lowell Street in the northeastern portion of the project site and would provide trailer storage. The loading bay truck trailer parking area would include dock door loading bays and additional truck trailer parking along the eastern elevation of the warehouse. This area would be gated and screened from public views from Lowell Street.

Non-Vehicular Transportation
There are no bikeways on Locust Avenue or Lowell Street. The General Plan identifies Class II Bikeways on Casa Grande Drive, Alder Avenue north of Casa Grande Drive, and Riverside Avenue. Bike racks would be provided in the southeast corner of the employee/visitor parking lot, near the pedestrian pathway leading to the warehouse building entrance. Pedestrian access would be facilitated through the construction of six-foot-wide sidewalks provided on Lowell Street and Locust Avenue along the project site frontage.

Omnitrans provides public transportation throughout San Bernardino County, including the City of Rialto.

Bus stops in the vicinity of the project site are on Locust Avenue approximately 250 feet from the intersection of Locust 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.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-12

3.6.2 Building Design, Landscaping, and Lighting
The conceptual design for the Project includes concrete tilt-up panels with architectural treatments, such as panel reveals to provide visual relief of the building facades. As shown in Figure 3-6: Conceptual North and West Elevations , Figure 3-7: Conceptual South and East Elevations , and Figure 3-8: Conceptual Enlarged Elevations, the exterior elevations would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing. Rooftop mechanical equipment would be screened. To screen the truck docks and trailer parking from public views, a 14-foot-high decorative screen wall is proposed along the northern boundary of the project site facing Lowell Street, along the eastern boundary of the project site facing Locust Avenue, and along the northeastern portion of the project site’s southern boundary facing the existing industrial uses to the south. Retaining walls and fencing would also be provided along the southern, eastern, and western property lines, see Figure 3-9: Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan.

The Project would be subject to compliance with the development standards in Municipal Code Sections

18.61.250 and 18.61.270, which include requirements for plants, landscape maintenance, and landscape buffers. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan landscape requirements are greater than the Municipal Code. Per the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, projects designated I -GM are required to provide a 20 -foot average minimum width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways.

Figure 3-10: Conceptual Landscape Plan depicts the proposed landscape plan. Per the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, projects designated I -GM are required to provide a 20 -foot average minimum width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways. The Project would provide 20- foot-wide landscape buffers along the project site frontage of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. A smaller landscape buffer would be provided along the western project boundary, a s Lake Padden Lane is not a public roadway. The Project would also provide landscaping near parking lot areas and driveway entries. As conceptually proposed, the landscape area would be approximately 3.7 acres (160,491 sf or 9.2%) of the site. A mix of accent trees including shademaster honey locust, bloodgood london plane tree, and coast live oaks are proposed along Lowell Street. Smaller understory landscaping including groundcover and accent shrubs would be layered beneath the trees and Locust Avenue . Landscaping along the public streets would screen truck trailer areas from the public right-of-way.

In addition, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.58.030, 75 trees would be planted throughout the parking areas. The landscaped areas would comply with the water efficient landscape requirements as set forth in Municipal Code Section 12.50.060, including the use of automatic irrigation systems and appropriate use and grouping of plants to foster long-term landscape water conservation.

Site lighting would be used to provide adequate lighting for circulation, safety, and security. Night lighting would be provided seven days a week. Outdoor lighting for the parking areas would be provided consistent with the requirements set forth in Municipal Code Section 18.61.140 - Lighting. All project site entries, exits, parking areas, loading areas, trash enclosures, outdoor areas, and pedestrian pathways would include dusk to dawn lighting for security purposes. Lighting levels would not exceed 1.0 candle/foot at the property line.

Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scale 44'-6"
50'-0"
458'-0"
38'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"60'-0"50'-0"60'-0"70'-0"
TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.
52'-0"
58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"54'-6" SEE 2/DRC-A3.01SEE 3/DRC-A3.01

MATCH LINE
TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.
1641'-0"
58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0" SEE 2/DRC-A3.01SEE 3/DRC-A3.01

MATCH LINE
SEE 3/DRC-A3.01SEE 4/DRC-A3.01

MATCH LINE
TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP.
52'-0"
58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0"58'-0" SEE 3/DRC-A3.01SEE 4/DRC-A3.01

MATCH LINE
TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.TYP.

TYP.
20'-6"
TYP. TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.
70'-0"
46'-0"
TYP. TYP.

TYP.

ARCHITECTURAL

ELEVATIONS

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GENERAL NOTES
1 KEYNOTES
CONCRETE PANEL JOINT2
PAINTED CONCRETE REVEAL.3
9' X 10' OVER HEAD DOCK HIGH DOOR4
12' X 14' OVER HEAD GRADE LEVEL DOOR5
ALUMINUM STOREFRONT GLAZING SYSTEM. SEE GLAZING
LEGEND
6 3'X7' HOLLOW METAL DOOR AND FRAME.7

GLAZING LEGEND

1. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

2. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

3. STOREFRONT CONSTRUCTION: GLASS, METAL ATTACHMENTS AND LINTELS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST WIND EXPOSURE "C"
WINDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FULL PAINT ONE CONCRETE PANEL WITH
SELECTED COLORS. ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL APPROVE
PRIOR TO PAINT REMAINDER OF BUILDING.

5. BACK SIDE OF PARAPETS TO HAVE SMOOTH FINISH AND BE PAINTED WITH ELASTOMERIC PAINT.

6. FOR SPANDREL GLAZING, ALLOW SPACE BEHIND SPANDREL TO BREATH BY PROVIDING A MINIMUM 3
4" DIAMETER HOLE ON THE
CORNER.

7. USE ADHESIVE BACK WOOD STRIPS FOR ALL REVEAL FORMS.

8. FIRST COAT OF PAINT TO BE ROLLED-ON AND THE SECOND COAT TO BE SPRAYED ON.

9. WATER BLAST EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING WALLS PRIOR TO PAINT.

10. ALL CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS SHALL BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS BY

PRESSURING WASHING THE CAVITY AND GRIND ANY SHARP EDGES PRIOR TO APPLY PANEL CAULK JOINT.

11. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND LOUVERS SHALL BE FABRICATED AND WEATHER STRIPPED TO WITHSTAND WIND EXPOSURE "C"

12. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MOCK UP PAINT FOR OWNER AND
ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE WORK.

CONCRETE TILT UP WALL, SEE PAINT AND FINISH LEGEND BELOW 4'X8' PAINTED METAL LOUVER8
ROOF DRAIN9

TEMPERED VISION GLASS

TEMPERED CONCRETE BACKED SPANDREL GLASS
OFFICE / POTENTIAL OFFICE AREAS:

VITROGLAZING, VISTACOOL (2) PACIFICA + SOLARBAN 60 (3)
VLT: 26, SHGC: 0.17, U VALUE: 0.29
1" INSULATED UNIT WITH 1
2" AIRSPACE AND (2) 1
4" UNITS
WAREHOUSE GLAZING AREA:

SINGLE PANE 1
4" VITROGLAZING VISTALCOOL PACIFICA.

COLOR / FINISH LEGEND

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P6 WINTER WHITE

WOOD SIDING NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD
FIBER CEMENT - CEDAR W1
ALL STONE VENEERS SHALL EXTEND MINIMUM 2" BELOW FINISH
GRADE. CHECK CIVIL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY THE EXTENT.

VENEERS SHALL EXTEND BACK TO ANY CEILING SOFFITS AND
PANEL RETURNS WHERE LOCATED. 2 DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS
HAS LIMITATION. THE INTENT IS FOR THE VENEERS TO BE

APPLIED TO AN ENTIRE ELEMENT AND NOT JUST THE FACE AS
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P3 MORTAR GRAY

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P1 ARCHITECTURE GREY

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P9 EFFERVESCENT BLUE

STONE VENEER
Tk06 MARMORIO

METAL/CANOPY
WHITE

EXTERIOR PAINT
P-12 PALE BLUE

EXTERIOR PAINT
P5 FOGGY DAY
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
3WEST ELEVATION CONT.
1" = 30'-0"
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
2WEST ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
1NORTH ELEVATION

NORTHEAST ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
5 Figure 3-6: Conceptual North and West Elevations
Source: SKH Architect, 2025.Source: SKH Architect, 2025. *() () ® 5 @
1n E
X
□ ill □
1 1
F F f
i
rm
E a
( Q
□ □ X □ 4 4 □
Ll
□ □ I □
2 I I
@0) I @ (20)
?! ?9] ' 1
X
□
X X 42 74 □—==-
oc
HH H
(20) (27) (29) (30) (25
□
L_ X X X X
□ □ E □
n H HT ■'
F T
B
B
a
a
a
F
a
a
□ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □
888
(D)
a
a
(14)
(5)
i
1 1
+
।
T
I
(H)
(9)'I'
()
(21)
(6)
(18)
(8)
()
(10)
a
@
(26)
(4)
(A)
()
(23)
i
i
। ।
i
। । । ।
@
()
(22)
L
@
2 □
3 3 3
□
□3
□ 3
2)
t
Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale Figure 3-7: Conceptual South and East Elevations
Source: SKH Architect, 2025.Source: SKH Architect, 2025. 48'-0"
SEE 3/DRC-A3.02SEE 4/DRC-A3.02

MATCH LINE
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 57'-7" 58'-0" 58'-0" 54'-6"5" TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.

SEE 3/DRC-A3.02SEE 4/DRC-A3.02

MATCH LINE
SEE 2/DRC-A3.02SEE 3/DRC-A3.02

MATCH LINE
1641'-0"
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP.
48'-0"
SEE 2/DRC-A3.02SEE 3/DRC-A3.02

MATCH LINE
58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 5" 57'-7" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" 58'-0" TYP. TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP.TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
20'-6"
TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP.
44'-6"
50'-0"
458'-0"
38'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 60'-0" 50'-0" 60'-0" 70'-0" TYP.

TYP.TYP.TYP.TYP.

TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP. TYP.TYP.

TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP. TYP.
70'-0"
46'-0"
TYP.TYP.

TYP.

ARCHITECTURAL

ELEVATIONS

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GLAZING LEGEND

1. ALL PAINT COLOR CHANGES TO OCCUR AT INSIDE CORNERS
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

2. ALL PAINT FINISHES ARE TO BE FLAT UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE.

3. STOREFRONT CONSTRUCTION: GLASS, METAL ATTACHMENTS AND LINTELS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO RESIST WIND EXPOSURE "C"
WINDS. CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION.

4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FULL PAINT ONE CONCRETE PANEL WITH
SELECTED COLORS. ARCHITECT AND OWNER SHALL APPROVE
PRIOR TO PAINT REMAINDER OF BUILDING.

5. BACK SIDE OF PARAPETS TO HAVE SMOOTH FINISH AND BE PAINTED WITH ELASTOMERIC PAINT.

6. FOR SPANDREL GLAZING, ALLOW SPACE BEHIND SPANDREL TO BREATH BY PROVIDING A MINIMUM 3
4" DIAMETER HOLE ON THE
CORNER.

7. USE ADHESIVE BACK WOOD STRIPS FOR ALL REVEAL FORMS.

8. FIRST COAT OF PAINT TO BE ROLLED-ON AND THE SECOND COAT TO BE SPRAYED ON.

9. WATER BLAST EXTERIOR FACE OF BUILDING WALLS PRIOR TO PAINT.

10. ALL CONCRETE PANEL JOINTS SHALL BE CLEARED OF DEBRIS BY

PRESSURING WASHING THE CAVITY AND GRIND ANY SHARP EDGES PRIOR TO APPLY PANEL CAULK JOINT.

11. ALL EXTERIOR DOORS AND LOUVERS SHALL BE FABRICATED AND WEATHER STRIPPED TO WITHSTAND WIND EXPOSURE "C"

12. CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE MOCK UP PAINT FOR OWNER AND
ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL PRIOR TO COMMENCING THE WORK.

CONCRETE TILT UP WALL, SEE PAINT AND FINISH LEGEND BELOW 4'X8' PAINTED METAL LOUVER8
ROOF DRAIN9

TEMPERED VISION GLASS

TEMPERED CONCRETE BACKED SPANDREL GLASS
OFFICE / POTENTIAL OFFICE AREAS:

VITROGLAZING, VISTACOOL (2) PACIFICA + SOLARBAN 60 (3)
VLT: 26, SHGC: 0.17, U VALUE: 0.29
1" INSULATED UNIT WITH 1
2" AIRSPACE AND (2) 1
4" UNITS
WAREHOUSE GLAZING AREA:

SINGLE PANE 1
4" VITROGLAZING VISTALCOOL PACIFICA.

COLOR / FINISH LEGEND

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P6 WINTER WHITE

WOOD SIDING NICHIHA VINTAGEWOOD
FIBER CEMENT - CEDAR W1
ALL STONE VENEERS SHALL EXTEND MINIMUM 2" BELOW FINISH
GRADE. CHECK CIVIL DRAWINGS TO VERIFY THE EXTENT.

VENEERS SHALL EXTEND BACK TO ANY CEILING SOFFITS AND
PANEL RETURNS WHERE LOCATED. 2 DIMENSIONAL DRAWINGS
HAS LIMITATION. THE INTENT IS FOR THE VENEERS TO BE

APPLIED TO AN ENTIRE ELEMENT AND NOT JUST THE FACE AS
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P3 MORTAR GRAY

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P1 ARCHITECTURE GREY

EXTERIOR PAINT
COLOR: P9 EFFERVESCENT BLUE

STONE VENEER
Tk06 MARMORIO

METAL/CANOPY
WHITE

EXTERIOR PAINT
P-12 PALE BLUE

EXTERIOR PAINT
P5 FOGGY DAY
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
3EAST ELEVATION CONT.
1" = 30'-0"
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
2EAST ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
1 SOUTHEAST ELEVATION
1" = 30'-0"
SCALE
5 SOUTH ELEVATION
©() @ @ ()
t n □ □ □E □ □ □ n □
H — - •L P

I I I I
(30) (29) 2 2852 (25) (23) (22) (20)
1□ □ 9 □ □ □ □
TI n
eee
— □
I I
@
□
—LL—L mek □n I
SB
(1
।
Inn nn nu 6
Ia.a. a aa Ds।
T T
B
B
If
H
B
H
B
B3
0 0
• ——
ann JEE —
(H) @
T
©
T
(H) ()
(n)(13)(19)
()
(9) (5)
(17) (10)
"A
□
(2)
(20) (16)
f)
?
(0)
(2)(5
@ (3)
20 280808
□— □□□
Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scale Figure 3-8: Conceptual Enlarged Elevations
2125 W. LOWELL STREET
RIALTO, CA 92377
Source: SKH Architect, 2025.Source: SKH Architect, 2025.

By" H

NORTH ELEVATION
“E t T □W TS l n l.

WEST ELEVATION
TOH •E
Y.
£

SOUTH ELEVATION
I
.1.
—
-•E nn n n • "E n

EAST ELEVATION
gal lh II II i
RMamtRO WOWTIRGT M

F II II
LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLI o . hninillhay i&i............. "OTII DTME. IFB" lb
m d
fe
•IE
6 Sy
Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale Figure 3-9: Conceptual Fence and Wall Plan
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
236'-8"
40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
637'-5"
59'-0"20'-0"
40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
56'-0"
55'-0"
625'-9"
14'H DECORATIVE SCREEN / SOUND WALL
8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE
MSE WALL RETAINING WALL WITH 8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE
RETAINING WALL WITH 8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE

CONCRETE TILT RETAINING WALL
28'-7"
1011'-0"
714'-10"797'-3"
660'-0"55'-0"
122'-0"
55'-0"
21'-0" 40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
21'-0" 433'-10" 55'-0"
121'-0"
55'-0"
25'-0"
40'-0"8'H

SLIDINGGATE
55'-0"
40'-6" 1175'-9"

PROPOSED WALL ALONG PL WITH THE DEMO OF THE EXISTING BLOCK WALL 61'-0"
40'-0"8'H

SLIDINGGATE
24'-0"
129'-10"
20'-2" 20'-0"
65'-0"
55'-0"
65'-0"

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

KEYNOTE
TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
76'-0" 76'-0"
20'-0"
14'H DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL W/ 6'H LANDSCAPE BERM
TYP.

TYP.
30'-9"
29'-0"
114'-8"
TYP.

C SECTION

D SECTION

E SECTION
20'-0"

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
PILASTER @ EVERY 70' O.C. AND AT

EVERY CORNER
8'-0"
6'-0"
BERM
14'-0"

TOTAL HEIGHT

FINISH FLOOR FAR SIDE
CONC. SCREEN WALL, PAINTED WITH

ACCENTED REVEALS

PROPERTY LINE
SIGHT LINE14'-0"
8'-0"
6'-0"
BERM
20'-0"

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

A SECTION

B PLAN & ELEVATION
3'-0"
3'-0"
6'-0"
6" ABOVE ADJACENT WALL

ARCHITECTURAL

FENCE AND WALL PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
236'-8"
40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
637'-5"
59'-0"20'-0"
40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
56'-0"
55'-0"
625'-9"
14'H DECORATIVE SCREEN / SOUND WALL
8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE
MSE WALL RETAINING WALL WITH 8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE
RETAINING WALL WITH 8'H WROUGHT IRON FENCE

CONCRETE TILT RETAINING WALL
28'-7"
1011'-0"
714'-10"797'-3"
660'-0"55'-0"
122'-0"
55'-0"
21'-0" 40'-0"
8'H

SLIDING
GATE
21'-0" 433'-10" 55'-0"
121'-0"
55'-0"
25'-0"
40'-0"8'H

SLIDINGGATE
55'-0"
40'-6" 1175'-9"

PROPOSED WALL ALONG PL WITH THE DEMO OF THE EXISTING BLOCK WALL 61'-0"
40'-0"8'H

SLIDINGGATE
24'-0"
129'-10"
20'-2" 20'-0"
65'-0"
55'-0"
65'-0"

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E

KEYNOTE
TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.TYP.

TYP.

TYP. TYP.

TYP.

TYP.
76'-0" 76'-0"
20'-0"
14'H DECORATIVE SCREEN WALL W/ 6'H LANDSCAPE BERM
TYP.

TYP.
30'-9"
29'-0"
114'-8"
TYP.

C SECTION

D SECTION

E SECTION
20'-0"

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
PILASTER @ EVERY 70' O.C. AND AT

EVERY CORNER
8'-0"
6'-0"
BERM
14'-0"

TOTAL HEIGHT

FINISH FLOOR FAR SIDE
CONC. SCREEN WALL, PAINTED WITH

ACCENTED REVEALS

PROPERTY LINE
SIGHT LINE14'-0"
8'-0"
6'-0"
BERM
20'-0"

LANDSCAPE SETBACK

A SECTION

B PLAN & ELEVATION
3'-0"
3'-0"
6'-0"
6" ABOVE ADJACENT WALL

ARCHITECTURAL

FENCE AND WALL PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

EV
CAP.

EVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCSEVCS
VANVAN

EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY

EVCSEVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS EVCS
EV
CAP. EVCSEV
CAP.

VAN
EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.

EV
CAP.
388'-0"
1641'-0"
42'-0"

DRIVEWAY
664,859 S.F.

BUILDING AREA

W E S T L O W E L L S T R E E T

N O R T H L O C U S T A V E N U E

L A K E P A D D E N L A N E
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
26' FIRE LANE
40'-0"

GATE W/
KNOX
40'-0"

SPRINKLER SYSTEM
ALL BUILDING EXTERIOR WITHIN 150' OF F.D.

HOSE REACH FROM FIRE LANE
2 PTS OF ACCESS REQ. MIN.
5 PTS OF ACCESS PROVIDED
F.D. ACCESS PT
F.D. ACCESS PT F.D. ACCESS PT
F.D. ACCESS PT
26'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
40'-0"

GATE W/
KNOX
26' FIRE LANE
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
26' FIRE LANE
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
R20'-0"
F.D. ACCESS PT

ARCHITECTURAL

FIRE ACCESS PLAN
1" = 80'-0"
SCALE
1OVERALL SITE PLAN

CHECKED

SHEET TITLE

SHEET NUMBER
JOB No.

DRAWN
23-013
No. ISSUANCE DATE
REN. 12-31-25
NO. C-33677
I
OH
L
CR
ST
O
TE
A
CF A
LI E
DESN E
STC VE
.K
A
AI
FORN
ITH
TCGN E

STEVE HONG

CONSULTANTS
AMERICAN CONTRACTORS, INC.
404 WEST BLUERIDGE AVE.

ORANGE, CA 92865
DIRECT: 714-282-5700
ATTN: LAURA FANG
[email protected]

CIVIL ENGINEER

STEVE HONG

DARIN FONG AND ASSOCIATES
3230 E. IMPERIAL HWY SUITE 302
BREA, CA 92821
DIRECT: 951-219-2849
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: DARIN FONG

STRUCTURAL ENGINEER

MECHANICAL ENGINEER

PLUMBING ENGINEER

ELECTRICAL ENGINEER

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINER

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GEOTECHNICAL
22885 SAVI RANCH PKWY SUITE E
YORBA LINDA, CA 92887
714-685-1115
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: ROBERT G TRAZO
AIR CONTROL SYSTEMS INC.
1940 S. GROVE AVE.

ONTARIO, CA 91761
DIRECT: 949-450-1229
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: CHAD WILLIAMS

GREGG ELECTRIC
608 W. EMPORIA STREET
ONTARIO, CA 91762
DIRECT: 909-983-1794
EMAIL: [email protected]
ATTN: JOHN BRENNAN
KIMLEY-HORN | 3801 UNIVERSITY AVE,
SUITE 300 RIVERSIDE, CA 92501
DIRECT: 619-744-0144|
MOBILE: 619-300-5087
ATTN: DAVIE COWAN
[email protected]
TRUE
NORTH DRC-A1.01
1□
|
9 mu--mu-n-u-u-m-u-i ।9
_____v
—--t—------1
V___
__
1-d-
E .
amQ
IE ad_____
i' r
0 _L_
4 ______
J
w__B
I--010T111"
-----mie LB$4-4—1—4-4-4
ls Qiell” Te,I1
6 ‘_____
I I—1 „4 •-----
i — —— t—i—i—|—t
1 -I
I
|
QJIILP gllllllllllgJTTTT0 dTTld
llllllllllllllllllilllllllll J mil lui) mil iLiiuinuirioIULALLILIILAIIIIIILL —zs
H 10, --=—------
2 r
A4 W hr A
J□
i i
l
T
i
T
i
i
i
i
i r
i
i
i
T
Ti i
11 ___ L
i| i
i i
T
—
।
i i
SF®F®F®F®HH
meE_________
i 1
-4-4—1—1—-t
-4-4—1 pi
1171001,
-----
---
T
l=ll==ll==ll-=ll==l-=l-=I:
iu-i -i i-i "I
-------
I
4-4—1
_____ |
■
I
i
i
1 E___
r
r
Uh
“Yelemqwegspeut
111111100000001/10101001
SmllluuummummuumQII**
6 s
0 m
“grmmgi
— —I
■
MI
le
Ju
E
=ll= Fll- =ll- =ll- =ll= =ll= =ll= "

5. Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scale

FOR REVIEW ONLY
Engineer
P.E. No. Date
EUGENE D. COWAN III
86803 6/16/2025
BYREVISIONSNo. DATE

LOCUST GATEWAY LOGISTICS CENTER

PREPARED FOR

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES, LLC

CACITY OF RIALTO
DATE

AS SHOWN

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED BY
SCALE

DRAWN BY

KHA PROJECT
401 B STREET, SUITE 600; SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-234-9411
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
© 2025 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

OF
195504001
6/16/2025
KPS
KPS
DC
3 This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

KIMLEY-HORN SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY COSTS

ARISING OF THE CLIENTS DECISION TO OBTAIN BIDS, ORDER

MATERIALS, OR PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION BEFORE KIMLEY-HORN HAS ISSUED FINAL, FULLY-APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL PRELIMINARY PLANS ARE SUBJECT

TO SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS UNTIL PLANS ARE FULLY APPROVED AND ALL PERMITS OBTAINED.

CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN - PPD
MA
MA
LD
MICHAEL P. MADSEN
5798PLA
Landscape
Architect:

OVERALL CONCEPT LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
8040 80 160
NORTH

LANDSCAPE AREA
SITE AREA 1,737,752.88 SF
SITE ACREAGE 39.89 ACRES
LANDSCAPE AREA 160,491 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA PERCENTAGE 9.20%

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
10% PARKING AREA TO BE LANDSCAPED
PARKING AREA = 57,195 SF
PARKING LANDSCAPE AREA = 12,142 SF

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA
PERCENTAGE = 21.2%

PARKING LOT TREES

PARKING LOT TREE REQUIREMENTS
1 TREE PROPOSED FOR EVERY 5 PARKING
SPACES
366 PARKING SPACES / 5 PER TREE = 74 TREES
PROVIDED = 74 TREES
Sheet List Table
Sheet Number Sheet Title
1 OVERALL CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN
2 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN
3 CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

N LOCUST AVE

N ALDER AVE

LOWELL ST

STONEHURST DR

W BOHNET AVE

N MAPLE AVE

W CASMALIA STSIERRA LAKE PKWY

PROJECT SITE
LANDSCAPE NOTE:

THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH

APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, FERTILIZERS AND APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS

BASED UPON A SOILS REPORT FROM AN AGRICULTURAL SUITABILITY SOIL SAMPLE TAKEN FROM THE SITE. DECOMPOSED GRANITE SHALL FILL IN BETWEEN SHRUBS TO SHIELD THE SOIL FROM THE SUN, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION, AND RUN-OFF. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED TO A 3" DEPTH TO HELP CONSERVE WATER, LOWER SOIL TEMPERATURE, AND REDUCE WEED GROWTH. THE SHRUBS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO GROW IN THEIR NATURAL FORMS. ALL LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF RIALTO MUNICIPAL CODE.

IRRIGATION NOTE:

AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY

FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT

WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM

SHALL BE ADEQUATELY FILTERED AND REGULATED PER THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED DESIGN PARAMETERS. ALL IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE GUIDELINES SET FORTH BY THE CITY OF RIALTO MUNICIPAL CODE.

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE

ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN.

MICHAEL P. MADSEN, LLA 5798
*BASED ON RIALTO OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.58.030

N LOCUST AVE
(PUBLIC)

LAKE PADDEN LANE
(PRIVATE)

W LOWELL ST
(PUBLIC)

PROPOSED BUILDING
± 664,859 SF
FF = 1622.5

N LAUREL AVE(PUBLIC)

PROJECT SITE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
S
12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
6''SS
S
6''SS
8''S8''S
S

SSS SS S

FM FM FM FM FM
W W W
S
S
S
S
6''SS
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW
10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
6''SS
S
6''SS
8''S8''S
S

SSS SS S

FM FM FM FM FM
W W W
S
S
S
S
6''SS
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW
10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

EVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSE
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W
8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
W

SSS SSSS
WW

WWWWWWW
|| || ||
SHEET 2 SHEET 3
SHEET 2
PARKING LOT TREES 65

KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / GOLDEN RAIN TREE

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE' / DRAKE LACEBARK ELM

ZELKOVA SERRATA 'GREEN VASE' / GREEN VASE JAPANESE ZELKOVA BROAD CANOPY TREES 31
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER` / SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST

PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD' / BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE 12,142 SF

DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI / LINDHEIMER'S MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS

RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'PINK LADY' / PINK LADY INDIAN HAWTHORN INERT MATERIAL 14,615 SF
1/2" - 1" APACHE BROWN CRUSHED ROCK / FROM FOUTHWEST BOULDER & STONE BUFFER/SCREENING SHRUBS 73,253 SF

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH

FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'ED HOLM' / ED HOLM COFFEEBERRY

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON

RHUS OVATA / SUGAR BUSH

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS / ROSEMARY

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA / COAST ROSEMARY
ACCENT SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS 29,597 SF

AGAVE ATTENUATA 'SUPER NOVA' / SUPER NOVA FOXTAIL AGAVE

CASSIA PHYLLODINEA / SILVERY CASSIA

HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA

LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS SAGE

MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS

SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE

SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE GROUNDCOVERS 20,308 SF
BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'TWIN PEAKS #2' / TWIN PEAKS #2 COYOTE BRUSH

LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA

MYOPORUM X 'PUTAH CREEK' / PUTAH CREEK MYOPRORUM

CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE
Figure 3-10: Conceptual Landscape Plan
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.

FOR REVIEW ONLY
Engineer
P.E. No. Date
EUGENE D. COWAN III
86803 6/16/2025
BYREVISIONSNo. DATE

LOCUST GATEWAY LOGISTICS CENTER

PREPARED FOR

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES, LLC

CACITY OF RIALTO
DATE

AS SHOWN

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED BY
SCALE

DRAWN BY

KHA PROJECT
401 B STREET, SUITE 600; SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-234-9411
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
© 2025 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

KIMLEY-HORN SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY COSTS

ARISING OF THE CLIENTS DECISION TO OBTAIN BIDS, ORDER

MATERIALS, OR PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION BEFORE KIMLEY-HORN HAS ISSUED FINAL, FULLY-APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL PRELIMINARY PLANS ARE SUBJECT

TO SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS UNTIL PLANS ARE FULLY APPROVED AND ALL PERMITS OBTAINED.

CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN - PPD
MA
MA
LD
MICHAEL P. MADSEN
5798PLA
Landscape
Architect:

OVERALL CONCEPT LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
8040 80 160
NORTH

LANDSCAPE AREA
SITE AREA 1,737,752.88 SF
SITE ACREAGE 39.89 ACRES
LANDSCAPE AREA 160,491 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA PERCENTAGE 9.20%

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
10% PARKING AREA TO BE LANDSCAPED
PARKING AREA = 57,195 SF
PARKING LANDSCAPE AREA = 12,142 SF

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA
PERCENTAGE = 21.2%

PARKING LOT TREES

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

N LOCUST AVE

N ALDER AVE

LOWELL ST

STONEHURST DR

W BOHNET AVE

N MAPLE AVE

W CASMALIA STSIERRA LAKE PKWY

PROJECT SITE
LANDSCAPE NOTE:

THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH

APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, FERTILIZERS AND APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS

IRRIGATION NOTE:

AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY

FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT

WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE

ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN.

MICHAEL P. MADSEN, LLA 5798
*BASED ON RIALTO OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.58.030

N LOCUST AVE
(PUBLIC)

LAKE PADDEN LANE
(PRIVATE)

W LOWELL ST
(PUBLIC)

PROPOSED BUILDING
± 664,859 SF
FF = 1622.5

N LAUREL AVE(PUBLIC)

PROJECT SITE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
S
12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
6''SS
S
6''SS
8''S8''S
S

SSS SS S

FM FM FM FM FM
W W W
S
S
S
S
6''SS
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW
10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W
8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
W

SSS SSSS
WW

WWWWWWW
|| || ||
SHEET 2 SHEET 3
SHEET 2
PARKING LOT TREES 65

KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / GOLDEN RAIN TREE

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE' / DRAKE LACEBARK ELM

ZELKOVA SERRATA 'GREEN VASE' / GREEN VASE JAPANESE ZELKOVA BROAD CANOPY TREES 31
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER` / SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST

PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD' / BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE 12,142 SF

DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI / LINDHEIMER'S MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS

RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'PINK LADY' / PINK LADY INDIAN HAWTHORN INERT MATERIAL 14,615 SF
1/2" - 1" APACHE BROWN CRUSHED ROCK / FROM FOUTHWEST BOULDER & STONE BUFFER/SCREENING SHRUBS 73,253 SF

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH

FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'ED HOLM' / ED HOLM COFFEEBERRY

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON

RHUS OVATA / SUGAR BUSH

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS / ROSEMARY

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA / COAST ROSEMARY
ACCENT SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS 29,597 SF

AGAVE ATTENUATA 'SUPER NOVA' / SUPER NOVA FOXTAIL AGAVE

CASSIA PHYLLODINEA / SILVERY CASSIA

HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA

LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS SAGE

MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS

SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE

SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE GROUNDCOVERS 20,308 SF
BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'TWIN PEAKS #2' / TWIN PEAKS #2 COYOTE BRUSH

LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA

MYOPORUM X 'PUTAH CREEK' / PUTAH CREEK MYOPRORUM

CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE

FOR REVIEW ONLY
Engineer
P.E. No. Date
EUGENE D. COWAN III
86803 6/16/2025
BYREVISIONSNo. DATE

LOCUST GATEWAY LOGISTICS CENTER

PREPARED FOR

BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES, LLC

CACITY OF RIALTO
DATE

AS SHOWN

SHEET NUMBER

CHECKED BY
SCALE

DRAWN BY

KHA PROJECT
401 B STREET, SUITE 600; SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-234-9411
WWW.KIMLEY-HORN.COM
© 2025 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

KIMLEY-HORN SHALL HAVE NO LIABILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ANY COSTS

ARISING OF THE CLIENTS DECISION TO OBTAIN BIDS, ORDER

MATERIALS, OR PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION BEFORE KIMLEY-HORN HAS ISSUED FINAL, FULLY-APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS. THE

CLIENT ACKNOWLEDGES THAT ALL PRELIMINARY PLANS ARE SUBJECT

TO SUBSTANTIAL REVISIONS UNTIL PLANS ARE FULLY APPROVED AND ALL PERMITS OBTAINED.

CONCEPT LANDSCAPE PLAN - PPD
MA
MA
LD
MICHAEL P. MADSEN
5798PLA
Landscape
Architect:

OVERALL CONCEPT LANDSCAPE
PLAN
1 0

GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
8040 80 160
NORTH

LANDSCAPE AREA
SITE AREA 1,737,752.88 SF
SITE ACREAGE 39.89 ACRES
LANDSCAPE AREA 160,491 SF
LANDSCAPE AREA PERCENTAGE 9.20%

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE

PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS
10% PARKING AREA TO BE LANDSCAPED
PARKING AREA = 57,195 SF
PARKING LANDSCAPE AREA = 12,142 SF

PROVIDED LANDSCAPE AREA
PERCENTAGE = 21.2%

PARKING LOT TREES

VICINITY MAP

NOT TO SCALE

N LOCUST AVE

N ALDER AVE

LOWELL ST

STONEHURST DR

W BOHNET AVE

N MAPLE AVE

W CASMALIA STSIERRA LAKE PKWY

PROJECT SITE
LANDSCAPE NOTE:

THE SELECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL IS BASED ON CLIMATIC, AESTHETIC, AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS. ALL PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE PREPARED WITH

APPROPRIATE SOIL AMENDMENTS, FERTILIZERS AND APPROPRIATE SUPPLEMENTS

IRRIGATION NOTE:

AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE INSTALLED TO PROVIDE 100% COVERAGE FOR ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE WATER SUPPLY

FOR THIS SITE IS A POTABLE WATER CONNECTION AND A DEDICATED IRRIGATION METER WILL BE PROVIDED. LOW VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE SUFFICIENT

WATER FOR PLANT GROWTH WITH NO WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER CONTROLLERS, AND OTHER NECESSARY IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL POINT SOURCE SYSTEM

I HAVE COMPLIED WITH THE CRITERIA OF THE WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE

ORDINANCE AND APPLIED THEM FOR THE EFFICIENT USE OF WATER IN THE LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION DESIGN PLAN.

MICHAEL P. MADSEN, LLA 5798
*BASED ON RIALTO OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DESIGN STANDARDS CHAPTER 18.58.030

N LOCUST AVE
(PUBLIC)

LAKE PADDEN LANE
(PRIVATE)

W LOWELL ST
(PUBLIC)

PROPOSED BUILDING
± 664,859 SF
FF = 1622.5

N LAUREL AVE(PUBLIC)

PROJECT SITE

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
S
12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W 12''W
6''SS
S
6''SS
8''S8''S
S

SSS SS S

FM FM FM FM FM
W W W
S
S
S
S
6''SS
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW
10''FW
10''FW
10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW 10''FW

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

XXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X X X
X

X X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X

X X X X X X
VANVAN
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
SS
12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W12''W
8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W 8''W

SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
W

SSS SSSS
WW

WWWWWWW
|| || ||
SHEET 2 SHEET 3
SHEET 2
PARKING LOT TREES 65

KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA / GOLDEN RAIN TREE

ULMUS PARVIFOLIA 'DRAKE' / DRAKE LACEBARK ELM

ZELKOVA SERRATA 'GREEN VASE' / GREEN VASE JAPANESE ZELKOVA BROAD CANOPY TREES 31
GLEDITSIA TRIACANTHOS INERMIS `SHADEMASTER` / SHADEMASTER HONEY LOCUST

PLATANUS X ACERIFOLIA 'BLOODGOOD' / BLOODGOOD LONDON PLANE TREE

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA / COAST LIVE OAK
PARKING LOT LANDSCAPE 12,142 SF

DIETES BICOLOR / FORTNIGHT LILY

MUHLENBERGIA DUBIA / PINE MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA LINDHEIMERI / LINDHEIMER'S MUHLY

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS / DEER GRASS

RHAPHIOLEPIS INDICA 'PINK LADY' / PINK LADY INDIAN HAWTHORN INERT MATERIAL 14,615 SF
1/2" - 1" APACHE BROWN CRUSHED ROCK / FROM FOUTHWEST BOULDER & STONE BUFFER/SCREENING SHRUBS 73,253 SF

CALLISTEMON VIMINALIS 'LITTLE JOHN' / LITTLE JOHN WEEPING BOTTLEBRUSH

FRANGULA CALIFORNICA 'ED HOLM' / ED HOLM COFFEEBERRY

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA / TOYON

RHUS OVATA / SUGAR BUSH

ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS / ROSEMARY

WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA / COAST ROSEMARY
ACCENT SHRUBS AND PERENNIALS 29,597 SF

AGAVE ATTENUATA 'SUPER NOVA' / SUPER NOVA FOXTAIL AGAVE

CASSIA PHYLLODINEA / SILVERY CASSIA

HESPERALOE PARVIFLORA / RED YUCCA

LEUCOPHYLLUM FRUTESCENS / TEXAS SAGE

MUHLENBERGIA CAPILLARIS / PINK MUHLY GRASS

SALVIA GREGGII / AUTUMN SAGE

SALVIA LEUCANTHA 'SANTA BARBARA' / SANTA BARBARA MEXICAN BUSH SAGE GROUNDCOVERS 20,308 SF
BACCHARIS PILULARIS 'TWIN PEAKS #2' / TWIN PEAKS #2 COYOTE BRUSH

LANTANA X 'NEW GOLD' / NEW GOLD LANTANA

MYOPORUM X 'PUTAH CREEK' / PUTAH CREEK MYOPRORUM

CONCEPT PLANT SCHEDULE
=--- A—1. .BTill lift IIIIII 10
I = 111H I11 II 1111H11I
rI
jliilillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll ||IIIII
I
|
8 ITIII-7
6___
e
► -
1 €
8•—•
H- --i =====
€i
"""
6 8
e
I
—
€
aa
‘2
40 I
0010
(N,
n i
P=
H
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-18

3.6.3 Infrastructure and Off-Site Improvements
Roadway Improvements
Off-site improvements include street and sidewalk improvements to Lowell Street and Locust Avenue along the project site frontage and restriping. 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 a 6 - foot-wide sidewalk, 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 a 6-foot-wide sidewalk, curb and gutter, and full-width pavement replacement. There are no proposed roadway improvements associated with Lake Padden Lane.

Water Service
West Valley Water District would provide domestic water to the project site from an existing municipal water main that varies from 8 inches to 10 inches in Lowell Street. For the Project’s proposed 12 -inch water connection to the water main in Lowell Street, the Project would either connect to the existing municipal water main or replace of a portion of the existing water main from a 10 -inch to a 12-inch municipal water main connection. West Valley Water District would determine if the existing water line requires replacement during final engineering. Reconstruction or replacement of the water line would occur within the same location both horizontally and vertically in Lowell Street. For the Project’s second proposed 12-inch water connection, the 12-inch water main in Locust Avenue would be used. The Project proposes water connections for domestic water, fire protection, and landscape irrigation.

Drainage and Water Quality Treatment
The developer would be responsible for drainage and water quality treatment before discharging into the City's existing storm drainage infrastructure located in Locust Avenue. The Project proposes a network of underground piping and conveyance to three on-site underground infiltration basins. The proposed basins would serve as both a water quality best management practice as well as an underground storage facility to detain and mitigate the peak flow rate during storm events. Catch basins located throughout the project site would capture storm flows and route flows toward underground storm basins for treatment and infiltration. The largest underground storage facility would be located underneath the truck trailer parking lot. Overflows would be routed from the underground basin to south east corner of the project site, near Locust Avenue.

Wastewater Collection and Disposal
The City has an existing sanitary sewer mainline located in Lowell Street. The Project proposes a sewer service connection to the existing sanitary sewer mainline. The Project would extend a point of connection from the existing sewer main in Lowell Street.

Dry Utilities and Services
Along the project site frontage on Lowell Street, there are existing utilities that contain electrical power, communications, and cable television lines. There is an existing underground transformer along Lowell Street. Any future dry utilities would be located underground. The Project also proposes, in coordination with Southern California Edison (SCE), to underground the existing overhead utilities located along the project site frontage on the west side of Locust Avenue.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-19

3.7 CONSTRUCTION PHASING
For the purpose of this CEQA analysis, Project construction is expected to commence in 2025 with a construction duration of approximately 15 months and would be completed in one phase. Approximately 270,000 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 300, 000 cy of fil l are anticipated for a net fill (imported soil) of 30,000 cy.

3.8 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15121, an EIR is primarily an informational document intended to inform the public agency decision -makers and the general public of the potentially significant environmental effects of a project. Prior to taking action on the proposed Project, the City must consider the information in this EIR and certify the Final EIR. This EIR is intended to provide decision-makers of the City, other public agencies, and members of the public with the relevant environmental information needed in considering the Project.

Anticipated project-related discretionary and ministerial approvals, and permits include, but are not limited to the following, to implement the Project addressed in this EIR:
 Certification of the Locust Gateway Project Final Environmental Impact Report (Environmental Assessment Review No. 2023-0051): Environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act is required for the proposed Project.
 Precise Plan of Design (PPD) (PPD 2023 -0041): Site development of one 664,859-sf warehouse building and associated improvements including loading area, truck parking, paving, screening, landscaping, lighting, stormwater retention on a single parcel (0239-19-223) of approximately 40 acres.
 Conditional Development Permit (CDP 2023-0032): Conditional Development Permit for the development of a warehouse, which is a conditionally permitted use in industrial zones within the City of Rialto.
 Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) (TPM 2023-0006): To create one parcel and one lettered lot, and to depict the required City right-of-way dedication for Lowell Street, vacations, and easements. The proposed parcel reconfiguration is shown on Figure 3-11: Tentative Parcel Map.  Development Agreement (DA) (DA 2024-0002)
In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project may be subject to other discretionary and ministerial permits and approvals that may be necessary, including, but not limited to, site development permits, grading permits, sign permits, and building permits.

3.9 RESPONSIBLE AND TRUSTEE AGENCIES
 Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB): Issuance of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Construction General Permit.  California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Issuance of an Incidental Take Permit for the Crotch’s bumble bee.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Project Description

City of Rialto 3-20

3.10 REFERENCES
City of Rialto. (Sept 2023). City of Rialto General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023-Land-Use-Element?bidId=.

Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

City of Rialto. (2013). Official Zoning Map. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning-Map ---July-2013. Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

City of Rialto. ( 1997). Rialto Airport Specific Plan Land Use Map. Retrieved from https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/568/Rialto-Airport-Specific-Plan---Zoning- Map-PDF. Accessed Aug 19, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Not to sNot to scacaleleNot to scale Figure 3-11: Tentative Parcel Map
© 2025 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 B STREET, SUITE 600; SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-234-9411
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20809
195504001
of 3

KHA PROJECT
SHEET NO.
6/11/2025
DATE

CHECKED BY
EDC

DRAWN BY
KPS

LOCUST GATEWAY

LOGISTIC CENTERCITY OF RIALTO, CA
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200

SITE INFORMATION

PROPOSED PARCEL SUMMARY ACRES
PARCEL 1 39.91

PROPOSED BUILDING SUMMARY SF
BUILDING 664,859

LETTERED LOTS ACRES
LOT A - R/W DEDICATION 0.109

PROPOSED CONDITION
3 XX
XXX
XX
XX
X
X X X
X X X
>>>>
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > X X X
EVSE
EV
Capable

EVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSE
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Ca
pa
ble
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Ca
pab
le
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
X
X X X
X X
X
X X X
X X
X X

X X X X X
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
VANVAN
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
S00°33'34"E 1329.60'
S00°30'23"E 610.79'
N89°40'03"E 1837.64'
N00°30'23"W 329.21'
N89°40'03"E 1278.92'
N00°31'19"W 1330.06'
N89°42'39"E 660.78'
N00°30'23"W 329.11'
N89°40'13"E 0.84'
N89°40'03"E 11.00'
N00°19'57"W 10.00'
S44°23'51"E 54.81'
S00°30'23"E 147.58'
N89°40'03"E 970.00' N89°40'03"E 1015.38'
N00°30'23"W 351.61'
R=60.00'
L=20.51'
Δ=19°35'09"
N69°54'28"E 100.47'
S28°11'38"W 14.58'
S00°30'23"E 74.34'
S29°12'25"E 14.58'
R=70.00' L=23.93' Δ=19°35'09"

98.73'
N69°54'28"E
N89°40'03"E 406.38'
N61°26'27"E 16.91'S62°06'21"E 16.91' S66°25'35"E 19.74' N65°09'02"E 19.28' N89°40'03"E 444.87'N89°40'03"E 708.38' 86.62' N89°40'03"E

75.29'
N89°40'03"E

LOWELL STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)

LOCUST AVENUE
(PUBLIC STREET)

LAKE PADDEN LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)
PARCEL 1

39.91AC

PROPOSED BUILDING
SF = 664,859
LOT A

LAUREL STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
PL
PL
PL
PL
R/W
R/W

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-05

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-011-01

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-01

REAL PROP ACQ AND

DEVELOPMENT CO LLC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-031-01

TUBULAR STEEL INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-041-02

TUBULAR STEEL INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-041-03
PROLOGIS L.P.

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-051-02

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

22.5'

45.0'

44.0' 44.0'

88.0'11.0' DEDICATION

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-20

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-21

MCELROY HOLDINGS LLC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-22

SHAH BHADRESH J TRUST
07/20/23

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-11

KTI INCORPORATED

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-12

LOCUST SPRINGS LLC

18.0'

PROPOSED EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS,

SIDEWALK, AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES TO

THE CITY OF RIALTO

10.0'

7.0'
Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025.Source: Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., 2025. © 2025 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
401 B STREET, SUITE 600; SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
PHONE: 619-234-9411
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 20809
195504001
of 3

KHA PROJECT
SHEET NO.
6/11/2025
DATE

CHECKED BY
EDC

DRAWN BY
KPS

LOCUST GATEWAY

LOGISTIC CENTERCITY OF RIALTO, CA
NORTH
0 GRAPHIC SCALE IN FEET
50 100 200

SITE INFORMATION

PROPOSED PARCEL SUMMARY ACRES
PARCEL 1 39.91

PROPOSED BUILDING SUMMARY SF
BUILDING 664,859

LETTERED LOTS ACRES
LOT A - R/W DEDICATION 0.109

EVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSEEVSE
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Ca
pa
ble
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
EV
Capable
X
X X X
X X
X
X X X
X X
X X

X X X X X
>>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
VANVAN
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
PUMP
HOUSE
60K BREAK
TANK
EV

CHARGING
ONLY
EV

98.73'
N69°54'28"E
N89°40'03"E 406.38'
N61°26'27"E 16.91'S62°06'21"E 16.91' S66°25'35"E 19.74' N65°09'02"E 19.28' N89°40'03"E 444.87'N89°40'03"E 708.38' 86.62' N89°40'03"E

75.29'
N89°40'03"E

LOWELL STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)

LOCUST AVENUE
(PUBLIC STREET)

LAKE PADDEN LANE
(PRIVATE STREET)
PARCEL 1

39.91AC

PROPOSED BUILDING
SF = 664,859
LOT A

LAUREL STREET
(PUBLIC STREET)
PL
PL
PL
PL
R/W
R/W

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-05

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-011-01

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-01

REAL PROP ACQ AND

DEVELOPMENT CO LLC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-031-01

TUBULAR STEEL INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-041-02

TUBULAR STEEL INC

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-041-03
PROLOGIS L.P.

NOT A PART
APN: 1133-051-02

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

22.5'

45.0'

44.0' 44.0'

88.0'11.0' DEDICATION

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-20

KEN THOMPSON INC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-21

MCELROY HOLDINGS LLC

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-22

SHAH BHADRESH J TRUST
07/20/23

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-11

KTI INCORPORATED

NOT A PART
APN: 0239-192-12

LOCUST SPRINGS LLC

18.0'

PROPOSED EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC ACCESS,

SIDEWALK, AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES TO

THE CITY OF RIALTO

10.0'

7.0'
“IT TITUTT - _ ___
1 5 I
"_LD I
2 @ [,
J
IZ.
« 2 L i-
JIII mm —E==2oly
JT
f
111=C
1 TTHTIIIITF777717777U/77/777777TU777777//7/T77777777U7/17777770717/1—TT7777117TU7111711770711111111071111111TU71177777TU777177117U71111111707117 — _ 7 ======4
(GTE
I
i
1 10
41 1 E I
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-1

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.0.1 INTRODUCTION
Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of this EIR provide an impact analysis for those environmental impact categories where it was determined that the proposed Project could result in “potentially significant impacts.” Each topical EIR section includes the following information: summary of applicable federal, State, and local regulations; description of the existing environmental setting; identification of thresholds of significance; analysis of potential Project effec ts; identification of mitigation to reduce the identified significant impacts; and identification of the level of significance of impacts after mitigation, including any unavoidable significant adverse impacts. The impact analysis is formatted to analyze the potential Project impacts related to each identified threshold of significance set forth in Sections 4.1 through 4.17.

4.0.2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This section discusses the potential environmental impacts that would result with implementation of the proposed Project. The following environmental topics are evaluated in Sections 4.1 through 4.17 of this EIR:
▪ Section 4.1: Aesthetics ▪ Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality ▪ Section 4.2: Air Quality ▪ Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning ▪ Section 4.3: Biological Resources ▪ Section 4.11: Mineral Resources ▪ Section 4.4: Cultural Resources ▪ Section 4.12: Noise ▪ Section 4.5: Energy ▪ Section 4.13: Population and Housing ▪ Section 4.6: Geology and Soils ▪ Section 4.14: Public Services ▪ Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions ▪ Section 4.15: Transportation ▪ Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
▪ Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources
▪ Section 4.17: Utilities and Service
Systems
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128, “An EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.” The City determined that the proposed Project would have no impact on the following CEQA environmental topics: Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Recreation, and Wildfires. As such, these topics are not addressed in the EIR.

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-2

4.0.4 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
As described in Section 2: Introduction, this EIR has been prepared as a Project EIR in accordance with Section 15161 of the CEQA Guidelines. This Project EIR is intended to serve as the primary environmental document for all future discretionary actions associated with implementation of the proposed Project.

The analysis contained within this Project EIR provides environmental information to responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and other public agencies which may be required to grant approvals and permits or coordinate with the City of Rialto as part of the Project’s implementation.

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

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

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-3
potentially significant impacts to unknown resources can be mitigated to less than significant with monitoring during ground disturbing construction activities. ▪ Significant and Unavoidable : This determination is made for a potentially significant impact where there is no feasible mitigation available or the recommended mitigation measures are not sufficient enough to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. For example, all feasible mitigation would be required but the significance criteria would still be exceeded or the lead agency does not have the authority to mandate the implementation of the measure. To approve a project with unavoidable significant impacts, the lead agency must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In adopting such a statement, the lead ag ency is required to balance the benefits of a project against its unavoidable environmental impacts in determining whether to approve the project. If a project’s benefits are found to outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effe cts may be considered “acceptable” ( CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a)).

4.4.3 Mitigation
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15002, 15021, and 15126.4, mitigation measures are required (as feasible) when significant impacts are identified. If a mitigation measure itself would cause a significant impact, in addition to the impact caused by a project, that impact is also discussed, although at a lesser level of detail than a project impact (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 1 5126.4 ( a)(1)(D)). “Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other legally -binding instruments” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 1 5126.4(a)(2)), and “mitigation measures must be consistent with all applicable constitutional requirements” (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(4)).

4.0.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

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

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

The cumulative analysis must be in sufficient detail to be useful in deciding whether, or how, to alter the Project to lessen cumulative impacts.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Draft Environmental Impact Report Environmental Impact Analysis

City of Rialto 4-4
There are two commonly used approaches for establishing the cumulative impact setting or scenario. One approach is to use a “list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts” (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(A)). The other is to use a “summary of projections contained in an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan or related planning document, that describes or evaluates conditions contributing to the cumulative effect” (CEQA Guidelines § 15130(b)(1)(B)). This Draft EIR uses the summary approach of projections based on the buildout assumptions contained in the 2010 General Plan Update and Related Zoning Ordinance Amendments EIR (SCH No. 2008071100).

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-1

4.1 AESTHETICS

4.1.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies and analyzes the scenic vistas, visual resources, and aesthetic qualities present on and near the project site while assessing the potential impact the proposed Project could have on those resources. The pre-development conditions of the project site and surrounding area were used as the baseline to compare potential impacts associated with the Project. Applicable regulations provide further context regarding the area’s visual character.

4.1.2 Visual Resource Terminology and Concepts
When viewing the same landscape, people may have different responses to that landscape and any proposed visual changes, based upon their values, familiarity, concerns, or expectations for that landscape and its scenic quality. Because each person’s attachment to and value for a landscape is unique, visual changes to that landscape affect viewers differently. However, generalizations can be made about viewer sensitivity to scenic quality and visual changes. Recreational users (e.g., hikers, equestrians, tourists, and people driving for pleasure) are expected to have a high concern for scenery and landscape character.

People commuting daily through the same landscape generally have a moderate concern for scenery, while people working at industrial sites genera lly have a lower concern for scenic quality or changes to existing landscape character. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is affected by the viewing distances at which it is seen, such as close-up or far away. The visual sensitivity of a landscape is also affected by the travel speed at which a person is viewing the landscape (e.g., high speeds on a highway, low speeds on a hiking trail, or stationary at a residence). Visual resources, as they relate to tribal cultural resources, include tribal cultural landscapes that may be defined temporally (with regard to time) or geographically (such as by natural features such as a stream, boulder, or outcrop) and through oral traditions and cultural practices. For more information on tribal cultural resources, see Section 4.16: Tribal Cultural Resources, of this EIR.

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

The following terms and concepts are used in the discussion below to describe and assess the aesthetic setting and potential Project impacts.

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

1 City of Rialto, General Plan, p age 39, 2010.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-2
Scenic Resources. Typical examples of natural scenic resources include rock outcroppings, trees, and prominent ridgelines, but s cenic resources can occur naturally or be man -made, such as historic or architecturally distinctive buildings.

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

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

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

Viewshed. A project’s viewshed is the surrounding geographic area from which the project is likely to be seen, based on topography, atmospheric conditions, land use patterns, and roadway orientations. “Project viewshed” is used to describe the area surrounding a project site where a person standing on the ground or driving a vehicle can view a project site.

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

Light and Glare. Sources of artificial light that operate during evening and nighttime hours may include streetlights, illuminated signage, vehicle headlights, and other point sources. Uses, such as residences and hotels, are considered light-sensitive since they are typically occupied by persons who have an expectation of darkness and privacy during evening hours and who can be disturbed by bright light sources.

Glare is primarily a daytime occurrence caused by the reflection of sunlight or artificial light from highly polished surfaces, such as window glass or reflective materials, and, to a lesser degree, from broad expanses of light-colored surfaces. Glare can also be produced during evening and nighttime hours by artificial light directed toward a light-sensitive land use. Activities, such as driving, and land uses, such as parks and residences, are considered glare sensitive as the presence of glare could interfere with vision and/or result in an irritant to these activities/uses.

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

Caltrans defines a scenic highway as any freeway, h ighway, road, or other public right -of-way that traverses an area of exceptional scenic quality. Caltrans designates a scenic highway by evaluating how

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-3
much of the natural landscape a traveler sees and the extent to which visual intrusions degrade the scenic corridor.

California Building Standards Code
The 20 22 California Building Code (CBC), Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), is administered by the California Building Standards Commission. The CBC, as amended and adopted by each local jurisdiction, regulates the design of all new buildings within the State of California. Part 6 of Title 24 contains standards for outdoor lighting that are intended to improve energy efficiency and reduce light pollution and glare by regulating light power and brightness, shielding, and sensor controls. The 2022 CBC went into effect on January 1, 2023.

Regional and Local Regulations
Rialto General Plan
General Plan Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply, 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 2-15 Protect scenic vistas and scenic resources.

Policy 2-15.1 Protect views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

Policy 2-15.2 Protect views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains, Moreno Valley, and Riverside by ensuring that building heights are consistent with the scale of surrounding, existing development.

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

Goal 2-17 Improve the architectural and design quality of development in Rialto.

Policy 2-17.1 Require new development and construction to exhibit a high level of quality architectural design to emphasize community uniqueness, individuality, and historical references.

Policy 2-17.5 Require developers to vary building and parking setbacks along the streetscape to create visual interest.

Policy 2-17.6 Require architectural treatments on all façades facing rights-of-way, public streets, and alleys, including windows, doors, architectural details, and landscape treatment.

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 2-23.2 Encourage architecture that disaggregates massive buildings into smaller parts with greater human scale.

Policy 2-23.8 Insist that full architectural treatments and details be provided on all facades visible to the street of development projects.

Goal 2-24 Minimize the visual impact of parking lots.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-4
Policy 2-24.1 Require mature trees and landscaping in off-street parking areas to make them more inviting and aesthetically appealing, and to provide sufficient shading to reduce heat.

Policy 2-24.2 Encourage the inclusion of textured paving along pedestrian walkways and under building canopies.

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 m any of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010.

Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific 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. Although the Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to aesthetics, its Development and Design Guidelines identify standards for site design elements that aim to enhance the visual quality of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area’s streetscapes and consistency in signage, lighting, and design. For projects within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area, the policies and standards in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan take precedence over Rialto Municipal Code (Municipal Code) Title 18 - Zoning. The project site is zoned General Manufacturing (I-GM) in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 : Zoning. Title 18 of the Municipal Code functions as the City’s Zoning Ordinance, which identifies the permitted land uses on all parcels in the City through assigned land use designations and associated land use regulations and development standards. The purpose of Title 18 is also to promote the consistent aesthetic character of the City and balance that character with continued development. Title 18 also contains provisions to manage light and glare levels in the City. In coordination with the General Plan and the Specific Plan, Title 18 presents the following guidelines to promote appropriate land use and City design:
 lessen congestion in the streets;
 secure safety from fire, panic, and other dangers;
 promote health and the general welfare;
 provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land;  avoid undue concentration of population; and
 facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public requirements.

Rialto Municipal Code Section 18.61.140: Lighting. This section of the Municipal Code regulates lighting as part of the overall site and building design and requires all exterior lighting to be designed to avoid spillover glare beyond the site boundaries.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-5

4.1.4 Existing Conditions
The City of Rialto is largely urbanized and bordered by other developed areas; the setting surrounding the project site is comprised of primarily industrial uses, with an adjacent vacant parcel east of Locust Avenue, and r esidential land uses approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue. The approximately 40-acre project site is primarily vacant with remnants of a World War II-era bunker structure and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site. The majority of the site is covered with non-native grassland. On-site elevations range from approximately 1,612 to 1,649 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from northwest to southeast on an approximately 2 to 9 percent grade. There are no sidewalks or pedestrian facilities along the project site frontage.

Scenic Vistas
The General Plan identifies the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains as scenic vistas, views of which are visible from certain parts of the City . The San Gabriel Mountains are approximately 3.5 miles northwest of the project site and the San Bernardino Mountains are approximately 8 miles east of the project site. The San Gabriel Mountains and San Bernardino Mountains are both visible from the project site in the distance. The Initial Study for the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR noted that there were no scenic vistas or scenic highways within the Specific Plan area.

Scenic Resources
The General Plan identifies e xamples of s cenic resources including rock outcroppings, trees, and prominent ridgelines as well as architecturally distinctive or historic buildings. The General Plan identifies Box Spring Mountains, La Loma and Jurupa Hills, Lytle Creek, and the Santa Ana River as scenic resources.

Lytle Creek is approximately 1 .4 miles northeast of the project site and the Santa Ana River is approximately 8 miles southeast of the project site. Neither resource is visible from the project site given the relatively flat topography. Box Spring Mountains are approximately 14 miles southeast of the project site and views of these mountains are obscured by intervening development. The La Loma Hills are approximately 9 miles southeast of the project site and the Jurupa Hills are approximately 8 miles southwest of the project site. Distant partially obscured views are provided from the project site due to intervening development. While the project site is primarily vacant, it has been heavily disturbed from past use, and no natural scenic resources such as rock outcroppings are present on, or immediately near, the project site.

Scenic Corridors
The project site is not located along a State Scenic Highway. The nearest officially designated State Scenic Highway segment is State Route 38 (Rim of the World Scenic Byway), located approximately 33 miles east of the project site.2 The designated scenic and eligible State Scenic Highway segments are not visible from the project site, and the project site is not visible from the designated scenic and eligible State Scenic Highway segments.

Light and Glare
Light and glare in the project site area are typical of that found in urban environments. Sources of light and potential glare in the area include adjacent industrial uses as well as lighting along Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. Stationary source lighting in the area is generated from building interiors and exterior

2 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 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-6
sources ( e.g., building illumination, security lighting, parking lot lighting, and landscape lighting) associated with industrial uses adjacent to the project site. The area is also influenced by light and glare from vehicle headlights, streetlights, and other sources that are present throughout the City. The project site is currently vacant and undeveloped and does not contain any lighting or sources of potential glare.

4.1.5 Methodology
The analysis of visual quality of the proposed Project is based on the land use plan and conceptual landscape plan, as described in Section 3.0 : Project Description. The assessment of aesthetic/visual changes is based on field reconnaissance ; the evaluation of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan Design Guidelines (Chapter IV), and other regulatory requirements ; and the evaluation of the proposed site development in comparison to existing conditions. Aesthetics may be defined as visual qualities within a given field of view and may include such considerations as size, shape, color, contextual and general composition, and the relationships between these elements; the potential aesthetic impacts of a project can be evaluated by considering such factors as scale and mass, landscaping, and setbacks.

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

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

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

4.1.6 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for aesthetic impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to aesthetics if it would:
 Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
 In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, the project has a significant environmental impact if it would conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
 Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-7
 Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State Scenic Highway? The project site is not adjacent to, nor can it be viewed from a designated State scenic highway. 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.3

4.1.7 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.1-1: Would the Project have a substantial effect on a scenic vista? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

The project site is located on vacant land with a General Plan land use designation of General Industrial and zoning of Rialto Airport Specific Plan. The project site has a Rialto Airport Specific Plan Designation of General Manufacturing (I-GM). The project site is located adjacent to properties with I-GM and Planned Industrial Development (I -PID) designations and are developed with industrial, warehouse, and office uses. The project site is not located within an area designated by the City as a scenic vista. The Initial Study for the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR noted that there were no scenic vistas or scenic highways within the Specific Plan area.

Scenic vistas can be defined as views or vistas generally panoramic in nature and identified as viewpoints or vistas (e.g., formal turn -outs along roadways) or as identified in planning documents. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista or view would occur where the majority of an existing public view would be blocked or substantially interrupted.

As previously identified, from the project site, there are distant views of scenic vistas and resources designated by the City, including the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, as well as the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, and Box Spring Mountains. However, views of these resources from the project site are already limited and obstructed due to intervening development including warehouses , office, and industrial uses. Views of these resources from the area surrounding the project site are already limit ed and interrupted. Therefore, project development would not substantially alter existing views of scenic resources from the project site.

General Plan Policy 2-15.1 and Policy 2-15.2 encourage the protection of scenic resources and views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, and the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, and Box Spring Mountains by limiting building heights. The proposed Project would have a maximum building height of 55 feet from finished grade . This is below the 75-foot maximum height allowed within the I-GM designation. The Applicant also proposes a setback of approximately 237 feet from the existing property line along Lowell Street to the warehouse, which is substantially more than the required minimum 25 - foot setback from the front property line as identified in Table 9 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. In compliance with the Rialto General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the Project would minimize the potential for implementation to substantially block views by proposing a larger front setback and lower building height. Additionally, as described above, existing public views of scenic vistas and resources from the project site are distant and partially obstructed. T herefore, upon compliance with the City’s

3 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 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-8
design standards and compared to existing conditions, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

The Project would be constructed in a predominately urban area of the City which is planned for development as set forth in the General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. The project site has a Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM. Therefore, this discussion evaluates whether the Project would conflict with applicable zoning, land use designations, and other regulations governing scenic quality.

The Project would be subject to the development regulations in Section V of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, which serve as the controlling mechanism for development within the Specific Plan. Per the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, projects designated I-GM are required to provide a 20-foot average minimum width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways. Figure 3 -10: Conceptual Landscape Plan depicts the proposed landscape plan (see Section 3.0: Project Description). The Project would provide 20- foot-wide landscape buffers along the project site frontage of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street. A smaller landscape buffer would be provided along the western project boundary along Lake Padden Lane, which is not a public roadway. The Project would also provide landscaping in parking lot areas and near the driveway entries. The Project would also be subject to compliance with the development standards in Municipal Code Sections 18.61.250 and 18.61.270, which include requirements for plants, landscape maintenance, and landscape buffers. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan landscape requirements are greater than the Municipal Code requirements.

Table 4.1-1: Development Standard s Consistency Summary identifies the d evelopment regulations applicable to the Project and identifies the Project’s consistency with development on sites zoned I-GM.

Table 4.1-1: Development Standards Consistency Summary
Development Standard I-GM Zone1 Proposed Project
Maximum Height 35-75 feet 55 feet
Floor Area Ratio 1.02 0.38
Front Setbacks 25 feet 236.67 feet
Side Setbacks 0 to 15 feet

25.75 feet on the east3
197 feet on the east4
76 feet on the west
Rear Setbacks 0 to 15 feet 110.33 feet

1. Standards are from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan unless otherwise noted.

2. Per Rialto General Plan, page 2-10.

3. Setback is the distance from the parcel boundary to the secured truck trailer parking lot .

4. Setback is the distance from parcel boundary to the warehouse dock doors.

Section 6.2.5 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan identifies design guidelines for development on sites proposed for industrial uses, including those with the I -GM designation. Guidelines applicable to the Project are as follows:

Threshold 4.1-2: Would the Project, in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). In an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-9
 The architectural design shall be compatible throughout the buildings on a parcel with no mixing of strong architectural styles.
 Single structures and satellite buildings within a complex should be made compatible through the use of common colors, building materials, lighting, sign treatment and landscape architecture.  Ancillary structures, such as trash and outdoor storage facilities, should be enclosed or screened from view, and should be architecturally integrated with the development which they serve.  Buildings should be designed in a manner which is harmonious with surrounding neighborhoods.  Building masses, height, and bulk should be comparable to that of nearby surrounding uses and shall be in conformance with applicable height restrictions associated with the Airport.  Metal buildings are allowed, provided that they are architecturally compatible with the surrounding land use and architecture, and are treated in such a manner that they do not appear to be metal.

The proposed Project is consistent with this guidance. The exterior elevations would be white and grey with blue accents and blue window glazing providing consistency within the project site . Please see Figure 3-8: Conceptual Enlarged Elevations in Section 3.0: Project Description . With respect to compatibility with surrounding land uses, the project site is in an area of the City comprised primarily of industrial, warehouse, manufacturing and office uses with single -family residences approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue (a designated truck route) and the Mid-Valley Landfill to the west. Adjacent to the project site, east of Locust Avenue is an undeveloped parcel, and adjacent to the project site west of Lake Padden Lane is Robertson’s Ready Mix. The Project would have a maximum building height of up to 55 feet from finished grade; the Airport Specific Plan allows for up to 75 feet in height. Structures proximate to the project site are one- and two-story office, industrial, and manufacturing uses.

To screen the truck docks and trailer parking from public views, the Project would include a 14-foot-high decorative screen wall along the northern boundary of the project site facing Low ell Street; along the eastern boundary of the project site facing Locust Avenue ; and along the northeastern portion of the project site’s southern boundary facing the existing industrial uses to the south. As mentioned above, a 20-foot-wide landscape buffer would be provided along the project site frontage of Locust Avenue and Lowell Street, which would also screen views from the public right s-of-way. Additional information regarding site design, necessary permits, and land use regulations are provided in Section 3.0 : Project Description and Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning, of this EIR.

As part of the City’s Precise Plan of Design review process outlined in Section 7.3 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan, the Project would be reviewed and only approved by the City after finding that the proposed development, including the uses and the physical design of the development is consistent with the Specific Plan. Although the Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not identify specific regulations governing scenic quality, the City’s review process would ensure the physical design of the Project is co nsistent and compatible with the site and surrounding area. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and changes associated with Project implementation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.1-3 Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-10

Light pollution, also known as “sky glow,” is an adverse effect of man-made light. It is often used to denote urban sky glow (brightening of the night sky due to man -made lighting) but also includes glare (intense and blinding light) and light trespass (light falling where it is not wanted or nee ded; spill light). In many cases, sky glow is visible from great distances, particularly in evenings when there is moisture in the air.

Minute water droplets in the evening air reflect and scatter light into the atmosphere.

Glare is created by the reflection of sunlight and electric lights from windows and building surfaces.

Daytime glare is generally caused by the reflection of sunlight from highly reflective surfaces at or above eye level. Reflective surfaces are typically associated with buildings constructed with broad expanses of highly polished surfaces or broad, light-colored areas of paving. Daytime glare is usually present during early morning and late afternoon hours when the sun is at a low angle and the potential exists for intense reflected light to interfere with vision and driving conditions. Daytime glare may also hinder outdoor activities performed within surrounding land uses. Nighttime glare includes direct, intense, focused light, along with reflected light. Glare generated by direct light typically comes from mobile sources (e.g., automobiles). Glare is also less frequently caused by intense stationary sources, such as floodlights or cargo crane lights. As with daytime sun glare, intense nighttime light may cause undesirable interference with driving or other activities.

The project site is in an urban area of the Ci ty with existing light sources including nighttime lighting associated with adjacent industrial businesses including parking lot and security lighting, street lighting on Locust Avenue and Lowell Street, and vehicle headlights traveling at night on roadways. The nearest light- sensitive receptor to the project site is a single -family residential neighborhood located approximately 700 feet east of Locust Avenue.

Construction activities associated with the pouring of concrete for the warehouse foundation may occur during early and/or nighttime hours, necessitating safety and security lighting. This would include the use of lighting fixtures typical of construction sites such as light towers, night lights, and balloon lights. In general, lighting exposure from construction activities would be associated with the use of artificial light during the evening and nighttime hours from construction equipment, lighting fixtures, and security lighting, as well as car/truck headlights. Although the use of lighting for construction activities would create new sources of nighttime lighting, the duration would be expected to occur over a limited number of days, likely ten days or less. Because of the short duration of construction activities requiring the use of additional lighting and because there are no immediately adjacent land uses to the project site, impacts are considered less than significant.

With respect to light and glare, the Project would introduce additional sources of lighting to illuminate the outside of the warehouse building, building entrance areas, signage, and the parking areas. Project lighting would be consistent with existing sources of nighttime lighting in the area associated with the existing industrial and office uses bordering and near the project site, as well as street lighting along Locust Avenue and Lowell Street.

The Project would be required to comply with CCR Title 24 standards which would require all glass used in the building design to have minimal reflectivity to reduce glare to surrounding neighbors. Buildings with large facades constructed of reflective surf aces (e.g., brightly colored building facades, metal surfaces, and reflective glass) could increase existing levels of daytime glare. The Project’s proposed design does not include such surfaces or components.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-11
Project lighting would also be designed in accordance with the Municipal Code and would comply with all applicable development standards in Rialto Airport Specific Plan Section 6.2.5, Design Guidelines Industrial (I-AR, I-PID, and I-GM). For instance, new sources of lighting would be oriented to avoid impacts on surrounding properties, freestanding lights would not exceed 25 feet in height , and no light spillage would occur beyond property lines. Additionally, General Plan Policy 2-15.3 requires the use of building materials that do not produce glare, such as polished metals or reflective windows. The Project would comply with General Plan Policy 2 -15.3 as well as the development lighting guidelines identified in Section 6.2 of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan Design Guidelines and therefore would preclude significant impacts from the project site related to light and glare. Incorporation of these design features would ensure that the introduction of the new sources of light associated with the Project would be less than significant.

As discussed above, the project area includes existing nighttime lighting from surrounding sources including vehicle headlights , streetlights on Locust Avenue and Lowell Street , and surrounding uses parking lot and security lighting . The Project would introduce additional nighttime lighting on the site; however, this would be consistent with the existing sources of nighttime lighting in the area. Therefore, compliance with the City’s established regulatory framework (i.e., Rialto Airport Specific Plan and C CR Title 24), which would be verified through the City’s plan review process, would ensure the Project does not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.1.8 Cumulative Impacts
When evaluating cumulative aesthetic impacts, a number of factors are considered. The cumulative study area for aesthetic impacts is the viewshed that includes the project site and surrounding areas. The context in which a project is being viewed will also influence the significance of the aesthetic impact. The contrast a project has with its surrounding environment may actually be reduced by the presence of other cumulative projects. For example, if most of an area becomes urbanized, the contrast of a project with the natural surroundings may be less since it would not stand out in contrast as much. For a cumulative aesthetic impact to occur, the aesthetic impacts from cumulative projects would need to occur within the same geographic area to substantially alter the existing view shed or existing scenic character of an area.

The cumulative projects would need to be visible together or near each other so a viewer could perceive them in the same view.

As identified in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan EIR, implementation of the Rialto Airport Specific Plan was considered a beneficial impact to the visual quality of the area. With respect to lighting, existing City requirements ensure compliance with applicable regulations and standards which were developed to prevent significant lighting impacts from new development, including the proposed Project.

With respect
to nighttime illumination, nighttime lighting effects may be considered in a regional context because of the potential for night glow that can extend beyond the boundaries of a site. Therefore, with respect to night lighting, the Project is considered in context to the forecasted growth for the area and with cumulative projects in the area that may contribute to the increased nighttime lighting. Since the Project would be required to comply with lighting requirements to preclude glare and light spillage, the Project’s contribution to nighttime lighting would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed above, the Project would not cause or cumulatively contribute to a significant adverse aesthetic impact. Because the Project would not result in an impact to scenic vistas or be inconsistent with zoning/other regulations governing scenic quality, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact and no mitigation is required.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.1
Draft Environmental Impact Report Aesthetics

City of Rialto 4.1-12

4.1.9 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

4.1.10 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No significant aesthetic resource impacts have been identified, and no mitigation is required.

4.1.11 References
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 9, 2024.

City of Rialto. 2010, as amended. 2010 City of Rialto General Plan. Accessed October 9, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-1

4.2 AIR QUALITY

4.2.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies potential air quality impacts associated with development and implementation of the Project. The current conditions were observed as the baseline for the analysis and were compared to the potential effects anticipated for the Project. The ambient air quality of the local and regional area is described, along with relevant federal, State, regional, and local air pollutant regulations. This evaluation is based on the methodology recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Criteria air pollutant emissions modeling for the proposed Project is included in Appendix B: Air Quality, Energy, and Greenhouse Gas Modeling Data of this EIR. The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) for the proposed Project is included in Appendix C: Health Risk Assessment.

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Clean Air Act
Air quality is federally protected by the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and its amendments. Under the FCAA, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the criteria air pollutants including ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10), particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5), and lead. Proposed projects in or near nonattainment areas could be subject to more stringent air-permitting requirements. The FCAA requires each state to prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) to demonstrate how it will attain the NAAQS within the federally imposed deadlines.

The U.S. EPA can withhold certain transportation funds from states that fail to comply with the planning requirements of the FCAA. If a state fails to correct these planning deficiencies within two years of Federal notification, the U.S. EPA is required to develop a Federal implementation plan for the identified nonattainment area or areas. The provisions of 40 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 51 and 93 apply in all nonattainment and maintenance areas for transportation-related criteria pollutants for which the area is designated nonattainment or has a maintenance plan. The U.S. EPA has designated enforcement of air pollution control regulations to the individual states. Applicable federal standards are summarized in Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Federal Emissions Standards for On-Road Trucks
To reduce emissions from on -road, heavy -duty diesel trucks, the U.S. EPA established a series of increasingly strict emission standards for new engines, starting in 1988. The U.S. EPA promulgated the final and cleanest standards with the 2007 Heavy-Duty Highway Rule. The PM emission standard of 0.01 gram per horsepower-hour (g/hp-hr) is required for new vehicles beginning with model year 2007. Also, the NOX and nonmethane hydrocarbon (NMHC) standards of 0.20 g/hp-hr and 0.14 g/hp-hr, respectively, were phased in together between 2007 and 2010 on a percent of sales basis: 50 percent from 2007 to 2009 and 100 percent in 2010.

Emission Standards for Off-Road Diesel Engines
To reduce emissions from off-road diesel equipment, the U.S. EPA established a series of cleaner emission standards for new off-road diesel engines. Tier 1 standards were phased in from 1996 to 2000 (year of manufacture), depending on the engine horsepower category. Tier 2 standards were phased in from 2001

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-2
to 2006. Tier 3 standards were phased in from 2006 to 2008. Tier 4 standards, which generally require add-on emission control equipment to attain them, were phased in from 2008 to 2015.

State Regulations
California Air Resources Board
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) administers the air quality policy in California. The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established in 1969 pursuant to the Mulford- Carrell Act.

These standards, included with the NAAQS in Table 4.2 -1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards, are generally more stringent and apply to more pollutants than the NAAQS. In addition to the criteria pollutants, CAAQS have been established for visibility reducing particulates, hydrogen sulfide, and sulfates.

The California Clean Air Act (CCAA), which was approved in 1988, requires that each local air district prepare and maintain an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) to achieve compliance with CAAQS. These AQMPs also serve as the basis for the preparation of the State Implementation Plan for meeting federal clean air standards for the State of California. Like the U.S. EPA, CARB also designates areas within California as either attainment or nonattainment for each criteria pollutant based on whether the CAAQS have been achieved. Under the CCAA, areas are designated as nonattainment for a pollutant if air quality data shows that a State standard for the pollutant was violated at least once during the previous three calendar years. Exceedances that are affected by highly irregular or infrequent events such as wildfires, volcanoes, etc. are not considered violations of a State standard, and are not used as a basis for designating areas as nonattainment.

Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards Pollutant Averaging Time State Standards1 Federal Standards2 Ozone (O3) 2, 5, 7
8 Hour 0.070 ppm (137 µg/m3) 0.070 ppm
1 Hour 0.09 ppm (180 µg/m3) NA
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
8 Hour 9.0 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3)
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) 35 ppm (40 mg/m3)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
1 Hour 0.18 ppm (339 µg/m3) 0.10 ppm11
Annual Arithmetic Mean 0.030 ppm (57 µg/m3) 0.053 ppm (100 µg/m3) Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) 8
24 Hour 0.04 ppm (105 µg/m3) 0.14 ppm (365 µg/m3)
1 Hour 0.25 ppm (655 µg/m3) 0.075 ppm (196 µg/m3)
Annual Arithmetic Mean NA 0.03 ppm (80 µg/m3)
Particulate Matter
(PM10) 1, 3, 6
24-Hour 50 µg/m3 150 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 µg/m3 NA
Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) 3, 4, 6, 9
24-Hour NA 35 µg/m3
Annual Arithmetic Mean 12 µg/m3 9 µg/m3
Sulfates (SO4-2) 24 Hour 25 µg/m3 NA
Lead (Pb) 10, 11
30-Day Average 1.5 µg/m3 NA
Calendar Quarter NA 1.5 µg/m3
Rolling 3-Month Average NA 0.15 µg/m3
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S) 1 Hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) NA
Vinyl Chloride (C2H3CI) 10 24 Hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) NA ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; – = no information available.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-3
Table 4.2-1: State and Federal Ambient Air Quality Standards

1. California standards for O 3, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 -hour and 24 -hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter - PM10, and visibility reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. The standards for sulfates, Lake Tahoe carbon monoxide, lead, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride are not to be equaled or exceeded. If the standard is for a 1 -hour, 8-hour or 24-hour average (i.e., all standards except for lead and the PM 10 annual standard), then some measurements may be excluded.

Measurements are excluded that CARB determines would occur less than once per year on the average. The Lake Tahoe carbon mono xide standard is 6.0 ppm, a level one -half the national standard and two -thirds the State standard.

2. National standards shown are the "primary standards" designed to protect public health. National standards other than for O3, particulates and those based on annual averages are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The 1 -hour O3 standard is attained if, during the most recent three-year period, the average number of days per year with maximum hourly concentrations above the standard is equal to or less than one. The 8 -hour O3 standard is attained when the 3 -year average of the 4t h highest daily con centrations is 0.070 ppm or less.

The 24-hour PM10 standard is attained when the 3-year average of the 99th percentile of monitored concentrations is less than 150 µg/m3.

The 24-hour PM2.5 standard is attained when the 3-year average of 98th percentiles is less than 35 µg/m 3.

3. Except for the national particulate standards, annual standards are met if the annual average falls below the standard at eve ry site. The national annual particulate standard for PM 10 is met if the 3-year average falls below the standard at every site. The annual PM2.5 standard is met if the 3 -year average of annual averages spatially -averaged across officially designed clusters of sites falls below the standard.

NAAQS are set by the U.S. EPA at levels determined to be protective of public health with a n adequate margin of safety.

4. On October 1, 2015, the national 8 -hour O3 primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. An area will meet the standard if the fourth- highest maximum daily 8 -hour O 3 concentration per year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than

0.070 ppm. U.S. EPA will make recommendations on attainment designations by October 1, 2016, and issue final designations Oct ober 1, 2017. Nonattainment areas will have until 2020 to late 2037 to meet the health standard, with attainment date s varying based on the O3 level in the area.

5. The national 1-hour O3 standard was revoked by the U.S. EPA on June 15, 2005.

6. In June 2002, CARB established new annual standards for PM 2.5 and PM10.

7. The 8-hour California O 3 standard was approved by the CARB on April 28, 2005, and became effective on May 17, 2006.

8. On June 2, 2010, the U.S. EPA established a new 1 -hour SO2 standard, effective August 23, 2010, which is based on the 3 -year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1 -hour daily maximum concentrations. The existing 0.030 ppm annual and 0.14 ppm 24 -hour SO 2 NAAQS however must continue to be used until one year following U.S. EPA initial designations of the new 1 -hour SO2 NAAQS.

9. In February 2024, U.S. EPA strengthened the annual PM 2.5 NAAQS from 12.0 to 9.0 μg/m3. Areas designated “unclassifiable/attainment” must continue to take steps to prevent their air quality from deteriorating to unhealthy levels.

10. CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as ‘toxic air contaminants’ with no threshold level of exposure below which there are no adverse health effects determined.

11. National lead standards, rolling 3 -month average: final rule signed October 15, 2008. Final designations effective December 31, 2011.

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2022 Air Quality Management Plan , 2022; California Air Resources Board, Ambient Air Quality Standards, May 2016; United States Environmental Protection Agency, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM , https://www.epa.gov/pm -pollution/national-ambient-air-quality-standards-naaqs-pm. Accessed August 12, 2024.

Diesel Risk Reduction Plan
The identification of diesel particulate matter (DPM) as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) in 1998 led CARB to adopt the Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel -Fueled Engines and Vehicles (DRRP) in October 2000. The DRRP's goals include an 85 percent reduction in DPM by 2020 from the 2000 baseline.1 CARB estimates that emissions of DPM in 2035 will be less than half those in 2010, further reducing statewide cancer risk and non-cancer health effects.2 The DRRP includes regulations to establish cleaner new diesel engines, cleaner in-use diesel engines (retrofits), and cleaner diesel fuel.

Truck and Bus Regulation Reducing Emissions from Existing Diesel Vehicles On December 12, 2008, CARB approved the Truck and Bus Regulation to significantly reduce particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from existing diesel vehicles operating in California.

The regulation requires diesel trucks and buses that operate in California to be upgraded to reduce emissions. Heavier trucks must be retrofitted with PM filters beginning January 1, 2012, and older trucks must be replaced starting January 1, 2015. Beginning January 1, 2023, nearly all trucks and buses a re required to have 2010 model year engines or equivalent.

1 California Air Resources Board, Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles , October 2000.
2 California Air Resources Board, Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health . Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview -diesel- exhaust-and-health. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-4
The regulation applies to most privately and federally -owned diesel fueled trucks and buses and to privately and publicly owned school buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 14,000 pounds. Small fleets with three or fewer diesel trucks can delay compliance for heavier trucks and there are several extensions for low -mileage construction trucks, early PM filter retrofits, adding cleaner vehicles, and other situations. Privately and publicly owned school buses have different requirements.

Heavy-Duty Vehicle Idling Emission Reduction Program
The purpose of the CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling is to reduce public exposure to diesel particulate matter and criteria pollutants by limiting the idling of diesel -fueled commercial vehicles. The driver of any vehicle subject to this Airborne Toxic Control Measure is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location and is prohibited from idling a diesel -fueled auxiliary power system for more than five minutes to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on the vehicle if it has a sleeper berth and the truck is located within 100 feet of a restricted area (homes and schools).

CARB’s Final Regulation Order, Requirements to Reduce Idling Emissions from New and In -Use Trucks, beginning in 2008, requires that new 2008 and subsequent model -year heavy-duty diesel engines be equipped with an engine shutdown system that automatically shuts down the engine after 300 seconds of continuous idling operation once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park,” and the parking brake is engaged.

Section 2485 and Section 2449 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations limits diesel-fueled motor vehicle idling to no more than five minutes. Section 2485 limits idling for diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicle weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds that are or must be licensed to operate on publicly maintained highways and streets within California. Section 2449 limits idling for off- road diesel-fueled fleets.

CARB Advanced Clean Truck Regulation
CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Truck Regulation in June 2020 requiring truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California is required to be zero-emission. This rule directly addresses disproportionate risks and health and pollution burdens and puts California on the path for an all zero-emission short-haul drayage fleet in ports and railyards by 2035, and zero -emission “last-mile” delivery trucks and vans by 2040. The Advanced Clean Truck Regulation accelerates the transition of zero -emission medium-and heavy-duty vehicles from Class 2b to Class 8. The regulation has two components including a manufacturer sales requirement, and a reporting requirement:
 Zero-Emission Truck Sales: Manufacturers who certify Class 2b through 8 chassis or complete vehicles with combustion engines are required to sell zero -emission trucks as an increasing percentage of their annual California sales from 2024 to 2035. By 2035, zero -emission truck/ chassis sales need to be 55 percent of Class 2b – 3 truck sales, 75 percent of Class 4 – 8 straight truck sales, and 40 percent of truck tractor sales.
 Company and Fleet Reporting: Large employers including retailers, manufacturers, brokers and others would be required to report information about shipments and shuttle services. Fleet owners, with 50 or more trucks, would be required to report about their existing fleet operations.

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-5
On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew its requests for CAA waivers from the U.S. EPA needed to support four adopted vehicle emissions regulations: (1) the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations; 2) the In- Use Locomotive Regulations; 3) part of the Commercial Harbor Craft and Ocean -Going Vessels At -Berth Regulations; and 4) part of the Transport Refrigeration Unit Engine Standards Regulations.

Implementation of these regulations is currently unknown.

CARB Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation
CARB approved Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation (ACF) on April 28, 2023, which includes requirements for drayage trucks transporting cargo to and from California’s intermodal seaports and railyards. Drayage trucks will be required to start transitioning to zero -emission technology beginning in 2024, with full implementation by 2035. As noted above, o n January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew its requests for CAA waivers from the U.S. EPA needed to support four adopted vehicle emissions regulations including the Advanced Clean Fleets Regulations. Implementation of these regulations is currently unknown.

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

Regional and Local Regulations
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial counties, and serves as a forum for regional issues relating to transportation, the economy, community development, and the environment. With respect to air quality planning, SCAG has prepared the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide for the region, which includes Growth Management and Regional Mobility chapters that form the basis for the land use and transportation control portions of the 2022 So uth Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan. SCAG is responsible under the CCAA for determining transportation conformity of projects, plans, and programs with the SCAQMD.

South Coast Air Quality Management District
The SCAQMD is the air pollution control agency for Orange County and the urban portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The agency’s primary responsibility is ensuring that State and federal ambient air quality standards are attaine d and maintained in the SCAB. The SCAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, awarding grants to

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-6
reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education campaigns, and many other activities. All projects are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction.

The SCAQMD is also the lead agency in charge of developing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP), with input from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and CARB. The AQMP is a comprehensive plan that includes control strategies for stationary and area sources, as well as for on-road and off-road mobile sources. SCAG has the primary responsibility for providing future growth projections and the development and implementation of transportation control measures. CARB, in coordination with federal agencies, provides the control element for mobile sources.

The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017. The purpose of the AQMP is to set forth a comprehensive and integrated program that would lead the SCAB into compliance with the federal 24 -hour PM

2.5 air quality standard, and to provide an update to the SCAQMD’s commitments towards meeting the federal 8 -hour O 3 standards. The AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal) and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

On October 1, 2015, the U.S. EPA strengthened the NAAQS for ground-level O3. The 2022 AQMP, adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on December 2, 2022, was developed to address the requirements for meeting the 2015 8 -hour O3 standard. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs. It also includes a variety of additional strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emissions technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOX technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other FCAA measures to achieve the 2015 8 -hour ozone standard. The 2022 AQMP incorporates the latest scientific and technological information and planning assumptions, including the 2020 Connect SoCal and updated emission inventory methodologies for various source categories.

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

The State and federal attainment status designations for the SCAB are summarized in Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status. The SCAB is currently designated as a nonattainment area with respect to the State O
3, PM10, and PM2.5 standards, as well as the national 8 -hour O3 and PM2.5 standards. The SCAB is designated as attainment or unclassified for the remaining State and federal standards.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-7
Table 4.2-2: South Coast Air Basin Attainment Status
Pollutant State Federal
Ozone (O3)
(1 Hour Standard) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme) Ozone (O3)
(8 Hour Standard) Nonattainment Nonattainment (Extreme) Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(24 Hour Standard) - Nonattainment (Serious)
Particulate Matter (PM2.5)
(Annual Standard) Nonattainment TBD
Particulate Matter (PM10)
(24 Hour Standard) Nonattainment Attainment (Maintenance) Particulate Matter (PM10)
(Annual Standard) Nonattainment –
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
(8 Hour Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
(Annual Standard) Attainment Attainment (Maintenance)
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(1 Hour Standard) - Unclassifiable/Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
(24 Hour Standard) - Unclassifiable/Attainment
Lead (Pb)
(30 Day Standard) - -
Lead (Pb)
(3 Month Standard) - Nonattainment (Partial)
Sulfates (SO4-2)
(24 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Hydrogen Sulfide (H2S)
(1 Hour Standard) Attainment –
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) Attainment Status for South Coast Air Basin, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default -source/clean-air-plans/air-quality- management-plans/naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf?sfvrsn=23. Accessed August 26, 2024.

The following is a list of SCAQMD rules that are required of construction activities associated with the Project:
 Rule 402 (Nuisance) – This rule prohibits the discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. This rule does not apply to odors emanating from agricultural operations necessary for the growing of crops or the raising of fowl or animals.
 Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust) – This rule requires fugitive dust sources to implement best available control measures for all sources, and all forms of visible particulate matter are prohibited from

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-8
crossing any property line. This rule is intended to reduce PM10 emissions from any transportation, handling, construction, or storage activity that has the potential to generate fugitive dust. PM10 suppression techniques are summarized below.
a) Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized. b) All on -site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
c) All material transported off -site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
d) The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
e) Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the workday to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.
 Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings) – This rule requires manufacturers, distributors, and end users of architectural and industrial maintenance coatings to reduce ROG emissions from the use of these coatings, primarily by placing limits on the ROG content of various coating categories.  Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) - Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NO
X and particulate matter emissions associated with
warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 s f located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the warehous es WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on -site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install on-site energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Rialto General Plan
The General Plan Managing Our Land Supply Element identifies goals that will improve air quality within the City. 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:
3 3 City of Rialto. 2010, as amended . The City of Rialto General Plan. https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/4457/2023- Land-Use- Element?bidId=. Accessed July 15, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-9
Goal 2-9 Protect residential, schools, parks, and other sensitive land uses from the impacts associated with industrial and trucking-related land uses, as well as commercial and retail areas.

Policy 2-9.1 Require mitigation and utilize other techniques to protect residential development and other sensitive land uses near industrial land uses or within identified health risk areas from excessive noise, hazardous materials and waste releases, toxic air pollutant concentrations, and other impacts.

Policy 2-9.2 Require all industrial development to front on an improved street with appropriate front yard setbacks, landscaping, and façade and entrance treatments.

Goal 2-18 Provide high-quality and environmentally sustainable landscaping.

Policy 2-18.1 Require the planting of street trees along public streets and inclusion of trees and landscaping for private developments to improve airshed, minimize urban heat island effect, and lessen impacts of high winds.

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

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

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

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

Goal 2-32 Conserve energy resources.

Policy 2-31.1 Require the incorporation of energy conservation features into the design of all new construction and site development activities.

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

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

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

Policy 2-36.4 Require new development and significant redevelopment proposals to incorporate sufficient design and operational controls to prevent release of noxious odors beyond the limits of the development site.

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

Policy 2–37.2 Support programs and policies of the South Coast Air Quality Management District regarding restrictions on grading operations at construction projects.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-10
Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan was adopted by the City in November 1997. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in 2014 and the former airport property and many of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport that were suited to accommodate development were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. Although the Rialto Municipal Airport is no longer operational, the Rialto Airport Specific Pla n serves as the zoning ordinance for parcels that were not removed; these parcels are primarily northwest, west, and east of the former Rialto Municipal Airport. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan also provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in this area. The Rialto Airport Specific Plan does not contain specific policies related to air quality.

4.2.3 Existing Conditions
Climate and Meteorology
The CARB divides the State into 15 air basins that share similar meteorological and topographical features.

The Project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB), which includes the non-desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties, as well as all of Orange County. The SCAB is on a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean on the southwest and high mountains forming the remainder of the perimeter. 4 Air quality in this area is determined by
such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the presence of existing air pollution sources and ambient conditions.

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

Although the SCAB has a semiarid climate, the air closer to the Earth’s surface is typically moist because of the presence of a shallow marine layer. Except for occasional periods when dry, continental air is brought into the SCAB by offshore winds, the “o c e a n e f f e c t ” i s d o m i n a n t . P e r i o d s o f h e a v y f o g a r e frequent and low clouds known as high fog are characteristic climatic features, especially along the coast.

Annual average humidity is 70 percent at the coast and 57 percent in the eastern portions of the SCAB.

Wind patterns across the SCAB are characterized by westerly or southwesterly on-shore winds during the day and easterly or northeasterly breezes at night. Wind speed is typically higher during the dry summer months than during the rainy winter. Between per iods of wind, air stagnation may occur in both the morning and evening hours. Air stagnation is one of the critical determinants of air quality conditions on any given day. During winter and fall, surface high-pressure systems over the SCAB, combined with other meteorological conditions, result in very strong, downslope Santa Ana winds. These winds normally continue for a few days before predominant meteorological conditions are reestablished.

4 South Coast Air Quality Management District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook , 1993.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-11
The mountain ranges to the east affect the diffusion of pollutants by inhibiting the eastward transport of pollutants. Air quality in the SCAB generally ranges from fair to poor and is similar to air quality in most of coastal Southern California. The entire region experiences heavy concentrations of air pollutants during prolonged periods of stable atmospheric conditions.

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

Air Pollutants of Concern
The air pollutants emitted into the ambient air by stationary and mobile sources are regulated by State and federal laws. These regulated air pollutants are known as “criteria air pollutants” and are categorized into primary and secondary pollutants. Primary air pollutants are emitted directly from sources. Carbon monoxide (CO), reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxide (NOX), sulfur dioxide (SO2), coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead are primary air pollutants; of these, CO, NOX, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants. ROG and NOX are criteria pollutant precursors and form secondary criteria pollutants through chemical and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. For example, O3 is formed by a chemical reaction between ROG and NO X in the presence of sunlight ; O3 and NO2 are the principal secondary pollutants. Sources and health effects commonly associated with criteria pollutants are summarized in Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns.

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

CARB identified DPM as a TAC. DPM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Diesel exhaust is a complex mixture of particles and gases produced when an engine burns diesel fuel. DPM is a concern because it causes lung cancer; many compounds found in diesel exhaust are carcinogenic. DPM includes the particle -phase constituents in diesel exhaust. The chemical composition and particle sizes of DPM vary between different engine types (heavy-duty, light -duty), engine operating conditions (idle, accelerate, decelerate), fuel formulations (high/low sulfur fuel), and the year of the engine. Some short -term (acute) effects of diesel exhaust include eye, nose, throat, and lung irritation, and diesel exhaust can cause coughs, headaches, light - headedness, and nausea. DPM poses the greatest health risk among the TACs. Almost all diesel exhaust particle mass is 10 microns or less in diameter. Due to their extremely small size, these particles can be inhaled and eventually trapped in the bronchial and alveolar regions of the lung.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-12
Table 4.2-3: Air Contaminants and Associated Public Health Concerns Pollutant1 Major Man-Made Sources Human Health Effects
Particulate
Matter (PM10
and PM2.5)
Power plants, steel mills, chemical plants,
unpaved roads and parking lots, wood- burning
stoves and fireplaces, automobiles and others.

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

Ozone (O3) Formed by a chemical reaction between
reactive organic gases/volatile organic
compounds (ROG or VOC) and nitrogen oxides
(NO
X) in the presence of sunlight. Motor
vehicles exhaust industrial emissions, gasoline
storage and transport, solvents, paints and
landfills.

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

Damages plants; reduces crop yield.

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

Respiratory irritant. Aggravates lung and heart
problems. In the presence of moisture and oxygen,
sulfur dioxide converts to sulfuric acid which can
damage marble, iron and steel. Damages crops and
natural vegetation. Impairs visibility. Precursor to
acid rain.

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

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

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

Respiratory irritant; aggravates lung and heart
problems. Precursor to O 3. Contributes to global
warming and nutrient overloading which
deteriorates water quality. Causes brown
discoloration of the atmosphere.

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

Exposure to lead occurs mainly through inhalation of
air and ingestion of lead in food, water, soil, or dust.

It accumulates in the blood, bones, and soft tissues
and can adversely affect the kidneys, liver, nervous
system, and other organs. Excessive expo sure to lead
may cause neurological impairments such as
seizures, mental retardation, and behavioral
disorders. Even at low doses, lead exposure is
associated with damage to the nervous systems of
fetuses and young children, resulting in learning
deficits and lowered IQ.

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

Source: California Air Resources Board, Common Air Pollutants , Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/common -air-pollutants.

Accessed July 11, 2024.

Ambient Air Quality
CARB monitors ambient air quality at approximately 250 air monitoring stations across the State. These stations usually measure pollutant concentrations ten feet above ground level; therefore, air quality is often referred to in terms of ground-level concentrations. Existing levels of ambient air quality, historical trends, and projections near the project site are documented by measurements made by the SCAQMD,

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-13
the air pollution regulatory agency in the SCAB that maintains air quality monitoring stations which process ambient air quality measurements.

Pollutants of concern in the SCAB include O 3, PM10, and PM2.5. The closest air monitoring station to the project site that monitors ambient concentrations of these pollutants is the Fontana -Arrow Monitoring Station (located approximately 5.6 miles to the southeast). Local air quality data from 2021 to 2023 are provided in Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data, which lists the monitored maximum concentrations and number of exceedances of State or federal air quality standards for each year.

Table 4.2-4: Ambient Air Quality Data
Criteria Pollutant 2021 2022 2023
Ozone (O3)1
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.125 0.144 0.131
8-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 0.104 0.108 0.111
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) — — —
NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 81 68 74
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 1.931 1.566 1.470
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)2
1-hour Maximum Concentration (ppm) 67.2 68.7 63.2
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 1-hour (>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0
CAAQS 1-hour (>0.18 ppm) 0 0 0
Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns (PM 10)1
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 73.8 62.4 132.2 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 70.7 59.8 126.7
State Annual Average Concentration
(CAAQS=20 µg/m3) — 30.6 32.1
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>150 µg/m3) — — —
CAAQS 24-hour (>50 µg/m3) — — —
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns (PM2.5)2
National 24-hour Maximum Concentration 55.1 38.1 101.1 State 24-hour Maximum Concentration 55.1 38.1 103.5
Number of Days Standard Exceeded
NAAQS 24-hour (>35 µg/m3) — — —
NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards; CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standards; ppm = parts per million. µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; – = not measured
Notes: Measurements taken at the Fontana -Arrow Monitoring Station at 14360 Arrow Highway, Fontana CA 92335 (CARB# 36197).

Source: All pollutant measurements are from the CARB Aerometric Data Analysis and Management system database (https://www.arb.ca.gov/adam ) except for CO, which were retrieved from the CARB Air Quality and Meteorological Information System (https://www.arb.ca.gov/aqmis2/aqdselect.php ).

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-14
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. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Table 4.2-5: Sensitive Receptors.

Table 4.2-5: Sensitive Receptors
Receptor Description
Distance and Direction
from the 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.

4.2.4 Methodology
This analysis considers construction and operational impacts associated with the Project. Where criteria air pollutant quantification was required, emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model version 2022.1 (CalEEMod). CalEEMod is a Statewide land use emissions computer model designed to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. Air quality impacts were assessed according to methodologies recommended by CARB and the SCAQMD.

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

Project operations would result in emissions of area sources (consumer products, architectural coating, and landscape equipment), mobile sources (motor vehicles from Project generated vehicle trips), and off- road equipment. Project -generated increases in o perational emissions would be predominantly associated with motor vehicle use. Emissions from each of these categories are discussed below.  Area Source Emissions. Area source emissions would be generated due to consumer products, on-site equipment, architectural coating, and landscaping that were previously not present on the site. Consumer products are various solvents used in non-industrial applications, which emit VOCs during product use. These typically include cleaning supplies, kitchen aerosols, cosmetics, and toiletries. It should be noted that the default area source VOC emission factor developed for CalEEMod is based on a statewide factor and is not applicable to the Project. The entire Project would not use consumer products as specified by the CalEEMod user guide. The warehouse would include office space and may have small kitchen areas and bathrooms that would use cleaning

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-15
products, however the majority of the square footage for the Project would be used for warehousing/distribution. Negligible quantities of personal care products, home, lawn, and garden products, disinfectants, sanitizers, polishes, cosmetics, and floor finishes would be used.

As the CalEEMod consumer product rates are based on a statewide average, ROG emissions are likely overestimated for the proposed warehouse Project and therefore is considered a conservative assumption for purposes of this EIR.
 Energy Source Emissions. Energy source emissions are typically generated due to electricity and natural gas consumption associated with the use of miscellaneous warehouse equipment, space heating and cooling, water heating, ventilation, lighting, appliances, and electronics. Energy source emissions were calculated in CalEEMod.
 Mobile Source Emissions. Mobile sources are emissions from motor vehicles, including tailpipe and evaporative emissions. Depending upon the pollutant being discussed, the potential air quality impact may be of either regional or local concern. For example, ROG, NO X, PM10, and PM2.5
are all pollutants of regional concern. NO X and ROG react with sunlight to form O 3, known as photochemical smog. Additionally, wind currents readily transport PM10 and PM2.5. However, CO tends to be a localized pollutant, dispersing rapidly at the source.

Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation and have been incorporated into CalEEMod, as recommended by the SCAQMD. U sing the Warehousing trip generation rate (Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] code 150) , the Project would generate 1,138 daily vehicle trips, which includes 455 truck trips.

CalEEMod was adjusted to account for the warehouse truck trip length and fleet mix. Warehouse truck trip lengths were increased to 33.2 miles based on CARB estimates.5 Warehouse truck mix percentages are based on the SCAQMD Truck Trip Generation Study applied to ITE truck percentages. Mobile source emissions rates in CalEEMod utilize EMFAC2021 emissions rates consistent with the methodology described in the CalEEMod User’s Guide. It should be noted that EMFAC2021 emissions rates include CARB SAFE Rule adjustment factors.  Off-Road Equipment. Operational off -road emissions would be generated by off -road cargo handling equipment used during operational activities. For the Project, it was assumed that the warehouse would include approximately 14 diesel forklifts and one diesel yard truck for loading and unloading goods per the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper. It should be noted that the Project does not include cold storage. Therefore, this analysis models the proposed warehouse building as unrefrigerated, and the Project would not include emissions from transport refrigeration units (TRUs).
 Emergency Backup Generators. As the Project warehouse is speculative, it is unknown whether emergency backup generators would be used. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, emissions associated with this equipment were included to be conservative. Emissions from an emergency backup generator for the proposed warehouse building were calculated separately from CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B. However, CalEEMod default emissions rates were used. If backup generators are required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the

5 California Air Resources Board, Appendix B: Emissions Estimation Methodology for On ‐Road Diesel ‐Fueled Heavy ‐Duty Drayage Trucks at California Ports and Intermodal Rail Yards, Retrieved from: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2023 -08/appbf.pdf. Accessed April 11, 2025.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-16
SCAQMD prior to installation. Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignitio n Engines), which would minimize emissions.

The SCAQMD provides significance thresholds for emissions associated with Project construction and operations. The proposed Project’s construction and operational emissions are compared to the daily criteria pollutant emissions significance thresholds in or der to determine the significance of a Project’s impact on regional air quality.

The localized effects from the Project’s on-site emissions were evaluated in accordance with SCAQMD’s LST methodology, which uses on-site mass emissions rate look-up tables and project-specific modeling.

LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or State ambient air quality standards and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor.

According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes area sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on-site and off-site emissions for mobile sources. On-site mobile emissions equate to approximately three and one-half percent of the p roject-related new mobile sources. The on -site one-way trip length i s conservatively anticipated to be 1 mile, which is approximately 3 percent of the 33.2-mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod.

Health Risk Assessment
The Health Risk Assessment (HRA) conducted for this Project evaluated potential health risks associated with the emission of DPM resulting from Project implementation. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. Operational activities would also include the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks.

HRA: Construction Sources
Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off -road diesel equipment required for demolition, grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary TAC of concern because it is the m ost potent TAC emitted from construction and includes hundreds of chemicals. Although DPM is a subset of PM 10 exhaust, the analysis conservatively
assumes all PM10 exhaust emissions are DPM. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction site to deliver materials and equipment were included in the analysis, although they are typically less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations.

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel-powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur throughout the project site. In compliance with State law (§ 2485 and § 2449 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations), construction activities would limit diesel construction truck/equipment idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensi tive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Furthermore, even during the most intense period of construction, DPM emissions would be generated from different locations on the project

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-17
site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time. Construction emission rates for PM
10 (DPM) were calculated using CalEEMod; refer to Appendix B . Project construction is proposed to occur in 2025 over approximately 15 months.

HRA: Operational Sources
Mobile Sources. Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could result in pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors near the project site. An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip generation data and a EMFAC2021 model run for San Bernardino County; refer to Appendix B. EMFAC2021 generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type.

The model was run for heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating the project site, and idling at proposed loading docks.

Off-Road Equipment. This analysis assumes the Project would include 14 forklifts and 1 yard truck for loading and unloading goods per the SCAQMD High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper. This analysis assumes the Project would use diesel off -road cargo handling equipment. Off-road equipment emissions were calculated based on CARB’s Carl Moyer Program Guidelines. 6 Emergency Backup Generators . As the Project warehouse is speculative, it is unknown whether emergency backup generators would be used. Backup generators would only be used in the event of a power failure and would not be part of the Project’s normal daily operations. Nonetheless, em issions associated with one backup generator for the proposed warehouse building was included to be conservative. If a backup generator is required, the end user would be required to obtain a permit from the SCAQMD prior to insta llation. Emergency backup generators must meet SCAQMD's Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirements and comply with SCAQMD Rule 1470 (Requirements for Stationary Diesel-Fueled Internal Combustion and Other Compression Ignition Engines), which would minimize emissions.

4.2.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for air quality impacts were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.  Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard.  Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.  Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.

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

According to the SCAQMD, an air quality impact is considered significant if a project would violate any

6 California Air Resources Board (CARB), The Carl Moyer Program Guidelines , approved April 27, 2017, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/msprog/moyer/guidelines/2017/2017_cmpgl.pdf . Accessed August 26, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-18
ambient air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for air quality during co nstruction and operational activities of land use development projects, as shown in Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds.

Table 4.2-6: South Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors
Maximum Pounds Per Day
Construction-Related Operational-Related
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) 75 55
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 550 550
Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) 100 55
Sulfur Oxides (SOX) 150 150
Coarse Particulates (PM10) 150 150
Fine Particulates (PM2.5) 55 55
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds , 2023.

Localized Significance Thresholds
In addition to the CO hotspot analysis, the SCAQMD developed Local Significance Thresholds (LSTs) for emissions of NO
2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5 generated at new development sites (off -site mobile source emissions are not included in the LST analysis). LSTs represent the maximum emissions that can be generated at a project without expecting to cause or substantially contribute to an exceedance of t he most stringent State or federal ambient air quality standards. LSTs are based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant within a project site’s source receptor area (SRA), as demarcated by the SCAQMD, and the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. LST analysis for construction is applicable for all projects that disturb 5 acres or less on a single day. The project site is located within SCAQMD SRA 34 (Central San Bernardino Valley). The nearest sensitive receptors are located approximately 700 feet to the east and southeast from the project site (approximately 213 meters). Table 4.2 -7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations shows the 1-acre, 2-acre, and 5-acre LSTs in SRA 34.

Table 4.2-7: Local Significance Thresholds for Construction/Operations Project Size
Maximum Pounds Per Day (Construction/Operation)1
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
1 Acre 348/348 6,065/6,065 79/19 26/7
2 Acres 391/391 7,081/7,081 88/21 29/8
5 Acres 499/499 9,362/9,362 111/27 39/10
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. LST represented in this chart is based on the closest receptor distance of 213 meters.

Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Localized Significance Threshold Methodology , July 2008.

LSTs associated with all acreage categories are provided in the table for informational purposes , which shows that the LSTs increase as acreages increase. It should be noted that LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The construction LST acreage is determined based on daily acreage

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-19
disturbed. The operational LST acreage is based on the total area of the project site. Although the project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used to evaluate the Project.

Health Risk Assessment Thresholds
Project health risks are determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the Lead Agency’s purview pursua nt to the CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that lead agencies use the following air pollution thresholds in determining whether a project’s impacts are significant. If the lead agency finds that the project has the potential to exceed the air polluti on thresholds, a project’s impacts should be considered significant. The TAC emissions thresholds are as follows.
 Cancer Risk (Individual): Emit contaminants that result in a maximum individual incremental cancer risk equal to or greater than 10 in one million.  Non-Cancer Risk: Emit contaminants that result in a chronic or acute hazard index equal to or greater than 1.0 (project increment).

Cancer risk is expressed in terms of expected incremental incidence per million population. The SCAQMD has established an incidence rate of 10 persons per million as the maximum acceptable incremental cancer risk due to TAC exposure. This threshold is an upper-bound incremental probability to determine whether or not a given project has a potentially significant development-specific and cumulative impact and to ensure an individual new source does not contribute a cumulatively significant impact. The 10 in one million standard is a health-protective significance threshold. A risk level of 10 in one million implies a likelihood that up to 10 persons, out of one million equally exposed persons, would contract cancer if exposed continuously (24 hours per day) t o the TAC levels over a specified duration of time. This risk would be an excess cancer that is in addition to any cancer risk borne by a person not exposed to these TACs.

The SCAQMD has also established non -carcinogenic risk parameters for use in HRAs. Noncarcinogenic risks are quantified by calculating a "hazard index," expressed as the ratio between the ambient pollutant concentration and its toxicity or Reference Exposure Level. A Reference Exposure Level is a concentration at or below which health effects are not likely to occur. A hazard index of less than 1.0 means that adverse health effects are not expected. Within this analysis, non -carcinogenic exposures of less th an 1.0 are considered less than significant.

4.2.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation
Threshold 4.2-1: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated.

Construction and operational emissions have been reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5.

As part of its enforcement responsibilities, the U.S. EPA requires each state with nonattainment areas to prepare and submit a State Implementation Plan that demonstrates the means to attain the federal standards. The State Implementation Plan must integrate federal, state, and local plan components and regulations to identify specific measures to reduce pollution in nonattainment areas, using a combination of performance standards and market-based programs. Similarly, under State law, the CCAA requires an

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-20
air quality attainment plan to be prepared for areas designated as nonattainment regarding the State and federal ambient air quality standards. Air quality attainment plans outline emissions limits and control measures to achieve and maintain these standards by the earliest practical date.

As previously discussed, the project site is located within the SCAB, which is under the jurisdiction of the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the FCAA, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the SCAB is in nonattainment. To reduce such emissions, the SCAQMD drafted the 2016 and 2022 AQMPs. The AQMPs establish a program of rules and regulations directed at reducing air pollutant emissions and achieving State (California) and national air quality standards. The AQMPs are a regional and multi-agency effort including the SCAQMD, the CARB, the SCAG, and the U.S. EPA. The pollutant control strategies in the AQMPs are based on the latest scientific and technical information and planning assumptions, including SCAG’s 2020 Connect SoCal, upda ted emission inventory methodologies for various source categories, and SCAG’s latest growth forecasts. SCAG’s latest growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project is subject to the SCAQMD’s AQMPs.

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

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

The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As identified in Table

4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions, the proposed Project would not exceed construction emission standards with implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AQ-1. Further, the Project would not exceed operational emission standards with implementation of MM AQ -2 through MM AQ -5; see Table 4.2-9:

Operational Emissions. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the first criterion.

Concerning Consistency Criterion No. 2, the AQMPs contain air pollutant reduction strategies based on SCAG’s latest growth forecasts, and SCAG’s growth forecasts were defined in consultation with local governments and with reference to local general plans. The Project would not result in a change of land use designations reflected in the AQMP and is assumed to be consistent with the AQMPs regional emissions inventory for the SCAB. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the second criterion.

The City’s population estimate, as of January 2023, is 102,985 persons. 7 While the Project does not
involve residential development, the Project is anticipated to generate approximately 558 employees 8 and could indirectly induce population growth if future employees move into the City to work at the proposed warehouse. However, the Project would consist of a source of employment within a City with substantial housing stock. Therefore, it is likely that the Project would employ current residents of the

7 State of California, Department of Finance. E ‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State — January 1, 2021‐2023.

Retrieved from: Demographics | Department of Finance . Accessed April 12, 2024. 8 Natelson Company, Inc, 2001, Employment Density Study Summary Report Prepared for SCAG, Table 8A .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-21
City. In the event that the operator of the proposed facility draws employees that are not from the local community, the Project would not directly result in the development of new housing.

As the Project would not directly result in the development of new housing, the Project would not cause the City’s General Plan buildout population forecast to be exceeded. The population and employment forecasts, which are adopted by SCAG’s Regional Counc il, are based on the local plans and policies applicable to the City. Additionally, as the SCAQMD has incorporated these same projections into the AQMPs, it can be concluded that the proposed Project would be consistent with the projections. Thus, no impact would occur, as the Project is also consistent with the second criterion.

It is also noted that future tenant(s) of the Project would also be required to comply SCAQMD Rule 2305, which would directly reduce NO
X and particulate matter emissions (refer to South Coast Air Quality Management District under Section 4.2.2: Regulatory Setting). As discussed above, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the AQMPs or any applicable air quality plan. Impacts would be less than significant with the incorporation of MMs AQ-1 through AQ-5.

Construction Emissions
Construction associated with the Project would generate short-term emissions of criteria air pollutants.

The criteria pollutants of primary concern in the area include O3-precursor pollutants (i.e., ROG and NOX) and PM10 and PM2.5. Construction-generated emissions are short term and of temporary duration, lasting only as long as construction activities occur but would be considered a significant air quality impact if the volume of pollutants generated exceeds the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance.

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

Construction of the Project is anticipated to begin in 2025 and is estimated to be completed within approximately 15 months. Construction-generated emissions associated with the Project were calculated using the CARB-approved CalEEMod computer program; see Appendix B for more information regarding the construction assumptions used in this analysis. Predicted maximum daily construction -generated emissions for the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions. It is noted that due to t echnology improvements for construction equipment, emissions from Project construction activities would likely be lower than those shown in the table if construction were to occur in later years.

Table 4.2-8: Construction-Related Emissions
Construction Year
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)1
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Threshold 4.2-2: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated.

Construction and operational emissions have been reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-22
Year 1 (2025) 4.22 41.80 39.99 0.10 21.25 11.41
Year 2 (2026) 77.84 38.51 40.23 0.10 12.92 5.41
Maximum Emissions 77.84 41.80 40.23 0.10 21.25 11.41
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? Yes No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 1 (2025) 4.22 41.80 39.99 0.10 21.25 11.41
Year 2 (2026) 11.31 38.51 40.23 0.10 12.92 5.41
Maximum Emissions 11.31 41.80 40.23 0.10 21.25 11.41
SCAQMD Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reduct ions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI -E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1. MM AQ-1 requires the use of low VOC paints.

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

Fugitive dust emissions may have a substantial, temporary impact on local air quality. In addition, fugitive dust may be a nuisance to those living and working in the area. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those living and working nearby. SCAQMD Rules 402 and 403 (prohibition of nuisances, watering of inactive and perimeter areas, track out requirements, etc.), are applicable to the Project and were applied in CalEEMod to minimize fugitive dust emissions. Rule 1113 provides specifications on painting practices and regulates the ROG content of paint. The Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD rules and regulations, including SCAQMD Rules 402, 403, and 1113.

Table 4.2-8 shows that unmitigated total construction emissions would exceed the SCAQMD threshold for ROG (VOC). Most ROG emissions are generated during the architectural coating phase of construction.

Therefore, MM AQ-1 requires the Project to use low VOC paints. With implementation of MM AQ-1, total construction ROG emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds; impacts would be less than significant.

Operational Emissions
Project-generated emissions would be primarily associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings. Long -term operational emissions attributable to the Project are summarized in Table 4.2-9: Operational Emissions. The table shows that unmitigated emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds with the exception of NO X.

Therefore, regional unmitigated operational emissions would result in a potentially significant long-term regional air quality impact.

The majority of NO X emissions are from mobile sources and on -site cargo handling equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard trucks). Mitigation measures would be required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible; however, motor vehicle engine emissions are controlled by State and federal standards and the Project has no control over these standards. Nonetheless, through implementation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5, the Project’s operational emissions would be reduced to a less than significant level.

MM AQ-2 requires the Project to use all-electric appliances and end uses instead of natural gas, as well as prohibits installation of natural gas utility lines or connections. MM AQ-3 requires landscaping equipment to be 100 percent electric. MM AQ -4 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-23
Management (TDM) program to reduce single -occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. It should be noted that mitigated emissions shown in Table 4.2-9 do not account for emissions reductions associated with MM AQ-4. MM AQ-5 requires outdoor cargo handling equipment to be zero emissions or alternatively fueled. Table 4.2-9 shows that with implementation of MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, and MM AQ-5, all criteria pollutant emissions would be below SCAQMD thresholds. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant with implementation of MM AQ-2, MM AQ-3, MM AQ-4, and MM AQ-5.

In addition, pursuant to SCAQMD Rule 2305, all warehouses over 100,000 sf are required to implement various emission reduction measures related to warehouse operations and mobile sources. Compliance with SCAQMD Rule 2305 would further reduce criteria pollutants, specifically NOX and particulate matter emissions.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-24
Table 4.2-9: Operational Emissions
Source
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)1
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Unmitigated Emissions
Area Source Emissions 20.85 0.24 28.98 <0.01 0.05 0.04 Energy Emissions 0.19 3.40 2.86 0.02 0.26 0.26
Mobile – Trucks 0.72 47.83 24.13 0.42 14.01 4.21
Mobile – Passenger Cars 2.94 3.75 34.42 0.09 7.95 2.06
Off-Road – Forklifts 0.20 1.05 14.98 0.02 0.04 0.04
Off-Road – Yard Trucks 0.06 0.33 3.31 0.01 0.01 0.01
Back-up Generators 0.67 1.86 1.70 <0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Emissions 25.63 58.47 110.38 0.56 22.42 6.71
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Area Source Emissions2 16.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Energy Emissions2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Mobile – Trucks 0.72 47.83 24.13 0.42 14.01 4.21
Mobile – Passenger Cars 2.94 3.75 34.42 0.09 7.95 2.06
Off-Road – Forklifts2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Off-Road – Yard Trucks2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Back-up Generators 0.67 1.86 1.70 <0.01 0.10 0.10
Total Emissions 20.42 53.44 60.25 0.51 22.05 6.36
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceed SCAQMD
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and oth er construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reduct ions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.

2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ -2, MM AQ-3, and MM AQ-5. MM AQ-2 requires the use of all-electric appliances and end uses instead of natural gas. MM AQ- 3 requires landscaping equipment to be 100 percent electrically powered. MM AQ- 5 requires charging stations for cargo handling equipment.

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-25

Localized Construction Significance Analysis
To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction.

LSTs were developed in response to SCAQMD Governing Boards' Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). The SCAQMD provided the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific emissions.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-10: Equipment- Specific Grading Rates is used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs.

The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is the Central San Bernardino Valley (SRA 34) since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced look- up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres in size. Project construction is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4 acres in a single day during the grading phase. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1-, 2-, 4-, and 5-acres in size and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 4-acre threshold were interpolated and used for this analysis.

Table 4.2-10: Equipment-Specific Grading Rates
Construction
Phase Equipment Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour Day
Operating Hours
per Day
Acres Graded
per Day
Grading
Crawler Tractors 0 0.5 8 0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 3 1 8 3
Total Acres Graded per Day1 4.0

1. Total acres graded each day is based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, not the total acreage of the project site.

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

The nearest sensitive receptors are single-family residences located approximately 700 feet (213 meters) to the east of Locust Avenue. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, LSTs for receptors located at the interpolated distance of 213 meters were used in this analysis consistent with SCAQMD methodology. Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions presents the results of localized emissions during each construction phase. The table shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Threshold 4.2-3: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with mitigation incorporated.

Construction and operational emissions have been reduced to less than significant with the incorporation of MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-5.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-26
Table 4.2-11: Localized Significance of Construction Emissions Construction Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Demolition 2025 22.20 19.92 1.16 0.88
Site Preparation 2025 31.64 30.18 21.02 11.36
Grading 2025 37.62 35.86 11.83 5.19
Grading 2026 34.49 34.99 11.69 5.06
Building Construction 2026 9.85 12.97 0.38 0.35
Paving 2026 7.12 9.94 0.32 0.29
Architectural Coating 2026 0.86 1.13 0.02 0.02
Infrastructure Improvements 2026 11.56 11.12 0.51 0.47
Maximum Emissions 37.62 35.86 21.02 11.36
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 4 acres at
213 meters)
463 8,601 104 36
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM 2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1. Refer to Appendix B for model outputs.

Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes a warehouse, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions for operations.

LSTs thresholds for receptors located at 213 meters in SRA 34 were used in this analysis because the closest receptors to the project site are located approximately 700 feet (213 meters) to the east of Locust Avenue. Although the project site is approximately 40 acres, the 5.0-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.

For a worst -case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2 -12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions conservatively include all on -site Project-related stationary source and three percent of mobile sources. 9 The table show s that the unmitigated maximum daily emissions of these pollutants for Project operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

9 The on -site one -way trip length is conservatively anticipated to be up to one mile, which is approximately three percent of the 33.2 -mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-27
Table 4.2-12: Localized Significance of Operational Emissions Activity
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
On-Site, Generators, and Mobile Source Emissions1 8.32 52.55 0.88 0.57 SCAQMD Localized Screening Threshold
(5.0 acres at 213 meters) 499 9,362 27 10
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less.

1. Includes all on- site and three percent of truck emissions.

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

Criteria Pollutant Health Impacts
On December 24, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion identifying the need to provide sufficient information connecting a project’s air emissions to health impacts or explain why such information could not be ascertained (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno [Friant Ranch, L.P.] [2018] Cal.5 th,
Case No. S219783).

The SCAQMD has set its CEQA significance thresholds based on the FCAA, which defines a major stationary source (in extreme ozone nonattainment areas such as the S CAB) as emitting 10 tons per year. The thresholds correlate with the trigger levels for the federal New Source Review Program and SCAQMD Rule 1303 for new or modified sources. The New Source Review Program 10 was created by the FCAA to ensure
that stationary sources of air pollution are constructed or modified in a manner that is consistent with the attainment of health -based federal ambient air quality standards. The federal ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. Therefore, Projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s LSTs and mass emissions thresholds would not violate any air quality standards or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no criteria pollutant health impacts.

As previously discussed, localized effects of on-site Project emissions on nearby receptors were found to be less than significant (refer to Table 4.2 -11 and Table 4.2 -12). The LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a Project that are not expected to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable State or federal ambient air quality standard. The LSTs were developed by the SCAQMD based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each SRA and distance to the nearest sensitive receptor. The ambient air quality standards establish the levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect public health, including protecting the health of sensitive populations. Information on health impacts related to exposure to ozone and particulate matter emissions published by the U.S. EPA and CARB have been summarized and discussed in the Regulatory Section; refer to Table 4.2-3. As shown above, Project-related emissions would not exceed the regional thresholds or the LSTs with implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ -5 and therefore would not exceed the ambient air quality standards or cause an increase in the frequency or severity of existing violations of air quality standards. Therefore, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to criteria pollutant levels in excess of the health-based ambient air quality standards.

10 Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) [i.e., PSD (40 CFR 52.21, 40 CFR 51.166, 40 CFR 51.165 (b)), Non -attainment New Source Review (40 CFR

52.24, 40 CFR 51.165, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S) .

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-28
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenger cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Acco rdingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP.

The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any intersections in the vicinity of the project site resulting from 1,138 daily vehicle trips attributable to the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Health Risk Assessment
CARB identified DPM as a TAC in 1998. Mobile sources (including trucks, buses, automobiles, trains, ships, and farm equipment) are by far the largest diesel emissions source. Diesel exhaust is emitted from a broad range of on- and off-road diesel engines. As the project site is near existing sensitive receptors (i.e., single- family residential uses located approximately 700 feet to the east and southeast of the project site), an analysis of DPM was performed using the U.S. EPA-approved AERMOD model.

The SCAQMD conducted an in-depth analysis of TACs and their resulting health risks for all of Southern California. The Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study in the SCAB (MATES V) (August 2021) shows that carcinogenic risk from air toxics in the SCAB, based on the average concentrations at the 10 monitoring sites, is approximately 40 percent lower than the monitored average in MATES IV and 84 percent lower than the average in MATES II.

MATES V also evaluated the population- weighted cancer risk within Environmental Justice (EJ) communities using the SB 535 definition of disadvantaged communities. Between MATES IV and MATES V, air toxic cancer risk decreased by 57 percent in EJ communities overall compared to a 53 percent reduction in non-EJ communities.

MATES V is the most comprehensive dataset documenting the ambient air toxic levels and health risks associated with SCAB emissions. Therefore, the MATES V study represents the baseline health risk for a cumulative analysis. MATES V estimates the average excess cancer risk level from exposure to TACs is 424 in one million b asin-wide. In comparison, the MATES IV basin's average risk was 897 per million. This steady downward trend in health risk is due in larger part due to stricter regulatory requirements and cleaner fuels and engines, which have resulted in improved regional air quality.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-29
These model estimates were based on monitoring data collected at ten fixed sites within the SCAB. None of the fixed monitoring sites are near the project site . However, MATES V has extrapolated the excess cancer risk levels throughout the SCAB by modeling the specific grids. MATES V modeling predicted an excess cancer risk of 455 in one million for the project site area.11 Carcinogenic Risk
Table 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment shows the unmitigated health risk for Project construction and operations. Based on the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) Risk Assessment Guidelines, the exposure duration for a resident is 30 years, beginning with the third trimester, and the exposure duration for workers is 25 years. Warehouse-related operations would commence following construction. As such, construction would not overlap with operations. The analysis calculates risk based on exposure to constr uction concentrations during the initial 15 months of the exposure duration and operational concentrations for the remainder of the exposure duration. The Project (construction and operations combined scenario) would result in a maximum cancer risk of 1.41 in one million at the nearest residential receptors, 0.05 in one million at the nearest student receptors, and 1.21 in one million at the nearest worker receptors. Therefore, the SCAQMD threshold of 10 in one million would not be exceeded at the nearest receptors and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Cancer Risk
(per Million)1,2
Significance
Threshold
(per Million)
Risk Exceeds
Threshold?
Construction
Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1782 Lowell Street) 0.43 10 No Student Receptor
(Wilmer Amina Carter High School) 0.01 10 No
Worker Receptor
(Team 101 Restoration at 2824 Locust Avenue) 0.13 10 No Operations
Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1835 Persimmon
Avenue)

1.25 10 No
Student Receptor
(Wilmer Amina Carter High School) 0.05 10 No
Worker Receptor
(Tubular Steel Inc. at 2750 Locust Avenue) 1.19 10 No
Construction and Operations Combined
Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1782 Lowell Street) 1.41 10 No Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1835 Persimmon
Avenue)

1.35 10 No
Student Receptor 0.05 10 No

11 South Coast Air Quality Management District. Nd. MATES V Estimated Risk. Retrieved from:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/79d3b6304912414bb21ebdde80100b23/page/Main -Page/?views=Click-tabs-for-other- data%2CCancer -Risk#data_s=id%3AdataSource_105-a5ba9580e3aa43508a793fac819a5a4d%3A253. A ccessed August 26, 2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-30
Table 4.2-13: Carcinogenic Risk Assessment
Exposure Scenario
Cancer Risk
(per Million)1,2
Significance
Threshold
(per Million)
Risk Exceeds
Threshold?
(Wilmer Amina Carter High School)
Worker Receptor
(Team 101 Restoration at 2824 Locust Avenue) 0.99 10 No Worker Receptor
(Tubular Steel Inc. at 2750 Locust Avenue) 1.21 10 No
NA = Not Applicable

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

2. The cancer risk conservatively assumes that cargo handling equipment (i.e., yard trucks and forklifts) would be diesel pow ered.

Source: Refer to Appendix B for modeling data.

Non-Carcinogenic Risk
The SCAQMD also requires an evaluation of non-cancer risk from TAC exposure stated in terms of a hazard index. As discussed above, construction-related and operational-related activities would result in project- generated DPM emissions, which is the primary TAC of concern. Table 4.2-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment shows the chronic non-cancer risk hazard index from Project construction and operational emissions. A chronic non-cancer risk hazard index of 1.0 or greater is considered individually significant. The highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Project construction would be

0.0007 at the residential receptors, 0.0002 at the student receptors, and 0.0082 at the worker receptors.

Additionally, the highest maximum chronic hazard index associated with DPM emissions from Project operations would be 0.0003 at the residential receptors, 0.0001 at the student receptors, and 0.0039 at the worker receptors. It is noted that there is no acute REL for DPM and acute health risk cannot be calculated. Therefore, non-carcinogenic hazards are calculated to be within acceptable limits and a less than significant impact would occur.

As concluded above, the Project’s cancer and non-cancer risks from construction emissions would be less than significant, as both would be below the SCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. It is noted that this analysis assesses the Project’s incremental cont ribution to health risk impacts, consistent with the SCAQMD guidance and methodology. The SCAQMD has not established separate cumulative thresholds and does not require combining impacts from cumulative projects. The SCAQMD considers projects that do not exceed the project-specific individual incremental thresholds to not be cumulatively significant.

Therefore, because the Project’s health risks (i.e., cancer and non-cancer) would not exceed the Project- specific incremental thresholds, the Project would not result in a cumulatively significant impact and the Project’s contribution would be less than cumulatively considerable.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-31
Table 4.2-14: Chronic Hazard Assessment
Emissions Sources Concentration (μg/m3) 1 Chronic Hazard Construction
Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1782 Lowell Street) 0.0034 0.0007 Student Receptor
(Wilmer Amina Carter High School) 0.0008 0.0002
Worker Receptor
(Team 101 Restoration at 2824 Locust Avenue) 0.0411 0.0082 Operations
Residential Receptor
(single-family residential use at 1835 Persimmon Avenue) 0.0016 0.0003 Student Receptor
(Wilmer Amina Carter High School) 0.0007 0.0001
Worker Receptor
(Tubular Steel Inc. at 2750 Locust Avenue) 0.0193 0.0039 SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No

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

Source: Refer to Appendix B.

Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:

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

During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and VOCs from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these standard construction- related odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 , and impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-related activities would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Threshold 4.2-4 Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-32
Operations
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as potentially significant sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors. Therefore, the Project would comply with SCAQMD Rule 402 and operational odor impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Short-Term Emissions
The SCAB is designated nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 for State standards and nonattainment for O3 and PM 2.5 for Federal standards. Appendix D of the SCAQMD White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution (2003) notes that projects that result in emissions that do not exceed the project -specific SCAQMD regional thresh olds of significance should result in a less than significant impact on a cumulative basis unless there is other pertinent information to the contrary. Therefore, if a project is estimated to result in emissions that do not exceed the thresholds, the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact on air quality in the SCAB would not be cumulatively considerable. Project construction- related emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD significance thresholds for criteria pollutants with the incorporation of MM AQ-1 (see Table 4.2-8). Therefore, the proposed Project would not generate a cumulatively considerable contribution to air pollutant emissions during construction.

The SCAQMD has developed strategies to reduce criteria pollutant emissions outlined in the AQMP pursuant to the FCAA mandates. The analysis assumed fugitive dust controls would be used during construction, including frequent water applications. SCAQMD rules, mandates, and compliance with adopted AQMP emissions control measures would also be imposed on construction projects throughout SCAB, which would include related cumulative projects. As concluded above, the Project’s construction- related impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations would further minimize the proposed Project’s construction- related emissions. Therefore, Project -related construction emissions, in combination with those from other projects in the area, would not substantially deteriorate the local air quality. The Project’s construction -related emissions would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

Cumulative Long-Term Impacts
The SCAQMD has not established separate significance thresholds for cumulative operational emissions.

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

Project operational emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD thresholds with the incorporation of MM AQ-2 through MM AQ-5 (see Table 4.2-9). As a result, operational emissions associated with the Project

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-33
would not represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative air quality impacts.

4.2.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

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

LOR AQ-1 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (SCAQMD) Rules 402 and 403 to minimize construction emissions of dust and particulates. The measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
 Portions of a construction site to remain inactive longer than a period of three months will be seeded and watered until grass cover is grown or otherwise stabilized.  All on -site roads will be paved as soon as feasible or watered periodically or chemically stabilized.
 All material transported off site will be either sufficiently watered or securely covered to prevent excessive amounts of dust.
 The area disturbed by clearing, grading, earthmoving, or excavation operations will be minimized at all times.
 Where vehicles leave a construction site and enter adjacent public streets, the streets will be swept daily or washed down at the end of the work day to remove soil tracked onto the paved surface.

LOR AQ-2 Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2449.

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

LOR AQ-4 In accordance with California Title 24 Standards, buildings will be designed to have 15 percent of the roof area “solar ready” that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-34
LOR AQ-5 The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirem ents include, but are not limited to:
 Design buildings to be water efficient . Install water -efficient fixtures in accordance with Section 5.303 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.  Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with Section 5.408.1 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
 Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with Section 5.410 of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
 To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), nonresidential construction shall comply with Section 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 Low VOC Paints. The Project shall u se “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings.

Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10 g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
 All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.  Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.  Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
 For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
 Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment.  Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.  Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable.  Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

MM AQ-2 Require All-Electric Development. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Building Department shall confirm that building plans require the Project to use all -electric

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-35
appliances and end uses instead of natural gas. The project shall not include natural gas utility lines or connections. The purpose of this mitigation measure is to reduce air quality emissions from natural gas.

MM AQ-3 Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all handheld landscaping equipment used on site shall be 100 percent electrically powered. The logistics warehouse and parking lots shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

MM AQ-4 Transportation Demand Management . Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the tenant/facility operator shall prepare and submit a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees by increasing the number of trips by walking, bicycle, carpool, vanpool and transit. The TDM shall include measures such as, but not limited to the following:
 Provide a transportation information center and on-site TDM coordinator to educate residents, employers, employees, and visitors of surrounding transportation options.  Promote bicycling and walking through design features such as showers for employees, self-service bicycle repair area, etc. around the project site.  Each building shall provide secure bicycle storage space equivalent to two percent of the automobile parking spaces provided.
 Each building shall provide a minimum of two shower and changing facilities as part of the tenant improvements.
 Provide on-site car share amenities for employees who make only occasional use of a vehicle, as well as others who would like occasional access to a vehicle of a different type than they use day-to-day.
 Promote and support carpool/vanpool/rideshare use through parking incentives and administrative support, such as ride-matching service.
 Incorporate incentives for using alternative travel modes, such as preferential load/unload areas or convenient designated parking spaces for carpool/vanpool users.
 Provide meal options on site or shuttles between the facility and nearby meal destinations.
 Each building shall provide preferred parking for electric, low -emitting and fuel - efficient vehicles equivalent to at least eight percent of the required number of parking spaces.

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

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-36
MM AQ-5 Non-Diesel Cargo Handling Equipment. The warehouse building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show that all outdoor carg o handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission or alternatively fueled (i.e., powered by electricity or non-diesel fuels). The building manager or their designee shall be responsible for enforcing these requirements. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

4.2.9 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level.

4.2.10 References
CalEEMod version 2022.1.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). 2018. Health Effects.

California Air Resources Board. 2024. Aerometric Data Analysis and Measurement System (ADAM) Top Four Summaries from 2020 to 2022.

Ibid. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective.

Ibid. May 6, 2026. Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Ibid., Overview: Diesel Exhaust & Health. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health. Accessed July 11, 2024.

Ibid. October 2000. Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel‐Fueled Engines and Vehicles.

City of Rialto. 2010, as amended. 2010 City of Rialto General Plan.

South Coast Air Quality Management District. December 2022. 2022 Air Quality Management Plan.

Ibid. March 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

Ibid. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Ibid. June 2014. High Cube Warehouse Truck Trip Study White Paper Summary of Business Survey Results.

Ibid. 2009. Localized Significance Threshold Methodology.

Ibid. April 2019. South Coast AQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds.

Ibid. 2003. White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, Appendix D.

Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal 2024: Demographics & Growth Forecast, adopted April 4,2024.

Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.2
Draft Environmental Impact Report Air Quality

City of Rialto 4.2-37
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book).

Ibid. 2016. National Ambient Air Quality Standards Table.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-1

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 Introduction
This section of the EIR identifies and evaluates potential impacts related to biological resources associated with implementation of the proposed Project. The analysis in this section is based in part on the Biological Technical Report prepared by Rocks Biological Consulting (August 2025) which is included as Appendix D:

Biological Technical Report of this EIR.

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal Regulations
Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) provides for the listing of endangered and threatened species of plants and animals and the designation of critical habitat for these listed species. The FESA regulates the “taking” of any endangered fish or wildlife species, per Section 9 of the FESA . As development is proposed, the responsible agency or individual landowner is required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to assess potential impacts on listed species (including plants) or the critical habitat of a listed species, pursuant to Section 7 and Section 10 of the FESA. The USFWS is required to determine the extent a project would impact a particular species. If USFWS determines that a project is likely to potentially impact a species, measures to avoid or reduce such impacts must be identified.

Following consultation and the issuance of a Biological Opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement which allows for the take of a species if it is incidental to another authorized activity and will not adversely affect the existence of the species. Section 10 of the FESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits to non-federal parties in conjunction with the development of a habitat conservation plan.

Section 7 of the FESA provides for the permitting of projects where interagency cooperation is necessary to ensure that a federal action/decision does not jeopardize the existence of a listed species.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 USC §§ 703-711) is the domestic law that affirms and implements a commitment by the U.S. to four international conventions (with Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. Unless and except as permitted by regulations, the MBTA prohibits the intentional pursuit, hunting, taking, capture, or killing of migratory birds anywhere in the United States. The law also applies to the disturbance and removal of nests occupied by m igratory birds or their eggs during the breeding season, whether intentional or incidental.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), the U .S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which includes those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register [FR] 37104, June 29, 2015). The USACE, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The USACE would require a Standard Individual Permit for more than minimal impacts to waters of the U.S . as determined by the USACE . Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit or Regional General Permit.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-2
A water quality certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for all Section 404 permitted actions. The Regional Water Quality Control Board (R WQCB), divisions of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), provides oversight of the Section 401 certification process in California.

The RWQCB is required to provide “certification that there is reasonable assurance that an activity that may result in the discharge to waters of the United States will not violate water quality standards.” Water Quality Certification must be based on the finding that a proposed discharge will comply with applicable water quality standards.

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

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

Sections 2080 through 2085 of CESA address the take of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “no person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any par t or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under CESA, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the S tate to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 1901 and 1913 provide that notification is required prior to disturbance. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife ( CDFW) is responsib le for assessing development projects for their potential to impact listed species and their habitats. State -listed species are addressed through the issuance of a 2081 Permit (Memorandum of Understanding).

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

City of Rialto 4.3-3
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over ripa rian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not extend to tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to an applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final pr oposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and an applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3511, 3513, 3800, 4700, 5050, and 5515 Within California, fish, wildlife, and native plant resources are protected and managed by CDFW. The California Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFW are responsible for issuing permits for the take or possession of protected species. The following sections of the California Fish and Game Code address protected species: Section 3511 (birds), Section 4700 (mammals), Section 5050 (reptiles and amphibians), and Section 5515 (fish). In addition, the protection of birds of prey is provided for in Sections 3503, 3513, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code.

California Native Plant Protection Act (California Fish and Game Code Sections 1900–1913) The California Native Plant Protection Act requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. The California Native Plant Protection Act prohibits the take of such plants, with certain exceptions.

California Desert Native Plant Act (California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 80001 –80201) The California Desert Native Plants Act prohibits the removal of certain species of California desert native plants on public and privately owned lands without a valid permit from the sheriff or commissioner of the county where collecting would occur. This act applies within the boundaries of San Bernardino, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, and San Diego counties.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The SWRCB is the primary agency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Act.

Pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, the State is given authority to regulate waters of the State, which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. As such, any person proposing to discharge waste into a water body that could affect its water quality must first file a Report of Waste Discharge if Section 404 of the CWA i s not required for the activity. “Waste” is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, including fill material discharged into water bodies.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-4
Regional and Local Regulations
County of San Bernardino
The Planning Division of the County’s Land Use Services has developed Biotic Resources Overlay Maps to identify sensitive biotic resources that may occur within specific areas of the County. All discretionary permit applications must disclose potential impacts on these identified resources and propose mitigation measures to eliminate or reduce significant impacts.

According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone
1; the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species for listing under CESA.

Therefore, land development permit applications must include an analysis of potential impacts on burrowing owl and provide proposed mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce or eliminate such impacts. Though the site does not occur in unincorporated county land, the mapping provides a useful guide for identifying potential habitat for this species. The County’s owl requirements fall within the State requirements and are followed herein.

Rialto General Plan
The primary role of Chapter 2, Managing Our Land Supply of the Rialto General Plan is to direct the use of the City’s land resources in the most equitable and productive manner possible, to provide a high quality of life for residents and the overall community. The Rialto General Plan notes that Rialto is predominantly developed but some areas remain substantially undisturbed. Most undisturbed areas are in the northern portion of the City. The Managing Our Land Supply Element indicates that the City will continue to protect local biological resources through careful land designation of resource areas, and by requiring development projects proximate to wildlife corridors to incorporate mitigation measures to minimize impacts to such biological resources.

The following Rialto General Plan goal and polic y have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project:

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

Goal 2-40 Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.

Policy 2-40.1 Protect endangered, threatened, rare, and other special status habitat and wildlife species within and along Lytle Creek by working with the United States Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or other established biological resource protection mechanisms within this sensitive area.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for properties within the Specific Plan area.

The Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designation for the project site is General Manufacturing (I-GM), which permits wholesale and warehousing operations. The Rialto Municipal Airport ceased operations in

1 County of San Bernardino . 2012. Biotic Resources Map. Retrieved from : https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/48/GeneralPlan/cnty -all-biotic-resources-map-final.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2024.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-5
2014 and the former airport property and much of the properties adjacent to the Rialto Municipal Airport were removed from the Rialto Airport Specific Plan and incorporated into the Renaissance Specific Plan, which was adopted by the City in 2010. The project site remains within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

The Rialto Airport Specific Plan provides a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in the Specific Plan area. For projects within the Rialto Airport Specific Plan area, policies and standards in the Specific Plan take precedence over more general policies and standards applied throughout the rest of the City.

The Rialto Airport Specific Plan states that there were no sensitive plant species observed during the field surveys conducted for the Specific Plan area in June 1995 and May 1996. Also, the only sensitive wildlife species observed during a field survey conducted for the Specific Plan area in June 1995 was a c oast horned lizard (P.blainvillii).

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) 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. As noted above, the project site has a Specific Plan land use designation of I -GM. The development guidelines for the I -GM designation are identified in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

4.3.3 Existing Conditions
The project site is composed of disturbed and undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub, as well as chaparral, disturbed land, and developed land. Disturbed land is dominant in the northern portion of the site and is characterized by non -native grasses. Portions of the project site are partially fenced, and lands immediately surrounding the project site contain human impacts, such as scrap metal and rock piles, a detention basin, berms, and heavy machinery operations. Overhead electric utilities are located along the northwestern project boundary along North Locust Avenue. The project site is bounded by developed land, composed of commercial and industrial properties, paved roads and lots, and disturbed land.

Topography and Soils
The project site is relatively flat with moderate topographic relief occurring along the southern boundary.

On-site elevation ranges from approximately 1, 590 to 1,650 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from northwest to southeast. Soils mapped on site include Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes, and Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes ( Appendix D). On-site soils have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from human disturbance.

Vegetation and Land Cover
The project site is primarily vacant, but areas within the site boundaries have historically been used for concrete asphalt production and associated stockpiling and storage activities. The project parcel is 39.9 acres, with off-site improvements planned on an additional 4.3 acres adjacent to the site. The project site and off-site improvement areas support several land cover types including developed land, disturbed land, Riversidean sage scrub, and chaparral Appendix D.

Developed. Developed land is typically classified as lands regularly utilized by humans that are devoid of natural habitat. Developed land within the project site consists of World War II- era bunker structure remnants and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site. In total, developed land occurs on 8.4

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

City of Rialto 4.3-6
acres of the project site and offsite improvement areas. Developed habitat is not recognized by CDFW; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

Disturbed. Disturbed land is typically classified as land on which the native vegetation has been significantly altered by agriculture, construction, or other land -clearing activities, and the species composition and site conditions are not characteristic of the disturbed phase of a plant association (e.g., disturbed Riversidean sage scrub). Non-native annual species and perennial broadleaf species typically dominate the habitat. Disturbed land on site is primarily vegetated by short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and other non-native species, such as tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). There are a few scattered native species throughout the disturbed land, such as common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), California croton (Croton californicus), and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia); however, they are isolated occurrences and do not function as separate vegetation communities or land cover types. Disturbed land occurs on 7. 2 acres of the project site and offsite improvement areas. Disturbed land is not recognized by CDFW; therefore, it is not considered a sensitive natural community under CEQA.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Focused rare plant surveys were conducted during appropriate blooming period for this target species, and surveys were positive for Parry’s spineflower. All other special-status plant species with low potential to occur or not expected to occur are presumed absent from the project site, due to a high degree of habitat fragmentation and routine on-site disturbances. Additionally, CRPR 3 and 4 species were omitted from the potential to occur analysis below due to their relatively low threat status, consistent with standard practice.

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

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

PLANT SPECIES
California satintail
(Imperata brevifolia)
CRPR 2B.1 Perennial rhizomatous herb. Blooms September-May.

Chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows and seeps, Mojavean
desert scrub, and riparian scrub. Elevation 0-3,985 feet.

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

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

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

Mesa horkelia
(Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula)
CRPR 1B.1 Perennial herb. Blooms February-September. Maritime chaparral, cismontane woodland, and coastal scrub. Elevation 230-2,657 feet.

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

Nevin’s barberry
(Berberis nevinii)
FE; SE; CNPR
1B.1
Perennial evergreen shrub. Blooms (February) March-June.

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and Riparian scrub. Elevation 230-2,705 feet.

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

Parry's spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi)
CRPR 1B.1 Annual herb. Blooms April-June. Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland.

Elevation 900-4,000 feet.

Present. Suitable chaparral habitat with sandy soil present on site.

Species observed in 2012 less than one-half mile south of the project site in loamy sand conditions similar to those found on site. Observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

Slender-horned
spineflower
(Dodecahema
leptoceras)
FE; SE; CRPR
1B.1
Annual herb. Blooms April-June. Chaparral, cismontane
woodland, alluvial fan coastal scrub. Elevation 655-2,490 feet.

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

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

Low. Species prefers open, poorly drained flats and waterway banks/beds. Contemporary observations of this species from the project vicinity are restricted to the floodplain, which does not overlap with the project site. Not observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

White rabbit-tobacco
(Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum)
CRPR 2B.2 Perennial herb. Blooms (July) August-November (December).

Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland. Elevation 0-6,890 feet.

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-9
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
White-bracted
spineflower
(Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca)
CRPR 1B.2 Annual herb. Blooms April-June. Coastal scrub, Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and juniper woodland. Elevation 985- 3,935 feet.

Low. Although sage scrub habitat with sandy to gravelly soils are present on site, this species prefers alluvial fans which are not present on site. Species was documented in 2012 less than two miles northeast of project site at lower Lytle Creek in sand-gravel substrate.

Not
observed during 2025 focused rare plant surveys.

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

Present. Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on site during 2025 focused surveys. This species can persist in semi-natural habitats surrounded by intensely modified landscapes, such as the sparse disturbed scrub habitat within the project site. Suitable potential nectar sources and small mammal burrows are present on the site. Species have been reported approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the site in 2024.

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

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

Monarch butterfly,
California
overwintering
population (Danaus
plexippus plexippus
pop. 1)
FPT Found in a variety of habitats across the United States and Mexico (e.g., grasslands, urban land, mountains, and coastal habitats). Exclusively oviposit on milkweed. Nectivorous adults require flowering plants. Roost in eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and Monterey cypresses in California.

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

California glossy
snake (Arizona
elegans occidentalis)
SSC Found in arid scrub, rocky washes, grasslands, and chaparral habitats. Prefers habitats containing open areas and loose soils for burrowing.

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

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

Present. Chaparral and sage scrub habitat on site are suitable for this species. Suitable loose soils are present on site in dense shrubby habitat.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-10
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Coast horned lizard
(Phrynosoma
blainvillii)
SSC A variety of habitats including sage scrub, chaparral, and coniferous and broadleaf woodlands. Found on sandy or
friable soils with open scrub. Requires open areas, bushes, and fine loose soil.

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

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

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

Western spadefoot
(Spea hammondii)
FPT; SSC Found in temporary ponds, vernal pools, and backwaters of flowing creeks, as well as adjacent upland habitats such as grasslands and coastal sage scrub for burrowing. May use kangaroo rat (Dipodomys spp.) or other burrows for cover during hot, dry season.

Low. Aquatic resources required by this species do not occur on site.

Though potentially suitable upland habitat is present, it is isolated from suitable aquatic resources.

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

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

Burrowing owl
(Athene cunicularia)
CSE; SSC Found in grasslands and open scrub from coast to foothills.

Strongly associated with California ground squirrel and other fossorial mammal burrows.

Moderate (Surveys Negative). Suitable open scrub habitat is present on site. A relatively small number of California ground squirrel burrow complexes occur on site. This species is known to occur locally and has been recorded less than two miles southeast of the project site.

Focused non-breeding surveys were negative; however, future occupation is possible based on suitable habitat.

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

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

Coastal California
gnatcatcher
FT; SSC Found in sage scrub habitats, often on slopes. Nests in shrubs including sagebrush, buckwheat, and sage. Diegan coastal Low. Sage scrub habitat present on site is fragmented and disturbed.

Species was observed in a now developed area adjacent to the site in

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

City of Rialto 4.3-11
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
(Polioptila californica
californica)
sage scrub and other similar open scrub habitats in coastal areas, with most populations occurring below 1,500 feet in elevation.
1997, but the species is likely extirpated from the immediate area. The most recent, nearby observation of this species was approximately three miles east of the project site near Lytle Creek Wash. Would have likely been detected during surveys if present (e.g., focused burrowing owl, rare plant, and Crotch’s bumble bee surveys).

California horned
lark (Eremophila
alpestris actia)
WL Found from coastal deserts and grasslands to alpine dwarf- shrub habitat above treeline. Also seen in coniferous or chaparral habitats.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Golden eagle (Aquila
chrysaetos)
FP; WL Found in open and semi open country featuring native vegetation across most of the northern hemisphere. Nest on cliffs and steep escarpments in grassland, chapparal,
shrubland, forest, and other vegetated areas.

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

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

Lawrence’s goldfinch
(Spinus lawrencei)
BCC Found in chaparral, coastal scrub, pinyon pine-juniper woodlands, oak woodlands, riparian, and disturbed habitats.

Also found in semi-urban, weedy, and agricultural
environments. Generally associated with a water source, especially in drier regions.

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

Loggerhead shrike
(Lanius ludovicianus)
SSC Found within grassland, chaparral, desert, and desert edge scrub, particularly near dense vegetation used for nesting.

Species requires vegetation with spines or thorns (Yosef 1996), or artificial objects such as barbed wire to impale its prey species.

Moderate. Suitable chaparral and dense vegetation found on site.

Project site contains barbed wire and sharp fencing appropriate for species feeding techniques. This species has been observed in the project vicinity in habitats with similar conditions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-13
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur
Distribution Center. Very few small mammal burrows were observed on site.

San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
(Dipodomys
merriami parvus)
FE; SE; SSC Found along floodplains, washes and alluvial fans in scrub and chaparral habitats. Soft soil required to burrow.

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

Western yellow bat
(Lasiurus xanthinus)
SSC Occupies a range of habitats in arid and dry areas. Inhabits secluded woodlands, agricultural lands, and sometimes even residential areas.

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

Notes:

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

0.1 Seriously threatened in California

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

City of Rialto 4.3-14
Table 4.3-1: Special-Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Potential to Occur

0.2 Moderately threatened in California

0.3 Not very threatened in California
Source:

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-15
Special-Status Wildlife
Of the special-status wildlife species evaluated five special-status wildlife species, Crotch’s bumble bee (state candidate for listing under the CESA), Cooper’s hawk ( Accipiter cooperii; CDFW Watch List [WL]), coastal whiptail ( Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri ; CDFW Species of Special Concern [SSC]), Costa’s hummingbird (Calypte costae; USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern [BCC]), and Lawrence’s goldfinch (Spinus lawrencei; USFWS BCC), were observed during project field surveys, and seven additional species have a low-to-moderate or moderate potential to occur within the project site based on the presence of suitable habitat . Please note that special -status wildlife species with low potential to occur or not expected to occur are not addressed further in this report; due to a high degree of habitat fragmentation and routine on-site disturbances no impacts are anticipated with these species.

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

No USFWS designated critical habitat overlaps with the project site; however, there is critical habitat for San Bernadino kangaroo rat less than 700 feet west of the site. This area of critical habitat is separated from the project site by a paved road and is now developed. Additional critical habitat can be found approximately 0.5-mile north of the site but is separated from the project site by dense development .

Refer to Figure 3a in Appendix D.

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

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-16
Jurisdictional Waters and Streambed
No aquatic resources were identified within the project site and 50-foot buffer during desktop review of the NWI, NHD databases, and historic aerial photos. Additionally, during the constraints -level aquatic resources assessment on October 29, 2024, no aquatic resources potentially jurisdictional per the USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW were observed within the project site. Lastly, all soil types documented within the review area are not considered hydric, nor are there vegetation communities occurring within the review area contain riparian and/or hydrophytic species.

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

Outlined in the Biological Technical Report prepared for the Project, biologists conducted database research, vegetation mapping, habitat assessments for special -status species, and an initial general biological survey on October 29, 2024 (Appendix D). Biologists also examined the site for the presence of potentially jurisdictional aquatic resources; however, a formal aquatic resources delineation to identify areas that may be considered jurisdictional under the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, under the RWQCB pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and under the CDFW pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, was not conducted. The general biological survey, vegetation mapping, and habitat assessments were conducted within the approximately 44.2-acre project site and a surrounding 100-foot buffer (survey area) for a total of 66.7 acres. The constraints-level aquatic resources assessment was conducted within the project site plus a surrounding 50 -foot buffer for a total of 5 5.3 acres. Table 4.3 -2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted lists survey dates and conditions.

Table 4.3-2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted
Date Activity Surveyo
r(s)
Time
(Start- End)
Temp.
(F)
(Start-
End)
Cloud
Cover
(%)
(Start-
End)
Wind Range
(mph)
(Start; End)
10/29/2024 Burrowing owl survey AG, HS 0730-1100 49-64 25-50 3-5; 3-5 10/29/2024
General biological survey,
vegetation mapping, constraints-
level aquatic resources assessment
AG, HS 1100-1145 64-64 50-50 3-5; 3-5
11/26/2024 Burrowing owl survey HS, KW 0700-0900 51-55 95-95 0-2; 0-2 1/7/2025 Burrowing owl survey AG, MT 0730-0930 51-54 100-90 15-25; 10-15 1/16/2025 Burrowing owl survey AG, KW 0715-0915 54-56 0-0 5-8; 3-5 1/31/2025 Burrowing owl survey IB, KW 0750-0940 41-52 10-15 0-2; 0-2

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

City of Rialto 4.3-17
4/29/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH, KW 1030-1430 65-76 0-20 0-2; 4-8 5/8/2025 Rare plant survey JR, AG 1000-1530 69-80 0-0 1-3; 1-3 5/22/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH 1045-1430 81-87 10-5 0-3; 3-7 5/22/2025 Rare plant survey JR, AG 1045-1430 81-87 10-5 0-3; 3-7 6/9/2025 Crotch’s bumble bee survey IH, IB 0945-1345 67-80 50-20 3-6; 1-4 6/18/2025 Parry’s spineflower assessment JR 1015-1405 87-96 0-0 1-3; 2-6 Notes: AG=Alec Goodman, HS=Hannah Swarthout, IB=Imran Badar, IH=Ian Hirschler, JR=Jim Rocks, KW=Kelsey Woldt, MT=Melissa Tamarkin Source: Rocks Biological Consulting, Biological Technical Report, included as Appendix D to this EIR.

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

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

Focused Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii) surveys were conducted on April 29, May 22, and June 9, 2025, within the time period when detection of Crotch’s bumble bee is greatest (i.e., April through August). Three surveys were performed in accordance with the Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2024b). Surveys were conducted by walking transects through the project site focusing on areas where ample nectar sources were present, with a minimum of one person -hour of searching per three acres of suitable habitat. Surveyors were prepared to re cord the location of any observed Crotch’s bumble bee, along with population size and nesting status, and to collect non- lethal photo vouchers captured at various angles to confirm accurate identification. All arthropods and potential nectar sources were ident ified and recorded. Full survey methods, details, and species lists can be found in Appendix D.

4.3.5 Thresholds of Significance
The following significance criteria for biological resources were derived from the Environmental Checklist in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G. The proposed Project would result in a significant impact related to biological resources if it would:

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

City of Rialto 4.3-18
 Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS.
 Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS.  Have a substantial adverse effect on S tate or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
 Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
 Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

As addressed in Section 5.1: Effects Found Not to be Significant, the City has determined that the Project would not have a significant impact on the following threshold for the reasons stated below and that no further analysis was required in the EIR:
 Would the Project c onflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
The project site is not located with an active HCP or NCCP area. 2 4.3.6 Project Impacts and Mitigation

The proposed Project involves ground disturbance (e.g., grubbing, clearing and grading) and construction of a warehouse, access roadways, and other needed infrastructure and improvements that could result in impacts to special status plant and wildlife species during construction. Impacts to special-status species could also occur during project operations from either direct (e.g., destruction of potential habitat, disturbance of species located on the site) or indirect impacts (e.g., disturbance of habitat or species as a result of increased noise, vibration, dust, nighttime lighting, and human activity in the area). Potential impacts are discussed in more detail below.

Special-Status Plant Species
Parry’s spineflower. Parry’s spineflower is native and endemic to Southern California and blooms from April to June. Parry’s spineflower is a CRPR rank 1B.1 species, meaning it is rare, threatened, or

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-19
endangered in California and elsewhere and eligible for state -listing under CEQA. Parry’s spineflower is also a State Rank S2, meaning it is imperiled because of rarity making it very vulnerable to extirpation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-20
As noted above, t he project is within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone per the San Bernardino County Museum Biological Species Database and General Plan. No burrowing owl individuals, active sign, or evidence of burrowing owls were observed during the general biological survey on October 29, 2024, or during focused burrowing owl surveys between October 29, 2024 and January 31, 2025. Suitable habitat and mapped burrows were inspected during focused surveys for Crotch’s bumble bee and rare plants in spring and early summer of 2025 and continued burrowing owl absence was recorded. Despite negative survey results, burrowing owl could forage, seek refuge, and/or breed on site in the future due to the presence of suitable habitat and burrows throughout the project site.

With Project implementation, a potentially significant impact on burrowing owl could occur in the form of death, injury, or harassment of nesting birds, their eggs, and their young, if owls are present. Such impacts, if they were to occur, are potentially significant due to the direct reduction in local populations and loss of genetic diversity. Injury or mortality occurs most frequently during the vegetation clearing stage of construction and affects eggs, nestlings, and recently fledged young that cannot safely avoid equipment. In addition, impacts on burrowing owl could occur if owls were to enter the project site during active construction. Burrowing owls are particularly susceptible to vehicle strikes because they utilize roadways and adjacent areas for hunting. Burrowing owls are known to use manmade materials, such as pipes and culverts, for shelter and nesting. Impacts on burrowing owl, if they were to subsequently inhabit the site, are potentially significant. To avoid direct impacts on burrowing owls, pre-construction clearance surveys, CDFW consultation, and best management practices as outlined in MM BIO-2, MM BIO-3A, and MM BIO-3B would be implemented. With implementation of the mitigation measures, direct impacts on burrowing owls, if present, would be reduced to less than significant.

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

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

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

Crotch’s Bumble Bee. The Crotch’s bumble bee is currently a candidate for listing under the CESA based on a 2018 petition submitted by the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Defenders of Wildlife and Center for Food Safety ( Appendix D ). One Crotch’s bumble bee was observed on the project site during a focused survey on June 9, 2025. Suitable nectar sources and habitat (i.e., small rodent burrows) are present on the project site and, although nests were not observed, the potential for nesting is moderate. Due to species presence, the Project could result in potentially significant impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee in the form of death, injury, or harassment and if present in the future could result in the destruction of nesting sites which could result in significant direct take of Crotch’s bumble bee.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-21
Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, as required by MM BIO-1(j), construction personnel would be provided training with instructions to follow in the event a Crotch’s bumble bee nest is observed or suspected to be on site. In accordance with MM BIO-4A, pre-construction surveys would be conducted to locate any active Crotch’s bumble bee nests within or adjacent to construction areas, if nests are detected, as required under MM BIO -4B. Avoidance and minimization measures as outlined in project -specific permits (i.e., CESA ITP) would be followed to ensure unauthorized take does not occur . In addition to nests, impacts could occur to Crotch’s bumble bee if a bee enters the project site during active construction. In compliance wi th MM BIO -4C, a biological monitor would be present on site during removal of suitable nectar sources and if an individual is identified would stop construction work to allow Crotch’s bumble bee to move out of harm’s way. MM BIO -1 would also require compliance with construction BMPs to further avoid or minimize the potential for direct adverse impacts to Crotch’s bumble bee during construction activities.

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

Indirect impacts on Crotch’s bumble bee, if present adjacent to the project site, could occur during construction due to elevated noise, vibration, and dust levels generated by equipment. These disturbances are temporary and relatively short in duration and are unlikely to affect Crotch’s bumble bee behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant in this regard.

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

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

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

California Horned Lark , Costa’s Hummingbird, Lawrence’s Goldfinch, and Loggerhead Shrike. Costa’s hummingbird and Lawrence’s goldfinch were observed on site and California horned lark and loggerhead shrike have moderate potential to occur on the project site; therefore, direct impacts through loss of suitable foraging habitat could occur with P roject implementation. Suitable foraging habitat for Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark and loggerhead shrike is present within

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

City of Rialto 4.3-22
proximity to the project site and is abundant throughout the region. In addition, as required by MM BIO- 4B, compensatory habitat mitigation lands for Crotch’s bumble bee are likely to be suitable for these four non-listed avian species. As such, removal of suitable foraging habitat would be less than significant.

However, Project construction activities could result in potentially significant impacts on nesting Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark and loggerhead shrike, if nests are present.

Vegetation trimming or removal of suitable habitat within an active breeding territory could result in harassment, injury, damage or destruction of an active nest, and/or death of adults, eggs, and/or young during construction activities. The Project would implement MM BIO -2, which would require best management practices including flushing species from the site prior to vegetation removal. Additionally, MM BIO-5A and MM BIO-5B would require compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 avoidance of nesting season if feasible, nesting bird surveys 3 days prior to site disturbance, and buffers to be established around active nests.

Indirect impacts on Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark, and loggerhead shrike, if present adjacent to the project site, could occur during construction due to elevated noise, vibration, and dust levels generated by equipment. These disturbances are temporary and relatively short in duration and are unlikely to affect Costa’s hummingbird, Lawrence’s goldfinch, California horned lark, or loggerhead shrike behavior. As such, indirect impacts during project construction are anticipated to be less than significant.

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

Cooper’s Hawk, Prairie Falcon, and Merlin. One adult Cooper’s hawk was observed flying overhead during a biological survey. The hawk flew over the project site and was not observed directly using it. Although the project site supports suitable foraging habitat for Cooper’s hawk, this species is not expected to rely on the habitat on the project site. Removal of foraging habitat as a result of project implementation is anticipated to be less than significant due to the abundance of suitable Cooper’s hawk habitat throughout the region. Prairie falcon and merlin both have low -to-moderate potential to occur on the project site.

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

Coastal Whiptail, Coast Horned Lizard, and Southern California Legless Lizard . Coastal whiptail w3as observed on-site and coast horned lizard and Southern California legless lizard have moderate or low-to- moderate potential to occur on site. The project site supports approximately 28.6 acres of native upland habitat, the on-site chaparral and sage scrub are disturbed and isolated from other areas of suitable native habitat. Coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard exhibit high site fidelity and are not capable of dispersing long distances through urban environments. As such, on site habitat, if occupied by special-status lizards, does not contribute to the species’ long-term survival. The surrounding urban landscape acts as a barrier to dispersal, cutting off special-status lizard populations, if present, from

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

City of Rialto 4.3-23
other populations, limiting genetic diversity and effectively creating a ‘sink’. Other natural lands in the project vicinity, such as Lytle Creek, Jurupa Hills, the Santa Ana River corridor, and the Cucamonga Wilderness provide suitable habitat with connectivity to other populations. As such, loss of on-site suitable habitat would not result in a significant impact on the species or habitat due to the lack of value this land provides to the long-term viability of the species.

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

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

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

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

As previously addressed and verified during the fi eld investigation, t here are no riparian habitats or federally protected wetlands or resources on the project site or in its immediate vicinity. The project site Threshold 4.3-2: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the CDFW or USFWS?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant Impact
Threshold 4.3-3: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on State or federal protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Level of Significance: No Impact

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

City of Rialto 4.3-24
does not contain any water resources (e.g., streams, creeks, channels, vernal pools) nor would project implementation potentially affect wetlands. Additionally, t he U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory and U.S. Geological Survey National Hydrography Dataset databases do not map any features within the project site (Appendix D). Therefore, the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any State or federally protected wetlands and no impact would occur.

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

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

The Project has the potential to impact nesting migratory birds which have acclimated to urban life and nest and forage in the local trees and shrubs. The project site contains habitat with the potential to support avian nests and impacts on nesting birds. The proposed Project has the potential to impact active bird nests if vegetation is removed or ground disturbing activities are initiated during the nesting season.

The direct injury or death of a migratory bird due to construction or other disturbance that causes nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered a significant impact as impacts on nesting birds are prohibited by the MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.

The Project would implement MM BIO-5A which would require compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, avoidance of nesting season if feasible, nesting bird surveys three days prior to site disturbance, and MM BIO -5B which would require buffers to be established around active nests. Adherence t o MM BIO -5A and MM BIO-5B would ensure Project implementation would result in a less than significant impact to migratory birds. Therefore, the Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.

Threshold 4.3-4: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM BIO-5.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-25

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

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

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

4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
Past, present and reasonably foreseeable future projects are required to implement measures, as set forth in their respective CEQA documents, consistent with federal, State, and local regulations to avoid adverse effects to existing biological resources or to mitigate for significant impacts to these resources. The types of measures required for projects impacting protected habitat, species, and regulated resources can include avoidance , project design features, regulatory approvals, best management practices, and mitigation measures. With implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, the proposed Project would not cause a significant impact to biological resources. Mitigation would inclu de construction BMPs to avoid potential impacts and disturbance to special status species, and Parry’s spineflower, burrowing owl, nesting bird, Crotch’s bumble bee, Coastal whiptail, Coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizard pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures. Project level impacts would be less than significant with the implementation of these measures and therefore would not contribute to a cumulative impact. Additionally, as discussed in this section, the project site does not contain riparian habitat or any other water resources. Additionally, the project site does not contain waters, including wetland waters, that are subject to federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. The project site is not located within a designated protected area, which may support species and habitats that are sensitive and rare within the region or may function as a migration corridor for wildlife. Lastly, the Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resour ces. Therefore, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-6, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative effect Threshold 4.3-5: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Level of Significance: Less than Significant with incorporation of MM BIO-3A.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-26
on biological resources including sensitive species, protected habitat, or wetland resources. Therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

4.3.8 Mitigation Program
Standard Conditions
No standard conditions are applicable.

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

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

If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes conservation of an extant population, the plan shall include at a minimum: (a) the location of the conserved habitat and an analysis of its suitability as compensatory mitigation ; (b) an assessment of the extant Parry’s spineflower populations at the proposed conservation site; (c) a long-term management plan which includes objectives, management practices, monitoring protocols, adaptive management strategies, and reporting r equirements; and (d) details regarding the establishment of a non- wasting endowment to perpetually fund management of the conserved land, or such other funding mechanism acceptable to CDFW.

If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes enhancement or restoration, t he plan shall include at minimum: (a) collection/salvage measures for plants or seed banks, to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding storage of plants or seed banks; (c) location of the proposed recipient site , and detailed site preparation and plant introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding will occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.

MM BIO-2: Best Management Practices. To avoid impacts to special -status resources and inadvertent disturbance, the following monitoring requirements and Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be implemented:
a. Construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 miles per hour on unpaved roads adjacent to the project site or the right-of-way accessing the site. b. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall screen, cover, or elevate at least one foot above ground, all construction pipe, culverts, or similar structures with a diameter of three inches or greater that are stored on site overnight. These pipes, culverts, and similar structures shall be inspected by the project biologist for wildlife before such material is moved, buried, or capped.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-27
c. Construction activities shall occur during daytime hours to the greatest extent feasible. If construction must occur at nighttime, lights shall be oriented in such a way that they direct light downward and toward the active construction, ensuring that no direct light is emitted towards adjacent lands, and shields or deflectors shall be installed on lights to reduce light spill. Nighttime concrete pouring shall be performed in accordance with the City of Rialto Municipal Code.
d. A biologist shall flush special-status species (i.e., avian or other mobile species), with the exception of burrowing owl, from suitable habitat areas within the project development footprint to the maximum extent practicable immediately (e.g., within 24 hours) prior to initial vegetation removal activities. The biologist shall flush wildlife by walking through habitat to be imminently removed and towards adjacent open space.
e. At the end of each workday during construction, the applicant, or its contractors, shall cover all excavated, steep-sided holes or trenches more than eight inches deep and that have sidewalls steeper than 1:1 (45 degree) slope with plywood or similar materials, or provide a minimum of one escape ramp per 100 feet of trenching (with slopes no greater than 3:1) constructed of earth fill or wooden planks. The applicant, or its contractors shall thoroughly inspect holes and trenches for trapped animals each workday.
f. Contractors shall not permit pets on the construction site. g. If trash and debris need to be stored overnight during maintenance activities, fully covered trash receptacles that are animal-proof and weather-proof shall be used by the maintenance contractor to contain all food, food scraps, food wrappers, beverage containers, and other miscellaneous trash. Alternatively, standard trash receptacles may be used during the day but must be removed or emptied each night. h. To prevent inadvertent disturbance to areas outside the limits of work, the construction limits shall be clearly demarcated (e.g., installation of flagging or temporary visibility construction fence) prior to ground-disturbance activities, and all construction activities, including equipment staging and maintenance, shall be conducted within the marked disturbance limits. The work limit delineation shall be maintained throughout project construction.
i. The Applicant, or its contractors, shall avoid the use of invasive plant species in the associated landscaping.
j. Prior to initial ground disturbing activities, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared, which will include a training presentation and key fact sheet. The training will instruct construction crews to be aware of and recognize sensitive biological resources that may be encountered within, or adjacent to, the project. The training will provide workers with instructions to follow in the event a sensitive species is observed or suspected to be on site. Biologists shall provide WEAP training materials, including but not limited to the key fact sheet, to construction personnel before their commencement of work on the project. Additionally, all construction staff shall attend the WEAP training presentation prior to beginning

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

City of Rialto 4.3-28
work on site. Upon completion of the WEAP training, each member of the construction crew shall sign a form stating that they attended the training, understood the information presented, and agreed to comply with the requirements set out in the WEAP training. Biologists shall provide updates relevant to the training to construction personnel during the safety (“tailgate”) meetings, as needed.

MM BIO-3A: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. No less than 14 days prior to the onset of construction activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the construction limits of the project site and a 500-foot buffer for the presence of burrowing owls and occupied nest burrows. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to the onset of construction activities. Time lapses between project activities greater than one week (7 days) would trigger subsequent 24-hour take avoidance surveys to confirm burrowing owl absence. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current CDFW survey methods. If burrowing owls are not observed during clearance surveys or biological monitoring, no additional conditions are required to avoid impacts to burrowing owl.

The Project Applicant shall submit at least one burrowing owl pre -construction survey report to the satisfaction of the City to document compliance with this mitigation measure. For the purposes of this measure, ‘qualified biologist’ is a biologist who meets the requirements set forth in the BUOW Guidelines (CDFW 2012).

MM BIO-3B: Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. If burrowing owls, active burrows, or signs thereof are confirmed during any survey or biological monitoring, project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall be immediately halted. The qualified biologist shall coordinate with CDFW and prepare a Burrowing Owl Plan that shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval prior to commencing project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, and monitoring actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites, acres of burrowing owl habitat that will be impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on proposed buffers and other avoidance measure s if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 500 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-29
MM BIO-4A: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Surveys. At a minimum, two pre-construction nesting surveys shall be conducted prior to project implementation. Surveys shall occur within 1) one week; and 2) within 24 -hours prior to any vegetation removal or ground -disturbing activities scheduled to occur during the Crotch’s bumble bee flight season (February through October). Surveys shall follow the guidelines provided in the CDFW’s Survey Considerations for CESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (2024b) and shall occur within the project site and areas adjacent to the project site where suitable habitat exists. The surveyors shall be qualified biologists familiar with Crotch’s bumble bee identification and life history.

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

MM BIO-4C: Crotch’s Bumble Bee Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor shall conduct full- time monitoring during removal of suitable nectar plants that is scheduled to occur during the queen flight period (February through March), colony active period (March through September), and/or gyne flight period (September through October). The monitor shall have authority to temporarily halt or redirect activities as needed to avoid unauthorized impacts.

MM BIO-5B: Nesting Bird Surveys. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and species observed. Buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment. If nesting birds are documented, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist to avoid take of nesting birds.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-30
If nesting birds are not documented during the pre -construction survey, adherence to additional measures may not be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds.

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

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

Avoidance measures shall be monitored by the qualified biologist.

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

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

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

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

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

City of Rialto 4.3-1

4.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Biological Technical Report of this EIR.

Clean Water Act
Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ( CWA), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to regulate any activity that would result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), which includes those waters listed in 33 CFR 328.3 (as amended at 80 Federal Register [FR] 37104, June 29, 2015). The USACE, with oversight from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), has the principal authority to issue CWA Section 404 permits. The USACE would require a Standard Individual Permit for more than minimal impacts to waters of the U.S . as determined by the USACE. Projects with minimal individual and cumulative adverse effects on the environment may meet the conditions of an existing Nationwide Permit or Regional General Permit.

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

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

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

Sections 2080 through 2085 of CESA address the take of threatened, endangered, or candidate species by stating “no person shall import into this state, export out of this state, or take, possess, purchase, or sell within this state, any species, or any par t or product thereof, that the commission determines to be an endangered species or a threatened species, or attempt any of those acts, except as otherwise provided.” Under CESA, “take” is defined as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” Exceptions authorized by the State to allow “take” require permits or memoranda of understanding and can be authorized for endangered species, threatened species, or candidate species for scientific, educational, or management purposes and for take incidental to otherwise lawful activities.

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

City of Rialto 4.3-3
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1602
Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel , or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. A Notification of Lake or Streambed Alteration must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, ch annel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” CDFW has jurisdiction over ripa rian habitats associated with watercourses and wetland habitats supported by a river, lake, or stream. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation (i.e., drip line) or at the top of the bank of streams or lakes, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not extend to tidal areas or isolated resources. CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits (to an applicant) a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final pr oposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and an applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement.

California Desert Native Plant Act (California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 80001–80201) The California Desert Native Plants Act prohibits the removal of certain species of California desert native plants on public and privately owned lands without a valid permit from the sheriff or commissioner of the county where collecting would occur. This act applies within the boundaries of San Bernardino, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Los Angeles, Mono, Riverside, and San Diego counties.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides for statewide coordination of water quality regulations. The SWRCB was established as the statewide authority and nine separate RWQCBs were developed to oversee water quality on a day-to-day basis. The SWRCB is the primary a gency responsible for protecting water quality in California. As discussed above, the RWQCBs regulate discharges to surface waters under the CWA. In addition, the RWQCBs are responsible for administering the Porter-Cologne Act.

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

According to the County’s Biotic Resources Overlay Map, the project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Overlay Zone1; the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a candidate species for listing under CESA.

The following Rialto General Plan goal and polic y have been adopted by the City for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and are applicable to the proposed Project:

Goal 2-40 Conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources.

Rialto Airport Specific Plan
The Rialto Airport Specific Plan serves as the zoning ordinance for properties within the Specific Plan area.

1 County of San Bernardino. 2012. Biotic Resources Map. Retrieved from: https://lus.sbcounty.gov/wp- content/uploads/sites/48/GeneralPlan/cnty -all-biotic-resources-map-final.pdf. Accessed September 4, 2024.

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

City of Rialto Municipal Code
Rialto Municipal Code Title 18 (Zoning) 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. As noted above, the project site has a Specific Plan land use designation of I-GM. The development guidelines for the I -GM designation are identified in the Rialto Airport Specific Plan.

4.3.3 Existing Conditions
The project site is composed of disturbed and undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub, as well as chaparral, disturbed land, and developed land. Disturbed land is dominant in the northern portion of the site and is characterized by non -native grasses. Portions of the project s ite are partially fenced, and lands immediately surrounding the project site contain human impacts, such as scrap metal and rock piles, a detention basin, berms, and heavy machinery operations. Overhead electric utilities are located along the northwestern project boundary along North Locust Avenue. The project site is bounded by developed land, composed of commercial and industrial properties, paved roads and lots, and disturbed land.

Topography and Soils
The project site is relatively flat with moderate topographic relief occurring along the southern boundary.

On-site elevation ranges from approximately 1, 590 to 1, 650 feet above mean sea level and generally slopes from northwest to southeast. Soils mapped on site include Soboba stony loamy sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes, and Soboba gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes ( Appendix D). On-site s oils have been mechanically disturbed and heavily compacted from human disturbance.

Developed. Developed land is typically classified as lands regularly utilized by humans that are devoid of natural habitat. Developed land within the project site consists of World War II -era bunker structure remnants and rail spurs in the southern portion of the project site. In total, developed land occurs on 8.4

Rialto City CouncilJanuary 27, 2026

Rialto City Council
January 27, 2026