LOCUST GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2024061274
Lead Agency City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, California 92376
December 2025
This page intentionally left blank.
Locust Gateway Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Rialto i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
1.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT .................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses ............................................ 1-2
1.3 Actions by the Lead Agency ............................................................................................. 1-3
1.4 Project Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-4
1.5 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................ 1-4
1.4 Required Permits and Approvals ..................................................................................... 1-5
2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Introduction to Responses to Comments ........................................................................ 2-1
2.2 List of Respondents .......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.3 Responses to Environmental Comments ......................................................................... 2-3
3.0 ERRATA TO THE EIR ....................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction to the Errata ................................................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Changes to the EIR ........................................................................................................... 3-1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................ 4-1
4.1 Purpose of Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ............................................ 4-1
4.2 Organization ..................................................................................................................... 4-1 List of Attachments
Attachment A: Comment Letter A5 , Blum Collins, & Ho LLP on behalf of Golden State Environmental Alliance supporting qualification and citation pages
Attachment B: Traffic Scoping Agreement
Attachment C: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis Modeling Data Attachment D: Truck Turning and Sight Distance Exhibits
Locust Gateway Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Contents
City of Rialto ii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-1
1.0 SUMMARY OF THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rialto (City) determined that a project -level environmental impact report (EIR) was required for the Locust Gateway Development Project (Project) pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an EIR prior to approving any project that may have a significant impact on the environment. For the purposes of CEQA, the term "proposed Project" refers to the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in a direct physical change or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378[a]).
The City determined that a Project EIR was 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 en vironment that would result from the development project. The EIR shall examine all phases of the project including planning, construction, and operation.” The Locust Gateway Development Project 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 prop osed 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. Th e EIR discusses both direct and ind irect impacts of the Project, as well as cumulative impacts associated with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
Pursuant to Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, as amended, the City of Rialto prepared and circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to affected agencies and interested parties for a 30-day public review period beginning on June 27, 2024. The deadline to submit comments on the NOP was July 26, 2024. A public Scoping Meeting was held 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. Subsequently, a Draft EIR was prepared.
The Draft EIR was circulated for public review for a 45 -day review period. The City published a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on September 5, 2025, inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was also mailed to various agencies, organizations, and indiv iduals that had previously requested such notice. The public review period established by the City was from September 5, 2025 to October 20, 2025. The State Clearinghouse 45-day review period was from September 8, 2025 to October 22, 2025.
The City published a public Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR on September 5, 2025, inviting comment from the general public, agencies, organizations, and other interested parties. The NOA was also mailed to various agencies, organizations, and individuals that had previously requested such notice.
The NOA was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH# 2024061274) pursuant to the public noticing requirements of CEQA. The Draft EIR was released for public review and comment by the City of Rialto on September 5, 2025 for a 45-day review period ending on October 20, 2025. The State Clearinghouse 45- day review period was from September 8, 2025 to October 22, 2025.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-2
1.2 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
CEQA Guidelines Section 15132 states that the contents of a Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The draft EIR or a revision of the draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the draft EIR either verbatim or in summary. (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the draft EIR. (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This Final EIR has been prepared to address comments received in response to the Draft EIR. Acting as lead agency, the City has prepared written responses to the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a). CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) directs persons and public agencies to focus their review of a Draft EIR be “on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated.
Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When r esponding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the com ments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Section 15204(d) states, “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 (a) states that the “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. ” Section 15088(c) notes “ The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the lead agency's position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-3
relevance of evidence submitted with the comment.” Comments received on the Draft EIR are responded to in Section 2.0: Responses to Comments in this Final EIR.
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 (d) recommends that where a response to comment makes important changes in the information contain in the text of the D raft EIR, that the Lead Agency either revise the text of the EIR or include marginal notes showing that information. Changes to the EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions in Section 3.0: Errata to the EIR of this Final EIR.
Responses to comments received during the comment period do not require any new information to be added to the EIR, thus the Final EIR does not contain any new significant impacts or “significant new information” that would require recirculation of the Dra ft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of the clarifications or changes made in the Errata reflect a new significant environmental impact, a “substantial increase” in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation me asure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts. Nor do the Errata reflect a “fundamentally flawed” or “conclusory” D raft EIR. In all cases, as discussed in individual responses to comments and Errata, these minor clarifications and modifications do not identify new or substantially more severe environmental impacts that the City has not committed to mitigate. Therefore, the public has not been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a revised or new feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure. Instead, the information added supports the existing analysis and conclusions, and responds to inquiries made from commenters.
Public Resources Code Section 21092.5 requires that copies of the written responses to public agencies be provided to those agencies at least ten days prior to certifying the EIR by the Lead Agency. It is the City’s policy to provide notification of the availability of written responses to comments to all parties providing comments on the Draft EIR. Further, the City provides such notification prior to first consideration of a project by the Planning Commission.
1.3 ACTIONS BY THE LEAD AGENCY
As previously noted, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR for the Locust Gateway Development Project consists of the Draft EIR and its technical appendices; the list of parties commenting on the Draft EIR; the Responses to Comments included herein; and any other information added by the Lead Agency. The City Council will also consider adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which is provided in Section 4.0: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ; a Statement of Findings of Fact, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.
The Final EIR, along with other relevant information and public testimony at the Planning Commission public hearing, will be considered by the City Council in determining whether to certify the Final EIR and approve the Project. Other relevant information includes:
▪ Notice of Preparation (NOP) and written comments received on the NOP ▪ Notice of Availability (NOA)
▪ All other public notices issued by the City associated with the Project Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-4
▪ Any documents incorporated by reference therein and other site-specific and/or project-specific technical studies and exhibits not included in the FEIR but explicitly referenced therein." ▪ All written and verbal public testimony presented during public hearings for the proposed Project at which public testimony was taken at the Planning Commission and City Council hearings.
1.4 PROJECT SUMMARY
The project site is located on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 0239-19-223, at the southwest corner of the Locust Avenue and Lowell Street intersection, in the City of Rialto, County of San Bernardino, California.
The approximately 40-acre project site ranges in elevation from 1,612 to 1,649 feet above mean sea level (amsl). The project site is generally 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.
The Project would allow for the development of a 664,859-square-foot (sf) building with 657,146 sf of warehouse space and 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 also have 365 passenger vehicle surface parking stalls, 398 truck trailer parking stalls split between two areas on the site, and 82 dock doors.
The project site has a Rialto General Plan (General Plan) land use designation of General Industrial. The General Industrial land use designation allows for a broad range of heavy industrial activities. 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 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. As such, the proposed Project will be consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Specific Plan zoning.
1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
Section 15124(b) of the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR) 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 effi cient 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
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-5
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.
1.6 REQUIRED PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Pursuant to Section 15121 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR is primarily an informational document intended to inform the public agency decision -makers and the general public of the potentially significant environmental effects of a project. Prior to taking action on the proposed Project, the City must consider the information in this EIR and certify the Final EIR.
The City of Rialto, as lead agency for the Project, has discretionary authority over the primary approvals.
The Applicant has requested the consideration of the following discretionary actions. • 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. • Development Agreement (DA) (2024-0002)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 1.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Summary of the Final Environmental Impact Report
City of Rialto 1-6
In addition to the approvals identified above, the Project would be subject to other discretionary and ministerial actions by the City as part of Project implementation. Additional City approvals include but are not limited to haul route permits, site deve lopment permits, grading permits, use permits, sign permits, and building permits.
Approvals would also be required from the following 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 bumblebee.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-1
2.0 RESPONSE S TO COMMENTS
2.1 INTRODUCTION TO RESPONSE S TO COMMENTS
The purpose of this section is to present public comments and responses to comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) (State Clearinghouse Number 2024061274) for the Locust Gateway Development Project located in the City of Rialto (City).
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15088, the City of Rialto, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated all substantive comments received on the Locust Gateway Development Project Draft EIR, and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency.
Section 2.0: Responses to Comments is organized as follows:
Section 2.1 Provides a brief introduction to this section.
Section 2.2 Identifies the Draft EIR commenters.
Section 2.3 Provides responses to substantive comments received on the Draft EIR.
2.2 LIST OF RESPONDENTS
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the following is a list of public agencies, organizations and individuals and businesses that submitted comments on the Draft EIR received as of close of the State Clearinghouse public review period on October 22, 2025.
The City of Rialto received a comment letter from Advocates for the Environment after close of the public review period on October 29, 2025. It is important to note that CEQA does not require the lead agency to respond to late comments, to reopen the comment period, or delay acting on an EIR (Public Resources Code
§§ 21091(d)(1), 21092.5(c)). Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2)(A) notes that the lead agency may respond to comments that are received after the close of the public review period.
In addition to the comment letters received during the public review period, the City of Rialto has also prepared a response to the late comment letter. All responses are provided in Section 2.3.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-2
Comment
Number Commenter
Date of
Correspondence
Page
No.
Organization
A1 Western States Regional Council of Carpenters October 7, 2025 2-5 A2 United Association Local 364 Plumbers & Pipefitters October 13, 2025 2-7 A3 Reinforcing Ironworkers Local 416 October 15, 2025 2-9 A4 Ironworkers Local 433 October 15, 2025 2-11
A5 Blum, Collins, & Ho LLP on behalf of Golden State Environmental Alliance October 16, 2025 2-13
A6 Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA) October 20, 2025 2-106 A7 Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) October 20, 2025 2-108 Late Comment Letter
A8 Advocates for the Environment October 29, 2025 2-110
2.3 RESPONSES TO ENVIRONMENTAL COMMENTS
This section is formatted so that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers, respectively, for reference purposes. Where sections of the Draft EIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the EIR text are shown in underlined text for additions and strikeout for deletions.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-3
Comment Letter A1: Western States Regional Council of Carpenters
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-4
Response A1-1
This comment acknowledges support for the Project by the Western States Regional Council of Carpenters. The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-5
Comment Letter A2: United Association Local 364 Plumbers & Pipefitters
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-6
Response A2-1
This comment acknowle dges support for the Project by the United Association Local 364 Plumbers & Pipefitters. The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-7
Comment Letter A3: International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union 416
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-8
Response A3-1
This comment acknowledges support for the Project by the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Ironworkers Local Union 416 .. The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-9
Comment Letter A4: Ironworkers Local 433
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-10
Response A4-1
This comment acknowledges support for the Project by Ironworkers Local 433. The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-11
Comment Letter A5: Blum Collins, & Ho LLP on behalf of Golden State Environmental Alliance
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-12
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-13
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-14
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-15
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-16
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-17
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-18
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-19
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-20
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-21
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-22
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-23
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-24
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-25
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-26
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-27
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-28
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-29
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-30
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-31
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-32
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-33
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-34
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-35
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-36
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-37
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-38
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-39
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-40
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-41
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-42
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-43
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-44
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-45
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-46
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-47
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-48
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-49
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-50
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-51
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-52
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-53
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-54
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-55
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-56
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-57
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-58
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-59
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-60
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-61
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-62
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-63
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-64
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-65
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-66
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-67
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-68
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-69
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-70
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-71
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-72
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-73
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-74
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-75
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-76
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-77
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-78
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-79
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-80
Response A5-1
This comment is introductory in nature. The commenter asks the City to accept the comments behalf of the Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance and requests to be added to the public interest list regarding future environmental documents.
Response A5-2
This comment summarizes information about the Project and does not raise any specific issue or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Response A5-3
This comment incorrectly states the southern portion of the project site is located on Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 1133-02-100. The image of the parcel and APN 1133-02-100 provided by the commenter does not rely on the City of Rialto’s official GIS web mapping service.1 As identified in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, the Project would be located on APN 023-19-223. The City disagrees with this claim of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
For response to the commenter’s note about Summit Avenue, please see Response A5-25.
Response A5-4
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR lacks substantial evidence supporting the stated earthwork quantities (270,000 cubic yards of cut and 300,000 cubic yards of fill) and fails to identify a specific soil import site. The commenter contends that this information is necessary to accurately assess construction- related truck trips and associated impacts. Rather, the commenter provides no evidence to support this assertion. Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15384, argument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion o r narrative does not constitute substantial evidence. (Pala Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 556, 580.)
As discussed in Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR, the grading estimates are based on the preliminary civil engineering plans prepared for the Project, which provide a reasonable approximation of anticipated cut and fill quantities. Under CEQA, an EIR is not required to include final engineering or construction-level design drawings, nor to identify specific material sources or destinations, provided that the analysis reasonably disclose s the maximum foreseeable impacts based o n available project -level information (CEQA Guidelines §§15144, 15151; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 415).
The EIR’s analysis conservatively assumes a net import of approximately 30,000 cubic yards of soil, which was used to quantify the maximum potential number of haul truck trips and associated air quality, greenhouse gas, and noise impacts during construction; see Section 3.0: Project Description of the Draft EIR. These assumptions were incorporated into the CalEEMod modeling . The import soil site and corresponding distance for analysis in the Draft EIR was generated from default CalEEMod parameters which is based on the Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) specific to the site’s location. Reliance on these assumptions for the analysis in the Draft EIR accounts for a conservative worst-case scenario and provides an adequate and accurate environmental analysis . Further, t he City will verify all Project details (i.e.,
1 City of Rialto’s online GIS Mapping Service is provided at this website address:
https://gis.rialtoca.gov/portal/apps/experiencebuilder/experience/?id=89d11c74cb054b3aa22f28759e6296c7 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-81
earthwork quantities and compliance with development standards) as part of the plan check process prior to issuing permits.
The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation. No changes to the document are required.
Response A5-5
This comment states that the Draft EIR does not include analysis relevant to environmental justice issues in reviewing potential Project impacts, including cumulative impacts from the proposed Project. The Draft EIR fully analyzes and discloses the Project’s cumulative impacts in Section 4.2: Air Quality (page 4.2-32), Section 4.5: Energy (page 4.5-19); and Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions (page 4.7-26). CEQA does not require consideration of potential implications to environmental justice or socioecon omics as a specific resource; further, environmental justice is not listed within the “Environmental Factors Potentially Affected” in Appendix G, Environmental Checklist Form, to the CEQA Guidelines. The Draft EIR analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on sensitive receptors and concluded that impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. Additionally, the City, County, SCAQMD, and the CEQA Guidelines do not include thresholds that consider environmental justice such as the CalEnviroScreen results, but rather account for the potential health effects of a project with project-level thresholds.
This comment is noted and will be provided to the decision makers for review and consideration. Because the comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the EIR, no further response is warranted.
Response A5-6
See Response A5-5. There is currently no air quality guidance or thresholds to analyze areas with higher pollution burden differently from areas with lower pollution burden. However, the Draft EIR includes project-specific dispersion modeling to estimate the PM 10 and potential of cancer risk in the vicinity of Project construction and operations. On page 4.2-16 of Draft EIR Section 4.2: Air Quality, the methodology for the dispersion modeling is explained. Construction dispersion modeling included all construction activity while operational modeling included idling of trucks, on -site truck movement, off -site truck movement, off-road equipment includi ng forklifts and cargo handling equipment, and one emergency generator. Meteorological data was used from the Fontana-Arrow Highway Monitoring Station, which is representative of and nearest to the project site. The modeling included building downwash and conservative estimates for vehicle and stack heights. Risk was calculated using the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( OEHHA) methodology with age sensitivity factors and frequency of time spent at home (as shown in Draft EIR Appendix C page 19 in Table 2). Table 4.2 -13 in the Draft EIR (page 4.2-29) shows the unmitigated scenarios for construction, operation and combined for nearby residential, student, and worker receptors. Both construction and operational cancer risk i s less than 2 per one million for all receptors. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-7
See Response A5-5. The comment states information from OEHHA on hazardous waste and solid waste facility impacts. The project site is located within the 160 -acre area and the former bunker area of the larger Rockets, Fireworks, and Flares (RFF) Superfund site (formerly known as the B.F. Goodrich site).Development of the Project will result in a benefit to the community by developing a currently vacant and underutilized site that is environmentally constrained due to its location within the RFF Superfund Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-82
site, and will ensure the careful and thorough removal of any unexploded ordnances and discarded military munitions that may be present on the site prior to development, thus resulting in reduced hazards and increased safety for the surrounding community. Refer to Section 4.8 : Hazards and Hazardous Materials of the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Response A5-8
See Response A5 -5. The comment discusses water quality information from OEHHA but provides no comment regarding the proposed Project. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.9: Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project will not result in any impacts to hydrology and water quality, including drinking water.
No further response is required.
Response A5-9
See Response A5-5 and Response A5-7. The comment states information from OEHHA on cleanup sites but provides no comment regarding the proposed Project. Please refer to Draft EIR Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials for a discussion of the RFF Superfund site. No further response is required.
Response A5-10
See Response A5-5. The comment discusses socioeconomic data but provides no comment regarding the proposed Project. No response is required.
Response A5-11
See Response A5 -5 and Response A5 -6. The Draft EIR included project-specific dispersion modeling to evaluate the potential environmental impacts to the communities in the vicinity of the project site.
Response A5-12
This commenter states that CalEEMod, the software used for the Draft EIR analysis, is not considered an approved compliance modeling software for non-residential uses in the State of California. CEQA does not mandate that certain tools or modeling protocols be employed in environmental analysis such as is implied by the commenter. CEQA requires that analyses be sufficient to provide decision -makers with information enabling them to make decisions that intelligently account of environmental consequences of projects (CEQA Guidelines § 15151, Standards of Significance).
With specific regard to the use of CalEEMod for the purposes of modeling energy consumption, the City has historically and successfully employed CalEEMod for this purpose. Further, the SCAQMD, the Responsible Agency for air quality considerations, sanction s use of CalEEMod to provide a “uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operational from a variety of land use projects.” 2 Through the use of CalEEMod, SCAQMD integrates air quality and energy impact analyses. To ensure consistency and accuracy of analyses in support of SCAQMD policies, the City has determined that CalEEMod is appropriate for CEQA modeling of both air quality impacts and energy consumption.
The energy modeling protocols cited by the commenter (CBECC-Com, EnergyPro, and IES VE) are used for the performance approach (energy budget) method for demonstrating compliance with the Title 24 Energy Standards. The analysis included within Section 4.5: Energy, of the Draft EIR discloses the amount
2 SCAQMD. (2024). Air quality modeling for CEQA. Retrieved from https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-modeling Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-83
of energy that the proposed Project would require . The analysis is not intended or required to demonstrate compliance for Title 24 energy standard performance.
The energy modeling protocols identified in the comment provide modeling of building energy consumption only, whereas CalEEMod comprehensively and cohesively provides building energy consumption estimates, as well as establishes the basis for estimation of construction activity/ construction equipment energy consumption, and mobile -source (vehicular) energy consumption. This latter category (vehicular energy consumption) comprises the majority of the proposed Project energy demand. In addition, the sources for the methodologies include studies commissioned by the California Energy Commission (CEC) and also use energy conservation standards subject to Title 24. CalEEMod User Guide Appendix D (Technical Source Documentation for Emissions Calculations) states the energy intensity estimates are based on a survey completed in 2019 with structures ranging from 1935 to 2015.
The Appendix notes “default energy consumption estimates provided in CalEEMod based on the RASS (California Residential Appliance Saturation Study are very conservative, overestimating expected energy use compared to what would be expected for new buildings subject to the latest Energy Code with more stringent energy efficiency measures.” Therefore, the energy estimates in Section 4.5: Energy of the Draft EIR are conservative. The energy modeling protocols offered by the commenter (which do not consider energy consumption attributable to construction activities or mobile sources) would vastly underestimate the proposed Project energy demands and proposed Project energy consumption.
Additionally, the Draft EIR discloses the proposed Project’s electricity consumption, natural gas consumption, and transportation fuel consumption and determined that the proposed Project’s energy consumption would not be inefficient or wasteful, as the proposed Project will be required to comply with the Title 24 Nonresidential Building Energy Efficiency Standards and CALGreen standards published by the CEC, which contain stringent mandatory standards for mechanical systems, lighting (indoor and outdoor), and appliances to minimize energy use. Therefore, the Draft EIR used the appropriate model to calculate and disclose the proposed Project’s energy use, and also demonstrated that the proposed Project would be required to comply with Title 24 Building Energy Efficiency and CALGreen Standards. Additionally, MM GHG-2 req uires buildings to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which would further reduce energy consumption. Findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected. As demonstrated, the comments submitted are incorrect. Revisions to the EIR are not required.
Response A5-13
The comment states that the Draft EIR does not include an analysis of the Project’s compliance with the City’s General Plan buildout assumptions or the Rialto Airport Specific Plan buildout scenario, and therefore must be revised to provide this analysis.
The City disagrees. The Draft EIR adequately analy zes the Project’s consistency with the City of Rialto General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(d), which requires an EIR to “discuss any inconsistencies betwee n the proposed Project and applicable general plans.” As addressed on page 4.13 -6 of Section 4.13: Population and Housing , t he proposed Project is consistent with the existing General Plan and Specific Plan designations for the site, meaning that future growth associated with Project implementation has already been accounted for in the General Plan and General Plan EIR. Because the Project is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation and Specific Plan designation, development of the site with a warehouse use was already anticipated and analyzed.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-84
The Project’s contribution of approximately 664,859 square feet represents only a small portion (approximately 3.8%) o f the total industrial buildout potential identified in the General Plan and falls within the scope of development anticipated in the City’s adopted plans and environmental analyses. No substantial evidence has been provided by the comment to suggest that this amount of industrial development would exceed or conflict with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan or Specific Plan.
Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with the City’s adopted land use plans and policies is supported by substantial evidence. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-14
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR failed to analyze the Project’s consistency with several goals and policies from SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and that the Project’s greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts conflict with these policies.
The City disagrees. All policies cited in the comment are taken from Chapter 3.3: Regional Planning Policies of the 2024 Connect SoCal RTP/SCS. As stated in the plan, these policies are intended for County Transportation Commissions (CTCs) and local jurisd ictions, which “can refer to specific policies to demonstrate alignment with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy when seeking resources from state or federal programs.” These policies are not regulatory requirements and are not applicable to individual private development projects such as the proposed warehouse.
Furthermore, the commenter does not provide any specific explanation or evidence showing how the Project would conflict with the cited policies or why they are relevant to this Project. Many of the referenced policies , particularly those related to equitable engagement, restorative justice, and disadvantaged communities , are regional and programmatic objectives, beyond the scope or responsibility of a private development project. Further, CEQA does not require analysis of “disadvantaged communities” or “environmental justice” impacts, and the CEQA Guidelines do not define or use that terminology.
For the foregoing reasons, Equitable Engagement and Decision-Making Policies 46 and 47 and Sustainable Development Policies 48 -50 cited by commenter are inapplicable to the Project. Likewise, Air Quality Policies 51-53 and Climate Resilience Policies 64-66 focus on regional or programmatic efforts and cannot directly be implemented by the Project. However, as discussed in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project’s GHG analysis complies with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.4 and demonstrates consistency with applicable State, regional, and local climate plans, including SCAG’s Connect SoCal RTP/SCS, the City’s General Plan, and the CARB Scoping Plan. Although the Draft EIR concludes that GHG impacts would remain significant and unavoidable, this finding does not constitute a policy inconsistency, as the Connect SoCal policies are advisory, not binding, and the Project’s emissions are consistent with regional growth assumptions used in SCAG’s modeling.
Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s GHG policy consistency analyses are adequate and the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-85
Response A5-15
The commenter states that the General Plan consistency analysis in the Draft EIR does not provide an adequate evaluation of all land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing environmental effects.
Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning of the Draft EIR provides a discussion of Project consistency with applicable City of Rialto General Plan policies and other plans; this analysis can be found starting on page
4.10-8 in Table 4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis. The analysis in the table is consistent with the thresholds of significance established in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 as it addresses General Plan policies that have been adopted for the purpose of av oiding or mitigating an environmental effect and that are applicable to the Project. More specifically, Section 15125(d) states “The EIR shall discuss any inconsistencies between the proposed Project and applicable general plans, specific plans, and regional plans.”
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR does not provide evidence or support that the Project does not conflict with some of the goals and policies of the General Plan. The commenter provides a list of these goals and policies but does not provide any specific explanation or evidence showing how the Project would conflict with the cited policies or why they are relevant to this Project.
With respect to the commenter’s opinion regarding alleged inconsistencies, it should be noted that, under CEQA, a project is consistent with the underlying general plan if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment. A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy ( Clover Valley Foundation v. City of Rocklin (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 200, 238). Moreover, a lead agency’s determination that a project is consistent with the general plan is entitled to deference (Id.).
It should further be noted that not all goals and policies relate to an environmental consideration and by their nature do not require evaluation in an EIR. In making this determination, factors such as the following may be considered:
1. The goal, policy, or implementation measure does not relate, nor was it written to reduce and impact to an environmental resource;
2. The goal, policy, or implementation measure does not relate to topics requiring examination under CEQA;
3. The goal, policy, or implementation measure is beyond the scope or responsibility of a private development;
4. The goal, policy, or implementation measure is written so broadly that the responsibility for its implementation could only be the responsibility of the City.
Responses to the individual policies listed by the commenter are outlined below . The Project does not conflict with these General Plan policies. Further, these polices are advisory in nature and are not required.
- Policy 2-9.4. At the time of preparation of the Draft EIR, the future warehouse tenant is unknown and commercial space is not proposed as it would not be consistent with the intended industrial use of the site. If feasible, incorporation of flexible commercial spaces could be implemented at a later date.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-86
- Policy 2-12.2. The Project does not require or propose any street trees or parkway landscaping within public right-of-way. As stated in Section 4.1: Aesthetics, of the Draft EIR, 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 General Manufacturing (I-GM) are required to provide a 20-foot average minimum width of landscaping from the property line along public roadways.
The conceptual landscape plan is provided as Figure 3-10 in the Draft EIR 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 be subject to compliance with the development standards in Rialto 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.
- Policy 2 -16.1. Given the nature and function of the Project, opportunities for integrating traditional public art are limited. This policy is encouragement -based and not a mandatory requirement for individual projects.
- Policy 2-17.3 and Policy 2.17 -4. Policy 2-17.3 states “Discourage architectural monotony” and Policy 2-17.4 states “Discourage the design of boxy structures; emphasize articulation of the front façade and the horizontal plane with multi-story structures.” Please refer to Section 3.0: Project Description, page 3-12, which addresses building design, landscaping, and lighting. Figure 3-8 in the Draft EIR depicts the conceptual elevations for the building, which shows that the Project incorporates architectural articulation, panel reveals, var ying wall planes, and accent colors (white, gray, and blue) with blue window glazing. These features provide visual interest and relief.
As documented in Section 4.1: Aesthetics and Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning , and Table
4.10-1: General Plan Consistency Analysis, the Draft EIR includes substantial evidence supporting the Project’s consistency with applicable design policies. Please also refer to Response A5-18. - Goal 2-17, Policy 2-27.1. As stated throughout the Draft EIR the project site would include approximately 160,491 sf of landscaping (9.2% of the project site). Landscaping would be focused around the site perimeters, parking areas, driveway entrances, and building entrances. The Project does not propose multiple structures with the opportunity to provide landscape plazas or green spaces between buildings.
- Goal 2-17, Policy 2-27.2. See response to Policy 2-12.2. - Goal 2-17, Policy 2-27.2. The project site is not located on land intended for development of open space or a pocket park. This policy is advisory in nature and not required. - Policy 2-37.1. This is a City initiative and not applicable to a single private warehouse development project.
Based on the above, the environmental review contained in the Draft EIR pertaining to General Plan consistency, and consistency with other applicable planning documents, meets CEQA requirements.
Further, the planning consistency analysis for all applicable documents in relation to the Project was Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-87
properly tailored and used to clearly define policies that are within the applicant’s ability and responsibility to address environmental impacts.
The discussion above is consistent with CEQA case law that has found that a given project need not be in perfect conformity with each General Plan policy. Accordingly, it may not be possible for every project to completely satisfy, nor is it the responsibility of every projec t to satisfy every goal or policy of a general plan, including those pertaining to environmental resources. Thus, the Project was evaluated for consistency with each of the applicable policies from the City of Rialto General Plan that were adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect and through that evaluation it was determined that no additional environmental impacts from a conflict with an applicable policy would occur. No further discussion is required an d no changes to the EIR have been made or are required because of this comment.
Response A5-16
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR incorrectly excluded Level of Service (LOS) analysis and that LOS remains required to evaluate consistency with Policies 4 -1.20 and 4 -1.21 of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element.
As correctly stated in the Draft EIR, LOS is no longer used under CEQA to determine transportation impact significance. In 2018, the State of California adopted CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, which formally replaced delay-based metrics (such as LOS and intersection delay) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the appropriate measure of transportation impacts under CEQA. The Guidelines expressly state that “a project’s effect on automobi le delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact” (§ 15064.3(c)).
While the City’s General Plan includes LOS-based operational policies for local traffic management, those policies are not CEQA thresholds of significance. Rather, they are design and performance standards applied during City engineering review during proj ect permitting. The Draft EIR appropriately addressed potential conflicts with applicable circulation plans and policies and found the Project consistent with the Rialto Circulation Element because the Project would provide adequate site access, internal c irculation, and roadway improvements consistent with City standards.
Therefore, a detailed LOS analysis is not required for CEQA impact determination, and its exclusion does not render the EIR inadequate. As a point of information, a Transportation Impact Study (TIS) was prepared for the Project in accordance with the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment . The TIS is on file with the City of Rialto Planning Department and available for public review upon request. The Project’s VMT analysis included as Appendix J to the Draft EIR fulfills CEQA’s current requirements, and the Draft EIR provides substantial evidence supporting its less than significant findings for transportation impacts. Accordingly, a project - level LOS analysis is not required for CEQA purposes, and the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-17
The comment mischaracterizes the Project’s compliance with General Plan Policies 2 -12.1 and 2 -12.5.
Lake Padden Lane is not a public roadway and therefore does not require screening under Policy 2 -12.1.
However, a landscape buffer is proposed along Lake Padden Lane. As stated in Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning, Table 4.10 -1: General Plan Consistency Analysis , page 4.10 -9, the Draft EIR evaluated Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-88
consistency with these policies and found the Project compliant. As referenced in Draft EIR Table 4.10-1, Figures 3 -9 and 3 -10 support the consistency finding as they demonstrate that the proposed design includes tree and landscape screening along public roadways, and a 14 -foot-high decorative screen wall painted with accented reveals to provide visual relief. Landscaping encompassing approximately 9.2 percent of the site, including street -front buffers along Lowell Street and Locust Avenue, contributes to an attractive and varied streetscape. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Draft EIR’s conclusion that the Project is consistent with Policies 2 -12.1 and 2 -12.5, and no further analysis or finding of significance is warranted. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-18
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating compliance with General Plan Policies 2 -17.1, 2-17.3, 2-17.4, and 2 -23.1, and that the Project’s design —a concrete tilt-up industrial building—constitutes architectural monotony inconsistent with these policies.
The City disagrees. As documented in Section 4.10: Land Use and Planning , and Table 4.10 -1: General Plan Consistency Analysis, the Draft EIR includes substantial evidence supporting the Project’s consistency with applicable design policies. As noted on page 4.10 -10 of the Draft EIR, t he Project incorporates architectural articulation, panel reveals, varying wall planes, and accent colors (white, gray, and blue) with blue window glazing, as depicted in Figures 3 -6 through 3-8. These features provide visual i nterest and relief, consistent with Policies 2-17.1 and 2-23.1, which emphasize variety in planes, textures, and façade treatments.
Moreover, CEQA does not require an evaluation of aesthetics or architectural style based on subjective aesthetic preferences ( see Bowman v. City of Berkeley (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 572, 592). The City’s adopted Precise Plan of Design review process ensures that the final building design conforms to the City’s design standards and visual quality expectations. Accordingly, the Draft EIR provides substantial evidence demonstrating consistency with the City’s General Plan design policies and no revision is required.
Response A5-19
The commenter misrepresents the Draft EIR’s analysis of Policy 2 -23.2, which encourages architecture that disaggregates large buildings into smaller parts with greater human scale.
As outlined in the comment and stated in the consistency analysis table on page 4.10-11 of the Draft EIR, the Project would include vertical articulation, glazing, and color variation across the façades, along with the use of contrasting tones (white, gray, and blue) and changes in wall plane depth to visually break up the building’s form.
The City disagrees with the commenter’s claim that these elements do not reduce massing. The Draft EIR provides substantial evidence—both descriptive and graphical—demonstrating that the Project’s vertical articulation, color, material diversity, and landscaping collectively meet the intent of Policy 2 -23.2.
Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s determination that the Project is consistent with Policy 2-23.2 is supported by substantial evidence, and no revision to the EIR is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-89
Response A5-20
The commenter claims policy consistency analysis is inaccurate due to modeling software used in the Draft EIR. This is further addressed in the Response A5-12 above. The Draft EIR provides substantial evidence and adequate analysis demonstrating consistency and no revision is required.
Response A5-21
The comment er misrepresents the Draft EIR ’s analysis and conclusions regarding population and employment generation. The Draft EIR does not make speculative assumptions; rather, it relies on data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Rialto 2019 Local Profiles Report and SCAG’s 2024 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) , as stated on page 4.13-5 of the Draft EIR, to evaluate the Project’s employment and population context.
As discussed in Section 4.13 : Population and Housing , the Draft EIR concludes that the Project is consistent with the General Industrial General Plan designation and General Manufacturing Specific Plan designation, both of which already account for warehouse and employment-generating uses in the City’s long-range land use projections. Employment generation was estimated using SCAG’s accepted employment density factor for industrial/warehouse uses (one employee per 1,195 sf), resulting in approximately 557 operational employees. This estimate is a reasonable and conservative basis for CEQA analysis.
The Draft EIR’s statement that new jobs “would likely be filled by the local labor market” is supported by SCAG data , reference d on page 4.13 -5, showing that approximately 92.4 percent of Rialto residents commute outside the City for employment, meaning the Project would help balance the City’s jobs -to- housing ratio and provide opportunities for local employment. CEQA does not require a demographic or skills-based labor market analysis to determine worker qualifications or interest; such economic assessments are outside CEQA’s scope.
The commenter’s suggestion that construction or operational workers commuting from outside the City would substantially increase VMT or emissions is also unfounded and is not supported by substantial evidence. Construction and operational worker trips were already analyzed in the Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation sections of the Draft EIR using CalEEMod and the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, which incorporate regional commute distances typical of the Inland Empire labor force. These analyses therefore capture the full range of potential environmental effects associated with worker travel. Accordingly, the Draft EIR includes substantial evidence and no additional or revised analysis of population, housing, or labor market effects is required.
Response A5-22
The comment asserts that the Project would generate 557 employees, representing 13 percent of Rialto’s projected job growth from 2019–2035, and claims that the Draft EIR did not demonstrate that such growth was anticipated by the Rialto General Plan, SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), or the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP).
The City disagrees. The comment er mischaracterizes the Draft EIR ’s employment analysis and its consistency findings. As discussed in Section 4.13: Population and Housing, pages 4.13-6 and 4.13-7, the Draft EIR demonstrates that the Project is consistent with the site’s existing General Plan and Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designations. Warehouse and employment-generating industrial uses on the project site are already assumed in the City’s planned growth capacity, and therefore the employment associated Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-90
with the Project is accounted for in the Rialto General Plan buildout projections and the General Plan EIR.
The estimate of 557 operational employees is based on SCAG’s Employment Density Study (jobs per square foot), an accepted regional methodology, and does not induce substantial unplanned population growth, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d).
The comment er’s assertion that 557 jobs would constitute “significant growth” misunderstands the nature of SCAG’s growth forecasts. SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 Demographics and Growth Forecast incorporates local general plans and specific plans into its regional growth allocation. Because the Project is consistent with both adopted land use designations, the employment growth associated with the Project is already included in SCAG’s regional projections, including the RTP/SCS and the regional AQMP, which relies on the same SCAG forecasts. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-23
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR must include a cumulative analysis of employment growth from recently approved or pending industrial projects since 2019 to determine whether combined job growth would exceed SCAG or General Plan forecasts.
The City disagrees. The Draft EIR’s cumulative analysis appropriately relied on SCAG’s 2024 Connect SoCal Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and the City of Rialto General Plan (adopted in 2024) as the basis for evaluating cumulative growth. The SCAG’s RTP/SCS forecasts reflect the City’s adopted land use designations and buildout potential; therefore, any project consistent with the General Plan and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan is, by definition, accounted for in th e cumulative employment projections used by SCAG and the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). Moreover, any projects that have since been developed and are already operational are properly accounted for as part of the baseline conditions.
As identified in Section 3.13: Population and Housing, the Project is consistent with the existing General Plan and Rialto Airport Specific Plan land use designations, which already anticipate large-scale industrial and logistics uses. The Project’s approximately 557 employees are within the type and scale of employment assumed in SCAG’s Connect SoCal forecasts and the Rialto General Plan EIR. Please also refer to Response A5-13 and A5-22. Accordingly, the Draft EIR provides an adequate cumulative analysis and the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-24
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR fails to evaluate the Project’s consistency with the Rialto Circulation Element and the Rialto Airport Specific Plan with respect to the planned extension of Summit Avenue through the project site, and contends that the Project conflicts with those plans because it does not include the extension of Summit Avenue to Locust Avenue. The comment further claims that General Plan and Specific Plan amendments are required and that the Draft EIR must be revised accordingly.
The Draft EIR appropriately evaluates the Project’s consistency with the current, applicable circulation network and related policies. The City of Rialto General Plan Circulation Element identifies a conceptual alignment of Summit Avenue extending eastward to Locust Av enue. However, no existing or dedicated right-of-way for this segment of Summit Avenue exists across the project site or adjacent parcels.
Moreover, the area that would have accommodated this conceptual alignment has been encumbered by Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-91
existing development and permanent structures since the mid -1990s, including industrial facilities and the Mid-Valley Landfill, making the extension of Summit Avenue physically infeasible.
The City’s Engineering and Planning staff have confirmed that no capital improvement, right-of-way acquisition, or entitlement actions are planned or funded to construct this segment of Summit Avenue.
The Rialto Focused General Plan Update retained the conceptual depiction of Summit Avenue on Exhibit
4.1 as a legacy element from earlier plans; however, the planned roadway segment is not an actionable or implementable improvement and has been superseded by subsequ ent development patterns and circulation system modifications.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), the Draft EIR properly describes and analyzes the Project in relation to existing and reasonably foreseeable physical conditions, rather than speculative or abandoned circulation concepts. The Draft EIR’s transportation analysis relies on the current City roadway network and functional classification. Because the planned extension of Summit Avenue is not part of the existing or foreseeable circulation network, the Draft EIR was not required to analyze this s peculative future roadway.
The Project’s circulation design provides safe and efficient access via Locust Avenue and Lowell Street, in full conformance with City standards for driveways, truck circulation, and emergency access. As documented in the Draft EIR, the Project would not conflict with adopted transportation policies, plans, or programs that address the circulation system within the City or region, and no potentially significant impacts would occur. Accordingly, the Draft EIR does not require revision, and no General Plan or Specific Plan amendment is necessary. The Project remains consistent with the applicable General Plan Circulation Element and Rialto Airport Specific Plan policies when considered in light of existing site conditions and the City’s current circulation framework.
Response A5-25
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR incorrectly excluded Level of Service (LOS) analysis and that LOS remains required to evaluate consistency with Policies 4 -1.20 and 4 -1.21 of the City’s General Plan Circulation Element. See Response A5-16.
Response A5-26
The comment asserts that the Draft EIR is deficient because it does not include the Project Scoping Agreement required under the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Level of Service (LOS) Assessment. The Traffic Scoping Agreement was approved by the City Public Works Department on April 25, 2024 and was included in the TIS as Appendix A, which is on file with the City of Rialto Planning Department and available for public review upon request . The Project Scoping Agreement is also provided as Attachment B.
Response A5-27
The comment er states that Appendix J : VMT Analysis underestimates vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by Project operations because the analysis assumes 246 employees, while the Population and Housing section references 557 employees based on SCAG employment density factors.
The employee estimate used in Appendix J reflects the methodology typically applied in VMT analyses, which rely on standard Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation factors and employment rates calibrated to building square footage and land use type. This approach is consistent with the City’s Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-92
Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment and with statewide practice under SB 743 implementation. The Population and Housing section, by contrast, uses SCAG’s Employment Density Study ratios solely to estimate employment growth for demographic context; it does not inform trip generation or VMT modeling. Because VMT is primarily a function of land use type, building intensity, and regional trip lengths—not the precise number of employees—the use of 246 employees in the VMT model provides an appropriate and representative estimate of trip generation for the proposed warehouse use.
Accordingly, the commenter has not raised issues that would render the Draft EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-28
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR’s VMT analysis is inadequate because it excludes truck, trailer, and delivery van trips from the operational VMT assessment and therefore underrepresents total Project- generated VMT.
The VMT analysis in Appendix J of the Draft EIR was prepared in accordance with SB 743 and the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LOS Assessment. These authorities specify that VMT analyses are limited to light -duty passenger vehicle travel, which is the metric used to evaluate consistency with statewide greenhouse g as reduction goals. Heavy -duty truck VMT is not part of the SB 743 transportation impact metric, as those emissions are instead addressed under air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) analyses. The Project’s operational truck and delivery vehicle activity assumed for the proposed warehouse use was fully analyzed in Section 4.2: Air Quality and Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Therefore, the Draft EIR provides a complete analysis of both employee commute VMT and truck-related emissions.
The Project’s VMT analysis properly focuses on passenger vehicle travel associated with employee commutes and visitor trips; it is methodologically correct and consistent with legislative intent under SB 743. Accordingly, the Draft EIR’s VMT analysis is adequate and the commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-29
The commenter claims that Appendix J is inadequate because it does not include the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM) model input parameters or output screens used to support the VMT analysis.
The SBTAM is a regional travel demand model and its full datasets and software outputs are not typically appended to project -level CEQA documents due to their size, complexity, and licensing restrictions.
Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15151, the Draft EIR includes sufficient information in Appendix J to describe the model inputs, assumptions, and results used to evaluate Project-generated VMT. SBTAM model files and output data are provided as Attachment C. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-30
The commenter asserts the Draft EIR has not adequately analyzed the Project’s potential to substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature, specifically as it relates to conflict between vehicles due to truck movements.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-93
The commenter misclassifies movements on Lowell Street. As Lowell Street is classified as an Industrial Collector, trucks are allowed to use the width of the road to turn into and out of the site. If a driveway entrance or exit is occupied by a vehicle/truck, the incoming or outbound vehicle/truck would not be visually obstructed from seeing each other. In addition, No Parking Signs on the outbound vehicle/truck turns on Lowell Street would be provided for 100 linear feet such that parking does not obstruct the turning movement. The truck turn movements have been updated to depict the maneuverability and sight distances into and out of the project site; see exhibits provided in Attachment D. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-31
The truck turn dimensions for the WB-67 have been added to the truck turn exhibits; see Attachment D.
The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-32
The site distance analysis per the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requirements has been provided per the commenter’s request; see exhibits in Attachment D.
As depicted, the driveways are not obstructed by visual impacts . The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient or require recirculation.
Response A5-33
The commenter states that the EIR does not address the Project’s compliance with the General Plan buildout scenario. See Response A5-13.
Response A5-34
The commenter asserts that the EIR does not provide an adequate or accurate analysis of cumulative growth and that the Project would exceed SCAG projections. The City disagrees with the commenter. See Response A5-22 and A5-23.
Response A5-35
The commenter refers to an attached analysis from Dr. Smallwood for comments on biological resources.
See Responses A5-54 through Responses A5-93.
Response A5-36
The City disagrees with the opinions of the commenter. The commenter has not raised issues that would render the EIR deficient. The commenter makes conclusory statements, but they do not pertain to any specific environmental issues other than the commenter stating the Draft EIR should be recirculated. The commenter’s request for recirculation is repeated from previous comments. The commenter repeats its request for Golden State Environmental Justice Alliance to be added to the public interest list regarding future environmental documents. No further response is necessary and no changes to the EIR have been made or are required as a result of this comment.
Response A5-37
This comment is introductory in nature. The comment restates the Project Description. Responses to the comments contained in this letter are provided below in Responses A5 -38 through A5-52. The comment has been noted for the record and no changes to the document have been made or are required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-94
Response A5-38
The commenter makes a general statement that the Draft EIR CalEEMod emissions modeling is inaccurate, citing “model inputs related to Project construction that are inconsistent with information disclosed in the DEIR.” Responses to specific comments are provided below in Responses A5 -39 through A5 -41. No further response is required.
Response A5-39
The commenter states the Project construction schedule and any changes to CalEEMod should be provided by the Project Applicant. The comment further notes that the Draft EIR fails to provide substantial evidence to support the construction schedule and individual phase lengths.
According to the CalEEMod User’s Guide, CalEEMod allows for changes to be made to the default model and for the user to provide justification for the change. The justification for any change to the default model must be supported by substantial evidence under CEQA and cannot be based on unsubstantiated data. The Project Applicant provided the construction schedule within the construction questionnaire, which is noted as justification in CalEEMod. The model inputs and analysis assumptions are provided in detail within Draft EIR Appendix B. Furthermore, CalEEMod 2022 outputs summarize changes to the model defaults in Section 8 (User Changes to Default Data) (see Draft EIR Appendix B).
All of the proposed Project air quality modeling has been conducted in conformance with SCAQMD requirements and applicable CalEEMod protocols. Findings and conclusions of the Draft EIR are not affected. Revisions to the EIR are not required.
Response A5-40
The commenter asserts that the methodology for air quality construction emissions is incorrect. The City disagrees. See response A5 -39. As discussed above, CalEEMod User’s Guide allows for changes to the model for project specific parameters. No further response or changes to the EIR are required.
Response A5-41
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR does not clearly describe the extent of demolition and that the CalEEMod modeling may underestimate construction emissions due to an “unsubstantiated amount” of demolition debris.
As described in Section 3.0: Project Description of the EIR, demolition would be limited to “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 4,750 square feet of demolition reflected in CalEEMod represents an estimate of the minor amount of material on -site to be removed. This assumption was included to ensure that any limited demolition-related emissions were captured in the construction emissions analysis.
Because demolition activities are minor compared to the overall construction effort and were included in the CalEEMod inputs, the modeling does not underestimate construction emissions. The estimated emissions presented in the Draft EIR remain representati ve of expected conditions and adequate for determining significance under CEQA. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR or its conclusions are required.
Response A5-42
The commenter asserts that the Project may contribute to a disproportionate health risk impact to the community. See Responses A5-5 and A5-6. The Draft EIR evaluated cancer health risk to the community, Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-95
see Table 4.2-13 in Section 4.2: Air Quality of the EIR. Project cancer risk was below SCAQMD thresholds of 10 in one million. Therefore, per SCAQMD guidance, if an individual project does not exceed a threshold it would not have a cumulatively significant impact. Revisions to the EIR are not required.
Response A5-43
The commenter describes CalEPA’s CalEnviroScreen 4.0 tool and identifies the Project’s census tract ranking. No comment is provide and response is required.
Response A5-44
The commenter asserts that the Project may worsen disproportionate health risks to the community.
Senate Bill 1000 requires cities and counties to integrate environmental justice elements into the planning process. As it applies to the City’s General Plan, the Environmental Justice General Plan Element was adopted by the City on December 10, 2024 and is addressed in the Draft EIR. See response A5-42.
Response A5-45
The commenter notes that greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants from warehouses should be evaluated cumulatively. See Responses A5-5 and A5-6.
Response A5-46
The Warehouse CITY dashboard is a community -based visualization tool developed by the Redford Conservancy at Pitzer College and Radical Research LLC to illustrate cumulative warehouse impacts in Southern California. While the dashboard provides regional co ntext, CEQA requires that cumulative impact analysis for this project be based on substantial evidence and accepted methodologies (e.g., CalEEMod modeling, SCAQMD guidance, and project -specific data). Therefore, the tool was not used as the primary basis for CEQA significance determinations but may inform broader discussions on regional trends and environmental justice considerations. Please also see response A5-42.
Response A5-47
The commenter claims diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions were inadequately evaluated due to age sensitivity factors (ASFs) not being accounted for in the Draft EIR’s Appendix C page 25. The specific ASFs used in the health risk modeling are shown on Draft EIR App endix C page 18 and 19, as well as throughout the appendix of Draft EIR Appendix C; refer to Health Risk Assessment Appendix A. The equation specific to each modeling scenario, which includes ASFs, is also shown in Health Risk Assessment Appendix A.
The commenter identified a typographical error in the equation shown on Appendix C page 25, which has been corrected and is shown below and in Final EIR Section 3.0, Errata. This correction does not change the analysis provided in the EIR. No further response or changes to the EIR are required.
To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):
Riskinh-res = (Doseair*CPF*ASF*(ED/AT)*FAH)
Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-96
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Response A5-48
The commenter provides a summary of the Draft EIR’s GHG findings, states that under CEQA the Draft EIR must implement all feasible mitigation measures, and argues that additional feasible mitigation measures are available. Refer to Response A5-49 for information on the City’s review of the commenter’s suggested GHG mitigation measures.
Response A5-49
The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR should include additional mitigation measures to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions and suggests several measures purported to be feasible. These include requirements for future tenants occupying the Project to use advanced transportation technologies, alternative vehicle fuels, alternative generator fuels, and advanced building construction methods, as well as train staff. The Project will install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable e nergy generation on the site, or will otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, such that either option will provide 100 percent of the expected building electrical load. The building will be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application ; s ee MM GHG -1 and GHG -2. MM AQ-4 requires the preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees, and MM AQ-5 requires non-diesel cargo handling equipment.
However, the commenter provides no evidence demonstrating that additional measures are feasible for the City to monitor or for the Project Applicant to implement. This is particularly true with respect to zero- emission heavy-duty truck technology, which is not yet widely or commercially available. No substantial evidence has been provided showing how such technology could realistically be used by Project tenants or that the local electricity provider, Southern California Edison, has sufficient capacity to meet the energy demands of an all-electric heavy-duty truck fleet for a facility of this size.
Moreover, the commenter offers no evidence that the suggested measures would actually or substantially reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. CEQA does not require the adoption of every conceivable mitigation measure but only those that are feasible and would “substantially lessen” a project’s significant effects (Public Resources Code § 21002). As the court explained in San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City and County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519, a lead agency’s duty to require mitigation applies only when such measures would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects; “the agency need not, under CEQA, adopt every nickel and dime mitigation scheme brought to its attention.” Likewise, Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365, confirms that an EIR should focus on mitigation that is feasible, practical, and effective.
As demonstrated in the Draft EIR and supported by substantial evidence in the record, the Project already incorporates all feasible mitigation measures capable of substantially reducing its GHG emissions.
Therefore, no additional mitigation measures or revisions to the EIR are required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-97
Response A5-50
The commenter recommends the consideration of local carbon offset programs to reduce as a last resort.
Refer to Response A5 -49. As discussed in Response A8 -4, reliance on carbon offsets cannot ensure enforceable or effective mitigation under CEQA.
Response A5-51
The comment suggests the Draft EIR should be revised to include all feasible GHG mitigation measures.
Refer to Response A5 -49 regarding all feasible GHG mitigation measures. No revisions to the EIR are required.
Response A5-52
The commenter’s statement is a standard professional disclaimer noting that their review was based on limited information and may be updated if additional data become available. The comment has been noted for the record and no changes to the Draft EIR have been made or are required as a result of this comment.
Response A5-53
This comment is a summary of the commenter’s qualifications. The qualification pages of the comment letter are provided in full in Attachment A. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Response A5-54
This comment introduces the letter and summarizes the Project Description. This comment provides a summary statement of the commenter’s concerns but does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. Specific comments on the Draft EIR are provided and responded to below.
Response A5-55
This comment is a summary of the commenter’s qualifications. It does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Response A5-56
This comment summarizes the commenter’s argument that all wildlife species should be considered in a CEQA review and presents the commenter’s definition of “special-status species.” It should be noted that the commenter’s definition is broader than the one used in the Draft EIR and arguably extends beyond standard industry practice, precedence, and relevant case law. Please refer to Section 4.3 : Biological Resources of the Draft EIR for a full discussion of applicable regulations and definitions pertaining to identification of special-status species. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR. Specific comments on the Draft EIR are provided and addressed below.
Response A5-57
This comment is a summary of two site visits conducted by the commenter’s employee. The comment includes photographs taken during the site visits, as well as a list of all wildlife species observed or otherwise detected. This comment does not raise any spe cific issues or questions on the environmental analysis in the Draft EIR.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-98
Response A5-58
This comment summarizes the number of wildlife species observed during the site visits conducted by the commenter’s employee from the perimeter of the project site and argues that habitat for these species would be lost as a result of the proposed Project. The Draft EIR acknowledges and analyzes this loss of habitat; refer to Section 4.3: Biological Resources.
Response A5-59
This comment summarizes a predictive analysis conducted by the commenter to justify the assumption that more species are present on the site than would have been observed. Sub -sampling, as was carried out for the Project’s biological study, is a standard i ndustry practice to acquire data for technical studies in support of environmental review. Regulatory agency protocols are established for more focused surveys of sites that may support certain special -status species to improve likelihood of detection and adequately analyze impacts on those species. Rocks Biological Consulting conducted numerous surveys at the project site as a part of the EIR technical analyses between October 2024 and June 2025 including focused protocol surveys for burrowing owl, rare pl ants, and Crotch’s bumble bee. Approximately 59 person hours were spent surveying the site resulting in the observation of 75 animal (including insects) and 96 plant species as described in the August 2025 Biological Technical Report (BTR) included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR (see Table 1 page 6 for a summary of surveys conducted and Appendix B of the BTR for the list of species observed). Accordingly, the level of survey effort carried out for the biological resources analysis was in line with industry standards and precedent for a project of this size, type, and location. Additionally, Rocks Biological Co nsulting has conducted biological field work in Rialto for over two decades. Both field-level and principal biologists are highly qualified to detect p lants and wildlife in the area possessing extensive knowledge of the local biological resources. In addition to field surveys and local knowledge, assessments also incorporated information from agency and citizen science databases to evaluate the potential for special-status species to occur. An assessment of the potential for rare small mammal species to be present, such as San Bernadino kangaroo rat, is provided in Draft EIR Section 4.3:
Biological Resources, Table 4.3 -1: Special Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site, on page 4.3-13. Habitats were not considered suitable, and the site is isolated from extant populations by adjacent development. Disagreement among experts does not render an EIR inadequate. (CEQA Guidelines § 15151).
Response A5-60
The commenter opines that the wildlife community associated with the project site was not accurately characterized. The City disagrees with the opinion of the commenter. As explained in response to Comment A5-59, the background review conducted and level of survey effort carried out at the project site is in line with standard industry practice, regulatory agency accepted protocols, and precedent for CEQA review, and provides adequate information for the public and decision -makers to consider potentially significant project consequences. Draft EIR Section 4.3.4: Methodology, pages 4.3-15 through
4.13-16 and p ages 6 through 10 of the BTR in Appendix D detail the background review, site reconnaissance, and focused field survey methods. No further response is required.
Response A5-61
The comment summarizes CEQA objectives and the need to establish baseline conditions at a project site, claiming that more surveys were needed to adequately characterize the project site. See response A5-59 and A5 -60 above, which summarize the numerous biological surveys conducted at the site. Biological Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-99
surveys carried out by Rocks Biological Consulting entailed 10 separate survey events and captured seasonal variation (fall, winter, spring, early summer) providing more than adequate data on existing site conditions. No further response is required.
Response A5-62
The comment is a summary of Rocks Biological Consulting’s biological site surveys (reconnaissance and focused burrowing owl) and the number of wildlife species (and special -status species) observed during those surveys. In addition, Rocks Biological Consul ting conducted rare plant and Crotch’s bumble bee surveys that are not acknowledged by the commenter (see detailed response A5 -59 above). The commenter questions the meaning of the findings regarding the number of wildlife species observed. This data as presented in the BTR, Appendix D of the Draft EIR, is for the purpose of characterizing the site’s biological conditions, as required by CEQA and pointed out by the commenter in Comment A5 -61. CEQA does not require an analysis or comparison of the survey findings between unrelated project sites as is suggested by the commenter. Rocks Biological Consulting's survey findings a t other project sites are irrelevant from a CEQA standpoint as well as a biological perspective, as project sites surveyed by consultants vary widely in size, location, and habitat quality. Thus, comparisons cannot be drawn out of context. Furthermore, the commenter does not include the unrelated survey reports in their literature cited list, so it is unclear which project sites are being compared.
Response A5-63
The commenter references biological surveys conducted by Rocks Biological Consulting at other project site and questions why the findings for the proposed Project are not compared to other (unnamed/undisclosed) sites. See Response A5-62. The results of surveys at select other project sites are not relevant as the site location, size, habitat quality, and focused survey requirements may have been substantially different. No further response is needed.
Response A5-64
The commenter more species were detected on the project site than on other (unnamed/undisclosed) sites. See Response A5-62 and A5-63.
Response A5-65
The commenter notes that surveys conducted at other sites by the commenter’s biological consultant had fewer resources. This comment is noted for the record but is irrelevant to the proposed Project ; see Response A5-62 and A5-63.
Response A5-66
The commenter suggests that the non -breeding season burrowing owl surveys should have been done over greater time intervals. As shown on Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Table 4.3-2: Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted on page 4.13 -6, non-breeding season surveys for burrowing owl were spaced out over the fall 2024 and winter 2025 period with surveys beginning in October and ending in late January. Additionally, as noted in Section 4.3: Biological Resources , page 4.13-19, focused surveys conducted at the site in spring and summer 2025 included inspection of potential habitat for burrowing owl. Thus, seasonal variability in owl presence/absence was adequately covered by the surveys.
Additionally, the Draft EIR impact analysis assumes that future occupancy of the site by burrowing owl is a possibility and is addressed accordingly through mitigation measures to reduce and/or avoid potential impacts (see MM BIO-3A and BIO-3B).
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-100
Response A5-67
The commenter states that the blooming period for rare plant species with the potential to occur on the site was not identified. The commenter is incorrect. Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Table 4.3- 1: Special Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site, on pages 4.3-8 through 4.3-9 identifies the blooming periods of special -status plant species with potential to occur in the project region. As demonstrated by this table, focused rare plant surveys were conducted during the season al timeframe (May and June) when those species identified as having a reasonable potential to occur on site would have been detectable. Reference sites for Parry’s spineflower were not necessary as this species was detected on site. All other potentially o ccurring species were considered to have a low or very low potential, and thus identification of reference sites was not warranted or feasible as the habitat for such species is lacking.
Response A5-68
The commenter suggests that the literature and database reviews and consultation with local experts was inadequate. Special-status species evaluated for their potential to occur on site are listed in Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Table 4.3-1: Special Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site, on pages 4.3-8 through 4.3-13, and as noted a full list is presented in the BTR in Appendix D, Table 4.
Standard databases were reviewed to assist in creation of these lists although othe r sources, including professional experience and local expertise, augment the database information. As stated in Section 4.3:
Biological Resources, on page 4.3 -7, and page 7 of the BTR included as Appendix D , database results, along with local biological knowledge, were used for assessment of special -status species’ potential for occurrence on or adjacent to the project site. If surveyors had determined a special -status species had a moderate or high potential to occur based on conditions observed on site, the species would have been disclosed and assessed – whether it had been identified in the desktop analysis or not, as there is concurrence that database absence does not prove site absence. The potential for special-status species to occur at the project site was refined by considering the habitat affinities of each species, field habitat assessments, vegetation mapping, and knowledge of local biological resources which, although not specifically stated in the methodology, includes review of iNaturalist and eBird – hence these sources are cited on page 52 of the BTR which is included as Appendix D to the Draft EIR . This methodology corresponds to standard industry practice for developing potential to occur lists for project sites.
Response A5-69
The commenter questions the use of a three-mile buffer for the special-status species database search. A three-mile database query buffer was considered adequate to capture occurrences in the area of the site given its proximity to urban development and is an acceptable local lead agency practice for CEQA review.
Other resources are reviewed and local knowledge incorporated as part of the background review as described in response to Comment A5-68, not merely the three-mile database search. Thus, screening of other species that are not necessarily included in Draft EIR Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Table 4.3-1:
Special Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site , occurred as part of the review process.
Those species for which potential habitat is present are documented within three miles, and/or have a heightened sensitivity status are included for further evaluation. The commenter indicates that some of the special-status species identified as having a low or no potential to occur have been documented within two miles of the site, questioning this determination. Potential to occur on site is not merely based upon proximity to the site. As described in the response to Comment A5-68, habitat suitability is evaluated in the field to further refine a species’ potential for occurrence. Species excluded from discussion were not Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-101
expected or were considered to have a low likelihood of occurrence due to a lack of suitable habitat features or only marginal habitat suitability on site, as detailed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources, Table
4.3-1: Special Status Species Potential to Occur within the Project Site . Further, the City does not concur with the commenter’s claim that a set number of special -status species occur on site merely based on their presence within a 4 -mile radius. Varying sites have vastly different species richness and diversity based on many factors (e.g., habitat/vegetation types, quality and diversity, site size, urban disturbance, fragmentation and isolation ). Lastly, the potential for occurrence determinations are made during the field survey, not during desktop review; no species were screened out during the initial database search.
Response A5-70
The commenter opines that the wildlife community was not adequately characterized. The methods employed to characterize the wildlife community are in line with industry standards and accepted lead and regulatory agency protocols as described in Response A5-59 through A5-62, A5-68, and A5-69.
Response A5-71
This comment provides a table of special -status species that have been recorded in natural resource databases within 30 miles of the project site. Please reference the response to Comment A5-69 regarding the methodology used by Rocks Biological Consulting to narrow down the list of species analyzed in the Draft EIR and BTR included as Appendix D. A broader list (as provided in this comment) which encompasses habitats and ecoregions far beyond that of the project site is not necessary for evaluation of Proje ct impacts and CEQA adequacy.
Response A5-72
This comment provides an introduction to a discussion of impacts provided by the commenter and indicates impact analysis in the Draft EIR is not adequate, but does not identify specific analyses that are inadequate or lacking. More specific comments on the Draft EIR are provided and addressed below.
Response A5-73
The commenter opines that the loss of migratory birds would be a significant and unavoidable impact.
The commenter provides a mathematical equation (nests per acre) from an unrelated site in Murietta.
The opinion of the commenter are not based on factual i nformation for the project site. Estimation of nest density is not required under CEQA and is not standard industry practice for species that are not considered rare under CEQA thresholds. Nesting birds are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code as discussed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page 4.3-1. These regulations protect against direct take of active nests; they do not regulate future reproductive success of individual birds as such extrapolations are not required for common (i.e., non-rare) wildlife species under CEQA significance criteria. As required by MM BIO -5A, a pre -construction nest survey will be required prior to project development in compliance with State and federal law to avoid loss of individual birds and active nest sites. Accordingly, the Project will reduce impacts to these resources to a less than significant level per CEQA requirements.
Response A5-74
The commenter states that because wildlife was observed on the site, including migratory birds, the site is important to wildlife movement. As discussed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page 4.3-14, the site is surrounded by existing development, creating barriers to dispersal by overland wildlife movement, and is not identified as a corridor in CDFW biogeographic mapping. Accordingly, the site does not likely Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-102
function as part of a regional wildlife corridor as discussed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page
4.3-23. The analysis recognizes that native habitat on site could be utilized “by wildlife as a refuge between larger areas of naturally occurring habitat” and these natural areas are identified for the regional vicinity.
Additionally, it is acknowledged that species capable of flight may use the site as a stepping-stone refuge.
Thus, the assertion in this comment that only absence of a “movement corri dor” was analyzed is inaccurate. The potential impacts associated with the loss of the site as a movement refuge for some species is disclosed and analyzed accordingly based on CEQA significance criteria.
Response A5-75
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not address wildlife injury and mortality from vehicles.
Traffic impacts and potential vehicle strikes are addressed in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page
4.3-19; this analysis is related to burrowing owl. To minimize the potential for vehicle strikes, MM BIO -2 requires a construction vehicle speed limit of 15 miles per hour. Additionally, construction will occur during daylight hours to avoid impacts on nocturnal species such as coyote and raccoons, both of which are discussed in this comment as a concern for vehicle strikes. Post-construction vehicle speed limits will be equivalent to those of existing traffic for the area which is already surrounded by developed roadways and urbanization. The road mortality data sources cited in the comment are from substantially different settings as they relate to anim al populations (Canada) and setting (rural roads). Species compositions, density, and behavior would be substantially different and thus these data are not comparable to the project site which is located among dense urbanization and existing human activity.
Response A5-76
The commenter states that the Draft EIR does not address wildlife injury and mortality from vehicles.
Extrapolation of mortality rates from data collected on Vasco Road in eastern Contra Costa County is not appropriate for this site. Vasco Road, located in the east San Francisco Bay Area outside of urban and suburban development boundaries, is surrounded b y thousands of acres of open space consisting of native grassland and oak savanna habitats. In contrast, the project site is generally bordered by urban development including warehouses, industrial office uses, a rock quarry, and landfill. As such, the species composition near the project area will be skewed to urban-adapted species as opposed to those species associated with native habitats. Additionally. wildlife densities will be naturally lower as habitat availability for wildlife is substantially reduced in an urban setting.
Response A5-77
The commenter opines that although the direct biological impacts of the Project would be mitigated, the Project would have cumulative biological impacts. The Project will compensate for overall habitat loss as discussed in this comment. Section 4.3: Biological Resources , pages 4.3-5 through 4.3 -6 and Table 6 of the BTR included as Appendix D of the Draft EIR, identify impacts of up to 28.7 acres of vegetated habitat at the site. The remaining lands in the project area (15.6 acres) are considered developed/d isturbed, providing little to no habitat value. As required by MM BIO -1 and MM BIO -4B, impacts to Parry’s spineflower and Crotch’s bumble bee habitat will be compensated for at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Habitat mitigation lands preserved for these species, offsetting the loss of 28.7 acres of vegetated land, will benefit other native plant and w ildlife species occurring in the region and contribute to regional conservation efforts. Compensatory mitigation lands will be of higher quality than the project site lan ds as they must be characterized by highly suitable habitat for the target species, be placed in a Conservation Easement, and be managed for long -term habitat viability in perpetuity. Thus, there will be a net Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-103
cumulative habitat benefit associated with the Project as opposed to a cumulative loss as suggested in the comment.
Response A5-78
The commenter suggest s that rare plant mitigation plan has been deferred. Section 4.3: Biological Resource of the Draft EIR, inclusive of MM BIO-1 prescribe criteria for the mitigation plan and mitigation site selection, both of which would be reviewed and approved by the lead agency and CDFW. As described in MM BIO-1, the selected site must either support or be enhanced to support the sensitive plant species found at the site. Further, the measure sets a minimum mitigation ratio that must be achieved. CEQA requires that mitigation must be feasible and as such , this mitigation measure was vetted accordingly before inclusion in the Draft EIR. (See Public Resources Code § 21061.1; CEQA Guidelines § 15364).
Response A5-79
The commenter suggests that mitigation based on acres impacted is not correct. As described in MM BIO-1 in Section 4.3: Biological Resource, the mitigation area, either occupied or enhanced/restored to be occupied, must be commensurate to the area occupied by Parry’s spineflower on the project site. This would be based on both the extent of occupied habitat (polygons) and density of plants fo und at the impact site as shown on Figure 2 of the BTR included as Appendix D. Both occupied habitat polygons and the number of individual plants detected are provided on Figure 2. Since occupied habitat also includes a seedbank, the population could be underrepresented if mitigation was based only on the number of individuals found in a single year. A mitigation approach based on occupied habitat acreage, as proposed by MM BIO -1, achieves a more accurate compensatory mitigation area to adequately reduce impacts.
Comment regarding mitigation timing is acknowledged, and the measure introduction has been revised as follows (addition underlined):
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 prior to the onset of grading activities….
Response A5-80
The commenter suggests a mitigation ratio of 5:1. The commenter does not provide evidence to support this suggested ratio. CEQA Guidelines allow reduction of potentially significant impacts through implementation of mitigation measures, and a less than significant level of impact is the threshold to be achieved through mitigation. Lead and responsible agencies establish significance criteria based on the sensitivity level of the resource. A “no net loss ” standard for mitigation is not required by CEQA unles s specified by a responsible agency as a regulatory requirement (i.e., in the case of State jurisdictional waters). There is no such ”no net loss ” policy for non -listed CRPR species and a minimum 1:1 compensation ratio achieves the less than significant impact threshold accordingly.
Response A5-81
The commenter states that the EIR does not address the success of Parry’s Sunflower mitigation associated with other projects. An establishment monitoring period will be carried out to measure success of the mitigation as described in MM BIO-1. The mitigation plan will describe steps to be implemented if site monitoring results fall short of the success criteria and corrective actions to be taken until success is Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-104
achieved. The mitigation approach is in line with regulatory and lead agency mitigation standards for special-status plant species and has proven successful for rare plants in a variety of southern California habitats. As is also industry standard, a quali fied botanist with knowledge of the specific species requirements will assist with preparation and implementation of the plan as described in MM BIO -1 to facilitate its efficacy.
Response A5-82
The c omment is noted regarding study results that developed sites have less wildlife compared with undeveloped sites; however, this study did not take into account a survey of compensatory habitat mitigation lands that may have been required to offset development of the subject project sites. Without this comparison, it cannot be concluded that there is an overall loss of biodiversity. There is concurrence that Workers Environmental Awareness Protection ( WEAP) training should not interfere with worker safety. Standard practice is for WEAP training to occur prior to the start of work at the project site and as required by MM BIO-2J to avoid this issue. MM BIO-2J states “all construction staff shall attend the WEAP training presentation prior to beginning work on site.” Response A5-83
The c omment is noted regarding burrowing owl candidate listing , which is consistent with the status discussion provided in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page 4.3-19. Coordination with CDFW has already occurred regarding the burrowing owl findings at the project site, and additional consultation would be required if results of pre-construction surveys are positive outline in MM BIO-3B. See response to Comment A5-66 regarding adequacy of the site surveys for burrowing owl.
Response A5-84
The commenter states that MM BIO-3B is not sufficient and CDFW consultation must be done before the EIR is certified. See Response A5-30. CDFW consultation has occurred and would continue if burrowing owl is positively identified through implementation of MM BIO-3A and as required by MM BIO-3B.
Response A5-85
The commenter states that the applicant needs to consult with CDFW regarding the Incidental Take Process. CDFW has been consulted, and the Project has already applied for an Incidental Take Permit for Crotch’s bumble bee as required by MM BIO -4B. On November 25, 2025, CDFW determined that the application was complete.
Response A5-86
The commenter references comment A5-85. See Response A5-85.
Response A5-87
The commenter references comment A5-85. See Response A5-85.
Response A5-88
The commenter opines that the conservation benefits of MM BIO-5A would be de minimis. See Response A5-73.
Response A5-89
The comment suggests that MM BIO -5B allows for a subjective determination of a buffer area. The City disagrees. MM BIO-5A requires that a “qualified biologist” implement the measure to avoid take of active Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-105
avian nest sites. Industry standards indicate a certain level of education and training to be considered “qualified” to make avoidance recommendations and carry out compliance monitoring for nesting birds.
Contrary to the statement in this comment that the measure is not enforceable, the City as the lead agency has oversight of implementation of avoidance measures (project conditions of approval) as part of the MMRP required for compliance with the adopted CEQA document. Project conditions of approval are p ublic knowledge, and although accountability for implementation is assumed by technical professionals and the lead agency, implementation occurs within the view of the public at the project site with records of compliance maintained by the City for public review.
Response A5-90
The comment suggests that surveys have been deferred. This is incorrect. As described in the response to Comment A5-59, numerous surveys of the site have been conducted by Rocks Biological Consulting as a part of the Draft EIR (Draft EIR Appendix D), which included documentation of sensitive lizard species (coastal whiptail). Surveys conducted are in conformance with standard lead and regulatory agency protocols required for CEQA review. Survey protocols specific to lizards that are species of concer n have not been established by the local or regulatory agencies, nor are they required as these species are not considered rare as defined by CEQA and recent caselaw. Nonetheless, the detection of coastal whiptail during biological surveys is indicative of site surveys being thorough and technically defensible. Although not detected, two other special-status lizards (coast horned lizard and Southern California legless lizard) are considered to have a potential to occur on site, and potential project impacts are analyzed in Section
4.3: Biological Resources on pages 4.3-21 and 4.3 -22. Accordingly, MM BIO -6B is proposed to reduce potential impacts to these species to a less than significant level.
Response A5-91
The commenter makes several assumptions to draw the conclusion that moving lizards out of harm’s way is cruel and unethical. First, this comment assumes that nearest available suitable habitat is already occupied by the special-status lizard species that may be relocated. Secondly, it assumes that the occupied habitat is at its carrying capacity. The commenter predicts that social chaos would occur if lizards are moved into habitat already occupied by the same species. Lizards are mobile and dispersal (the movement of animals from one area to another, often from their birth site to their breeding site) is a natural and frequent process. Thus, relocation from the site would mimic natural dispersal movements. In addition, not all lizards are territorial. This measure relates to coastal whiptail, coast horned lizard, and Southern California legless lizards. Southern California legless lizard is not territorial and can live in high densities.
Whiptails and coast horned lizards are also non-territorial and often have overlapping home ranges with other individuals of the same species. Relocation of individuals out of harm’s way is a standard avoidance practice that is acceptable mitigation for reptile species considered California Species of Special Concern.
This mitigation measure is consistent with standard industry practice and adequately reduces potential impacts during construction to a less than significant level. The relocation activities would also be coordinated with the relevant regulatory agency (CDFW) as required by the mitigation measure. As discussed above, there is no biological basis for the argument that the avoidance measure is cruel and unethical.
Response A5-92
The commenter suggest that funding to a wildlife rehabilitation center be provided. The commenters suggestion is noted. Compensatory mitigation for project impacts will be provided per MM BIO-1 and MM Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-106
BIO-4B. See Response A5-75 and A5-76 regarding the potential for vehicle collisions. Biological resource mitigation measures will minimize the potential for wildlife injury as a result of the Project.
Response A5-93
The commenter suggests that California native plant landscaping be provided. Landscaping with native plants is generally preferable to non-native landscaping from a strictly biological perspective; however, it is not necessary to avoid or reduce significant impacts. As prescribed in BIO MM -2i, avoiding the use of invasive plants in landscaping would be required to reduce the potential for indirect impacts to natural habitats, plants, and animals in the region from weed infestations. Landscape planning must take into account local regulations and standards and also what is feasible in an urban environment based on irrigation limitations and requirements for fire hazard/brush management. The development of the project site is infill adjacent to already existin g development and maintenance of native plant resources for a buffer native species is not necessary, as adjacent lands are urbanized. The comment also cites the need for host plants for endangered and threatened insects, including monarch butterfly; however, these species do not occur or have very low potential to occur within the immediate project vicinity , as documented in Section 4.3: Biological Resources on page 4.3-9. The only endangered or threatened insect identified by biological surveys focused on detection of sensitive insects was Crotch’s bumble bee, which does not have a specific host plant and will readily nectar on non-native, and even invasive, plant species if the length of the flower’s corolla is suitable. It is acknowledged that landscaping with native plants can lead to less water and maintenance requirements in some cases; however, this is not consistent for all native species. In many cases, successful landscaping with natives can result in increased maintenance requirements and often must be performed by native restoration experts. The City has oversight of landscaping design and will approve plans aligned with their policies related to allowable specie s, fire management, and water requirements.
Response A5-94
This comment includes the literature citation for the biological resources commenter from Shawn Smallwood, PhD. T he citation pages of the comment letter are provided in full in Attachment A. This comment does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-107
Comment Letter A6: Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-108
Response A6-1
This comment acknowledges support for the Project by Allied for a Responsible Economy (CARE CA). The letter of support does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR. No further response is required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-109
Comment Letter A7: Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-110
Response A7-1
This comment is an introduction to the comments provided by the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Response A7-2
The City acknowledges CCAEJ’s comment pertaining to the Project using truck routes to access the site so as to not introduce truck traffic to residential communities. The City concurs with the commenter’s concern for truck traffic and would condition the Project to use designated truck routes, thereby ensuring Project truck traffic would not go through residential communities. This comment does not raise a substantive issue on the content of the Draft EIR, no further response is required.
Response A7-3
This comment is a conclu ding comment that does not raise any specific issues or questions on the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-111
Late Comment Letter A8: Advocates for the Environment
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-112
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-113
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-114
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-115
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-116
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-117
Response A8-1
This an introductory comment stating that the Advocates for the Environment reviewed the Draft EIR for the Project. The comment makes a general statement about concerns regarding the sufficiency of the Draft EIR’s analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions impacts under CEQA. The comment has been noted for the record and no changes to the Draft EIR have been made or are required as a result of this comment.
Response A8-2
The commenter suggests that the City should use a net -zero GHG significance threshold. The comment also makes unsubstantiated statements that it is more affordable to construct new buildings to be net - zero now than to retrofit an old building in the future to meet the same standard. The Project does not propose the retrofit of an existing building , and will be constructed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application; thereby ensuring efficiency and reducin g the likelihood that costly retrofits will be required in the future (see MM GHG-2).
The commenter also references California’s policy to achieve net-zero GHG emissions no later than 2045 (presumably AB 1279). It should be noted that the State has not adopted a net -zero GHG threshold (or any GHG threshold) for individual development projec ts. The State’s policy to achieve net -zero GHG emissions by 2045 requires the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to ensure that Scoping Plan updates identify and recommend measures to achieve carbon neutrality, and to identify and implement policies and strategies that enable carbon dioxide (CO 2) removal solutions and carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) technologies. As discussed in Draft EIR pages 4.7-24 through 4.7-25, the Project would not conflict with the CARB Scoping Plan following compliance with all applicable regulations. The Project will install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on the site, or will otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, such that either option will provide 100 percent of the expected building electrical load. The building will be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application. (See MM GHG -1 and GHG -2). Mitigatio n Measure AQ -4 will require preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, detailing strategies that would reduce the use of single occupant vehicles by employees, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires non-diesel cargo handling equipment.
The commenter states that two of the largest mixed -use developments in the history of California have moved forward as net -zero communities after losing CEQA lawsuits. However, these projects represent large new mixed-use communities, which differ from the Project in terms of size, scale and GHG emissions sources (i.e., heavy trucks vs. passenger vehicles). The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan notes that a number of key State actions should be accounted for in local target -setting, including zero-emission light-duty vehicles (relevant to transportation electrification); smart growth/VMT reduction (relevant to vehicle miles traveled reduction); and new and existing residential and commercial buildings (relevant to building decarbonization).
The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan does not recommend a net-zero GHG threshold for individual development projects, noting that such thresholds may make it more difficult to achieve statewide goals by prohibiting or complicating projects that are needed to support the State’s climate goals, like infill development or solar arrays. The Scoping Plan also cautions against using net -zero targets and specifically notes that jurisdictions considering a net -zero target should carefully consider the implications it may hav e on Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-118
emissions in neighboring communities and beyond. Appendix D page 18 of the Scoping Plan states the following:
Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net-zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered pot entially significant. This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project approval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate-smart, infill areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, energy generation facilities).
Local governments have the discretion to adopt targets that apply to their jurisdictions as long as those targets are supported by substantial evidence. The Draft EIR uses a GHG threshold developed by the SCAQMD, which is based on substantial evidence as e xplained in the Draft EIR Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions on page 4.7-17. Based on these thresholds, which are supported by substantial evidence, impacts would be significant and unavoidable impact for Threshold GHG -1 and a less than significant impact for Threshold GHG-2.
The Project is a speculative warehouse and is not comparable to the large mixed-use projects identified by the commenter in terms of size/scale and GHG emissions sources . As noted by the commenter, the State has regulations in place to reduce GHG emissions. The Project will comply with all requirements as required by law. The comment does not raise any specific issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects; therefore, no further response is warranted.
Response A8-3
This comment summarizes the Draft EIR GHG findings of a significant and unavoidable impact for Threshold GHG-1 and a less than significant impact for Threshold GHG-2. As the comment does not raise any issues with respect to the content and adequacy of the Draft EIR or the Project’s environmental effects, no further response is warranted.
Response A8-4
The commenter claims that the City’s conclusion that no additional feasible mitigation measures are available to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions beyond those proposed in the Draft EIR is unsupported by substantial evidence. The commenter further recommends that the City adopt additional measures targeting truck and tenant operations to reduce mobile source emissions. Suggested actions include requiring lease provisions that limit heavy-duty diesel truck use, mandating low- or zero-emission fleets, installing solar-powered charging stations proportional to dock doors, or purchasing carbon offsets.
Refer to Response A5-49.
The Project will install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable energy generation on the site, or will otherwise acquire energy from the local utility that has been generated by renewable sources, such that either option will provide 1 00 percent of the expected building electrical load. The building will be designed to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application. (See MM GHG -1 and GHG-2). Mitigation Measure AQ-4 will require preparation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, detailing strategies that would reduce the use of Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-119
single occupant vehicles by employees, and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires non-diesel cargo handling equipment. However, the commenter provides no evidence demonstrating that the suggested additional measures are feasible for the City to monitor or for the Project Applicant to implement. This is particularly true with respect to zero-emission heavy-duty truck technology, which is not yet widely or commercially available. No substantial evidence has been provided showing how such technology could realistically be used by Project tenants or that the local electricity provider, Southern California Edison, has sufficient capacity to meet the energy demands of an all-electric heavy-duty truck fleet for a facility of this size.
The commenter asserts that the conclusion that the Project’s GHG emissions would be significant and unavoidable is not supported by substantial evidence because the Draft EIR does not identify infeasible mitigation measures. However, CEQA does not require an EIR to identify or specify potential mitigation measures and reject them as infeasible ( San Diego Citizenry Group v. County of San Diego (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 1, 15). A fundamental purpose of an EIR is to identify ways in which a proposed project’s significant environmental impacts can be mitigated or avoided (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(a), 21081(a)(1)). To implement this statutory purpose, an EIR must identify and describe feasible mitigation measures for each of the project’s significant environmental effects (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21061, 21100(b)(3); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15121(a), 15126.4(a)). When it approves a project, the City must adopt any feasible mitigation measures identified in the EIR that would mitigate or avoid the project’s significant environmental impacts (Pub. Res. Code §§ 21002.1(b); 21081(a)(1); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15022, 15091(a)(1)). However, CEQA does not require analysis of every imaginable mitigation measure ( Gilroy Citizens for Responsible Planning v. City of Gilroy (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 911, 935; San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v. City & County of San Francisco (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 1502, 1519). An EIR should focus on mitigation measures that are feasible, practical, and effective (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v.
Napa County Bd. of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 365; Concerned Citizens of S. Cent. L.A. v Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 826, 841). Here, the Draft EIR affirmatively incorporated all feasible mitigation measures, and the City is not required to speculate about the measures the commenter believes should be considered or implemented in the Draft EIR.
The commenter also recommended the purchase of carbon offsets to reduce Project GHG emissions but did not identify a specific offset program for the City to consider. Mandating carbon offsets as mitigation does not satisfy CEQA standards, which require mitigation measures to be “real, additional, quantifiable, permanent, verifiable, and enforceable” ( Golden Door Properties, LLC v. County of San Diego (2018) 27 Cal.App.5th 892). To qualify as adequate mitigation, offsets must come from a CARB -approved registry.
However, access to such registries is limited, the availability of sufficient credits is uncertain, and there is no guarantee that the reductions achieved would be additional to existing regulatory requirements or permanent over time. Consequently, rel iance on carbon offsets cannot ensure enforceable or effective mitigation under CEQA.
Accordingly, the City finds that the Project incorporates all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures currently available to reduce GHG emissions to the maximum extent practicable. Therefore, no revisions to the EIR or its conclusions are required.
Response A8-5
The commenter asserts that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan and would conflict with its objective to decarbonize industrial facilities by displacing fossil fuel use with electrification, solar thermal heat, biomethane, l ow- or zero -carbon hydrogen, and other low -carbon fuels. Contrary to these assertions, t he proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable GHG Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-120
reduction plans, including CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP), and SCAG’s RTP/SCS.
As addressed in Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions of the Draft EIR, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan establishes a framework to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 through zero -emission transportation, decarbonized electricity, and industrial efficiency improvements. The Project supports these statewide goals thr ough MM AQ -2, which prohibits natural gas infrastructure and requires all -electric building systems, thereby eliminating combustion -related building emissions and supporting industrial decarbonization consistent with the Scoping Plan.
While the commenter cites the use of diesel fuel in construction equipment, heavy -duty trucks, and emergency backup generators, such activities are temporary or regulated under existing State programs.
The City cannot impose restrictions on regional mobile source emissions or fleet composition, which are subject to CARB’s regulatory authority. These emissions will continue to decline due to implementation of State measures such as the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation, 3 Executive Order N -79-20, and the Mobile Source Strategy, all of which promote transition to zero-emission technologies.
Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with or impede implementation of the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan or other applicable GHG reduction plans. The Draft EIR’s analysis remains adequate, and no revisions are required.
Response A8-6
The commenter claims that the Draft EIR did not analyze other applicable plans, specifically the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan.
The comment mentions the 2017 Scoping Plan’s goal of 6 MTCO 2e per capita by 2030 and 2 MTCO2e per capita by 2050. However, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan updated and replaced the 2017 Scoping Plan, and as such the 2017 Scoping Plan no longer is in effect. CEQA does not require an evaluation of consistency with plans that no longer are in effect. The 2022 Scoping Plan does not include a per capita target.
Statewide per capita emissions are used as a metric to evaluate statewide emissions. The comment incorrectly applies the 2017 Scoping Plan’s 6 MTCO 2e and 2 MTCO 2e statewide metrics to the proposed Project as thresholds. A project level per capita emissions threshold has not been established by CARB.
Furthermore, the Statewide GHG per capita goal is also an inappropriate comparison because it based service population on California residents and employees. There are many factors contributing to the Project’s total GHG emissions that are unrelated to the on-site employee population only.
For example, the Project’s emissions are primarily from trucks used to move goods that would be used by a much broader population. Therefore, it would be erroneous to compare a state -level target to an individual development project. Since it is unknown th e precise number of people that would be served by the goods managed by the proposed Project annually, it would be erroneous to calculate the emissions
3 The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has issued a notice of public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Advanc ed Clean Fleets (ACF) and Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) regulations under Titles 13 and 17 of the California Code of Regulations. The proposed CARB amendments would repeal portions of the Advanced Clean Fleets (ACF) regulation that apply to private and federal fleets, following CARB’s withdrawal of its federal waiver request. This change clarifies that these fleets are no longer required to comply with ACF zero-emission vehicle mandates. However, state and local government fleets would remain subject to the ACF requirements for a phased transition to zero- emission vehicles.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-121
per capita (service population) without factoring in the number of end users. Therefore, the commenter’s calculation and reasoning above is based on inaccurate assumptions.
Executive Order B -55-18 does not establish any regulations, policies, or any other type of mandate for private development projects to reduce GHG emissions. Instead, Executive Order B -55-18 directs State agencies to establish an implementation program (i.e ., regulations and policies) that will allow the State to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045. The Executive Order B-55-18 reduction targets were codified by AB 1279, the California Climate Crisis Act in September 2022. The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan lays out a path to achieve the AB 1279 targets for carbon neutrality.
As addressed in Draft EIR Table 4.10-1, the proposed Project would comply with the 2022 California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code and would be designed to include measures that reduce GHG emissions, including providing bicycle parking, electric vehicle charging, water -conserving plum bing fixtures and fittings, water -efficient landscaping, construction waste management, and recycling requirements. The Project would also implement CALGreen Tier 2 performance standards pursuant to MM GHG-2, which exceed the minimum mandatory CALGreen req uirements and would further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. In addition, CALGreen is designed to expand the use of green building practices to reduce the carbon footprint of California’s new and existing inventory of buildings. As identified stated in Draft EIR Tables 4.7-4 and 4.10-1 and Section 4.5: Energy and Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions , the proposed Project would comply with the CALGreen Code regarding energy conservation and green building standards.
The Draft EIR adequately addresses compliance with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan, the City of Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP), and SCAG’s RTP/SCS. This comment does not identify any new significant environmental issues or impacts that were not already addressed in the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR’s analysis is adequate, and no revisions are required.
Response A8-7
The commenter opines that there is other feasible measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emission impacts. Refer to Response A8-4.
Response A8-8
The commenter asserts that the Project’s total GHG emissions over a 30-year lifespan should be calculated as a starting point for considering additional mitigation or carbon offsets. The commenter’s suggestion to evaluate the Project’s GHG emissions over a 30-year operational lifespan is inconsistent with SCAQMD’s recommended CEQA methodology. SCAQMD thresholds are based on annual GHG emissions, not total emissions over a project’s speculative lifespan. The 30 -year period referenced in the Draft EIR is used to amortize construction emissions for comparison to annual thresholds, consistent with the published SCAQMD methodology available at the time of Draft EIR publication.4 Therefore, calculating or evaluating a Project’s arbitrary lifetime GHG emissions would be inconsistent with SCAQMD guidance and unnecessary under CEQA. Refer to Response A8-4 regarding carbon offsets.
4 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Draft Guidance Document – Interim CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Significance Threshold, https://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ceqa/handbook/greenhouse-gases-(ghg)-ceqa-significance- thresholds/ghgattachmente.pdf, accessed November 6, 2025.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 2.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Response to Comments
City of Rialto 2-122
Response A8-9
The commenter opines that there is other feasible measures to mitigate greenhouse gas emission impacts. Refer to Response A8-4 and Response A5-49.
Response A8-10
The commenter opines that the City did not identify why carbon offsets are not feasible. Refer to Response A8-4.
Response A8-11
The comment suggests the Draft EIR should be revised to include all feasible GHG mitigation measures and claims the Project would not be consistent with all applicable plans, policies, and regulations for reducing GHG emissions. Refer to Response A8 -4 and Response A5 -49 regarding all feasible GHG mitigation measures. No revisions to the EIR are required.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-1
3.0 ERRATA TO THE EIR
3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE ERRATA
The Draft EIR for the Locust Gateway Development Project, is hereby incorporated by reference as part of the Final EIR. Changes to the EIR are further detailed below.
The changes to the EIR do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document, and instead represent changes to the EIR to provide clarification, amplification and/or insignificant modifications, as needed as a result of public comments on the Draft EIR, or due to additional information received during the public review period. These clarifications and corrections do not warra nt Draft EIR recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
None of the changes or information provided in the comments reflect a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact for which mitigation is not proposed, or a new feasible alternative or mitigation measure that would clearly lessen significant environmental impacts but is not adopted. In addition, the changes do not reflect a fundamentally flawed or conclusory EIR.
Changes to the EIR are listed by Section, page, paragraph, etc. to best guide the reader to the revision.
Changes are identified as follows:
• Deletions are indicated by strikeout text.
• Additions are indicated by underlined text.
3.2 CHANGES TO THE EIR
The following additions/revisions to Mitigation Measures (MM) AQ-3, BIO-1, BIO-3B, BIO-4B, BIO-4C, and CUL-5 will be added to Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program, in Section 1.0: Executive Summary of the EIR.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-2
Section 1.0: Executive Summary, MM BIO-1, MM BIO-3B, MM BIO-4B, and MM BIO-4C has been revised in Table 1 -1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program as follows:
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 4.2: Air Quality
Impact 4.2-1: Would the Project
conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
Potentially
Significant Impact
MM AQ-3: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants, Conditions 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.
Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
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 4.3: 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 prior to the onset of grading activities. 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,
Less than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-3
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
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.
If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes enhancement or restoration, the plan shall include at minimum: (a)
collection/salvage measures for plants or seed banks, to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding 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-3B: Burrowing Owl Plan or CESA ITP 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 on-site grading with the potential to impact burrowing Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-4
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
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 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 on-site grading 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-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 on- site grading 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 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-5
Section 1.0: Executive Summary, MM CUL-5 has been revised in Table 1-1: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Program as follows:
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
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 April through September August), 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.
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 4.4: 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-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project implementation, all earthwork and ground-disturbing activities shall halt within a buffer of the discovery established by the Project Archaeologist and the Project Archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find. The Project Archaeologist shall coordinate with the City and identify whether the resource is potentially significant and if it requires further evaluation. Work Less than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-6
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
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 Monitoring and Treatment 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 Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-7
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
for educational purposes. All identified cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (CA DPR 523) series forms and evaluated for
significance. All findings shall be included within a Monitoring Report drafted by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes for review. Final copies of the Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City, Consulting Tribes, and South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-8
Section 4.2: Air Quality
MM AQ-3 Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Codes Covenants, Conditions 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 e lectrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third -party vendor agreements for lan dscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
Section 4.3: Biological Resources
are incorporated into the Final EIR as follows:
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 prior to the onset of grading activities. The plan will demonstrate the feasibility of conserving, enhancing, or restoring Parry’s spineflower habitat in areas to be managed as natural open space without conflicting with other resource management objectives.
Habitat conservation, enhancement, or restoration will be at a minimum 1:1 ratio (acres conserved, enhanced, or restored to acres impacted).
If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes conservation of an extant population, the plan shall include at a minimum: (a) the location of the conserved habitat and an analysis of its suitability as compensatory mitigation; (b) an assessment of the extant P arry’s spineflower populations at the proposed conservation site; (c) a long-term management plan which includes objectives, management practices, monitoring protocols, adaptive management strategies, and reporting requirements; and (d) details regarding t he establishment of a non -wasting endowment to perpetually fund management of the conserved land, or such other funding mechanism acceptable to CDFW.
If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes enhancement or restoration, the plan shall include at minimum: (a) collection/salvage measures for plants or seed banks, to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding stor age of plants or seed banks; (c) location of the proposed recipient site, and detailed site preparation and plant introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding will occur and the methodology of the replanting; (e) a description of the irrigation, if used; (f) success criteria; and (g) a detailed monitoring program, commensurate with the plan’s goals.
MM BIO-3B Burrowing Owl Plan or CESA ITP 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.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-9
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 on-site grading 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 b e impacted, details of site monitoring, and details on propose d buffers and other avoidance measures if avoidance is proposed. Project activities with the potential to impact burrowing owl shall not occur within 500 feet of an active burrow until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan.
If project activities, including occupied burrow exclusion and closure, could result in take of burrowing owl, the applicant shall coordinate with CDFW for appropriate CESA authorization (i.e., ITP under CFGC section 2081) prior to commencement of on-site grading 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-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 on-site grading 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 April through September August), 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.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-10
Section 4.4: Cultural Resources
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 asses s the nature and significance of the find. The Project Archaeologist shall coordinate with the City and identify whether the resource is potentially significant and if it requires further evaluation. Work on the other portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period.
If the cultural resources are Native American in origin, the Consulting Tribes must be immediately contacted and consulted regarding potential significance and treatment of the resource. Speci fically, 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 o f 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 Monitoring and Treatment 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 archaeolog ical 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 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).
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 3.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Errata to the EIR
City of Rialto 3-11
Section 4.7: Greenhouse Gas Emissions
into the Final EIR as follows:
As such, the Project would cumulatively contribute to a significant and unavoidable GHG impact.
Section 4.8: Hazards and Hazardous Materials
follows:
Therefore, although the project site is located within the RFF Superfund site, based on the Phase II ESA findings and compliance with MM HAZ -2 through MM HAZ -4, Project implementation of the Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment and impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Appendix C Health Risk Assessment
To estimate the cancer risk, the dose is multiplied by the cancer potency factor, the ASF, the exposure duration divided by averaging time, and the frequency of time spent at home (for residents only):
Riskinh-res = (Doseair*CPF*ASF*(ED/AT)*FAH)
Riskinh-res = residential inhalation cancer risk (potential chances per million) Doseair = daily dose through inhalation (mg/kg-day)
CPF = inhalation cancer potency factor (mg/kg-day-1)
ASF = age sensitivity factor for a specified age group (unitless) ED = exposure duration (years)
AT = averaging time of lifetime cancer risk (years)
FAH = fraction of time spent at home (unitless)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-1
4.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
4.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all public agencies establish monitoring and/or reporting procedures for mitigation adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been developed to provide a vehicle by which to monitor the Mitigation Program outlined in the Locust Gateway Development Project Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), State Clearinghouse No. 2024061274. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. Specifically, Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program shall be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation.
For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead or responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 provides clarification of mitigation monitoring and reporting requirements and guidance to local lead agencies on implementing strategies. The reporting or monitoring program must be designed to ensure compliance during projec t implementation. The City of Rialto is the Lead Agency for the Project and is therefore responsible for ensuring the implementation of the MMRP. The MMRP has been drafted to meet the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 as a fully enforceable monitoring program.
4.2 ORGANIZATION
The Mitigation Program identified in the EIR outlines the standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures for which implementation of the Project would be consistent with.
The MMRP defines the following for each Mitigation Program element:
▪ Definition. The Mitigation Program element contains the criteria for mitigation, either in the form of adherence to certain adopted regulations or identification of the steps to be taken in mitigation.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-2
▪ Time Frame. In each case, a time frame is provided for performance of the mitigation or the review of evidence that mitigation has taken place. The performance points selected are designed to ensure that impact -related components of Project implementation do not proc eed without establishing that the mitigation is implemented or ensured. All activities are subject to the approval of all required permits from agencies with permitting authority over the specific activity. ▪ Monitoring/Reporting Method. The actions required to ensure the measure is implemented are noted.
▪ Responsible Party or Designated Representative. Unless otherwise indicated, an applicant would be the party responsible for implementing the mitigation, and the City of Rialto or designated representative would be responsible for monitoring the performance and implementation of the mitigation measure. To guarantee that the mitigation will not be inadvertently overlooked, a supervising public official acting as the Designated Re presentative is the official who grants the permit or authorization called for in the performance. Where more than one official is identified, permits or authorization from all officials shall be required.
The last column of the MMRP table will be used by the parties responsible for documenting when implementation of the measure has been completed. The ongoing documentation and monitoring of mitigation compliance will be completed by the City o f Rialto. The completed MMRP and supplemental documents will be kept on file at the City of Rialto Community Development Department.
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-3
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
▪ 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.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits On-site inspections City of Rialto Public Works Department, Engineering
Services
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.
Ongoing during construction On-site inspections City of Rialto Public Works Department, Engineering
Services
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).
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit Documentation of Low Water Use Landscaping
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit On-site inspections City of Rialto Community Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-4
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit
Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit
On-site inspections City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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.
Prior to issuance of a Building Permit Confirm compliance during on-site inspections
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-5
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
▪ 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 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.
Prior to the issuance of Building Permits Approval of Plans and Specifications
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
MM AQ-3: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants, Conditions 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.
Prior to the issuance of Occupancy Permits Approval of Plans and Specifications
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy
permits.
Approval of Plans and
Specifications
Tenant/Facility Operator
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-6
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
▪ 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.
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.
Prior to the issuance of tenant
occupancy permits.
Approval of Plans and
Specifications
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-7
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
Biological Resources
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 prior to the onset of grading activities.
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.
If the rare plant mitigation plan proposes enhancement or restoration, the plan shall include at minimum: (a) collection/salvage measures for plants or seed banks, to retain intact soil conditions and maximize success likelihood; (b) details regarding stor age of plants or seed banks; (c) location of the proposed recipient site, and detailed site preparation and plant introduction techniques details for top soil storage, as applicable; (d) time of year that the salvage and replanting or seeding will occur an d 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.
Prior to the onset of grading activities. Verify Pre-Construction Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist.
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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:
Prior to initial ground disturbing activities.
Ongoing during grading and construction
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
Qualified Biologist
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-8
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 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 compliance report by
Qualified Biologist.
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-9
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 site. 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 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 Preconstruction survey conducted no less
than 14 days prior to the onset of
construction activities
Second survey conducted within 24 hours
prior to the onset of construction
activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist.
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-10
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 Plan or CESA ITP. 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 on -site grading 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 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 on -site grading 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.
If burrowing owls are detected during
preconstruction surveys
Preparation of Burrowing Owl
Plan, if burrowing owls are
detected
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Qualified Biologist
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-11
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
Two pre-construction nesting surveys shall
be conducted prior to Project
implementation. 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)
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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 on -site grading 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.
CESA ITP shall be applied for and obtained
prior to the commencement of on-site
grading.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Qualified Biologist
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 (April through August), 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.
Ongoing during removal of suitable nectar
plants if conducted February through
March, April through August, and/or
September through October.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
Prior to vegetation clearing and ground-
disturbing activities
Nesting bird survey within three (3) days
prior to any disturbance of the site.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-12
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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. compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
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.
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.
Pre-construction nesting bird survey.
Biological monitoring ongoing during
construction.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
Preconstruction surveys within 30 days
prior to the commencement of any on-site
Project activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
During pre-construction surveys. Verify Pre-Construction Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Biologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-13
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
Qualified Biologist
Cultural Resources
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.
Prior to issuance of any permit for ground-
disturbing activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Archaeologist.
Project Archeologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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’ responsibilities, procedures for each MM or COA, and an overview of the Project schedule.
Prior to issuance of any permit for ground-
disturbing activities.
Approval of Cultural
Resources Management Plan
Project Archeologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Consulting Tribes
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 sha ll 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.
Prior to commencing any ground
disturbance work.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Archaeologist
Construction Managers and
Construction Personnel,
Project Archaeologist or
designated Archaeological
Monitor
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Monitoring Tribes
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 Archeological monitoring during initial
ground disturbing activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
Project Archaeologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-14
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
compliance report by
Qualified Archaeologist
MM CUL-5: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. In the event that cultural resources are discovered during Project implementation, all earthwork and ground - disturbing activities shall halt within a buffer of the discovery established by the Project Archaeologist and the Project Archaeologist shall assess the nature and significance of the find. The Project Archaeologist shall coordinate with the City and identify whether the resource is potentially significant and if it requires further evaluation. Work on the other portions of the project site outside o f 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. Speci fically, 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 o f 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 resour ce.
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 Monitoring and Treatment 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 During Project implementation Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Archaeologist
Project Archaeologist
Consulting Tribes
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
South Central Coastal
Information Center (SCCIC)
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-15
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 acc ept the material. If no institution accepts the archaeological material, it shall be offered to a local school or historical society in the area for educational purposes. All identified cultural resources shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (CA DPR 523) series forms and evaluated for significance. All findings shall be included within a Monitoring Report drafted by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City and Consulting Tribes for review. Final copies of the Monitoring Report shall be submitted to the City, Consulting Tribes, and South C entral Coastal Information Center (SCCIC).
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.
During excavation (if applicable) Verify Pre-Construction Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Archaeologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
County Coroner
Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC)
Most Likely Descendant (MLD)
Geology and Soils
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:
Prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit for ground-disturbing activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Geologist
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-16
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 with the applicable geotechnical investigation and other applicable Code requirements.
City of Rialto Public Works
Department
City of Rialto’s registered
geotechnical engineer or third-
party registered engineer
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.
Prior to the issuance of any grading
permits for ground-disturbing activities.
Verify Pre-Construction
Surveys Conducted. Field
Inspection signoff, and
compliance report by
Qualified Paleontologist
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Director
Qualified Paleontologist
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-17
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
In the event that fossils or fossil-bearing deposits are inadvertently unearthed during excavation and grading activities, all earth disturbing activities within a 100 -foot radius of the area of discovery shall be temporarily halted or diverted. The qualified paleontologist shall be contacted to evaluate the significance of the finding and determine an appropriate course of action in accordance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards and assess the significance of the find under the criteria set 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.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
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.
Ongoing during construction On-site inspections City of Rialto Public Works Department, Engineering
Services
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.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit On-site inspections City of Rialto Community Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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).
Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit Documentation of Low Water Use Landscaping
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit
Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit
On-site inspections City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-18
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
Ongoing during demolition and
construction
On-site inspections City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit
Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit
On-site inspections City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit
Prior to issuance of Occupancy Permit
On-site inspections City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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.
Prior to the issuance of the final Certificate
of Occupancy for the building tenant.
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Southern California Edison (SCE)
MM GHG-2: CALGreen Tier 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Rialto Community Development Department, Building and Safety Division demonstrating that the Project is designed to meet or exceed 2022 CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit. Field inspection signoff Project Applicant City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
MM GHG-3: Solid Waste Diversion. Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Project operator shall designate a solid waste management coordinator and Prior to issuance of tenant occupancy
permits
Field inspection signoff Project Applicant
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-19
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
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 gallons per minute and another for solid waste at 1.28 gallons per minute. (This allows the appropriate use of water for flushing needs.) ▪ Use water-efficient appliances: The Project Applicant or designee shall install energy-efficient and water-saving appliances with the ENERGY STAR label only. ▪ Good housekeeping and regular maintenance: The Project Applicant or designee shall regularly check and maintain plumbing fixtures, irrigation systems, and appliances to ensure they are functioning efficiently and not wasting water.
Outdoor Conservation Features and Operations:
▪ Install only “Smart Irrigation Systems” for community landscaping: The Project Applicant or designee shall use smart sprinkler systems that adjust watering schedules based on weather conditions, soil moisture, and plant needs to avoid over or wasteful watering. The Project Applicant or designee shall also incorporate seasonal specific controls to ensure watering occurs during the most efficient times of day.
Condition of issuance of Building Permit
Confirmation prior to Certificate of
Occupancy
On-site inspection Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-20
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
▪ 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.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
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 sh all be in accordance with Cal/OSHA and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) protocol and also in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules. All removed asbestos-containing building materials and lead-based paint shall be properly disposed of at a landfill certified to accept said materials, and waste shall be transported under the waste manifest by a certified waste transportation company. Once all of these materials have been removed, structure demolition may commence.
Prior to approval of a demolition permit. Field inspection signoff City of Rialto Community Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Abatement Contractor
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 Department of Defense Explosives Safety Prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit
Daily monitoring during grading activities
Field inspection signoff Project Applicant
City of Rialto Director of
Community Development
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-21
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
Board Technical Paper-18 (DESB 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.
Munitions Expert
MM HAZ-3: Soil Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a Soil Management Plan (or equivalent document) to be implemented for construction of the Proposed Project. The objective of the Soil Management Plan is to provide guidance for the proper handling, onsite management, and disposal of impacted soil that might be encountered during construction activities.
The plan would include practices that are consistent with the California Title 8, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA) regulations, as well as appropriate remediation standards that are protective of the planned use.
Appropriately trained professionals would be on site during preparation, grading, and related earthwork activities to monitor soil conditions encountered. The Soil Management Plan would provide guidelines for the following:
▪ Identifying impacted soil
▪ Assessing impacted soil
▪ Soil excavation
▪ Impacted soil storage
▪ Verification sampling
▪ Impacted soil characterization and disposal
The plan shall outline how Project construction crews would identify, handle, and dispose of potentially contaminated soil; identify the qualifications of the appropriately trained professionals that would monitor soil conditions and conduct soil sampling during 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, Prior to the issuance of a grading permit.
Soil Management Plan shall be submitted
to the city and CUPA 45 days prior to the
start of construction for review and
approval.
Field inspection signoff Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
CUPA
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-22
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 Unif ied 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 and the South Coast Air Quality Management District, as applicable.
The contaminated soil shall be evaluated and excavated/disposed of, treated in -situ (in-place), or otherwise managed and disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, State, and local laws and regulations.
During excavation and grading activities. Field inspection signoff Project Applicant San Bernardino County Fire
Department
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Hydrology and Water Quality
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.
Prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit
Verify permit Project Applicant
City of Rialto Public Works
Department
SC HYD-2. Prior to issuance of the first grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the City Engineer for approval, a Storm Water Quality Management Plan (SWQMP) specifically identifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will be incorporated into the Project to control stormwater and non-stormwater pollutants during and after construction. To ensure compliance, a legal and fiduciary enforcement mechanism in the form of a Storm Water Quality Management Plan Agreement shall be executed with the City of Rialto. This agreement shall additionally be recorded in the office of the County Recorder for the County of San Bernardino. The SWQMP shall Prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit
Verify plans Project Applicant
City of Rialto Engineer
County Recorder for the County
of San Bernardino
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-23
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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.
Prior to issuance of the first grading
permit.
Verify plans City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
Noise
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 main tained in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications.
Ongoing during any earthwork or
construction activities
Verify incorporation of
applicable noise measures.
Field inspection sign-offs.
Submittal of compliance report
from qualified noise
consultant.
Project Applicant or Owner
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Building and Safety Division
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 Prior to the issuance of the first grading
permit and/or action that would permit
site disturbance.
Verify Required Public Safety
Information on Development
Plans
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Police Department
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-24
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
Police Department and the Public Works Department, to be instituted during the grading and construction phase of the Project.
City of Rialto Public Works
Department
SC PS-2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the City of Rialto Police Department shall review development plans for the incorporation of defensible space concepts to reduce demands on police services. Public safety planning recommendations shall be incorporated into the Project plans. The Applicant shall prepare a list of Project features and design components that demonstrate responsiveness to defensible space design concepts. The Police Department shall review and approve all defensible space design features incorporated into the Project prior to initiating the building plan check process.
Prior to issuance of building permits Verify Required Public Safety Information on Development
Plans
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Police Department
Transportation
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.
Prior to issuance of any Grading or Building
Permit
Approved Construction
Management Plan
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Director
City of Rialto’s Traffic Engineer
Tribal Cultural Resources
MM TCR-1: Native American Monitoring for Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. The Project Applicant shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the 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 Monitor shall be retained prior to the
commencement of any ground-disturbing
activity.
Monitor shall complete daily monitoring
logs.
Submittal of executed
monitoring agreement to the
City of Rialto
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation, Morongo
Band of Mission Indians
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-25
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
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 Tribal Cultural Resources, 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 writte n request to the Tribe.
On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon one of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the Project Applicant or City of Rialto that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the Project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the Project Applicant or City of Rialto that no future, planned construction activity and/or 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) Prior to the issuance of the first permit
that would result in a ground-disturbing
activity
Field Inspection signoff by
Qualified Monitor
Project Applicant
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division
Locust Gateway Development Project Section 4.0
Final Environmental Impact Report Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of Rialto 4-26
Locust Gateway Development Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Standard Conditions; Mitigation Measures;
Laws, Ordinances and Regulations Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Method
Responsible Party for
Implementation/
Approval
Verification
Date Initials
ground-disturbing activities (including, but not limited to, clearing, grubbing, tree and bush removal, grading, trenching, fence post placement and removal, construction excavation, excavation for all utility and irrigation lines, and landscaping phases o f any kind). The Tribal Monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground-disturbing activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. The Tribal Monitor can establish a buffer around the discovery.
Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation, Morongo
Band of Mission Indians
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.
Ongoing during grading Field Inspection signoff by
Qualified Monitor
Consultation with Tribes, as
necessary
Consulting Tribes
Qualified Archaeologist
City of Rialto Community
Development Department,
Planning Division