Agenda packet — Rialto City Council, September 22, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant Impact – Adverse impacts to scenic vistas can occur in one of two ways. First, an area itself may contain existing scenic vistas that would be altered by proposed project. A review of the project area determined that there are no scenic vistas located internally within the project footprint of the proposed storm drain alignment. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project is not expected to impact any important scenic vistas within the project area. A scenic vista impact can also occur when a scenic vista can be viewed from the project area or immediate vicinity and a proposed project may interfere with the view to a scenic vista. The City of Rialto General Plan indicates that views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains to the north and views of the La Loma Hills, Jurupa Hills, Box Spring Mountains are important to protect as important scenic resources within the City. The proposed project will be located within Baseline Road between Cactus Basin and Tamarind Avenue. Baseline Road is an east/west corridor connecting many of the Cities and communities within the Inland Empire together. The hills and mountains that surround the City are far removed from the proposed storm drain alignment such that the views are mostly obscured from the location at which the storm drain alignment will be installed. The project will also be constructed entirely below ground, and will not permanently alter the above ground setting within the storm drain alignment. Given that the project would not degrade views to nearby scenic vistas and that the visual effects of storm drain improvements would not substantially alter the views in the Project footprint in the long-term, implementation of the proposed modification is not expected to cause any substantial adverse effects on any important scenic vistas. This potential impact is considered a less than significant adverse aesthetic impact. No mitigation is required. b. No Impact – The project footprint does not include a section of road that is located within a scenic highway. According to Caltrans, there are no scenic highways within the project alignment. The Project will not demolish or substantially damage any of the buildings within the project alignment, as most of the proposed improvements will occur within existing road rights-of-way. Additionally, there are no existing rock outcroppings or other natural landscape features within the project alignment that could be considered a scenic resource. There are no trees that would be removed or interfered with as part of the proposed project; consequently, no significant adverse impact to a scenic resource will occur. No mitigation is required.
• • ~ •
• • • ~
• • ~ •
• • • ~
38357
c. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed storm drain alignment within Baseline Road ultimately terminates at Cactus Basin. The proposed project is located in an urbanized area, and would mostly be located within an existing roadway, which is considered land use independent. The proposed project would install a portion of the storm drain alignment within an area designated for Open Space Resource Use by the Rialto General Plan and by Cactus Basin (OS-CB) by the City of Rialto Zoning Code. The proposed development of a storm drain within an alignment designated and classified as such would be consistent with the existing use of the site. Furthermore, storm water infrastructure projects such as that which is proposed project are considered land use independent Therefore, given that the proposed project is in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.
d. No Impact – There will not be any new permanent sources of lighting as part of the proposed project.

The proposed project will install a new storm drain within Baseline Road, which will be located below ground. Construction of the project will require minimal lighting because it will occur during daytime hours. No reflective materials or coatings are associated with this Project. Due to the Project’s location within an existing urban setting, and the lack of any new lighting, it is not anticipated that this project will create any substantial new sources of light or glare. No impact associated with lighting or glare can be identified and no mitigation is required. 38458
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES:

In determining whether impacts to agricultural
resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land
Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether
impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding
the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. No Impact – The majority of the Project will occur within and adjacent to existing road rights-of-way within the Baseline Road corridor and adjacent to Cactus Basin. Neither the Project footprint nor the surrounding area is designated for agricultural use; no agricultural activities exist in the project area; and there is no potential for impact to any agricultural uses or values as a result of project implementation. According to the maps prepared pursuant to the farmland mapping and monitoring program of the California Resources Agency, no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of state importance exists within the vicinity of the proposed project (Figure II-1). No adverse impact to any agricultural resources would occur from implementing the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
b. No Impact – There are no agricultural uses currently within the Project footprint or on adjacent properties. A majority of the Project will occur within existing road right-of-way within Baseline Road • • • ~
• • • ~
• • • ~
• • • ~
• • • ~
38559
between Tamarind Avenue and Cactus Basin, and also within and adjacent to Cactus Basin, which is designated as Open Space Resource Use by the Rialto General Plan and by Cactus Basin (OSCB) by the City of Rialto Zoning Code. No agricultural uses exist adjacent to the storm drain alignment. Therefore, no potential exists for a conflict between the proposed project and agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contracts within the project area. No mitigation is required. c. No Impact – Please refer to issues II(a) and II(b) above. The project site is in an urbanized area and neither the land use designation, nor zoning classification supports forest land or timberland uses or designations. No potential exists for a conflict between the proposed project and forest/timberland zoning. No mitigation is required.
d. No Impact – There are no forest lands within the project area, which is because the project area is completely urbanized. No potential for loss of forest land would occur if the project is implemented.

No mitigation is required.
e. No Impact – Because the project footprint and surrounding area do not support either agricultural or forestry uses and, furthermore, because the project site and environs are not designated for such uses, implementation of the proposed project would not cause or result in the conversion of farmland or forest land to alternative use. There is no farmland or forest land located in the vicinity of the project roadway alignment. No adverse impact would occur. No mitigation is required. 38660
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance
criteria established by the applicable air quality
management or air pollution control district may be
relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information utilized in this section of the Initial Study was obtained from the Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, HZ-116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain Project, City of Rialto, California prepared by Giroux and Associates dated April 15, 2019. This document is provided as Appendix 2 to this document.

Background
Climate
The climate of western San Bernardino County, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi-permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on-shore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and industry attracted in part by the climate.

Rialto is situated in an area where the pollutants generated in coastal portions of the Los Angeles basin undergo photochemical reactions and then move inland across the project site during the daily sea breeze cycle. The resulting smog at times gives western San Bernardino County some of the worst air quality in all of California. Fortunately, significant air quality improvement in the last decade suggests that healthful air quality may someday be attained despite the limited regional meteorological dispersion potential. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in winter in the project area.

Air Quality Standards
Existing air quality is measured at established South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) air quality monitoring stations. Monitored air quality is evaluated and in the context of ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality that are considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) currently in effect are shown in Table III-1. Because the State of California had established Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently • • ~ •
• ~ • •
• • ~ •
• ~ • •
38761
in effect in California are shown in Table III-1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table III-2.

Table III-1

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant Average Time
California Standards 1 National Standards 2
Concentration 3 Method 4 Primary 3,5 Secondary 3,6 Method 7 Ozone (O3)8
1 Hour 0.09 ppm
(180 µg/m3) Ultraviolet
Photometry
– Same as
Primary
Standard
Ultraviolet
Photometry 8 Hour 0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)

0.070 ppm
(137 µg/m3)
Respirable
Particulate
Matter (PM10)9
24 Hour 50 µg/m3
Gravimetric or
Beta Attenuation
150 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard
Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
20 µg/m3 –
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)9
24 Hour – – 35 µg/m3
Same as
Primary
Standard Inertial Separation
and Gravimetric
Analysis Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
12 µg/m3 Gravimetric or Beta
Attenuation 12.0 µg/m3 15.0 µg/m3
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
1 Hour 20 ppm
(23 mg/m3)
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
35 ppm
(40 mg/m3)
–
Non-Dispersive
Infrared Photometry
(NDIR)
8 Hour 9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
9 ppm
(10 mg/m3)
–
8 Hour
(Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3
) – –
Nitrogen
Dioxide (NO2)10
1 Hour 0.18 ppm
(339 µg/m3)
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence
100 ppb
(188 µg/m3)
–
Gas Phase
Chemiluminescence Annual
Arithmetic
Mean

0.030 ppm
(57 µg/m3)

0.053 ppm
(100 µg/m3)
Same as
Primary
Standard
Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)11
1 Hour 0.25 ppm
(655 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
75 ppb
(196 µg/m3)
–
Ultraviolet
Flourescense;
Spectrophotometry
(Paraosaniline
Method)
3 Hour – –

0.5 ppm
(1300 µg/m3)
24 Hour 0.04 ppm
(105 µg/m3)

0.14 ppm
(for certain
areas)11
–
Annual
Arithmetic
Mean
–

0.030 ppm
(for certain
areas)
11 –
Lead 812,13
30-Day
Average 1.5 µg/m3
Atomic Absorption
– – –
Calendar
Quarter –

1.5 µg/m3
(for certain
areas)12
Same as
Primary
Standard
High Volume
Sampler and Atomic
Rolling Absorption
3-Month Avg – 0.15 µg/m3
Visibility
Reducing
Particles14
8 Hour See footnote 14
Beta Attenuation and
Transmittance through
Filter Tape No
Federal
Standards
Sulfates 24 Hour 25 µg/m3Ion Chromatography
Hydrogen
Sulfide 1 Hour 0.03 ppm(42 µg/m3)
Ultraviolet
Fluorescence
Vinyl
Chloride12 24 Hour 0.01 ppm(26 µg/m3)
Gas Chromatography
38862
Footnotes
1 California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, suspended particulate matter – PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles, are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2 National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest eight hour concentration in a year, averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year, with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m3, is equal to or less than one.

For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact U.S. EPA for further clarification and current federal policies. 3 Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25̊C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25̊C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4 Any equivalent procedure which can be shown to the satisfaction of the ARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5 National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety to protect the public health. 6 National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7 Reference method as described by the EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by the EPA. 8 On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm. 9 On December 14, 2012, the national PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3to 12.0 μg/m3. The existing national 24-hour PM2.5 standards (primarily and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m3. The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primarily and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years. 10 To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb).

California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm. 11 On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.

Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm. 12 The ARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
13 The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 j.tg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until one year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
14 In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
38963
Table III-2

HEALTH EFFECTS OF MAJOR CRITERIA POLLUTANTS
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
• Incomplete combustion of fuels and
other carbon-containing substances,
such as motor exhaust.
• Natural events, such as
decomposition of organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
• Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary
combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.

Ozone
(O3)
• Atmospheric reaction of organic
gases with nitrogen oxides in
sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
• Plant leaf injury.

Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction. • Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio respiratory
diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.

Fine Particulate
Matter
(PM-2.5)
• Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical
reactions of other pollutants,
including NOx, sulfur oxides, and
organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface soiling.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
• Combustion of sulfur-containing
fossil fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal
ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather, finishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.

Baseline Air Quality
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented from measurements made near the project site. The SCAQMD operates a monitoring station in Fontana that monitors the complete spectrum of gaseous and particulate pollutants for which there are clean air standards. From these data resources, one can well infer that baseline air quality levels near the 39064
project site are improving, but occasionally unhealthful. Full attainment may still be many years away.

Table III-3 summarizes the last four years of published monitoring data from the Fontana station.

1. Photochemical smog (ozone) levels frequently exceed standards. The 1-hour state standard was violated 9.2 percent of all days in the last four years in Fontana. The 8-hour state ozone standard has been exceeded 14 percent of all days in the past four years. The Federal eight-hour ozone standard has averaged around 10 percent of the time during this period. While ozone levels are still high, they are much lower than 10 to 20 years ago. Attainment of all clean air standards in the project vicinity is not likely to occur soon, but the severity and frequency of violations is expected to continue to slowly decline during the current decade.

2. Carbon monoxide (CO) levels at the Fontana station have remained level throughout the last four years. The 8-hour standard has not been exceeded and the maximum 8-hour standard has been steadily declining, with 2016 having the lowest concentration in the time period analyzed. These data suggest that baseline CO levels in the project area are generally healthful and can accommodate a reasonable level of additional traffic emissions before any adverse air quality effects would be expected.

3. PM-10 levels periodically exceed the state 24-hour standard, but no measurements in excess of the national 24-hour particulate standard has been recorded in the last four years. State PM-10 standards are exceeded an average of 22 percent of all days per year.

4. A substantial fraction of PM-10 is comprised of ultra-small diameter particulates capable of being inhaled into deep lung tissue (PM-2.5). Year 2016 showed the fewest violations in recent years. Less than one percent of all days exceeded the current national 24-hour standard of 35 μg/m3.

Table III-3
AIR QUALITY MONITORING SUMMARY – 2014-2017
(NUMBER OF DAYS STANDARDS WERE EXCEEDED, AND MAXIMUM LEVELS DURING SUCH VIOLATIONS) Pollutant/Standard 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 31 36 34 33
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 52 57 49 49
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 37 39 34 38
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.127 0.133 0.139 0.137
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.105 0.111 0.105 0.118
Carbon Monoxide
8- Hour > 9. ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-hour Conc. (ppm) 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.074 0.089 0.071 0.069
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 13/58 13/55 15/61 7/43
24-hour > 150 g/m3(F) 0/58 0/55 0/61 0/43
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 68. 96. 94. 75.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/58 2/113 0/111 1/120
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 78.9 47.3 30.4 39.2
39165
(Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) S=State Standard; F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD
Fontana Air Quality Monitoring Station
Air Quality Planning
The U.S. EPA is responsible for setting and enforcing the NAAQS for O3, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (7). The U.S. EPA has jurisdiction over emissions sources that are under the authority of the federal government including aircraft, locomotives, and emissions sources outside state waters (Outer Continental Shelf). The U.S. EPA also establishes emission standards for vehicles sold in states other than California. Automobiles sold in California must meet the stricter emission requirements of the CARB.

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was first enacted in 1955, and has been amended numerous times in subsequent years (1963, 1965, 1967, 1970, 1977, and 1990). The CAA establishes the federal air quality standards, the NAAQS, and specifies future dates for achieving compliance (14). The CAA also mandates that states submit and implement State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for local areas not meeting these standards. These plans must include pollution control measures that demonstrate how the standards will be met. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades. Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.

The SCAQMD adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal one-hour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-hour federal standard. Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.

With re-designation of the air basin as non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard, a new attainment plan was developed. This plan shifted most of the one-hour ozone standard attainment strategies to the 8-hour standard. The attainment date was to “slip” from 2010 to 2021. The updated attainment plan also includes strategies for ultimately meeting the federal PM-2.5 standard. Because projected attainment by 2021 required control technologies that did not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation was to allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also required the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.

Table III-4

SOUTH COAST AIR BASIN EMISSIONS FORECASTS (EMISSIONS IN TONS/DAY) Pollutant 2015a 2020b 2025b 2030b
NOx 357 289 266 257
VOC 400 393 393 391
PM-10 161 165 170 172
PM-2.5 67 68 70 71
a2015 Base Year.
bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality 39266
AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013. An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.). The current attainment deadlines for all federal nonattainment pollutants are now as follows:
8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032
Annual PM-2.5 (12 g/m3) 2025
8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (former standard)
1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard)
24-hour PM-2.5 (35 g/m3) 2019
The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional stringent NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, ozone attainment goals may not be met.

The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing storm drain improvement projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-thansignificant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis.

Significance Thresholds Used in This Document
Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.

Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following four tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Primary Pollutants
Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant.

Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction.
39367
Secondary Pollutants
Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact.

Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emission levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.

Table III-5

DAILY EMISSIONS THRESHOLDS
Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.

Additional Indicators
In its CEQA Handbook, the SCAQMD also states that additional indicators should be used as screening criteria to determine the need for further analysis with respect to air quality. The additional indicators are as follows:
• Project could interfere with the attainment of the federal or state ambient air quality standards by either violating or contributing to an existing or projected air quality violation • Project could result in population increases within the regional statistical area which would be in excess of that projected in the AQMP and in other than planned locations for the project’s build-out year.
• Project could generate vehicle trips that cause a CO hot spot.

Impact Analysis
a. Less Than Significant Impact ‒ Projects such as the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project do not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing general development. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-thansignificant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. The City requires compliance with the Municipal Code for project such as this, and the Project will meet these standards. The Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project will be fully consistent with both the General Plan designation and Zone classification for the project site, mainly because the project involves storm drain infrastructure, and such projects are considered land use independent. Thus, 39468
the proposed project is consistent with regional planning forecasts maintained by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) regional plans. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant only because of consistency with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. As the analysis of project-related emissions provided below indicates, the proposed project will not cause exposure to significant air pollution, and is, therefore, consistent with the applicable air quality plan.
b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ For a typical project, air pollution emissions occur over both a short and long-term time period. Short-term emissions include fugitive dust from construction activities (i.e., site prep, demolition, grading, and exhaust emission) at the proposed Project site. No long-term emissions would be generated by future operation of the proposed project because the objective of the project is to upgrade existing drainage infrastructure conditions within Baseline Avenue from Cactus Basin west to Tamarind Avenue; as such, the new storm drain system would not require power to operate because it will gravity flow.

Construction Emissions
The City of Rialto proposes to upgrade the existing drainage infrastructure conditions within Baseline Road from Cactus Basin (Cactus Avenue) to Tamarind Avenue. The project consists of installing approximately 11,000 lineal feet (LF) of various diameter storm drains that would capture flows north of Baseline Road. The Project will be constructed once funding becomes available, which is anticipated to be secured in 2021 or 2022. Construction is anticipated to require between 6 months and one year to complete. At any given time during construction a maximum of 30 employees would be required each day, though the number of construction workers required will range from 10 to 30 persons per day. Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. The CalEEMod.2016.3.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the prototype construction equipment fleet and schedule as indicated in Table III-6.

Table III-6
CalEEMod CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EQUIPMENT FLEET AND WORKDAYS: (30 WORKERS DAILY) Prep and Concrete Removal
(3 months)
1 Concrete Saw
1 Dozer
1 Loader/Backhoe
2 Skid Steer Loaders
Trench and Install Pipeline
(4 months)
1 Loader/Backhoe
2 Trenchers
1 Forklifts
1 Crane
1 Excavator
Backfill and Paving
(3 months)
1 Paver
1 Roller
1 Loader/Backhoe
4 Mixers
2 Compactors
Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables III-6 the following worst-case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table III-7. 39569
Table III-7

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY EMISSIONS

MAXIMUM DAILY EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY)
Maximal Construction
Emissions per Calendar Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5 Year 2021 2.4 21.9 19.5 0.0 1.8 1.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 output in appendix
Peak daily construction activity emissions are below their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds without the need for any additional mitigation. However, though construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds, emissions minimization through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the PM non-attainment status of the air basin. As such, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

AIR-1 Fugitive Dust Control. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation:
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day). • Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. As such, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

AIR-2 Exhaust Emissions Control. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better heavy equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.

With the above mitigation measures, any impacts related to construction emissions are considered less than significant. No further mitigation is required.

Operational Impacts
There are no operational air pollution emissions associated with a gravity fed storm drain.

Conclusion
With the incorporation of mitigation measures AIR-1 and AIR-2, the development of the Rialto Basin Storm Drain Project would have a less than significant potential to result in a cumulatively I I
39670
considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. c. Less Than Significant Impact – The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1- 4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction.

LST screening tables are available for various source-receptor distances. For this project the most stringent thresholds for a 1-acre site and a 25-meter source-receptor distance was used to compare to construction emissions as shown in Table III-8.

Table III-8

LST AND PROJECT EMISSIONS (POUNDS/DAY)
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Central San Bernardino Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Thresholds 667 118 4 3
Max On-Site Project Emissions 20 22 2 1
LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen in Table III-8, even without use of mitigation, emissions easily meet the LST for construction thresholds. LST impacts are less than significant. As such, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The only new source of odors that would be generated by this project would be those short-term odors from construction equipment and vehicles.

Those odors would be associated with exhaust emissions from consumption of petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, etc.). Such odors are common in urbanized areas near the project footprint, particularly due to the industrial nature of this corridor. Due to the few pieces of equipment required and the short duration of construction, as well as the ambient odor levels in the project area, the project will not result in the creation of a significant amount of objectionable odors. In the long term, no new sources of odors will result. The storm drain will operate in a similar manner to the existing storm drain system below ground. Mitigation measure AIR-2 will reduce the potential for objectionable odors posing a health risk to humans on- or off-site as a result of exhaust emissions to a level of less than significant. No further mitigation is required. 39771
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) 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 California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or
federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
SUBSTANTIATION: The Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation: Rialto Storm Drain, Rialto, CA prepared by Jericho Systems, Inc. dated May 20, 2019 was utilized for the following analysis. A copy of this document is provided as Appendix 3 to this Initial Study.

A summary of the determination outlined in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) and Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) is as follows:

Prior to conducting the field study, species and habitat information was gathered from the reports related to the specific project and relevant databases for the Fontana USGS quadrangle to determine which species and/or habitats would be expected to occur on site. A field survey was conducted and the outcome of the survey concluded the following:

The project site is primarily a multi-use urban setting, with the Cactus Basin component holding the only vegetation not actively managed as landscaping. The habitat adjacent to the north-bound fencing in Cactus Basin is high disturbance new growth, whereas the habitat in the northeast corner of the project site is high disturbance alluvial fan sage scrub.

Several occurrences of San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) [SBKR] and Los Angeles Pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) [LAPM] are documented in the immediate vicinity of the east end of the Project area. Although the habitat conditions are marginal for these species, • ~ • •
• • ~ •
• ~ • •
• ~ • •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
39872
absence of either species cannot be determined without focused survey, and as such, preconstruction surveys for these species are recommended.

Habitat suitability of Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW] is marginal along the alignment where there is vacant land. This species was not observed during survey and no sign of the presence was found.

Prior to construction a survey within 30 days of construction is warranted and recommended.

The vegetation on site does have a potential to support nesting birds and foraging raptors such as redtailed hawks. Therefore, to reduce the potential impacts to nesting birds, mitigation to address nesting birds is recommended.
a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – As stated in the summary above, implementation of the proposed Project may have a potential for an adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Due to the habitat conditions at the east end, northbound portion of the alignment that approaches Cactus Basin, and due to previous records of SBKR in Cactus Basins, there remains a moderate potential for occurrence of SBKR and LAPM.

Further, the Project site at Cactus Basin is potentially suitable for BUOW. These species must be assumed present (not recommended) within the Project area of potential effect (APE), or focused protocol-level surveys (recommended) need to be conducted to determine presence or absence. It is assumed that with mitigation, these species can be protected, particularly given that the majority of the project would occur within existing roadways; the areas that would contain these species would generally be located within the area leading to and within Cactus Basin outside of the roadways.

However, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that temporary ground disturbance within the mostly vacant land leading to and at Cactus Basin may have a potential to adversely impact SBKR, LAPM, and/or BUOW. As such, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented.

BIO-1 Burrowing Owl. Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. The burrowing owl survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the event this species is not identified within the project limits, no further mitigation is required. If during the preconstruction survey, the burrowing owl if found to occupy the site, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall be required.

BIO-2 If burrowing owls are identified during the survey period, the City shall take the following actions to offset impacts prior to ground disturbance:

Active nests within the areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, and a minimum of 250-foot buffer shall be provided until fledging has occurred. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated by a qualified biologist.

If impacts on occupied burrows in the non-nesting period are unavoidable, onsite passive relocation techniques may be used if approved by the CDFW to encourage owls to move to alternative burrows outside of the impact area.

If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by the CDFW shall require the City to hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include all of the following:
• The location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation. • The location of the proposed relocation site.
39973
• The number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place.
• The name and credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation.
• The proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site. • A description of site preparation at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control).

BIO-3 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for SBKR shall be conducted within 45 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. SBKR survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If no presence of SBKR is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO-3 need not be enforced.

BIO-4 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of SBKR, the following actions shall be implemented: the City shall provide compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual SBKR in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the City shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat by purchase of acceptable SBKR habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance within potential SBKR habitat shall occur until an ITP is obtained by the City.

Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation package, but the City finds that this compensation package shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this measure.

BIO-5 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for LAPM shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. LAPM survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If no presence of LAPM is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO-5 need not be enforced.

BIO-6 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of LAPM, the following actions shall be implemented: the City shall provide compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual LAPM in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the City shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat by purchase of acceptable LAPM habitat at a 1:1 ratio; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur within potential LAPM habitat until an ITP is obtained by the City.

With the implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-6 above, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.
40074
b. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the proposed Project will not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS. The Project area of potential effect (APE) is not located within or immediately adjacent any USFWS designated Critical Habitat. Though the project footprint contains suitable habitat for several sensitive species, it does not contain any known riparian habitat or any other sensitive natural community identified by any agency. The project alignment is primarily a multi-use urban setting, with the Cactus Basin component holding the only vegetation not actively managed by landscaping. Habitat within or adjacent to the north-bound portion on the easternmost part of the Project alignment at Cactus Basin consists primarily of foxtail (Hordeum murinum), wild oat (Avena fatua), stinging nettle (Urtica urens), coastal heron’s bill (Erodium cicutarium) and common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia). Shrubs become increasingly numerous the further north into the basin. Those shrubs are primarily California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California sagebrush (Artemesia californica). Adjacent to the northernmost portion of the basin is degraded alluvial fan sage scrub that consists of interspersed California sagebrush, California buckwheat, foxtail, ripgut (Bromus diandrus), a single holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) shrub, and a single beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris). Vegetation on or adjacent to all other aspects of the project are ornamental landscaped shrubs or ruderal vegetation composed of ripgut and foxtail. The project site has been subject to historic human disturbance and ongoing human use. Based on the field survey conducted by Jericho Systems, Inc. and the information contained in Appendix 3, no significant impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive communities are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – According to the data gathered by Jericho Systems in Appendix 3, areas meeting all three parameters (i.e. hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology) would be designated as USACE wetlands. There are no areas meeting all three wetland characteristics within the Project APE. However, the data contained in Appendix 3 indicates that Cactus Basin is a jurisdictional water subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and Section 1600 of the FGC. Modifications within the basin will likely require permits from the USACE, RWQCB and CDFW. As such, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

BIO-7 The City shall prepare and submit a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), a Section 401 Certification Permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, a Section 404 (Nationwide Permit No. 43) Permit to the USACE. No ground disturbance within jurisdictional waters shall occur until the City obtains the above permits. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit shall be implemented by the City. If the permit conditions are different than the mitigation listed in this Document to protect biological resources, the City shall implement the mitigation identified in the permits.

With implementation of mitigation measure BIO-7, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Based on the field survey of the project site, the Project will not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native nursery sites.

Once constructed, the entirety of the project will be located below ground as a new storm drain.

However, the State does protect all migratory and nesting native birds. Several bird species were identified as potentially occurring in the project area. Thus, the project area may include locations that function as nesting locations for native birds. To prevent interfering with native bird nesting, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented.
40175
BIO-8 The State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests, any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the the State identified nesting season (Raptor nesting season is February 15 through July 31; and migratory bird nesting season is March 15 through September 1). Alternatively, the site shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbace to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds. Active bird nests MUST be avoided during the nesting season. If an active nest is located in the project construction area it will be flagged and a 300-foot avoidance buffer placed around it. No activity shall occur within the 300-foot buffer until the young have fledged the nest.

Thus, with implementation of the above measure, any effects on wildlife movement or the use of wildlife nursery sites can be reduced to a less than significant impact. e. Less Than Significant Impact – Development of the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

Impacts to biological resources have been addressed above under issues IV(a-d). Therefore, the potential for the project to conflict with local policies or ordinances pertaining to biological resources would be considered less than significant.
f. No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under response IV(a) above. The Biological Resources Analysis provided as Appendix 3 concluded that the Project, is not located in an area within a Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan, and implementation of the project will therefore not result in a significant impact to any such plans. No further mitigation is necessary. 40276
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
SUBSTANTIATION: A cultural resources report has been prepared to evaluate the potential for cultural resources to occur within the project area of potential effect entitled “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California,” prepared by CRM TECH dated May 16, 2019 (Appendix 4). The following summary information has been abstracted from this report. It provides an overview and findings regarding the cultural resources found within the project area.

Background
The study is part of the environmental review process for the project. The City of Rialto, as the project sponsor and the lead agency, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, consulted with the Native American representatives, and carried out a systematic field survey.

The results of the records search indicate that five historical/archaeological sites were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area:
36-010659 (CA-SBR-10659H) sparse refuse scatter
36-010908 (CA-SBR-10908H) structural foundation, standpipe, and refuse scatter 36-015497 (CPHI SBr-012) San Bernardino Baseline (Baseline Road) 36-021612 three early 20th century bungalows
36-029057 (CA-SBR-29057H) multi-origin refuse dumping site The field survey and the historical background research reveal that four of these five sites are no longer extant today, having evidently been removed during subsequent residential and commercial developments at their former locations. The remaining site, 36-015497, represents the San Bernardino Baseline, embodied by Baseline Road in the project vicinity. As a part of the basis for all land surveys and titles in southern California since 1853, the San Bernardino Baseline was officially designated a California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI-SBr-12) in 1973. As such, Site 36-015497 meets the definition of a “historical resource” under CEQA provisions.

The historic value of Site 36-015497, however, is symbolic in nature and is derived from the conceptual line across the landscape instead of the existing roadway, a heavily traveled major thoroughfare of entirely modern character and appearance. Therefore, the current configuration and physical features of Baseline Road do not contribute to the historic significance of the site. Since Site 36-015497 exists in the project • ~ • •
• ~ • •
• ~ • •
40377
area largely on paper only, this study concludes that the proposed project has no potential to affect the significance or integrity of this “historical resource.” During the course of the Native American contacts, the State of California Native American Heritage Commission reported the presence of unspecified Native American cultural resource(s) in the project vicinity but referred further inquiries to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. In subsequent correspondence, however, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation did not provide any further information on such resources. According to CEQA guidelines, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resources” is beyond the scope of this study and needs to be addressed through government-togovernment consultations between the City of Rialto and the pertinent Native American groups pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.

Based on these findings, it is recommended that the City of Rialto adopt a preliminary conclusion of No Impact on cultural resources, pending the completion of the City’s government-to-government consultation process with local Native American tribes, which is discussed further under the Tribal Cultural Resources section below. No additional cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

Impact Analysis
a&b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – CEQA establishes that "a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment" (PRC §21084.1). "Substantial adverse change," according to PRC §5020.1(q), "means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired."
Per the above discussion and definition, no archaeological sites or isolates were recorded within the Project boundaries; thus, none of them requires further consideration during this study. In light of this information and pursuant to PRC §21084.1, the following conclusions have been reached for the Project:
• No historical resources within or adjacent to the Project area have any potential to be disturbed as they are not within the proposed area in which the facilities will be constructed and developed, and thus, the Project as it is currently proposed will not cause a substantial adverse change to any known historical resources.
• No further cultural resources investigation is necessary for the proposed project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study.

However, if buried cultural materials are discovered during any earth-moving operations associated with the Project, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:

CUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City’s onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

With the above mitigation incorporation, as well as the mitigation identified under Tribal Cultural Resources below, the potential for impacts to cultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. 40478
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – As noted in the discussion above, no available information suggests that human remains may occur within the APE and the potential for such an occurrence is considered very low. State law (Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code) as well as local laws requires that the Police Department, County Sheriff and Coroner’s Office receive notification if human remains are encountered. However, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to ensure that construction related activities protect such findings:

CUL-2 Should human remains or funerary objects be encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

With the implementation of the above mitigation measure, any impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.

Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental
impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operations?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?

SUBSTANTIATION
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact – As stated in Section III, Air Quality, the construction of the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project would require mitigation measures to minimize emissions impacts from construction equipment use. These mitigation measures also apply to energy resources as they require equipment not in use for 5 minutes to be turned off, and for electrical construction equipment to be used where available. These measures would prevent a significant impact during construction due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would also conform to the CARB regulations regarding energy efficiency. The proposed project would install a new storm drain that would not require energy to function once installed. As such, the practices during construction—such as turning off equipment during construction when not in use—would prevent a significant impact to energy resources from occurring as a result of project implementation.

Given that the proposed project would not require energy to operate, the proposed project would have a less than significant potential to conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
40579
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
(i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
(ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
(iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
(iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in onsite or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
feature?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Ground Rupture
Less Than Significant Impact – The Project is located in the City of Rialto, which is located near several active fault zones, including the San Jacinto, Glen Helen, Cucamonga, and San Andreas Faults. The San Jacinto Fault System is located just east of the project footprint and is classified as an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and traverses the area north of the project footprint near Lytle Creek. According to the California Geologic Survey Regulatory Maps, the proposed project is not located within an Alquist Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (Figure VII-1). Furthermore, the City of Rialto General Plan’s Seismic and Geologic Hazard Map (Figure VII-2) depicts the Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones in relation to the City, and none of these zones overlaps with the Project footprint. Based on this information, the risk for ground rupture at the Project location is low; furthermore, the Project will not include any human occupancy structures, but will install a new storm drain system within • • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
• • • ~
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
40680
Baseline Road ultimately leading to an outlet at Cactus Basin. The design and construction/improvement of storm drain systems is controlled by both state and local design construction standards.

Compliance with these standards and requirements of the City is mandatory and considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts associated with this Project. Therefore, the potential for this Project to expose people or property to the hazard of earthquake fault rupture considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.

Strong Seismic Ground Shaking
Less Than Significant Impact – As stated in the discussion above, the San Jacinto, Glen Helen, Cucamonga, and San Andreas Faults are located in the area north of the project footprint. The City of Rialto, as with much of southern California, is subject to seismic ground shaking impacts from earthquakes; as such, the proposed storm drain project is anticipated to be subject to seismic ground shaking impacts should any major earthquakes occur in the future. However, as stated in the preceding section, no human occupancy structures are proposed as part of the Project, and the design of the storm drain improvements must comply with both state and local (City) standards and requirements. This is considered adequate mitigation for potential impacts associated with the Project’s potential to expose people or property to a high potential or risk of loss, injury, or death from strong ground shaking or ground failure. Therefore, impacts associated with strong ground shaking will be less than significant without mitigation.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure Including Liquefaction
No Impact – According to the map prepared for the County of San Bernardino General Plan showing Geologic Hazards (Figure VII-3), the project footprint is not located within an area that is susceptible to liquefaction. Based on the data contained in Figure VII-3, the proposed project is not located within an identified Liquefaction Zone. Therefore, the Project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse liquefaction hazards, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. No impacts under this issue are anticipated and no mitigation is required. No mitigation is required.

Landslides
No Impact – The project area is generally flat because the majority of the project will be installed within an existing roadway; the pipeline leading from Baseline Road to Cactus Basin is also generally flat. No hills or other significant topographic features exist on the project sites. According to the San Bernardino County General Plan, General Land Use Plan with Geologic Overlays (Figure VII-3), the project is not located in an area that is susceptible to landslides. No potential events can be identified that would result in adverse effects from landslides or that would cause landslides that could expose people or structures to such an event as a result of project implementation. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.
b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Much of the project area has been graded, compacted, and paved with asphalt and is relatively flat because the majority of the APE consists of an existing road and adjacent sidewalk/structures. The storm drain installation will result in land disturbance in the areas that will require removal of roadway and in some cases adjacent sidewalk to accommodate the new storm drain alignment. Additionally, the storm drain alignment will also be installed in areas consisting of compacted dirt, gravel, and asphalt leading to Cactus Basin. Adequate drainage facilities exist or will be developed or relocated by this Project to accommodate future drainage flows. This Project will result in the disturbance of more than one acre of land and will require filing a Notice of Intent (NOI), securing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), general construction stormwater discharge permit, and preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that is reviewed and approved by the City. The SWPPP will include but not be limited to the following measures to mitigate potential impacts associated with erosion and surface water quality degradation during construction:
40781
GEO-1 Stored backfill material shall be covered with water resistant material during periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of the material. If covering is not feasible, then measures such as the use of straw bales or sand bags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup.

GEO-2 Excavated areas shall be properly backfilled and compacted. Paved areas disturbed by this project will be repaved in such a manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned to as near the pre-project condition as is feasible.

GEO-3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequently if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site within which the water facilities are being installed.

GEO-4 The length of trench which can be left open at any given time will be limited to that needed to reasonably perform construction activities. This will serve to reduce the amount of backfill stored onsite at any given time.

With implementation of the above mitigation measures, any erosion impacts are considered less than significant. No further mitigation is necessary.
c. Less Than Significant Impact – The Project footprint is generally flat as it is currently developed with existing roadways and a disturbed area leading to Cactus Basin. The proposed project will improve drainage within the Baseline Road corridor between Cactus Basin and Tamarind Avenue. The proposed project will involve the installation of a new storm drain. As discussed under issue VI(a) above, landslides are not of concern at this location, nor is liquefaction a concern at this location. No habitable structures are proposed as part of the project, and the proposed project will be installed entirely below ground. According to the County of San Bernardino General Plan Geologic Hazards Map (Figure VII-3), the proposed project is not located on a geologic unit that would become unstable as a result of project implementation. Furthermore, should a seismic event occur, the roadway should not collapse, nor cause a hazard along the roadway itself; such events within roadways are considered reparable in the event damage occurs, and therefore can be put back into use quickly.

Compliance with all state and local (City) standards and requirements for roadway construction would ensure the project would have a less than significant potential to result in on- or off- site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse that would cause permanent damage to the new storm drain alignment or the roadway within which the alignment will be installed. d. Less Than Significant Impact – The Project footprint is predominantly flat and its surface is primarily asphalt or concrete covered, though a portion of the development between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin is undeveloped. According to the to the United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey, the majority of the project Area of Potential Effect (APE) is underlain by Tujunga loamy sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes, Tujunga gravelly loamy sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes, and Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 9 percent. Neither of these soil types are classified as being expansive under Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), particularly as expansive soils are typically in the clay soil family. These classes of soil are well drained and are not considered expansive. Therefore, the proposed roadway improvements will not create a substantial risk to life or property by being placed on expansive soils because none exist on the site. Any impacts are considered less than significant.

No mitigation is required.
e. No Impact – The Project does not propose any septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, determining if the Project site soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater does not apply. No impacts are anticipated. No mitigation is required. 40882
f. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated ‒ The potential for discovering paleontological resources during development of the Project is considered highly unlikely based on the fact that the site has been previously disturbed and a majority of the project alignment will be developed within a roadway. No unique geologic features are known or suspected to occur on or beneath the project alignment. However, because the Project has not been surveyed in recent history, and the fact that these resources are located beneath the surface and can only be discovered as a result of ground disturbance activities; therefore, the following measure shall be implemented:

GEO-5 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City onsite inspector. The paleontological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

With incorporation of this contingency mitigation, the potential for impact to paleontological resources will be reduces to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. 40983
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the
project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
SUBSTANTIATION: The following information utilized in this section of the Initial Study was obtained from the Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, HZ-116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain Project, City of Rialto, California prepared by Giroux and Associates dated April 15, 2019. This document is provided as Appendix 2 to this document.
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact – Global Climate Change (GCC) is defined as the change in average meteorological conditions on the earth with respect to temperature, precipitation, and storms. Many scientists believe that the climate shift taking place since the industrial revolution (1900) is occurring at a quicker rate and magnitude than in the past. Scientific evidence suggests that GCC is the result of increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. Many scientists believe that this increased rate of climate change is the result of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity and industrialization over the past 200 years.

An individual project like the Project evaluated in this GHGA cannot generate enough greenhouse gas emissions to effect a discernible change in global climate. However, the Project may participate in the potential for GCC by its incremental contribution of greenhouse gasses combined with the cumulative increase of all other sources of greenhouse gases, which when taken together constitute potential influences on GCC.

Significance Thresholds
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
• Generates greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, deciding significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards. CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis. • • ~ •
• • ~ •
41084
The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

On December 5, 2008 the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted an Interim quantitative GHG Significance Threshold for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency (e.g., stationary source permit projects, rules, plans, etc.) of 10,000 Metric Tons (MT) CO2 equivalent/year. In September 2010, the Working Group released revisions which recommended a threshold of 3,000 MT CO2e for all land use types. This 3,000 MT/year recommendation has been used as a guideline for this analysis.

Project Related GHG Emissions Generated
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The project is assumed to require 10 months for construction estimated to start in November of 2021 and continuing to September 2022. During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.3.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table VIII-1.

Table VIII-1
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (METRIC TONS CO2(e))
Year 2021
Total 252.4
Amortized 8.4
Significance Threshold 3,000
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30-year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less than significant.

Operational GHG Emissions
There will not be any operational air pollution emissions because the project consists of a with a gravity fed storm drain.

Consistency with GHG Plans, Programs and Policies
The City of Rialto has participated in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). This study includes an inventory compilation of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 21 partnership cities of San Bernardino County.

The proposed project has no associated operational emissions and generates minimal construction GHG emissions. Project GHG emissions will cease after the 10-month construction period. Therefore, there are no applicable mitigation measures for the proposed project.

Storm water conveyance is a very small component of the total City of Rialto GHG emissions inventory. Since project construction is below the recommended SCAQMD 3,000 MT CO2e threshold it would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation to reduce GHG emissions. As such, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant. 41185
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:

Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?

SUBSTANTIATION
a&b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – During construction of proposed Project, hazardous or potentially hazardous materials will be routinely handled in small quantities on the project site. These hazardous materials would include gasoline, diesel fuel, lubricants, and other petroleum-based products used to operate and maintain construction equipment and vehicles; therefore, there is a potential for accidental release of petroleum products in sufficient quantity to pose a significant hazard to people or the environment. A permitted and licensed service provider will conduct the removal of such hazardous materials; any handling, transporting, use or disposal of hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local agencies and regulations. In order to ensure that no accidental releases of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials occur during construction, the following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project and it can reduce such a hazard to a less than significant level.

HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed • ~ • •
• ~ • •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• ~ • •
• • • ~
41286
disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.

Once the storm drain is installed and the roadway is returned to its original condition, there is a potential for a new source of routine transport or use of substantial volumes of hazardous materials or routine generation of hazardous waste. The road itself acts as a means of transport for vehicles carrying various materials at present and will continue to do so once the improvements have been implemented. There will be no greater risk than that which presently exists within this corridor as a result of implementation of the proposed storm drain improvement project. Therefore, the Project’s potential to either create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is considered less than significant. No further mitigation is required.
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project alignment is located within 2,000 feet of the nearest school. Alder Middle School is located just south of Baseline Road at 7555 Alder Avenue, Fontana, CA 92336. As previously stated, all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials use and handling would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations pertaining to the handling and use of hazardous materials. Adherence to these policies and regulations, as well as the implementation of the above mitigation measure will ensure that the Project will not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school during either construction or operations of the Project. Additionally, once in operation, the repaved roadway and new drainage alignment will function much as it does at present; thus, with implementation of mitigation measure HAZ-1, adherence to federal, state, and local laws regarding hazardous materials and roadway construction, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant. d. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed Project is located within existing roadways and within the area leading to Cactus Basin from Baseline Road within the City of Rialto. The project will not be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites that are currently under remediation. According to the California State Water Board’s GeoTracker website (consistent with Government Code Section 65962.5), which provides information regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST), there are several closed cases as well as one open case within 2,500 feet of the project alignment. However, none of these sites are within the alignment. The GeoTracker data is shown in Figures IX-1 through IX-10. The proximity of these sites to the proposed project will not cause a significant hazard to the public because the majority of these sites located near the proposed project have been remediated. The site that has not been remediated is under remediation for perchlorate contamination of the groundwater. Since the project is not anticipated to encounter groundwater, and because the site is about 2,000 feet north of Baseline Road, it is not anticipated that the project would encounter any hazardous materials as a result of this site. Therefore, due to the nature of the Project as a developed area that will not require earthwork at great depth, the proposed project has no potential to encounter the contaminated material, or upset conditions of contaminated areas that exist as a result of LUST sites. Any impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
e. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is located within the City of Rialto, which no longer contains any airports. The nearest public airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, located about 7.6 miles west/southwest of the storm drain alignment. The Rialto Airport, located just north of the project, was closed in 2014, and as such is no longer an active airport. According to the map prepared for the City of San Bernardino General Plan, the proposed project is not located within the planning boundaries for the Airport (Figure IX-11). The proposed storm drain improvements do not propose any human occupancy structures, new aboveground structures that exceed the height of the existing structures, nor will it place people onsite for any significant periods of time. As such, with no private airstrips and no public airports within a close vicinity to the proposed project, the 41387
proposed project would have a less than significant potential to result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area. f. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed storm drain alignment within the City of Rialto at Baseline Road and Cactus Basin is not located within any identified evacuation route as indicated by the San Bernardino County Mountain Area Safety Taskforce (MAST)1. There are several east/west roadways and freeways that provide access to the City and surrounding area.

Additionally, the proposed project will not result in road closure, instead it will result in land closure, which will maintain access within this roadway during construction. Refer to the Transportation/Traffic Section of this document, Section XVII. Mitigation to address any potential traffic disruption and emergency access during construction issues is included in this section. Therefore, the potential for the development of the Project to physically interfere with any adopted emergency response plans, or evacuation plans is considered a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. No further mitigation is required.
g. No Impact – According to the City of Rialto General Plan Fire Hazard Map (Figure IX-12), the proposed project footprint is not located in an area considered susceptible to wildland fire hazards.

Therefore, Project implementation would not result in a potential to expose people or structures to fire hazards. No impacts are anticipated; no mitigation measures are required. 1 http://www.sbcounty.gov/calmast/sbc/html/emergency_plan_routes.asp 41488
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the
project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or groundwater quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite?
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding onsite or offsite?
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?; or,
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk
release of pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed storm drain improvements within Baseline Road leading to Cactus Basin will occur mostly within developed roadways and surrounding properties. The surface of the roadway within which the new storm drain will be installed is mostly flat, containing asphalt or concrete, as well as some compacted dirt and gravel areas. For a developed area, the only three sources of potential violation of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are from generation of municipal wastewater; from stormwater runoff; and potential discharges of pollutants, such as accidental spills. Within the City of Rialto, the City maintains a portion of the water distribution system, local sewage collection/treatment, and storm drain systems. Municipal wastewater is currently delivered to the Rialto Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP), and meets the waste discharge requirements imposed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). To address stormwater and accidental spills within this environment, any new project must ensure that site development implements a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to control potential sources of water pollution that could violate any standards or discharge requirements during construction and a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) to ensure that project-related surface runoff meets regional discharge requirements over • ~ • •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
• • ~ •
41589
the short- and long-term. The project area as it presently exists is mostly impervious because it has been previously paved and compacted, with all water discharging into existing storm drains within the existing and adjacent roadways. The proposed project will install a new storm drain within Baseline Road leading to Cactus Basin. It is not anticipated that this effort will create greater pervious area than that which exists at present. The SWPPP would specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that the Project would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject area. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the NPDES and the SWPPP is mandatory and is judged adequate mitigation by the regulatory agencies for potential impacts to stormwater during construction activities. Implementation of the following mitigation measure is also considered adequate to reduce potential impacts to stormwater runoff to a less than significant level.

HYD-1 The City shall require that the construction contractor prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters. The SWPPP shall include a Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during construction activities that are compatible with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP may include but not be limited to:
• The use of silt fences;
• The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins; • The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff; • The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site; • The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the site onto public roads;
• The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and
• Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.

With implementation of the above mitigation measure, these mandatory Plans and their BMPs, as well as mitigation measure HAZ-1 above which addresses remediation and contamination concerns from any potential leakage or spills of petroleum products onsite, the Project would have a less than significant impact under this issue. No further mitigation is required. b. Less Than Significant Impact – The Project does not propose the installation of any water wells that would directly extract groundwater and the project would maintain a balance of pervious surface area comparable to that which exists at present. The Project is located within the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The groundwater depth is substantially below the ground surface and will not be encountered during construction of the Project because it is about 100 feet below ground surface in the parts of the subbasin.
2 Because the proposed project would mostly be located within existing roadways that do not provide pervious areas for groundwater recharge, the storm drain improvements within the project alignment does not serve as a location for significant groundwater recharge. This is because once the storm drain has been installed, the project will not require any water to function.

Therefore, the Project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of 2 https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/8-2.04.pdf 41690
the local groundwater table level. Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.
c. i-iv.

Less Than Significant Impact – No substantial impact to drainage patterns or structures will result from implementing this project. The storm drain will be installed belowground mostly within an existing roadway, and, once installed, will generate essentially the same amount of stormwater. The proposed storm drain alignment will ultimately provide more efficient drainage, runoff capture, and storm drain capacities than that which exists at present. The roadways will be repaved to accommodate existing and anticipated stormwater discharge utilizing the same drainage patterns.

No substantial change to the existing drainage pattern will result from project implementation. Project implementation will direct flow to the new storm drain located on Baseline Road. The new storm drain will collect runoff in a more efficient and environmentally responsible manner than that which exists at present.

Adequate drainage facilities exist or will be developed/relocated by this Project to accommodate future drainage flows, and will therefore result in a less than significant impact. Based on the data outlined above, this Project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area; result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or, impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, impacts under these issues are considered less than significant. No additional mitigation is required. d. No Impact – According to the Flooding Hazards map prepared by the City of Rialto General Plan (Figure IX-1), the Baseline Road corridor is not located within a special flood hazard area inundated by a 100-year flood; it is in an area that is outside of the 500-year floodplain. Improvements to the storm drain system will occur within existing road rights-of-way or on vacant property containing no structures obtained for drainage use by the City as part of the project. Though the portions of the City of Rialto are vulnerable to inundation from Lytle Creek, though the proposed storm drain alignment is not located in such an area. Therefore, the project is not located within a flood hazard, and as such, would not risk release of pollutants due to project inundation. No impacts are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
e. Less Than Significant Impact – The purpose of the proposed project is to ensure that the drainage from Baseline Road is more adequately managed and ultimately is directed for recharge at Cactus Basin. The storm drain will be designed with BMP’s to prevent litter and some pollutants from discharging into Cactus Basin and ultimately into the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. As such, the proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan because the project would facilitate better management of storm water runoff recharging into the groundwater basin, and would not require water in order to operate.
41791
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The Project footprint will occur within developed roadways and surrounding property. The majority of the project footprint has no General Plan Land Use Designation because roadways are considered essential City infrastructure. However, the proposed storm drain alignment traverses a section of land between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin, which is located on land designated for Open Space Resource Use and land designated for Airport-Related Development by the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. Once constructed the storm drain alignment—with the exception of the outlet at the basin basin—will be installed below ground, and as such, will not result in physically dividing an established community, particularly because the majority of the storm drain improvements will occur within existing road rights-of-way. It is anticipated that the new storm drain within this portion of Baseline Road will benefit this corridor, and will have no potential to physically divide a community. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. b. No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under issue XI(a) above. The Project will occur mostly within existing roadways within an area designated with several different land uses within the Cities of Rialto and Fontana. The project will develop a new storm drain alignment within the Baseline Road corridor in Rialto, which is an existing, developed roadway corridor. Thus, the development of the proposed project within the proposed alignment will be compatible with existing land uses and land use plan, and no conflict or impact to land use can been identified. No mitigation is required. • • ~ •
• • • ~
41892
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
SUBSTANTIATION:
a&b. Less Than Significant Impact – The storm drain improvement Project is located in an entirely urbanized area surrounded by development within the City of Rialto. The entirety of Project footprint does not contain known mineral deposits, particularly given that the majority of the project will be installed within existing roadways. According to the City of Rialto General Plan Mineral Resource Zones Map (Figure XII-1), the project area is located within the MRZ-2 mineral land classification, which is defined as areas where geologic data indicate that significant PCC-Grade aggregate resources are present. The type of project proposed is within an entirely developed area and will improve existing road rights-of-way and within property between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin.

Therefore, the development of the Project will not cause any loss of mineral resource values to the region or residents of the state, nor would it result in the loss of any locally important mineral resources identified in the City of Rialto General Plan. No impacts would occur under this issue. No mitigation is required.
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
41993
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of a
project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?

SUBSTANTIATION
Background
Noise is generally described as unwanted sound. The proposed storm drain alignment will be developed within Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin. The alignment traverses a section of land between Baseline Road and Cactus Basin, designated for Open Space Resource Use and land designated for Airport-Related Development by the Rialto Airport Specific Plan. The surrounding uses include Business Park and Specific Plan (Specific Plan are Employment, Employment Commercial Overlay, General Commercial, and Private Rec. Center Existing Use to Remain), Single Family Residential (R-SF)(Fontana), Open Space – Resources, and Public Facilities (P-PF)(Fontana).

The unit of sound pressure ratio to the faintest sound detectable to a person with normal hearing is called a decibel (dB). Sound or noise can vary in intensity by over one million times within the range of human hearing. A logarithmic loudness scale, similar to the Richter scale for earthquake magnitude, is therefore used to keep sound intensity numbers at a convenient and manageable level. The human ear is not equally sensitive to all sound frequencies within the entire spectrum. Noise levels at maximum human sensitivity from around 500 to 2,000 cycles per second are factored more heavily into sound descriptions in a process called “A-weighting,” written as “dBA.”
Leq is a time-averaged sound level; a single-number value that expresses the time-varying sound level for the specified period as though it were a constant sound level with the same total sound energy as the timevarying level. Its unit is the decibel (dB). The most common averaging period for Leq is hourly.

Because community receptors are more sensitive to unwanted noise intrusion during more sensitive evening and nighttime hours, state law requires that an artificial dBA increment be added to quiet time noise levels. The State of California has established guidelines for acceptable community noise levels that are based on the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) rating scale (a 24-hour integrated noise measurement scale). The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of "normally acceptable," "conditionally acceptable," and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels for various land use types. The State Guidelines, Land Use Compatibility for Community Noise Exposure, single-family homes are "normally acceptable" in exterior noise environments up to 60 dB CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 dB CNEL based on this scale. Multiple family residential uses are "normally acceptable" up to 65 dB CNEL and "conditionally acceptable" up to 70 CNEL. Schools, libraries and churches are "normally acceptable" • ~ • •
• ~ • •
• • • ~
42094
up to 70 dB CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial and professional uses with some structural noise attenuation.

The City of Rialto Municipal Code states the following in regards to Construction Noise:

The permitted hours for such construction work are as follows:

October 1st through April 30th
Monday—Friday 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday No permissible hours
State holidays No permissible hours
May 1st through September 30th
Monday—Friday 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Saturday 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Sunday No permissible hours
State holidays No permissible hours
a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project footprint is located in areas with moderate-to-high background noise given the proximity to the local roadway system at any point within the project area. The City of Rialto’s General Plan Noise Contour Map (Figure XIII1) shows that the roadway noise along Baseline Road is about 80 CNEL at the centerline of the roadway and at about 65 CNEL just outside of the roadway at the adjacent properties. The Noise Contour Map indicates that the noise levels in the area in which the storm drain will be installed from Baseline Road to Cactus Basin is between 55 and 60 CNEL. According to the City of Rialto General Plan, these volumes are projected to increase in the future as development accelerates within the City. The proposed project would develop a storm drain below ground within Baseline Road, and as such, the project is not anticipated to install any permanent sources of noise. The segment of Baseline Road in which the storm drain will be installed does contain adjacent residential uses, and, as such, the exteriors of the nearest residences, which contain sensitive receptors, are located between 25 and 50 feet from the pipeline alignments at several points within the project footprint. Depending on the land use adjacent to Baseline Road within the project area, the normally acceptable CNEL, dB would range between 60 and 75 dBA.

Short Term Noise
As shown in the tables above, the City of Rialto Noise Ordinance prohibits construction activities between 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday – Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays, with no construction activities permitted on Sundays or State holidays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM Monday – Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays, with no construction activities permitted on Sundays or State holidays from May to September. Construction equipment generates noise that ranges between approximately 75 and 90 dBA at a distance of 50 feet. Refer to Table XIII1, which shows construction equipment noise levels at 25, 50 and 100 feet from the noise source.

Receptors located adjacent to the roadways in which the proposed pipeline alignment will be installed may experience increased noise levels during construction, but the proposed project will comply with the City’s restrictions on night-time construction activity. Therefore, through compliance with the City’s noise standards, construction of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent noise levels in the vicinity of a project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

However, contingency mitigation is provided below to reduce noise levels at residences and/or minimize or address complaints from local sensitive noise receptors. 42195
Table XII-1

NOISE LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AT
25, 50 AND 100 FEET (in dBA Leq) FROM THE SOURCE
Equipment Noise Levels
at 25 feet
Noise Levels
at 50 feet
Noise Levels
at 100 feet
Earthmoving
Front Loader 85 79 73
Backhoes 86 80 74
Dozers 86 80 74
Tractors 86 80 74
Scrapers 91 85 79
Trucks 91 85 79
Material Handling
Concrete Mixer 91 85 79
Concrete Pump 88 82 76
Crane 89 83 77
Derrick 94 88 82
Stationary Sources
Pumps 82 79 70
Generator 84 78 72
Compressors 87 81 75
Other
Saws 84 78 72
Vibrators 82 76 70
Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Noise”
The short-term noise impacts associated with Project construction activities are forecast to be less than significant through implementing the following measures. As construction activities may be a nuisance to nearby residents, the following mitigation is recommended:

NOI-1 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday – Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM Monday – Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays from May to September; at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.

NOI-2 The City shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the City will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.

NOI-3 The City will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by City personnel during construction activities.
42296
NOI-4 Equipment not in use for five minutes shall be shut off.

NOI-5 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

NOI-6 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment.

NOI-7 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.

Long Term
The long term or permanent change in noise from the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project would be minimal because the majority of the project will be located below ground, and once constructed, would not generate noise beyond that which exists within the footprint of the project at present. Based on the existing noise levels in the area surrounding the project from nearby traffic, and due to the fact that the no new noise generating activities will occur, operation of the proposed project would not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent noise levels in the vicinity of a project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by vibration of room surfaces is called structure borne noises.

Sources of groundborne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g. earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g. explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous or transient. Vibration is often described in units of velocity (inches per second), and discussed in decibel (VdB) units in order to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration. Vibration impacts related to human development are generally associated with activities such as train operations, construction, and heavy truck movements.

The FTA assessment states that in contrast to airborne noise, ground-borne vibration is not a common environmental problem. Although the motion of the ground may be noticeable to people outside structures, without the effects associated with the shaking of a structure, the motion does not provoke the same adverse human reaction to people outside. Within structures, the effects of groundborne vibration include noticeable movement of the building floors, rattling of windows, shaking of items on shelves or hanging on walls, and rumbling sounds. FTA assessment further states that it is unusual for vibration from sources such as buses and trucks to be perceptible, even in locations close to major roads. However, some common sources of vibration are trains, trucks on rough roads, and construction activities, such as blasting, pile driving, and heavy earth-moving equipment. The Federal Transit Association (FTA) guidelines identify a level of 80 VdB for sensitive land uses. This threshold provides a basis for determining the relative significance of potential Project related vibration impacts.

In the short term, the excavation and removal/demolition activities required to implement the drainage improvements have limited potential to create some vibration at the nearest sensitive receptors adjacent to the project footprint. The proposed storm drain construction do not include activities that would generate substantial ground vibration. Specifically, no pile driving or major earth moving activities are anticipated to occur as a result of implementation of the proposed project. Removal of pavement may require some jackhammer and loader activities, but these activities do not typically generate enough vibration energy to adversely impact adjacent structures, which are already exposed to large trucks traveling on the existing road. Based on the type of equipment and construction activities required to install the storm drain outlined in the Project Description, the vibration impacts are forecast to be less than significant. However, the following contingency mitigation measure shall be implemented:
42397
NOI-8 The construction contractor shall provide signs (2) along the roadway identifying a phone number for adjacent property owners to contact regarding excessive vibration. The contractor shall respond within 24 hours to any complaint at this phone number; assess the complaint; and, if reasonable, adjust construction activities (use different construction methods, slow down construction activity, or other measures) to reduce vibration at the property from where the complaint was received.

Implementation of the above measure will ensure that any short-term impacts to the nearest sensitive receptor would be considered less than significant.
c. No Impact ‒ The proposed project is located within the City of Rialto, which does not contain any airports. The nearest public airport is the San Bernardino International Airport, located about 7.6 miles west/southwest of the storm drain alignment. The Rialto Airport, located just north of the project, was closed in 2014, and as such is no longer an active airport. The San Bernardino Airport Noise Contours do not overlap with the project area. As such the proposed storm drain alignment is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, and as such, would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 42498
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the
project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,
either directly (for example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant Impact – Implementation of the Project will not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure). The Project is considered a vital infrastructure project because it proposes to improve storm drain system within the City of Rialto. It is anticipated that construction will require a temporary work force; however, this is short-term and with a maximum of about 30 employees will not induce substantial population growth. It is not anticipated that this project would require any additional City employees once installed. The City of Rialto had a population of 107,330 persons in 2016.3 The anticipated build-out population within the City, according to the City of Rialto General Plan, is about 125,256 persons. It is unknown what percentage of the temporary workforce required to construct the proposed project would be drawn from the general area or will bring new residents to the project area; however, given that the construction work force would be temporary and that the project is not anticipated require any new employees, the proposed project is not anticipated to induce population growth in the area. Thus, based on the type of project proposed, the proposed project will not induce substantial population growth either directly or indirectly.
b. No Impact – The proposed project will occur within an existing roadway and a segment of land between Cactus Basin and Baseline Road, neither of which contain housing or persons. No occupied residential homes are located within the project footprint; therefore, implementation of the proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts will occur; therefore, no mitigation is required. 3 https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Rialto.pdf
• • ~ •
• • • ~
42599
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Parks?
e) Other public facilities?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant Impact – The City of Rialto receives fire protection and emergency medical services from the Rialto Fire Department. The Rialto Fire Department deploys from four fire stations staffed by 24 hours per day by career firefighters and one administrative office. The Rialto Fire Department staffs one battalion chief, three engine companies, one truck company and four paramedic ambulances each day. The nearest fire station to the proposed project is Rialto Fire Station 203 1550 N. Ayala Dr., which is located just north of Baseline Road. The proposed project would develop a new storm drain alignment within Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin. The demand for fire protection within the project alignment primarily consists of incidental traffic accidents and emergencies within the corridor or at adjacent businesses and residences.

Additionally, the provision of adequate drainage systems within the City is viewed as a benefit to fire protection services and to the public in general. No substantial changes in existing fire protection facilities are anticipated and potential impacts would be less than significant as a result of the proposed project. No mitigation is required.
b. Less Than Significant Impact – The area surrounding the Project is completely urbanized with varying land uses ranging from open space to commercial to residential in nature. The City of Rialto is served by the City of Rialto Police Department, located at 128 N Willow Ave, Rialto, CA 92376, which is about one mile southeast of the project footprint. The Department employs 142.5 total employees, 103 sworn and 39.5 non-sworn and services 28.5 square mile area. The Rialto Police Department offers a variety of services and assignments to include Patrol, K-9, School Resource Officer (SRO), Street Crime Attack Team (SCAT), Investigations, Traffic, Narcotics, Training/Backgrounds, Community Services, the Re-Entry Support Team, and is part of a Four-City Regional SWAT team (Inland Valley SWAT) and Air-Support Unit.4 The Project is not expected to result in any unique or more extensive crime problems that cannot be handled with the existing level of police resources.

No new or expanded police facilities would need to be constructed as a result of the project.

Additionally, the provision of expanded infrastructure is viewed as a benefit to police protection services and to the public in general. Therefore, impacts to police protection resources from implementation of the proposed project are considered less than significant; no mitigation measures are required.
4 http://rialtopd.com/index.php/more/department-history • • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
• • • ~
100 426
c. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is located within the area served by the Rialto Unified School District and Fontana Unified School District. The Baseline Road corridor is located within approximately 2,000 feet of several schools, including the following: Locust Elementary School, Alder Middle School, Virginia Primrose Elementary School, Eric Birch High School, North Tamarind Elementary School, and Helen L. Dollahan Elementary School. The Project would not induce population growth within the City, as it will not employ any persons once the storm drain alignment has been installed. Thus, the proposed project will not generate an increase in elementary, middle, or high school population. Therefore, any impacts under this issue are considered less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d. No Impact – As stated in the preceding sections, the proposed Project is not anticipated to create an increase in population because no persons will be employed as a result of the Project once the proposed storm drain alignment has been installed. There are no parks in the vicinity of the Project that would be impacted by the proposed roadway improvement project, and with no forecast increase in population, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse physical impact to any parks within the City. No impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required. e. No Impact – Other public facilities include library and general municipal services. Since the Project will not directly induce population growth, it is not forecast that the use of such facilities will increase as a result of the proposed project. The improvements to this corridor will be consistent with the standards and requirements of the City and are therefore considered adequate to ensure adequate drainage is provided to prevent flooding during storm events, which are considered beneficial to most public services, including traffic. No impacts under this issue are anticipated, and no mitigation is required.
101 427
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. No Impact – As addressed in the discussion under Population and Housing, Section XIV and Public Services, Section XV(d) above, the proposed Project does not include a use that would substantially induce population growth, and will not require a substantial short-term labor force for construction of the Project and no long-term labor force is required for operations of the proposed project. Thus, the proposed Project will not generate a substantial increase in residents of the City who would increase the use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts under this issue are anticipated. No mitigation is required.
b. No Impact – The proposed Project consists of installation of a new storm drain within Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin within the City of Rialto. The project will not include any recreational facilities, nor will it require the construction of new recreational facilities or expansion of new recreational facilities because the proposed project is not anticipated to substantially induce any population growth. The Project will require a small short-term labor force during construction and no long-term labor force during operation, as the road will function as it does at present, altered by updated drainage facilities to accommodate runoff within the proposed alignment. As a result, no recreational facilities—existing or new—are required to serve the Project, thus no impacts are anticipated under this issue. No mitigation is required. • • • ~
• • • ~
102 428
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The proposed project is located within the City of Rialto. The majority of the proposed project will be installed within Baseline Road between Tamarind Avenue and Cactus Basin, though a portion traverses the area between Baseline Road and the storm drain outlet location at Cactus Basin. The City of Rialto traffic study guidelines indicate that if a project contributes less than 50 peak hour trips to a CMP intersection, a formal traffic study is typically not required as off-site improvements are assumed to be nominal for low traffic generating uses. As such, the proposed project is not anticipated to violate the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines due to the limited number of trips required to implement the proposed project (below the City’s Traffic Study Guidelines).

In the short-term, the proposed project will require the installation of a storm drain mostly within existing road rights-of-way. The roadway within which the storm drain will be installed (Baseline Road) is a major roadway that is important to circulation in the area. The installation of the storm drain will require one lane to be closed during the construction within Baseline Road. However, the project will require implementation of a traffic management plan in order to comply with the City of Rialto and the County of San Bernardino Master Plan of Roads and Circulation Plans, which will ensure adequate circulation within the area. During construction, an estimated 30 roundtrips from construction workers would occur per day. A maximum of 30 roundtrips per day will occur to support construction efforts (i.e. delivery or removal of construction materials, etc.). Implementation of the Project has the potential to conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. However, with implementation of the following mitigation measure requiring a construction traffic management plan, the impacts of implementing the Project would be considered less than significant.

TRAF-1 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources, as determined by the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rialto. The City shall require a construction traffic management plan for work in public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, or other applicable standard, to provide adequate traffic control and safety during excavation activities. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and approved by the City(s) and County prior to initiation of excavation or pipeline construction. At a minimum this plan shall include how to minimize the amount of time spent on construction activities; how to minimize disruption of vehicle and alternative modes of transport traffic at all times, but particularly during periods of high traffic volumes; how to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times, including through the use of • ~ • •
• • ~ •
• ~ • •
• ~ • •
103 429
adequate signage, protective devices, flag persons or police assistance to ensure that traffic can flow adequately during construction; the identification of alternative routes that can meet the traffic flow requirements of a specific area, including communication (signs, webpages, etc.) with drivers and neighborhoods where construction activities will occur; and at the end of each construction day roadways shall be prepared for continued utilization without any significant roadway hazards remaining.

TRAF-2 The City shall require that all disturbances to public roadways be repaired in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rialto standard design requirements.

The operation phase of the proposed project will not require trips because the project will function as a storm drain; no new employees of the City will be required. As such, operation of the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Therefore, with implementation of the above mitigation measures, implementation of the project has a less than significant potential to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
b. Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a storm drain alignment within and adjacent to Baseline Road from Tamarind Avenue to Cactus Basin. The City of Rialto has not developed a threshold for vehicle miles travelled; however, the proposed project will not require any operational traffic beyond any maintenance trips to the storm drain alignment or the outlet at Cactus Basin. Construction of the proposed project will require a maximum of about 25 trips to and from the site each day as a result of employee and construction related trips. Given that these trips are temporary, and are not anticipated 100 miles round trip per day during the 6 months to 1 year period required to complete construction, construction related vehicle miles traveled impacts are considered less than significant. Furthermore, the proposed project would not generate a significant number of trips once in operation, and the City of Rialto Office location is less than 3 miles from the storm drain alignment. As such, development of the Rialto Basin Storm Drain Project is not anticipated to result in significant impact related to vehicle miles travelled, and thus would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b). Impacts under this issue are considered less than significant.
c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The project will temporarily alter existing roadways during construction of the proposed storm drain alignment. However, this alteration will not create any hazards due to design features of incompatible uses. The project will install a new storm drain system within existing rights-of-way within Baseline Road. As stated under issue XVII(a) above, the with the implementation of mitigation measures TRAF-1 and TRAF-2 above, which require implementation of a construction traffic management plan, any potential increase in hazards due to design features or incompatible use will be considered less than significant in the short term. In the long term, no impacts to any hazards or incompatible uses in existing roadways are anticipated because once the storm drain alignment is installed, the roadway will be returned to its original condition, or better, as will the segment of land between Cactus Basin and Baseline Road. Thus, any impacts are considered less than significant with implementation of mitigation. No additional mitigation is required.
d. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – Please refer to the discussion under issue XVII(a) above. The proposed project will require closure of one lane within the roadway in which the storm drain alignment is installed. This effort will occur within existing rights-of-way within Baseline Road. During construction, a potential exists for short-term hazards and constraints on both normal and emergency access within the affected area, especially due to the construction of the proposed pipeline alignment, as it will require partial lane closure within existing rights-of-way. There are no emergency access roadways located within the project footprint. However, adequate emergency 104 430
access will be provided along these routes throughout construction. Though closure of one lane will impact traffic, the implementation of mitigation measures TRAF-1 and TRAF-2 will ensure that impacts are reduced to a level of less than significant. No additional mitigation is required.

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would
the project cause a substantial change in the
significance of tribal cultural resources, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a
site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to the California Native American
tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a California Native
American tribe.

SUBSTANTIATION
A Tribal Resources is defined in the Public Resources Code section 21074 and includes the following:
• Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe that are either of the following: included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources or included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1; • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purpose of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California American tribe;
• A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape;
• A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “non-unique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
a&b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The City of initiated AB 52 consultation with five tribes/tribal entities who previously notified the City: Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño-Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, • ~ • •
• ~ • •
105 431
San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, Gabrieleño-Tongva Nation (sent to Sam Dunlap, Cultural Resources Director and Sandonne Goad, Chairperson). Notification was provided to the tribes via an AB 52 consultation letter which was initiated on June 4, 2019. The only Tribe to respond was the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation. A letter was received from the Tribe on June 10, 2019 requesting that the City contact the Tribe to discuss consultation. As such, the City reached out to the Tribe a phone conference was set up for August 21, 2019, but the Tribe did not request any actionable items during this phone call; they expressed interest in the Project, but did not respond in writing with any specific requests related to consultation. The City was been unable to reach the Tribe for further instruction, and as such consultation has concluded as of October 7, 2019. It should be noted that the Cultural Resources Report (Appendix 4) concluded that no additional cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study; however, if buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. As such, given that the Tribe did not provide any further input on the treatment of cultural resources, the City has decided to implement the following mitigation measure to ensure that the Tribe is given the opportunity to consult with the City before commencement of any construction activities requiring excavation:

TRC-1 The Contractor shall be required to notify the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Tribe) at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of any construction activities requiring excavation related to the proposed Project at (844) 390-0787. The Contractor shall document the date that the Tribe was notified, and give the Tribe two weeks to respond prior to commencement of any excavation required to develop the proposed Project.

If the Tribe responds, the City shall negotiate with the Tribe to arrange any requests of the Tribe related to the handling of and potential for Tribal Cultural Resources with the understanding that the City has no responsibility to fund any requests of the City from the Tribe.

If the Tribe does not respond with any formal requests of the City within the 2-week period, the Contractor shall proceed with construction with the understanding that the Tribe does not wish to provide further input on the proposed Project. This shall conclude the City’s effort to enable to the Tribe to provide input on this Project.

With the incorporation of these mitigation measures, as well as the mitigation identified under Cultural Resources, any impacts under these issues are considered less than significant. 106 432
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the
project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's
projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

SUBSTANTIATION
a. Water
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project is located within an area served by the City of Rialto Department of Public Works Water Division (Water Division). The Water Division services approximately 8.5 square miles in the central portion of the City, from Baseline Avenue to Rialto Avenue, with a narrow extension in the south to I-10. The City’s primary source of water is City-owned water wells. These wells draw water from four water basins: Lytle Creek Surface Water Basin, Rialto Ground Water Basin, Bunkerhill Ground Water Basin, and Chino Hill Ground Water Basin. Though, according to the General Plan, in 2006, SBVMWD provided 26 percent of City’s total water, and seven percent came from the WVWD. The proposed project would not require expansion or construction of new water facilities. However, the project will contribute to groundwater recharge through the creation of an outlet for the stormwater carried by the new storm drain at Cactus Basin.

As such, this project is not anticipated to result in any significant environmental effects. Impacts are less than significant.

Wastewater
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new storm drain within an existing roadway. This infrastructure is not anticipated to require expansion or development of new wastewater treatment facilities. This project would not require connection to wastewater treatment collection services once in operation. As such, this project is not anticipated to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded wastewater treatment facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. Impacts are less than significant. • • ~ •
• • ~ •
• • • ~
• ~ • •
• ~ • •
107 433
Stormwater
Less Than Significant Impact – The proposed project would install a new stormwater collection system within Baseline Road with an outlet at Cactus Basin. The project in and of itself will result in construction of new stormwater facilities, but as discussed throughout this document, the project is not anticipated to result in any significant impacts. The roadway within which the storm drain will be installed will be returned to its original condition upon completion of the placement the storm drain alignment. The project will ensure that surface water will be adequately managed within the project footprint. The roadway will generate essentially the same amount of stormwater as they do at present because no expansion of roadway is anticipated. Conveyance of stormwater to drainage alignments and storm drains within these roadways will be improved through the development of the new storm drain alignment, which is considered a benefit to the community. Therefore, development of the Rialto Basin Strom Drain Project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded stormwater facilities. Impacts are less than significant.

Electric Power
No Impact – The proposed project would install a new storm drain alignment. The new storm drain alignment will not require any electricity to operate, though during construction some of the equipment used may be electric. Given that the project will not require connection to electricity during operation, the project would have no potential to require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects. No impacts are anticipated under this issue.

Natural Gas
No Impact – Development of the Rialto Basin Strom Drain Project would not demand natural gas.

Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas facilities. No impacts are anticipated.

Telecommunications
No Impact – Development of the Rialto Basin Strom Drain Project would not require installation of wireless internet service or phone serve. Therefore, the project would not result in a significant environmental effect related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded telecommunication facilities. No impacts are anticipated.
b. Less Than Significant Impact – Please refer to issue X(b), Hydrology and Water Quality, above. The proposed project will not require any water to operate as it will function as a storm drain alignment carrying stormwater to Cactus Basin. The proposed project will require a maximum of 10,000 gallons of water per day during construction. This temporary increase in water demand for construction purposes is considered less than significant because the project will be conducted within existing entitlements from the Department of Public Works Water Division. Based on the limited and shortterm demand for potable water during construction of the proposed pipeline replacement project, sufficient water supplies are available to serve the project; according to the Rialto Water Services website,5the maximum daily production is 13.812 million gallons, while the average daily production is 9.11 million gallons, which leaves ample supply available for the Project during construction. As such, impacts under this issue are considered less than significant and no mitigation is required. c. No Impact – Please refer to the discussion under XIX(a) above. The storm drain alignment carrying stormwater to Cactus Basin will not require installation of restroom facilities; construction will require portable toilets that will be handled by the provider of such facilities. As such, given that the storm drain alignment will not require any new connection to wastewater treatment services, it is not anticipated that the project would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments. No impacts under this issue are anticipated.
5 https://rialtowater.com/about-us/water/
108 434
d&e. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – This project will result in construction waste from the removal of asphalt, concrete, and similar materials. The inert wastes can be disposed of at existing municipal solid waste facilities, which have adequate capacity to accept inert wastes generated by this project, or can be recycled onsite. The nearest landfill to the Project area is the Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, which has a maximum permitted capacity of 7,500 tons per day, and a remaining capacity of 61,219,377 cubic yards (CY), with a maximum permitted capacity of 101,300,000 CY according to CalRecycle.6 The proposed project will not result in any operational solid waste because it will function as an improved storm drain alignment, which will not require any employees to function excepting any drainage maintenance performed by the City. Additionally, any hazardous materials collected on the project site during either construction of the Project will be transported and disposed of by a permitted and licensed hazardous materials service provider.

Therefore, the Project is expected to comply with all regulations related to solid waste under federal, state, and local statutes. To further reduce potential impacts to solid waste facilities due to the large scale of the materials that may require disposal or recycling, the following mitigation measure will be implemented:

UTIL-1 The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can feasibly be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not limited to, wood, metals, concrete, road base, and asphalt. The contractor shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this objective.

Therefore, with the above mitigation measure, the Project is expected to comply with all regulations related to solid waste under federal, state, and local statutes and be served by a landfill(s) with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. No further mitigation is necessary.
6 https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055/ 109 435
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?

SUBSTANTIATION
a-d. No Impact – The proposed project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zone, therefore the proposed project can have no impacts to any wildfire issues. As stated in previous sections, according to the City of Rialto Fire Hazard Map for the project area, the proposed project is not located within the fire safety severity zone (Figure IX12). The proposed project area is located in an urban area removed from the high fire hazard areas that are located adjacent to the San Gabriel Mountains and Lytle Creek Wash to the north. As such, no impacts under these issues are anticipated.
• • • ~
• • • ~
• • • ~
• • • ~
110 436
Potentially
Significant Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant Impact
No Impact or
Does Not Apply
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?

SUBSTANTIATION
The analysis in this Initial Study and the findings reached indicate that the proposed project can be implemented without causing any new project specific or cumulatively considerable unavoidable significant adverse environmental impacts. Mitigation is required to control potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less than significant impact level. The following findings are based on the detailed analysis of the Initial Study of all environmental topics and the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the previous text and summarized following this section. a. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project has no potential to cause a significant impact to any biological or cultural resources. The project has been identified as having no potential to degrade the quality of the natural environment, substantially reduce habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. Based on the historic disturbance of the project footprint, especially given that the Project will not substantially impact habitat in and around Cactus Basin and that the remainder of the project will occur within existing road rights-of-way, the potential for impacting biological resources is low; however, mitigation has been identified to protect nesting birds. The cultural resources evaluation concluded that the Project site contains no historic resources, but given that it will not be altered by the proposed project, no impacts are anticipated. To ensure that any accidentally exposed subsurface cultural resources are properly handled, contingency mitigation measures will be implemented. With incorporation of Project mitigation measures all biology and cultural resource impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level. b. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project has ten (10) potential impacts that are individually limited, but may be cumulatively considerable. These are: Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. The Project is not considered growth-inducing, as defined by State CEQA Guidelines. These issues require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level • ~ • •
• ~ • •
• ~ • •
111 437
and ensure that cumulative effects are not cumulatively considerable. All other environmental issues were found to have no significant impacts without implementation of mitigation. The potential cumulative environmental effects of implementing the proposed project have been determined to be less than considerable and thus, would have a less than significant cumulative impact. c. Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated – The Project will achieve long-term community goals by providing a new storm drain alignment that would more efficiently manage runoff in the area surrounding the project footprint. The short-term impacts associated with the Project, which are mainly construction-related impacts, are less than significant with mitigation, and the proposed Project is compatible with long-term environmental protection. The issues of Air Quality, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce human impacts to a less than significant level. All other environmental issues were found to have no significant impacts on humans without implementation of mitigation. The potential for direct human effects from implementing the proposed project have been determined to be less than significant.

Conclusion
This document evaluated all CEQA issues contained in the latest Initial Study Checklist form. The evaluation determined that either no impact or less than significant impacts would be associated with the issues of Aesthetics, Agricultural and Forestry Resources, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Population/Housing, Public Services, Recreation, and Wildfire. The issues of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems require the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The required mitigation has been proposed in this Initial Study to reduce impacts for these issues to a less than significant impact.

Based on the findings in this Initial Study, the City of Rialto proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Rialto Basin Storm Drain Project. A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (NOI) will be issued for this project by the City. The Initial Study and NOI will be circulated for 30 days of public comment because this project does involve state agencies as either a responsible or trustee agency. At the end of the 30-day review period, a final MND package will be prepared and it will be reviewed by the City. The City of Rialto will hold a future hearing for project adoption at City Hall, the date for which has not yet been determined. If you or your agency comments on the MND/NOI for this project, you will be notified about the meeting date in accordance with the requirements in Section 21092.5 of CEQA (statute).
__________
Note: Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21083.05, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 65088.4, Gov. Code; Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21083, 21083.05, 21083.3, 21093, 21094, 21095, and 21151, Public Resources Code; Sundstrom v.

County of Mendocino,(1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1337; Eureka Citizens for Responsible Govt. v. City of Eureka (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 357; Protect the Historic Amador Waterways v. Amador Water Agency (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th at 1109; San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102 Cal.App.4th 656.

Revised 2019
Authority: Public Resources Code sections 21083 and 21083.09 Reference: Public Resources Code sections 21073, 21074, 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, 21082.3/ 21084.2 and 21084.3 112 438

SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES
Air Quality
AIR-1 Fugitive Dust Control. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation:
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone.
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 Burrowing Owl. Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity. The burrowing owl survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In the event this species is not identified within the project limits, no further mitigation is required. If during the preconstruction survey, the burrowing owl if found to occupy the site, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 shall be required.

BIO-2 If burrowing owls are identified during the survey period, the City shall take the following actions to offset impacts prior to ground disturbance:

If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by the CDFW shall require the City to hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site. The relocation plan must include all of the following:
• The location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation. • The location of the proposed relocation site.
• The number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place.
• The name and credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation. 113 439
• The proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site. • A description of site preparation at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control).

BIO-8 The State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests, any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the the State identified nesting season (Raptor nesting season is February 15 through July 31; and migratory bird nesting season is March 15 through September 1). Alternatively, the site shall be evaluated by a qualified biologist prior to the initiation of ground disturbace to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds. Active bird nests MUST be avoided during the nesting season. If an active nest is located in the project construction area it will be flagged and a 300-foot avoidance buffer placed around it. No activity shall occur within the 300-foot buffer until the young have fledged the nest.
114 440
Cultural Resources
CUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City’s onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Geology and Soils
GEO-1 Stored backfill material shall be covered with water resistant material during periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of the material. If covering is not feasible, then measures such as the use of straw bales or sand bags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup.

Hazards and Hazardous Waste
HAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.

Hydrology and Water Quality
HYD-1 The City shall require that the construction contractor prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters. The SWPPP shall include a Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during construction activities that 115 441
are compatible with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP may include but not be limited to:
• The use of silt fences;
• The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins; • The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff; • The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site; • The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the site onto public roads; • The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and • Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.

Noise
NOI-1 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday – Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM Monday – Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays from May to September; at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.

NOI-4 Equipment not in use for five minutes shall be shut off.

NOI-5 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

NOI-6 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment.

NOI-7 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.

NOI-8 The construction contractor shall provide signs (2) along the roadway identifying a phone number for adjacent property owners to contact regarding excessive vibration. The contractor shall respond within 24 hours to any complaint at this phone number; assess the complaint; and, if reasonable, adjust construction activities (use different construction methods, slow down construction activity, or other measures) to reduce vibration at the property from where the complaint was received.

Transportation
TRAF-1 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources, as determined by the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rialto. The City shall require a construction traffic management plan for work in public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, or other applicable standard, to provide adequate traffic control and safety during 116 442
excavation activities. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and approved by the City(s) and County prior to initiation of excavation or pipeline construction. At a minimum this plan shall include how to minimize the amount of time spent on construction activities; how to minimize disruption of vehicle and alternative modes of transport traffic at all times, but particularly during periods of high traffic volumes; how to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times, including through the use of adequate signage, protective devices, flag persons or police assistance to ensure that traffic can flow adequately during construction; the identification of alternative routes that can meet the traffic flow requirements of a specific area, including communication (signs, webpages, etc.) with drivers and neighborhoods where construction activities will occur; and at the end of each construction day roadways shall be prepared for continued utilization without any significant roadway hazards remaining.

Tribal Cultural Resources
TRC-1 The Contractor shall be required to notify the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Tribe) at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of any construction activities requiring excavation related to the proposed Project at (844) 390-0787. The Contractor shall document the date that the Tribe was notified, and give the Tribe two weeks to respond prior to commencement of any excavation required to develop the proposed Project.

Utilities and Service Systems
UTIL-1 The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can feasibly be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not limited to, wood, metals, concrete, road base, and asphalt. The contractor shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this objective.
117 443

REFERENCES
CRM TECH, “Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California” dated May 16, 2019 Giroux and Associates, “Air Quality and GHG Impact Analysis, HZ-116 Rialto Baseline Strom Drain Project, City of Rialto” dated April 15, 2019
Jericho Systems, “The Biological Resources Assessment and Jurisdictional Delineation: Rialto Storm Drain, Rialto, CA” dated May 20, 2019
California State Water Board’s GeoTracker website
Drainage Study to the Renaissance Specific Plan (Encompass, 2015) Rialto Airport Specific Plan
City of Rialto General Plan
City of Rialto Renaissance Master Plan
County of San Bernardino General Plan
http://www.sbcounty.gov/calmast/sbc/html/emergency_plan_routes.asp https://water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/8-2.04.pdf https://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/Rialto.pdf
http://rialtopd.com/index.php/more/department-history
https://rialtowater.com/about-us/water/
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/swfacilities/Directory/36-AA-0055 118 444

FIGURES
119 445

FIGURE 1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Regional Location Map
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project
Feature 1
Proposed Stonn Drain Alignment
120 446

FIGURE 2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Site Map
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project
~ Altemative3
• Feature 1
• posed Storm Drain AHgnment
._. Pro S . from Cactus Basin West to Tamarind Avenue toon Drain In Baseline Road ....... - ~-.....,.,ni
121 447

FIGURE 3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Site Plan

BASELINE ROAD

UT ILITY PROVIDERS

ELECTRICITY
SOIJff~ CAl..lrORN"-EDISQN
7951 ltl:D\\0011 A\OlE FONTAN.'\, C,-, lt2J.J6
[91l9) J57- &20J
WATER FONTPl'IA WATER CC.
1'\lOS ARRCM' R~ Tt
fllM lAPIA, CUJflJl!:Mlli 9:U3S
(CO(j) 82!!-22<l1

TELEPHONE
AT.tT
JIJ!il E COR[7jADQ SlREET
MHEM. CA 112&07
(71-4) 237- 61!>5
SEWER
crrror~
100S.PAI.NI\',£.

RIALTC,CJ. 92378
(1100) 8.1:0-Zl!S

TELEPHONE
FRONlER 150S. JUANIU,
te1ET. C,-, 92M3
(!HlCI) &55-7.3tl6
GAS
SOUTHERN CAI.JF"ORMll'I tAS C:O.
1~81 91. LUCONJ. A'-0«..C
flEDLMOS. C,o. tU74
(500) 427- 2200
©@ TM[l]'@~I["jf l]:l WJ'"jf Ill1Jil"jf "if l]'l1i£~
£~l]) wm@w@~mll])
IIDMrnl~l!~ml m@£l]) ~"1£'@mM l])~£l1~ £~l1®~Ml]l~"1£'
C,>JlLE
151Xl MJTQ CENl(R ORM:

ONTAAIO. CA 917'1
(800) 992-2253
!Wltll_SlREIT!i£C1CII
• A• B.ltra: ROAD
I 11\ VICINITY MAP aW'

BASELINE ROAD

N OTE CONCEPTUAL
i LOCATION or DJSlllrHO UTUTY LINES 15 BASED OH RECORD DRA'MNC.S AND ,a.TL/\SES PR0\'10ED BY ff IJTY ANO UTI.ITY COMPM IES. LOCATlOIJS TO 8E ~AED 8Y CIJ1TRACTOR DEFORE CONSfflJCTION.

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
HUITT-n.JARS
HtJtt-Zolara, Inc. Oitano
,__, CDN"'1RI, f D D E <ll<l-"""', --... , ,., • ( 1<>1) l • l-71S• DRA't\N B~

11.Z.STAFF
PRELI MINARY - SUBJECT TO CHA.NOE
CITY 0ll' RIALTO, 0ALI11'0RNIA
BA.SELINE STORM DA.A.IN

TIT LE SHEET & INDEX MAP
"""' 115 ' SHOWtJ
DATE;
...,. .. ID """'' - • •-or, .ICHNNY htlJR,l,D H.Z, ST AFT OCT 20111 1c"'~""'""'"-c'c-"-+---------------+,.,~. ""~' ~,---1• ------- ~I;!2 tl-~_;19 ~ J.M./R.C./M.H. I , 122 448
FIGURE II-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Farmland Map
t;a California Important Farmland Finder Ca. Dept of Conservation ? : 3 :: O O [ ,... I Find address or place
=
=
<
8<~1IA
:::::::;:::==foe-I Ill fwy
u
44 I.I
<
A
<
=
;
"' < ,<
.;
= ., <
< < < u
< < ~
.::
0 .§ < < g, z
=
~ Foolhl I Blvd Foolh,11 Blvd
Fontana
kf,; tJ A
LI ----===--=-_;;,'J;,r,lµn I
II
.,.
<
-:::
=
<
-;;
7 4
<
<
' B1 LIi>'! Rd
1,
>
r I d A .,
<
.:i
=
,r
w Foolhll B vd
2r,J"'
R11 A e
ll
aim IA
<
~
Ri
Legend ~ x
County Boundaries
County Boundaries
•
California Important Farmland: Most
Recent
Most Recent
Prime Farmland
Fannland of Statewide Importance
Unique Farmland
Grazing Land
Fannland of Local Importance
Fannland of Local Potential
Other Land
Confined Animal Agriculture
Nonagricultural or Natural Vegetation
Vacant or Disturbed Land
Rural Residential Land
Semi-agricultural and Rural Commercial Land
Urban and Built-Up Land
Water Area
Irrigated Fannland
Nonirrigated Farmland
'and Mapping and Monitoring Prog:...r.:. ar ______________________ _.,1 123 449
FIGURE VII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Alquist-Priolo Map
#... • ... ..

Regulatory Maps Mineral Lands Classification --· Borehole Database ~ CGS Information Warehouse: Regulatory Maps
ArcGIS World Geocoding Servic
r-;
f I I
I I r
2 i
On r>
Int f Arport
e.,.,,. 1Ss10 '1·81,,,(J
Cucamonga Peak
Rancho
Cucamonga
; I -117.259 34.088 Degrees
✓.''' 'J

SAN BEKNARD INO

RIVERSIDL
Devore
Fontana 66
. ..
p E O ~i!Y of f?,n!a~~, County of Riverside, San Bern,
Legend ~ x
Regulatory Maps (Labeled)
Fault Zones, Landslide and Liquefaction Zones
b Earthquake Fault Zones
b Landslide and Liquefaction Zones
124 450
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE VII-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Seismic and Geologic Hazards
·• .. ·· .. ... · .. Wli"luht•
·• ... .. .. .

City of
Fontana
Marygold Av•>---+------<
Union Pacific Ra/frood Slo_, Av•
'
Seismic and Geologic Hazards
(Faults: Solid where location is known, dashed where
approximate, dotted where Inferred.)
Fault (Morton and Miller, 2003)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault (CGS, 2002)
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2002)
Lineaments identified in aerial photos
•••••••• Groundwater barrier (Dutcher and Garrett, 1963) by F. Jordan (personal communication, 2002)
1// ~ Moderate liquefaction susceptibility.

Sediment are young (less than 10,000 years old),
unconsolidated, with fine-grained layers, and
there has been artesian well activity historically.

Approximate bog, swap, or marsh land area
in the early 1900s
Base Map Features
Notes:

Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
This map is intended for general land use planning only.

Information on this map is not sufficent to serve as a
substitute for detailed geologic investigations of individual sites, nor does it satisfy the evaluation requirements set forth in geologic hazard regulations.

Sources:

Earth Consultants International (ECI);
Morton and Miller (2003); Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones in San Bernardino South (1977), San Bernardino
North (1974), and Devore (1995) Quads. [reproduced with permission CGS CD-ROM 2001 -05 (2002)); Jennings (1994) [reproduced with permission CDMG, CD-ROM (2000)];
Dutcher and Garrett (1963); Jordan, F. (personal
communications (2002); USGS 7.5-minute Digital Elevation Model and W.C. Mendenhall (1904)
• o~~o~.5-~~1.5-~2 Miles
125 451
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Î Î Î Î Î Î
Î Î Ì Ì Ì
Ì
Ì
Ì

PINEDALE CT

DORSEY ST

UPLAND AVE
Track

EVA ER ST MP KE

T E S AC GR
ASH ST

EDISON AVE

OLD VI L OE K A VA E

MALAGA DR

CARYN CIR

SPARTAN LN
YEW CT

EVAA ON RC MA

GALA AVE

LP E RTL MY

A ST I OL GN MA

EVA IS RI

ALMOND DR

EVA K OC ML HE

T CL RA CO

EVA D WOO IER N BR

RD R UPSKRAL

AVE ST CU LO

TS EVI OL

VE A US CT CA

PINE AVE

EVA CGUIRE M

AVE D WOO CH E N BE

KININGHAM DR

EVAA CC YU

EVA OD DWO RE

PL EE K TR OA

ORCH DI ST

N SUNSET CIR
TE OT

TR N R L

EVA H RC LA

WEEP NI G W LI LOW LN

CANYON CREST DR

RUSTIC PL

EVA NA NA BA

MANGO DR

DEL NORTE ST

OV AL NT D E R

N L A OS O AL P AP

CARAWAY CT

EVA A DESER

AVE CH AR S L

EVA NA NA BA

MANGO LN

VILLAGE PKWY

LIME AVE

EVA S ES PR CY

EVA M EL

T E S T DA

N DRIFTWOOD AVE

EVA R DA CE

AVE E PL N MA

PLUMARIA DR

SP RAILROAD ACRD

EVA NA ATL SU

EVA H EC BE

N R BLVD E NT CE PIRE EM

ARMSTRONG RD

HILTON DR

W SP RAILROAD

EVA B RO CA

HEALTH CARE PKWY
I 10 OFRP W

S PERIMETER RD

E EVA EL UR LA

AVE A AR NIAG

ENTRY RD

MANILA ST

ALISO DR
I 10 OFRP E
I 10 OFRP E

MC CAULEY ST

COUNTRY LN

FAIRVIEW RD

SEQUOIA AVE

RAMONA AVE

GREV LI LEA ST

MOUNTAIN VIEW AVE

W TOUCHE DR

ORANGE ST

EVA DA SE RE

MALAGA ST

RI IS DR

MAYWOOD ST

N M L AL P

AVE DY AR MB LO

HIBISCUS AVE

ELAINE DR

EVAA ON DR MA

W WABASH ST

ROSEMARY DR

BLACKSTONE CT

ACCESS RD

BARBEE ST

CITRON AVE

W RAMONA DR
I 10 ONRP E

N BRAMPTON AVE

RANCHO VISTA DR

OMACYS T C E R

VE A TRY AN CH

N FILLMORE AVE
I 10 ONRP E

TECHNOLOGY ST

CARMEL ST

T DR ET NN BE

EVA E RE E T OK N SM

EVA ON TOY

EVAT ES CR SE RO

RD A AR NIAG

TAWBA DR CA

W MASON ST

EVAAE ALTH S

EVA S IMA D N S SA

KATHER NI E ST

EVA LL WE SE

UPLAND AVE

AVE D AR CH AN BL

TRELANEY RD

STALLION LN

EVA E S VIN

GROVE PL

CHERIMOYA CT

Y CT WIND

TYROL DR

EVA O EV NU

BARBEE CT

VALLEYVALE DR

YORKTOWN CT
4TH ST

AVE TIA ON EM FR

CITADEL AVE

MARBELLA ST

HAWTHORNE AVE

SANTA MARIA DR

CERES AVE

LONG V EI W DR

AVEIRO RD

W HUFF ST

DIANTHUS AVE

OWEN ST

FILBERT ST

W WEDGEWOOD CT

PINEDALE AVE

AVE D EA WH RO AR N

CHASE RD

EVA ER PP PE

FAIRHAVEN DR

BREEZY ST

OCOTILLO DR

Y ST RO L MCE

L VI E OAK AVE E

ST UT LN A W

EVA A I AC AC

AVE A ED AM AL

FIDDLELEAF RD

BRIARCLIFF AVE
ASH DR

MACADAMIA CT

EVA E INC N QU

EVA LIME

EVA D NARG E

EVA D NARG W

APPIAN WAY

LN RE MO CA SY

W ALRU ST

BINIA ST RO

ALISO DR

LA VIDA CT

AVE S SI CR

FONTLEE LN

CLEVELAND DR

LILAC ST

MADRONE ST

D DR OO HW RC LA

DR LM SE AN

DR A ON DR MA

VE A EN P AS S

VE A RIA TE S WIS

EVA R LE E WHE

CARRERA DR

VINE ST

R E D HO ES RS HO

EVA D OO W EL

EVA ON TOY

DEPOT RD

GOLDENRAIN DR

OAKWOOD DR

AVE ORT WP NE

MALAGA DR

STEERHEAD DR

VILLAGE GREEN DR

MARTOS RD

ANDEL DR

EVA LE DA RN FE

R E D EY CK BU

AVE E MOR L S FIL

T C T SI M E ULB

AVE ILL H D GOL

T N S MO LE

W DURST DR

NL F FULB D ER

PL GE SA LE RP PU

AVE RD FO H AS N

NILE LILY WAY

WHITTRAM CT

VE A LA RTO PO

EVAT ON EM AR CL

MUSCAT AVE

DEL MESA DR
McWETHY ST

DORSEY AVE

SHAMROCK AVE

SACRAMENTO ST

AVE L L S HA

EVA AR PL PO

EVA OD XWO BO

D RD ME NA UN
W 3RD ST

TS D OR IFF N CL

T N S MO LE

RAMONA DR

LOS NIETOS CT

MCWETHY DR

MALLORY DR

HIBISCUS ST

DURIAN AVE

VE A ND MO AL

MARTIN AVE

VALENCIA AVE

EVA AC LM A W

EVA CINA EN

EVA CH UR N CH

KRAFT LN

VIA DE ANZA

MANZANITA DR

JOSHUA CT

BONN EI LN

ATHOL ST

SAN JACINTO CT

T D S AR CH OR

EMANUELLI CT

PAINE ST

COURT ST

W SHAMROCK ST

AVE ST RE FO

EVA R DE AL

ROSE AVE

EVA R DA CE

MARIPOSA DR

T N S PE AS

W RIALTO AVE

ORANGE ST

EVA N PE AS

LA VESU RD

ME RI P E EC

S D VLB R ET N

REED ST

LA CANADA

OT LI LA ST

RD D MON DU

K ST SIL

SEVILLE CT

W JUNE ST

EVA R ESI KA

A PL Y APA P

T C 'S ER RM AF

LN ON CS TU

A DR TSI V A EN BU

RANC HO CT

VE A AC LIL

VE A NA SE RO

T B S RO CA

EVAT ET NN BE

VIA R AI TA

WHATLEY AVE

EVA E INC S QU

T C A GUAV

CRICKET DR
I 10 ONRP W

N RY L ER WB NE

T D C AL ER EM

ORANGE CT

GRANADAAVE

MANZANITA DR

A ST I AC AC

Y LN PP PO

W MARIPOSA DR VE A RK A S P

EVA H EC BE

L O P UG RD VE

MANHATTAN LN

VE A ND MO AL

N HERTIAGE CIR

MENDOC NO I CT

VE A RK A N P

EVA EA ALTH N

VE A A T N VIS

AVE E RD N VE

EVA RD LA N MIL

CHESEBRO CT

EVA D AL ER EM

AVE D OR IFF N CL
9TH ST
14TH ST
10TH ST
7TH ST

O ST RM E AL P

REED CT

VE A ON LS NE

QUAIL CT

T S A CC S YU

NEVADA CT

BOYLE AVE

AY W DAWN

LA T EI RRA C RI

LYNWOOD ST

ANACAPA CT

JOLIET CT

COLBY PL

MARGAR TAI DR

PECAN LN

RUSSO ST

MANILA ST

R M D AL P

GARF EI LD DR

EVA ON PINY

AY W RO TE ES

T LN E MON

N CT MO LE

ORCHID ST

ROANOKE RD

T S S LE AR CH

W HOLLADAY PL
IVY
TS

MALAGA CT

EVA D AL ER EM

RIVIERA LN

L AIL P GI AB

EVA NA ATL SU

T C RIA ME AL

Y LN NN BU

PRIMROSE CT

ORCH DI DR

TS S I SAO

MIMOSA CT

QUAIL LN

S CHURCH AVE

T R C LE E WHE

LN ER PP CO

HOLGUIN CT

LOMA VISTA DR

W GRANT ST

DR ER PP PE

R LL D WE SE T Y C RE FF EJ

T S C LE MY

HIBISCUS CT

E DR OC CR

CT LIME

EBONY PL

R Y D A TOK

EVAA CC S YU

SPRING ST

EVA N OR AC

MEYER CANYON DR

N CT OH SP

T S C IAM WILL

JAMES ST

EVA ER ND EA OL

N L IA FF RA

LANTERN LN

JASMINE PL

JACKSON CT

TAMARIND CT

MILLWOOD PL

UA CT SH OJ

W VICTORIA ST

RD OX KN

CR CI KET CT

GREGORY ST

W HOLLY ST

RAYMOND AVE

DOVE LN

EVAT OR KF AN FR

LAUREL AVE W

W CORNELL ST

ACKERMAN DR

TS RA UT AL

AVE K E OA LIV

T IS S LL HO

RD N I BOR

C CT MA SU

TERRACE LN

SAN JACINTO AVE

EVA M EL
2ND ST
3RD ST

T E S AC GR

PALM LN

ASTOR LN

FONTLEE LN

REDONDO CT

EVA RD LA S MIL

SHADOW DR

TAYLOR AVE
KA W C
E T

LARK N I CT

BOYLE AVE

D S R IAM WILL

T IS C R I OW LL YE

TS S IRIS

O CT EV NU

COLT AVE

VE A RN FE

TSI MIAM

AVE NIA GE EU

TENNESSEE CT

GEORGIA CT

ALABAMA CT

YANKTON DR

EVA VISTA

VE A GE SA

T Y C A TOK

VISTA CIELO

ORCH DI CT

BUCKEYE CT

R CT BE AM

W MESA DR

T H S BIRC

CT PINE

EVAT RICO AP

GLENOAK PL

ANASTASIA AVE

W SLOVER AVE

W MANZANITA ST

T C A UD RM BE

T E C T DA

LN AK TE

T M S EL

T E C ZI MA

TULLOCK ST

COURTNEY CT

CUMMINGS ST

TUOLUMNE CT

VA D NOM DU E

HUNTER ST

EVA C ALI S L

W CORNELL DR

HOLLY AVE

ROSE AVE

BUTANO PL

VALENCIA CT

PEAR ST

ALYSSUM CT

MICALLEF CT

RI RT C PO EE FR

GUILIANO PL

P MEK EVA R ETS

SPRING ST

RUSSO CT

W JACKSON ST

CAMBRIA ST

N Y L LE AIS P

CERES AVE

VINE CT

HAWTHORNE AVE

TULIP CT

W CARTER ST

DIANTHUS AVE

FUCHSIA CT

VINE ST

AVE D AR CH AN BL

FAIRFAX DR

FAIRVIEW DR

PERA CT

GOLDENTREE AVE

EVA N E LIND

Y PID WA CU

VILLAGE LN

HILLCREST DR

W FOLKE AVE

YUCCAAVE

GNA TC S LE

PINE AVE

CITRON AVE

V LI LAGE DR

TS YL LIL Y DA

REED DR

GINGKO CT

WE LE MB TU DR ED

MESA RD

Y LI L CT

BALSAM AVE

MONTGOMERY AVE

EUCALYPTUS ST

BACK STRAIGHT RD

E GNAT EVA O L

ST VINE

VI Y AVE

AZALEA CT

HUFF CT

VE A RIA TE N WIS

W SAN BERNARDINO AVE

HIBISCUS ST

EVA D OR NC CO

EVA D LLWIL N IDY

RAYMOND CT

W BLOOMINGTON AVE

TERRY ST

A ST I NC E AL V

EVA E N VIN

EVA OD NWO E N GL W WOODCREST ST

MANILA CT

SHELLY CT

EVA D OO RW AI BR

MESA DR

W JAMES ST

KATYDID AVE

FAIRFAX ST

MALLORY DR

ROSEMARY DR

W LORRA NI E PL

PASO FINO ST

TULLOCK ST

PINEDALE AVE

VE A EN P AS N

ORANGE WAY

VALENC A I AVE

WHITTRAM AVE

VE A OD WO AK N TE

EVA E UC R S SP

W MC KINLEY ST

ATHOL ST

SEVILLE AVE

FONTLEE LN

DREAM ST

LUSITANO DR

RI IS DR

NEELANS LN

H ARAS TC

AQUA CT

AVION LN

BUCKSKIN DR

FAIRVIEW CT

MESA ST

PERMANENTE DR

SANTA ANA AVE

TS EVI OL

VE A CE RU SP

EVAI WI K

W HAWTHORNE ST

UNDERWOOD DR
11TH ST

OWEN CT

RANCHERO DR

EVA E C RU N SP

W P NI EDALE AVE

EVERGREEN LN

NI DIAN DR

MONTECA CT

HOLLY DR

N FITZGERALD AVE

W SANTA ANA AVE

UZA E C R T

UPAS CT

VE A ER NIP UJ

EVA K OC ML HE

VE A E PL S MA

AVE N DE N LIN

EVA ER ND EA OL

LOI V A TC

NL MINT

EVA S IAM WILL

CITRON CT

TEXAS WAY

VIA SOMBRA

FAIRFAX CT

W WOODCREST AVE

DEODAR CT

V A I BON TI A

PINYON CT

MANZANITA CT
VE
RO
NA DR

EL RIVINO RD

MILLER AVE

EL MOLINO ST

AVE K E OA LIV

BEARTREE ST

PARK ST

AVE R DA S CE

EVA S U CT S CA

CHAPS LN

CYPRESS AVE E

RED SOX CIR

FONTLEE CT

COLEEN ST

DAVIDSON CT
12TH ST
13TH ST

W WEDGEWOOD ST

AVE R DA N CE

JACKSON DR

MINDANAO ST

EVA LL HA

V A I LA GR RD A

DORSEY CT

T S S MUM

CLYDESDALE CT

EVA AR PL PO

CAMELLIA DR

EVA EL UR LA

T H C A UT

BOBWHITE CT

RDL RUB

EVA R E TH A HE

AVE E T DA

LAUREL DR

SA CT EL

EVA Y A TOK
LOYO
LA CT

PIGEON CT

N S L NU VE

TS CH UR CH

MICALLEF AVE

WINDCREST DR

RIVERSIDE RD

WILLOW DR

EVA M EL

MOUNTAIN HIGH DR

W MERRILL AVE

SWAN RD

MELON AVE

LN OI OH

RANDALL AVE
ALISO

GREGORY

WOODLAND DR

EVA D OO WTFI RD S

VIRG NI A I ST

W RANDALL AVE

EVA E UC R S SP

EVA C ALI S L

FARNEY AVE
LA
RK CT

MARDEL LN
8TH ST
6TH ST
AC WAT
LP A B

ARIZONA ST
W 2ND ST

N DR OH SP

MONICA CT

ARROW BLVD

CAROB LN

AVE N DE NI S L

CAMEO DR

EVA R DE AL

ALMERIA AVE

EVA S U CT N CA

BAMBOO CT

MA DR U AL T PE

EVA S U CT S CA

W MIRO WAY

VENICE CT

W MIRAMONT ST

W GRANADA ST

AVE CH R N LA

VI Y AVE

W ETIWANDA AVE

EVA TAWBA CA

SLOVER AVE

LINDEN ST

ROSE AVE

TS NY AN SC TU

LIGHTHOUSE CT

W BASEL NI E RD

CASA WAY

W FOOTHILL BLVD

VALLEY BLVD

L E EBI Y TR Y WKP
5TH ST

MILLER AVE

WASHINGTON DR

VE A ER NIP UJ

EVA RA SIER

JURUPA AVE

MARYGOLD AVE

AVE ST CU LO

N N L EE GR ER EV

EVA EL UR LA

EVA O L GE AN T SHAMROCK ST

EVA S ES PR CY

MERR LI L AVE

EVA TO T ME AL P

EVA O NG MA

VE A RIA ME AL

EVA US CITR

EVA RY ER CH

SAN BERNARDINO AVE

EVA AC N LIL

VE A IND AR AM T

EVA EL UR LA

JURUPA AVE

SANTA ANA AVE

N OMMI SREP NL

RIVERSIDE COUNTY
Green Acres
Lake
J u r u p a M o u n t a i n s
Green Acres
Memorial Gardens
Kaiser
Hospital
Crestmore
Bloomington

FONTANA
RIALTO
RIALTO

FONTANA
T1S
T2S
T1S
R5W R6W T2S
T1S T1S
T2S
T1N
T1S T1S
T1N
R6W
R5W
R5W
R6W
T1N
T1S
10 §¨¦
15 §¨¦

ARROW RTE
16 15 14
34 35
31 32
27 26 25 30 29 28
23 22 24 19 20 21
15 14 13 18 17
10 11 12
7 8
3 2 1 6 5
35 34 36 31
9 10 11
2 4 3 2
35 34 33
27 26
32 33 34 35
22 23
µ
Z:\ProjectWorkFiles\GenPlan\GeoMaps\Geo_Detail2.mxdPlot Date: 05/30/2007, 11:44 AM

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY

MAP LOCATION
Generalized Liquefaction Susceptibility
Low
Medium
High
Map data originally compiled on 1:48,000 scale mosaicked maps photo-reduced from 7-1/2 minute USGS quads by J.E. Matti and S.E. Carson, 1986.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet. 58 }|
127
}|
62 }|
18 }|
38 }|
173
}|330
}|
2}|
|
71 }|
178
}
18 }|
95£¤
95£¤
40 §¨¦
15 §¨¦
10§¨¦
FH29 C
Fontana
(Forest Falls Only)
Generalized Landslide Susceptibility
Map data originally compiled on 1:48,000 scale mosaicked maps photo-reduced from 7-1/2 minute USGS quads by D.M. Morton, U.S.

Geological Survey, 1974 and by S.S. Tan, State Division of Mines and Geology, 1989.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet.

Low to moderate
Moderate to high
Mapped, Existing Landslide
! ! ! ! ! ! Rockfall/Debris-Flow Hazard Area
San Bernardino County Land Use Plan

GENERAL PLAN
Geologic Hazard Overlays
SCALE 1:14,400
1,250 0 1,250 2,500 3,750 5,000 625
Feet

0.5 0 0.5 1 0.25
Miles
Earthquake Fault Zones
Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary
County Designated Fault Zones
Cities
Map data compiled on 7-1/2 and 15-minute USGS quadrangle maps by the State of California, Division of Mines and Geology, 1987.

Positional accuracy of map data is at best plus or minus 150 feet.

NOTICE:

Effective January 1, 1994, the name "Special Studies Zones" has been changed to "Earthquake Fault Zones" and Chap. 7.5, Div. 2, of the Public Resources Code has been renamed the "Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act."
See FH21 C
See FH30 C
FIGURE VII-3
126 452
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE IX-12
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Fire Hazards
~ .
=
~
: C ity of
Fontan a
BNSF R:oilwa
~
i . .. ~ '
Footh ill Bfvd
Rlolto Av
r . . ... , .~ ::...i~~.4.~--+-----l-l•-¥---1--+--t-""' r •• H_ i .. ~ .g IAI
~ City of
Colt on
. Slover Av
Legend
Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
Fire Hazards Severity Zones
State Responsibility Areas (SRA)
Moderate
High
Very High
Local Responsibility Areas (LRA)
Very High
Fire Protection Responsibility
KXXXJ
l::=::=::= I
I I
Federal Responsibility A rea
State Responsibility Area
Local Responsibility Area -
Incorporated
~ Local Responsibility Area -
Unincorporated
Emergency Response Facilities
(~) Police Station
<I> Fire Station
Sources:

Fire and Resources Assesment Program,
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (2007 and 2008).
~
0 LI ... I .J......IL
0 .L~
5 __ .J..... __
1 _.__
5 _ __,2 Miles
127 453
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE X-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Flooding Hazards
Terra Vbt
Cosa Grand
··1
: (' ../
. .Ll ~ l
I
' Ccumall Ave
Walnut St
. ·-1
BaHllne Rd~'---"-i_l;.,__c.;.:-!"" l
: . ~ ~ . .i a 3 j i:

City of
Fontana
l I Foothill Blvd i
RJalto Ave
Merri II Ave
Randall Ave
Marygold Ave
valley Blvd
Union lbcific Rollroad
Santa Ana Ave
Jurupa Ave L-..1.:__,......,,--,'-
C
~
"
:

C
C
.
]
City of
San Bernardino
.
~
.
3 FEMA Flood Zones
- Areas of 100-year floodplain;
no base flood elvation determined
Areas outside 500-year floodplain
Area where flood hazards are undetermined
Base Map Features
Notes:

Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
This map is intended for general land use planning only.

Sources:

Earth Consultants International (ECI);
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996),
Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel Numbers: 7920F,
7940F, 8676F, 8677F, 8678F, 8686F, 8688F)
• 0
~1 ~I ~1
0 ~1
5 _~--
1 ~_
5 -~2 Miles
128 454
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE XII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Mineral Resource Zones
Casa Gran
i:alnuf St 1---+-+------<f---<
BmelineRd 11 I 1 . . J .. J J l
: l i ~ ; .!!
I .. .! 3 I : E
{!
City of Footh tll Blvd
Font ana
Rialto Ave
SNSF Roilwo
Merrill Ave
Jurupa Ave .__:.,_-+__.n---t-~,--Jf-'ll<--'----r'lo-+-+-~,-1 ..
~ ;;
City of
San Bernardino Mineral Land Classification
MRZ-1
Areas where available geologic information
indicates that little likelihood exists for the
presence of significant mineral resources
MRZ-2
Areas where geologic data indicate that
significant PCC-Grade aggregate resources
are present
MRZ-2 (PCC-1)
New MRZ-2 areas. MRZ-2
(PCC-1) notation in parenthesis identifies
specific areas - see source text for description
~-~I MRZ-3
Areas containing known or inferred mineral
occurances of undetermined mineral
resource significance
Base Map Features
Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
Source: Busch, L.L, & Miller, R.V.

Updated Mineral Land Classification Map
for Portland Cement Concrete-grade
Aggregate in the San Bernardino
Production-consumption (P-C) Region,
San Bernardino and Riverside Counties,
California - Special Report 206, Plate 1.

California Department of Conservation,
California Geological Survey, 2008.
129 455
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE XIII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Noise Contours
_,
i
I
'Jena Vi.sta Dr
: . Ca.Sa Gran d'~ Dr~---~~-~aL.:
; I
City of
Fontan a
SNSF R:oUwo
Foothill Blvd
Ilalio Ave
Merrill Av•
Marygo ld Ave •···· ,
1-----'---:
-• Vall•l' Blvd
Urion f"acff1e. Jailrood
Sant a Ana A v e
.. ···•·······
L •• _ JuNpa Ave.__: _ _,.....,;,,,;.--;
..
~ ..

C
.,,
.

C
::,
.
;;
City of
San Be rnardino
. ..
!
ti
,
Baseline Noise Contours
80 CNEL Contour
75 CNEL Contour
70 CNEL Contour
65 CNEL Contour
60 CNEL Contour
55 CNEL Contour
Base Map Features
Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/ Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
Source: Wieland Associates, Inc (2009)
• I ~~l~~'-'~-~~ --~ -~I Miles
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
130 456
FIGURE IX-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 1

GEO TRACKER
= Sites and Faclllties - ~ •
El Cleanup Sites
D • LUST Cleanup Sites
rJ • Cleanup Program Sites
D D Military Cleanup Sites

6. OTSC Cleanup Sites
8 Permitted Facilities
G CJ Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) Sites
• Permitted USTs - lli.EQ
6 OTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
0 Land Disposal Sites
PJ £1 Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program Sites
• Oil f Gas Sites
fJ • Confined Animal Sites
E Other Sites
D Project Sites
D Non-Case Information Sites
CJ Sampling Points • Public
0 Field Points
~ SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
C Tools
C Map Coverages
TAKE A TOUR Y!EWONGAMA
Baseline Ave Baseline Ave
Elaine Or
I nalto, ca IMMl+ff ~~~~------------------~ ~
f
Bohnert Ave V Hosa·s Market & Liquor
we Map
Vineyard Ave WlewitSI
WlaGlo,i..lDr
W NorwQOdSI
Bar
tftti Boston's Restaurant
...,.. & Sports Bar
i ZaraQ
•
Q ARCO
Q WEST COAST PIPE Columbia Steel 9
Sierra Lakes Pkwy • Wcasmal/aSt
tolo Chevrolet
w Renaissance Pkwy
I DGE

RIALTO AIRPORT
W Casmalia St
Foothill Fwy
W Renaissance {>~'fl'I
W bt-tonSI Renaissance Marketplace Q
WCasmalia St
Rialto Perchlorate Investigation - EII EXPLOSIVES TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. (SL06071592 x 2900 TAMARIND AVE RIALTO, CA 92376
St Cleanup Program Site
f
~
~ ~
~ "
Cleanup Status: Open • Inactive Rialto Anlmal Hospital Q Satellite 01
. ,
L J
+
Foothil
!1 . ~
•
I FemS1 ~ garaB~ttlingQ • J erry Eaves Park ~ ! M caUef SI Baseline Ave W Baseline Rd
Elementary ~~~t~ 9
San Jacinto Av•
Elaine Dr
M,row,., •
W Baseline Rd
Locust Elem;;~~;;; ~
Shamrock•.,_ Alder Middle School Wabash Av•
9 Mroway
§
• ! WBaseline Rd
w•P,
Mo!'IIQO~Av•
[
" ~
~ ~
Ii
•
Able Storage Q Farmer Boys
• W Baseline Rd W Baseline Rd • z z
" !
i
WWabuhSt
0 ~
i ..... z
( !j'
l i "~ .... !
z
i
! ~·· I .,.
1 I Ran,or,a,t,.ve
Elementary ~~~g~r q RamOfl• Ave Ramona A~
f ,., ... ~.

Ram<ma Ave
Fernandez
Park
Virginia Primrose
Elementary School
z Helen L. Dollahan 9 ~ Elementary School z z
W Valencia St
Milter Ave
Harvey-Dr 0
ATE ~ ....... ,
G o gle
+
j
;, Fe,rfn: Dr
!
Bill Martin
Park
Reed St
BarbNSt
Culichi's VIP
Miller Ave
M•~St
Reed St
Barbff s~ •
Pa,Of'St Smart & Final Q
•
Miller Ave
I J 'l1 I
J
3 'i § F81ri'IKSI i!.
! f Fa1rviewRd ! eo.,,s,
M1l1t91S1
Ele~~~~a~asca~~~1 ~ ...... s,
P.tioeSI Tamarind Park
• •
9 Fa1tfax St
Terry SI
LltUf•I Or
Bal1)f,eSt
Barbee St
i
w "k-tona St z
i
!
Mega Thrift Store
McWethySt A
Food 4 Less Q Y
Denny's
W £11waoda Ave
I
r J
" ~ Llttle Caesars Pizza
Me data 0 2019 le 200~ '------I Terms of Use Re
1 WtdQ~ood<
! z
z f w· z r f
[
! w
I ,.,,, 0 \
a map error
131 457
FIGURE IX-2
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 2
WEST VALLEY WATER DISTRICT - CACTUS DUMP {T10000002851) - ;i_,\ si-) SIGN UP FOR EMAi 855 WEST BASE LINE ROAD
RIALTO, CA 92377
SAN BERNARDINO COUN1Y
CLEANUP PROGRAM SITE .(INFO)

P RINTABLE CA SE SUMMARY I CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGEN
SANTAANA RWOCB (REGIOtl
SUmmaiy Cleanup Action Report Regilatory Activities Environmental Ode ~Sf} Site Maps I Documents Commlllity hv(jvement ReldtedCdSes Regulatory Profile
CLEANUP STATUS. oeFIt1moos
COMPLETED. CASE CLOSED AS OF 712312012
POTENTIAL CONTAt.11NANTS OF CONCERN
LEAD

FILE LOCATION

REGIONAL BOAAD

DWR GROUHOMTER SUB-BASIN NAME
Upper Santa hla Valley - Rialto-Colton (8-002.04)
Site History
- CLEANUP S1Al1JS HISlORY

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN
SOIL
PRINTABLE CASE suMrJ
DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(~, - DEFINITIONS

MUN, AGR, IND, PROC

CALMTER WATERSHED NAME
Santa Ana River - Middle Santa Ana River - Chino (Split) (801 .21) The site is located i, a residential area of Rialto, immediately to the east and north of Cactus Drainage Basin. Existing onsie structures include the Oislrict Headquarters, a warehouse/Maintenance building, Well No. 33 and associated pumping equipment, a concrete reservoir, two above ground fuel storage tanks, and a waste oil storage area. The site ws previously owned by the County of San Bernardino. It was once a rock quarry and was operated as a refuse disposal and burn dump that ceased operation in 1956. Vertically, fill waste appears to extend from 8 to 13 feet below ground surface. The first encountere d groundwater is more than 100 feet deep in the v icinity of the s~e. The district and the City of Rialto extr about two thirds of the demand from groundw ater. In recent years, perchlorate has been detected in several of the wells. As a result, th e district has plans to construct a wellhead treatr system that wil remove perchlorate and nitrate from the groundwater. The Regional Board has reviewed the plans and has given concurrance with the plans. The district will excavate , remove the fill material below the planned site to re mediate the lead contaminated soils at the s~e prior to constructing th e well head treatment system. 132 458
FIGURE IX-3
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 3
GEO TRACKER C Sites and Fac1llt1es -
EJ Cleanup Sites
f2 • LUST Cleanup Sites
D • Cleanup Program Sites
D D Military Cleanup Sites
6, OTSC Cleanup Srtes
,.a Permitted Facilities
ti C Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) Sites
• Pennitted USTs - lliEQ

6. OTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
• Land Disposal Sites
D • Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program Sites
• Oil J Gas Sites
D • Confined Animal Sites
El Other Sites
0 Projoct Silos
D Non-Case lnformaUOn Sites
• Sampling Points • Pu~ic
0 Field Points
(8J SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
0 Tools
0 Map Coverages
-

TAKE A TOUR VIEW ON GAMA
Baseline Ave Baseline Ave
Eta1neDr
Bohnert Ave 41 Rosa's Market & Liquor I rtalto, ca IMMM ~-,,~------------------~ 1 f f ZaraQ
~ WC Map
• r Wlrw,sSt Vineyard Ave
W La Glor-ia Ik
WNorwoodS1
Satellite 0
l
WNotwoodSt Bar
r.. Boston's Restaurant
T &Sports Bar
' •
QARCO
Q WEST COAST PIPE Columbia Steel 9 z WChes.hlfeSt
~
•
Sierra Lakes Pkwy
otolo Chevrolet
FafV<e-n St Under Armour Q
f Lu·elane S1
!
Wakw\ V!\"-Qe Pkwy l w .... c, ;
cemtosSt
f hrnSt F~t'SI
i ll M1cattets1 ~
Mount.on V- Awe Russo SI !
•t...ionAwi,
Baseline Ave W Baseline Rd
Elementary ~i~9al 9
San Jacinto Ave
•
• WcasmaliaSt
w Renaissance Pkwy

RIALTO AIRPORT
9 Amazon SNA4
WWalnutA¥e
>
f
!
Niagara Bottling Q
M iro Way
W Baseline Rd
f M~sa Rd
•
! Locust Elems;~~2'; 9 Sharnrodt-4"-
Alder Middle School W.abathAve 9
! + W Casmalia St W Ca smalia St
Foothill Fwy
W Renaiuance p~'if'f
WEnlonSI Renaissance Marketplace Q
Rialto Munlclp~lmlY. (T10000002oss)
1451 Linden Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Cleanup Program Site
Cleanup Status: Completed• Case Closed
RB Case II': 2080086
MroWay
X
Able Storage 9 Farmer Boys
W Baseline Rd • WBaseline Rd
Foothil
Jerry Eaves Park
W Baselin e Rd •
z
1 t
•..

I •• if
Elementary JS~~6~1 9 Ramona A¥e RamonaA..-c Virginia Primrose Elementary School z Helen L. Ooliahan 9 f Elementary School z z
WVale11C1• St
Miller Ave
Han,eyOr !,?
ATE •
Barbee St "
G o gle
+
Bill Martin
Park
......

Culichi'c; VIP
Miller Ave
Malagil 6t
RHd St
Barbee s'f • Pa ,w 51 Smart & Final Q
•
Miller Ave
i
~ FawfaxSt Terry SI t FairviewRd
lau,el Dr
M11. >9aSt
tsarbee St
PctineSI Tamarind Park
• •
Fernandez
Park
laurel Of
~
' i ~ Iii
BarbffSt
! W E1<wanc:1.a Ave
W\llctonaSt z
i
i
Mega Thrift Store
r.1cwemrs1 A
Food 4 Less q Y Little Caesars Pizza
Denny's
Me data C2019 le 200 m L----J Te,ms of Use Re
! Wedgewood
1 z
l ~
f w z z ! l
! w
I 1'"1.110\
rta ma error J
133 459
FIGURE IX-4
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 4
= ·.·- -. _--:, ~- TRACKER
RIALTO MUNICIPAL AIRPORT PROPERTY (T10000002088) - , ~'-'I;~ :_0 • 1 SIGN UP FOR EMAi
1451 LINDEN AVENLE
RIALTO, CA 9237 6

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CLEANUP PROGRAM SfTELINFO). PRINTABLE CASE SUt>..ttvtARY I CSM REPORT

CLEA NUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
SANTAANA RWQCB (REGION 8) ~D)- CASE,
summary Cleanup Action Report Re!J!latory Activities Em!ironmmtal IJdti) ,= Sf) Site Maps I Oocu nents Comm unity -,v~ve ment Related Cases Regulatory Profile

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
COMPLETED - CASE CLOSED AS OF3ll/2018

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN
A'vlATION, DIESEL, GASOLINE

FILE LOCATION

REGIONAL BOARD
DWR GROUNDl/11!1.TER SUB-BASIN NAME
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Rialto-Colton (8-002_04)
Site History
- CLEANUP SlAlUS HISTORY

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN
SOIL

PRINTABLE CASE SUMM
DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(~.- DEFINITIONS

MUN, AGR, IND, PROC
CALW\TER WATERSHED NAME
Santa Ana River -Middle Santa Ana Riller- Chino (Split) (801.21) The Site covers 480.6 acres including and surrounding the RMA, located at 1451 North linden A>,,enue, Rialto, California. The Site is generally bounded by State Highway 210 to the nc Miro Road and Baseline Road to the south, Laurel Avenue to the wesl, and Ayala Avenue and the flood control channelto the east The Site was originally divided into four properties identified as Properties A , B, C and D. The Sile is currently owned by the City of Rialto. The Sit e has been determined, through prior environmental assessments , to have soil impacted Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons in gasoline range (TPHg), Total Recoverable Petroleum H ydrocarbons (TRPH) , Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) , and Polynuclear Aromatic Hydrocarbc (PSAHs) . Excavation actillities to remove the impacted soil were conducted at the Site between January 12 and February 5 , 2016 by Weslech. Each of the identified areas of concern (AOCs) were excav aled, as proposed in the Cleanup Plan (Converse, 2015).A total of 5,315 CY of soil were excavated and stockpiled at t he designated locations on site. A total 370 C (535 tons) of soil from t he Sand Drag area was excavated and transported offsite to the Philadelphia Recycling Mine in Mira Loma, California for disposal. 134 460
FIGURE IX-5
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 5

GEO TRACKER
= Sites and Fecllltles -
El Cleanup Sites
'31 • LUST Cleanup Sites
fJ • Cleanup Program Sites
fJ D Mllitary Cleanup Sites
6, DTSC Cleanup Sites
B Permitted Facllltles
D a Waste Discharge Requirements
I rialt~, ca ,. J U,MHiJ ~--------------9---------~ §
•
l, ..
~ ( ZaraQ
•
Q ARCO

Q WEST COAST PIPE
Bohnert Ave V Rosa·s Market & Liquor
Viney.rd Ave
!
•
Columbia Steel Q
WCraigSI
WLewtsst
WLaGlonaDf
W NorwoodSI
W Ches.hire St
rra Lakes Pkwy • W Casmalia St WCasmalia St W Casmalia St Foothill Fwy
f Kolb Middle School 9 C Z
f
! ........ WCheshireSl
TlbbotSt
Map Satellite
WArbelhSt
J.v WGalwaySI
~ :S-tnalla St
a, ...,. t:1ement
'I. • , L J
Chesh••"' ~,
- , .. (WDR)Sites Ave Foothill Fwy • Pennitted USTs • llifQ

6. DTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
• Land Disposal Sites
fJ • Irrigated lands Regulatory
Program Sites
• Oil I Gas Sites
9 • Confined Animal Sites
El Other Sites
D Project Sites
D Non.Case lnfonnation Sites
II Sampling Points • PubltC
G Field Points
r8l SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
C Tools
C Map Coverages

TAKEATOUR YIEWQNGAMA
Baseline Ave
Elementary ~h~9c,I ~
San Jacinto Av•
ll.a•neet £Ja,oe Avenue
r ~ Ramona Ave
Miller Ave
Vlil.tg. L.n
Reed St
~
....... , i
BarbffS~ •
Paine St Smart & Final q
Go g le •
+
derArmour 9
•
W Baseline Rd
w Renaissance Pkwy

RIALTO AIRPORT
Q Amazon SNA4 z i
W Waln!JtA.,.e
..
f
~ Niagara Bottling Q
M 1t0Way
W Baseline Rd
i- MnaRd
•
Locust Elem;;~~2i ~
M rowa.,
W Baseline Rd •
M ontgomef"j Ave
Renaissance Marketplace Q
TahoeSt W lahoe St
q.

Eas'-0<'.'-Ji..
~ ~anatS1
WE,
E' i An•cood• St Pre: ;. .. Elementary Sci ~ ! Lutel,1ne SI W HHttie<St z
WM~lanaSt ~
W W.tloutAve Ill
~
Woodh, I St ~
• W Mariana St~
WWalnut
Rialto Animal Hospital Q ~
•
•
Able Storage Q
W Baseline Rd
West ValltY Water District- Cactus Dum11 (Tl0000002851) 855 West Base Line Road
Rialto, CA 92377
Cleanup Program Site
Cleanup Status: Completed - Case Closed
---v- w Baseline Rd • W Basel ine Rd
z
X ws
T
WSha,n Sham,ock,cv•
Alder Middle School w,basl'IAve O W Wabash St I ~-· Ela,ne o, Ramon,Av•
Miller Ave
':I
3 g fa1rfax St
t fe,rv,.w Rd
Malaga St ""'""
Ele~~~~a~~c8
h~~1 0 ..,....,
Tamarind Park
• •
M•llet"Ave
F 1tlaxSl
i TerrySt
! Laurel Dr
Ba,be• St
F r ryAvt
R»nOOa Ava
Fernandez Park
Laurel Or
Virginia Primrose
Elementary School
9 f•ln,-[)r
i
" .. .,.. ..
i
r
I
z Helen L. Dollahan 0 i Elementary School
i W Et,waoda Ave
z
r
Mega Thrift Store
I j
~
4'? Little Caesars Pizza
McWelll)"St A
Food 4 Less q Y
Denny's
I .,..
l l z z
WValeoc,aSt Dunn Elementary School 0
I Wedgewood Ct
j f z z r
I
W V1c1ooaS1
r w Rosewood St
WMHooSI
WGfo11eSt
Arrowhead Credit Union 0
Ci) Chevron Ma data 02019 le • 200 m '------' Te1ms of Use Re WComel!Dt
W Grove St
I ,. n ama error
135 461
FIGURE IX-6
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 6
WEST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (T0607185912) - (1',:l f,,Pj SIGN UP FOR EMAi 855 BASELINE WEST
RIALTO, CA 92377

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
LUST CLEANUP SITE (!NEQ),

PRIIHABLE CASE SUMMARY I CSM REPORT

CLEANU P OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (LEAD) . CASE t
SANTAANA RWOCB (REGION 8)-CA5e #:0!
CASEWORKER: Ken Wi/Nams
~ nary Cleanup Action Report Re!JJlatory Activities E1rv,ro111»entd/lJdli1 f.Sf) Ste Maps/ OoCllnents Coo101111ity ~uoluement ReliltedCdses Regulatory Profile
CLEAN UP STATUS • DEFINITION s
COMPLETED. CASE CLOSED AS OF 8/20/2003 • CLrnNUP Sll\TUS HISlORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

GASOLINE, MTBE / TBA I OTHER FUEL OX VG EN ATES

FILE LOCATION

LOCAL AGENCY
DWR GROUNDJ/)f\TER SUB-BASIN NAME
Up per Santa An a Valley • Riallo-C ollo n (8-002.04)
I Site "'"'"
No sile hislo ry available

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN
SOIL

PRINTABLE CASE SUM
DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(}),· DEFINITIONS

MUN, AGR, IND, PROC
CALJ/\f\TER WATERSHED NAME
Santa Ana Riv er• Middle Santa Ana Riv er - Chino (Sp Iii) (801.21) 136 462
FIGURE IX-7
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 7
GEO TRACKER C Sites end Fac1lltles -
~ Cleanup Sites
D • LUST Cleanup Sites
D [] Cleanup Program Sites
D D Military Cleanup Sites
/:l. OTSC Cleanup Sites
9 Permitted Facllitles
D • Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) Sites
• Permitted USTs - lli.EQ
~ DTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
[] Land Disposal Sites
D Cl Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program Sites
• Oil / Gas Sites
D • Confined Animal Sites
[3 O ther Sites
D Project Sites
D Non-Case Information Sites
EJ Sampling Points - Public
0 Field Points
@ SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
C Tools
0 Map Coverages

TAKE A TOUR
Basellne Ave
Elaine Dr
Miller Ave
f it Fa,rfax St
f
HanreyDt ~
ATE ;
Barbff St

YIEWONGAMA
Baseline Ave
Bill Martin
Park
RffdSt
Bart>eeS1
Go gle Cul,chi's VIP
mm.t-i!th1idf.JL'F1Ml:lii.H•.'.dltfhd lC? IIA II I aodt/11 ..

I rialto, ca I Mfaii+fJ ~~,.,~ ------------------~ ;
Bohnert Ave q Rosa's Market & Liquor
f WC Map Satellite 01
Bar 4?
~ Boston's Restaurant
T &Sports Bar
otolo Chevrolet
"' iii. bv ~
; ':_..'b("
ID GE I g'f\\c;l~
Sierra Lakes Pkwy
F•n,,•H 51 Under Armour Q
St Walnut VI\~ Pkwy
w.inutet
I FemS1
i M oc:allefSI
Baseline Ave
Elementary ~ct~il 4;)
Miller Ave
, .. ., .... ,,,l
;
CemtosSt
Russo St
WBasellne Rd
Ela,ne Or
Miller Ave
'JI
3 g F"airfaxSt
f Fairvlt'WRd
M al111aSt
i I Zara Q
• ~eS ~~"'Y Q ARCO
s\e113 \_a • kr Cesmalia St

Q WEST COAST PIPE
WCasmalia St
Vl!w1ard Ave ! WLrw,sSt
WlaGloru!Or
W Norwood St
Columbia Steel Q z WCheshoreSt l
• ! W Casmalia S1
+
nt
Foothill Fwy
Foothil
v,1 Renaissance Pkwy W Renaissance f''ll~
W~ston$t Renaissance Marketplace Q
•
QAmazonr--· ·
W Wa'1kl1A

RIAL TO AIRPORT
WESTERN HELICOPTER,_!!,!!; (SLT8R2674084)
1670 MIRO WAY W
RIALTO, CA 92376
Cleanup Program Site
Cleanup Status: Completed • Case Closed
RB Case#: SLTBR267
X
Niagaro " "'""''Y~
MroWay
W Baseline Rd
I MenRd
•
z
f
..
!
Locust Elem;~~~ 9 Sh.am,ock•.,_
Mroway
W Baseline Rd •
b -• • Alder Middle School wa a..-, ve ~
[ Faorfax S1
i Laurel Dr
')'Av•
Ramona Av•
Fernandez
Park
Lal.H'el Ot
Virginia Primrose
Elementary School
~
I
z
i
Si'
Rialto Animal Hospital Q
•
"
Able Storage Q
W Baseline Rd
z
f
>
i z
WV.1c-1ori.1S1 z
;
•
Jerry Eaves Park
Farmer Boys
W Base line Rd •
z
§'
i
I
z Helen L Dollahan 9 i Elementary School
~ W Etowandl A~•
z
I i ~·· I .,..

I I z z
wv•1e-nc,1St
Wedgewood
!
'§ z
!
z ! w
i !
i RffdSI Ele~~~~a~a~c~~~14;)
I [ i ~
!1 ,:, !
Mega Thrift Store i w
Baffitt s'f' •
Pa.nest Smart & Final 4;>
•
Barbee St
Paine St
• •
Tamarind Park
2 BarbHSI
I ii I
,:, Barbee SI
~
!
;;;;;· 1 ii
McWethySI A
Food 4 Less Q Y
Denny's
200 m .____,. Terms of Use
Little Caesars Pizza • ~,,o·
Rezrt a mop error
137 463
FIGURE IX-8
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 8
-
= .. ' 11 - - ~ :, •
,. i ,: ', ' . • ' • ' • • - ~
WESTERN HELICOPTER, INC (SLT8R2674084) - lt,if,1 _ _-! SIGN UP FOR EMAi 1670 MIROWAYW
RIALTO, CA 92376

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CLEANUP PROGRAM SITE 11NFOJ.

PRINTABLE CASE SUMMARY / CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT AGENCIES
SANTAANA RWQCB (REGION 8) (j.EAD) • CASE#:

SUmmary Cleanup Action Report Re!PJlatory Activities £1ll!ironme11tdl /Jd/,/ f. SI) Site Maps I Oocrnients Coo1m111hy ttuoluement Relilled Cdses Regulatory Profile PRINTABLE CASE SUM~
CLEAN UP STATU s -DEFINITION s
COMPLETED . CASE CLOSED AS OF 4ll/1992 - CLEANUP SlAlUSHISTORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

NONE SPECIFIED

FILE LOCATION
DWR GROUNDMTER SUB.BASIN NAME
Up per Santa /lri a Valley • Rialto-Colton (8-002.04)
I ., .. ""'"'
No site history available

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN

NONE SPECIFIED
DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFICIAL USE(fil. - DEFINITIONS

MUN, AGR, IND, PROC

CALMTER WATERSHED NAME
Santa Ana River • Middle Santa Ana River • Chino (Split) (801.21) 138 464
FIGURE IX-9
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 9
GEO TRACKER 1:1 Sites and Facllltles -
a Cleanup Sites
II • LUST Cleanup Sites
D • Cleanup Program Sites
D D Military Cleanup Sites

6. OTSC Cleanup Sites
13 Permitted F acilities
D C Waste Discharge Requirements
(WDR) Sites
• Permitted USTs • llifQ
b.. OTSC Hazardous Waste Sites
• Land Disposal Sites
D D Irrigated Lands Regulatory
Program Sites
• Oil I Gas Sites
D • Confined Anlmal Sites
Other Sites
D Project Siles
D Non•Case Information Sites
[I Sampting Poinls • Public
0 Field Points
18) SIGNIFIES A CLOSED SITE
C Tools
C Map Cove rages

TAKEATQUR
Base line Ave
Elll!neOr
Miller Ave
~
t FalrfaiSt
I
H..-vey Or
ATE f
.. B.atbee St
j
!

VIEW QN GAMA
Baseline Ave
... -~
Feirlu; Or
Bill Martin
Park
RHCI St
...... .,
~
l
!
Go gle Culich,'s VIP
1• 11, ,4J§lldd$!,;ceMl:14i•i!I fri~
I rialto , ca IHHiMJ ~~ .. ~-----------------~ ~
ltlid lf?IIOU' aodt,n ..

Bohnert Ave ',J Rosa's Market & Liquor
i we Map Satellite 01
Bar 4)
l!li Boston's Restaurant T & Sports Bar
Sierra lakes Pkwy
otolo Chevrolet
"' ,e ~ b..- ;i ~"ii-(<
ID GE ! s\-lld" l [ I CambriaA:e t
Farwen st Under Armour Q
f l.welaon,tSt
: i • ':I
3 St W•lnutV~Pkwy ~ WW.inutAv.
i w-c, •
[ Cnntos St !
t i f !i' I Fem SI f~f\St ,
~ ! i Moc•llet St
Moun1a1 v-"~• AuasoSt i
M•lot,,t.w•
Baseline Ave W Baseline Rd
•
. •
i f ZaraCj>
•
•
Q ARCO
WcasmaliaSt

Q WEST COAST PIPE
WCasmalia St
f Wlewl S1 V1ney;Ud Ave
W la Gloria 0.-
W NOfWOOdSt
Colum bia Steel Cj> z WCMshlreSI a
"'
~
W Casmalia St
Foothill Fwy
w Renais sance Pkwy W Renaissance fl\1.-,,rJ
W UstonSl Renaissance Marketplace Q

RIALTO AIRPORT
9 Amazon SNA4 ~
WWalnutAve
i
!
i.
!
WEST SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY WATER DISTRICT (T0607185912) 8 55 BASELINE WEST
RIALTO, CA 92377
x Hospital Q
Niagara Bottling Q J erry Eaves Park
M•ro Way
W Baseline Rd
LUST Cleanup Si te
Cleanup Status: Completed • Case Closed
RB Case #: 083603976T
Loe Case#: 2003012
W Baseline Rd •
- ---- r1:1rmer Boys
W Baseline Rd W Baseline Rd
. ,
L ~
"'"'he
+
r,o
Foothll
•
Jeckson Dr &, Locust Elemsc~~ci( 9
Elementary ~h~9c,j ~
S.n J1cinto Ave
Miller Ave
J Mal8gaS1
v~Ln
AeedS1
Barbee s'f •
Pa.ne St Smart & Final Q
•
El aine o,
Ramona Av•
Miller Ave
':I
3 ~ Fall'faxSt
f Fawview Rd
Malaga St
r stwmrock•i,e
Alder Middle School Wabash Ave ~
farf111S1
f Terry St
! Laurel Of
Ele~~~~a~rchb~~ ~ ...... 8 lftl. St
Tamarind Park
• • 2
Fernandez Park
Laurel Or
WWaba5ti St
Virginia Primrose
Elem entary Schoo l
0 Falt"l~O,
z
1 j
z Helen L. Dollahan q §. Elementary School
i WEt,wanda Ave
z
[
"' t ~ i
Mega Thrift Store J
"' ...... ., McWelhySt Q Food 4 Less Q Little Caesars Pizza Denny°s
... .t ••
fl
z z
WValenc1aS1
,.
<
We-doewood l
l z
-:I f ~
z ~ w z ! f
(
! w
I Ml!OI
? I 200 m ~ Terms of Use Regrt a ma; error I
139 465
FIGURE IX-10
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants GeoTracker, page 10
ETI EXPLOSIVES TECHNOLOGIES INTERNATIONAL INC. (SL0607159245} - :~'-'(~f:' i SIGN UP FOR EMAi 2900 TAMARIND AVE
RIALTO, CA 92376
SAN BERNARDINO COUN1Y
CLEANUP PROGRAM SfTE 11NF01 PRINTA BLE CA SE S UMMARY/ CSM REPORT

CLEANUP OVERSIGHT A GEN
SANTAANA RWQCB (REGIOtl
CASEWORKER: ~
summary Cleanup Action Report Regulatory Activities Emlironnienta/0.ta f-SI) Site Maps/Doct.111ents Cmimunity '1vdvement ReliJtedCdses Regulatory Profile
COMPLEX srrE CLEANUP PROGRAM FACILITY

RIALTO PERCHLORATE INVESTIGATION

CLEANUP STATUS - DEFINITIONS
OPEN - INACTIVE AS OF 5/18.12015 - C LEANUP SlATIJS HISlORY

POTENTIAL CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN

PERCHLORATE

FILE LOCATION

REGIONAL BOARD
OWR GROU NDWl!t.TER SUB -BASIN NAME
Upper Santa Ana Valley - Rialto-Colton (8-002.04)
Site History

PRINTABLE CASE SUMN

POTENTIAL MEDIA OF CONCERN
AQUIFER USED FOR ORIN kl NG WATER SUPPLY
DESIGNATED GROUNDWATER BENEFIOAL USE(~. - DEFINITIONS

MUN, AGR, IND, PROC
CALWl!t.TER WATERSHED NAME
Santa Ana Riv er - Middle Santa Ana R w er - Chino (Split) (801 .21) Perchlorate contamination was first detected in groundwater in the Rialto, Colton and Chino Sub basins in 1997. Al that time , the California Department of Health Services (OHS) .Action Level (Al) for perchlorate in drinking water was 18 parts per billion (ppb). Two wells had perchlorate levels exceeding 18 ppb and were shut down. In January 2002, the OHS lowered tr Al to 4 ppb. In response to the reduced AL for perchlorate, the local water purveyors in the Rialto, Colton and Chino Groundwater Subbasins restricted or eliminated the use of additior production wells with perchlorate concentrations that exceeded 4 ppb. Between 1997 and the present, v arious suspected perchlorate dischargers have been identified. For more up to c information on enforcement actions, see our website at www.waterboards.ca.gov 140 466
SOURCE: City of San Bernardino General Plan
FIGURE IX-11
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants
San Bernardino International Airport
Planning Boundaries
--✓---')
) .: -·---,
:
/'-. '-.: ~ . \ ·. ·. ~ , __ ..... r
\ ------- \ ·-'> -. ) \ : ,, '-. •. \ / \ ,,
I
--- --\ i-··,, i..: _,
The City of

SAN BERNARDINO
General Plan
·-- ----,
·, ··7 .. J;··
-, ~--..(/
·-t.:>
San Bernardino International Airport
Planning Boundaries
D Airport Influence Arca
r· j City Boundary
To be included upon adoption of the Comprehensive Land
Use Plan for che SBIA, as may be appropriate:

LJ Runway Protection Zone
LJ Inner Turning Zone
LJ Inner Safety Zone
LJ Outer Safety Zone
LJ Traffic Pattern Zone
LJ CNEL No~c Contours
NOl'.c: As of the adoption of this Gener11I Plan, the Airpon M:mer Plan and rh,e Comprchttuiw- und Use Plan (UUP) foe the San ~mardino lnternario~ Airport (SBIA) .. 'ffe in the pr.X:($1 ofl,eing p~pared. A5 a consequentt, [he prt'cise noise contours and safety DJnt'S w~,: not 11\·,1.i\ab~ ro ind ude in this Plan.

Upoo adop:ion of the Airport Master Plan aod O..UP for die' SBIA, rhc new noise and ,akry r.one5 .. -rn ~ ini;:orpor.ued inco 1hi:$ Figure and, if n«e,,wy, the Airport lnflunw:c Area ;1djustcd.

Figure LU-4
141 467
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE IX-12
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Fire Hazards
~ .
=
~
: C ity of
Fontan a
BNSF R:oilwa
~
i . .. ~ '
Footh ill Bfvd
Rlolto Av
r . . ... , .~ ::...i~~.4.~--+-----l-l•-¥---1--+--t-""' r •• H_ i .. ~ .g IAI
~ City of
Colt on
. Slover Av
Legend
Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
Fire Hazards Severity Zones
State Responsibility Areas (SRA)
Moderate
High
Very High
Local Responsibility Areas (LRA)
Very High
Fire Protection Responsibility
KXXXJ
l::=::=::= I
I I
Federal Responsibility A rea
State Responsibility Area
Local Responsibility Area -
Incorporated
~ Local Responsibility Area -
Unincorporated
Emergency Response Facilities
(~) Police Station
<I> Fire Station
Sources:

Fire and Resources Assesment Program,
California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (2007 and 2008).
~
0 LI ... I .J......IL
0 .L~
5 __ .J..... __
1 _.__
5 _ __,2 Miles
142 468
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE X-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Flooding Hazards
Terra Vbt
Cosa Grand
··1
: (' ../
. .Ll ~ l
I
' Ccumall Ave
Walnut St
. ·-1
BaHllne Rd~'---"-i_l;.,__c.;.:-!"" l
: . ~ ~ . .i a 3 j i:

City of
Fontana
l I Foothill Blvd i
RJalto Ave
Merri II Ave
Randall Ave
Marygold Ave
valley Blvd
Union lbcific Rollroad
Santa Ana Ave
Jurupa Ave L-..1.:__,......,,--,'-
C
~
"
:

Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
This map is intended for general land use planning only.

Sources:

Earth Consultants International (ECI);
Federal Emergency Management Agency (1996),
Flood Insurance Rate Map (Panel Numbers: 7920F,
7940F, 8676F, 8677F, 8678F, 8686F, 8688F)
• 0
~1 ~I ~1
0 ~1
5 _~--
1 ~_
5 -~2 Miles
143 469
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE XII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Mineral Resource Zones
Casa Gran
i:alnuf St 1---+-+------<f---<
BmelineRd 11 I 1 . . J .. J J l
: l i ~ ; .!!
I .. .! 3 I : E
{!
City of Footh tll Blvd
Font ana
Rialto Ave
SNSF Roilwo
Merrill Ave
Jurupa Ave .__:.,_-+__.n---t-~,--Jf-'ll<--'----r'lo-+-+-~,-1 ..
~ ;;
City of
San Bernardino Mineral Land Classification
MRZ-1
Areas where available geologic information
indicates that little likelihood exists for the
presence of significant mineral resources
MRZ-2
Areas where geologic data indicate that
significant PCC-Grade aggregate resources
are present
MRZ-2 (PCC-1)
New MRZ-2 areas. MRZ-2
(PCC-1) notation in parenthesis identifies
specific areas - see source text for description
~-~I MRZ-3
Areas containing known or inferred mineral
occurances of undetermined mineral
resource significance
Base Map Features
Rialto Incorporated Area
Rialto Sphere of Influence
County Boundary
Freeway/Highway
Local Road
Railroad
Hydrological Feature
Source: Busch, L.L, & Miller, R.V.

California Department of Conservation,
California Geological Survey, 2008.
144 470
SOURCE: Rialto General Plan
FIGURE XIII-1
Tom Dodson & Associates
Environmental Consultants Noise Contours
_,
i
I
'Jena Vi.sta Dr
: . Ca.Sa Gran d'~ Dr~---~~-~aL.:
; I
City of
Fontan a
SNSF R:oUwo
Foothill Blvd
Ilalio Ave
Merrill Av•
Marygo ld Ave •···· ,
1-----'---:
-• Vall•l' Blvd
Urion f"acff1e. Jailrood
Sant a Ana A v e
.. ···•·······
L •• _ JuNpa Ave.__: _ _,.....,;,,,;.--;
..
~ ..

C
.,,
.

TITLE SHEET & INDEX MAP

UTILITY PROVIDERS
NOTE: CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

PRELIMINARY - SUBJECT TO CHANGE SEE BELOW LEFT MATCHLINE SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE

BASELINE ROAD

BASELINE ROAD TAMARIND AVE ALDER AVE LAUREL AVE LINDEN AVE CEDAR AVE CACTUS AVE MAPLE AVE LOCUST AVE CACTUS BASIN 3A
CACTUS BASIN 3 AYALA AVE
,
~ ~I - .r'\ . . J -
!SHEET 4

ELECTRICITY TELEPHONE TELEPHONE
SOUlHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AT&T FRONTIER
7951 REDWOOD AVENUE 3939 E CORONADO STREET 150 S. JUANITA FONTANA, CA 92336 ANAHEIM, CA 92807 HEMET, CA 92543
(909) 357-6203 (714) 237-6155 (909) 658-7305

WATER SEWER GAS
FONTANA WATER CO. CITY OF RIALRO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. 15966 ARROW ROUTE 150 S. PALM AVE 1981 W. LUGONIA AVENUE FONTANA, CALIFORNIA 92335 RIAL TO, CA 92376 REDLANDS, CA 92374 (909) 822-2201 (909) 820-2689 (BOO) 427-2200
©@ M~@~ rtriftl~ l11Jriftlrt1LrtriftlW ~1L£~
£~ID) ~IB©~©~lmW w
:::,
z
~ <
w
:::,
z
~ <
IB£~1m1LIT~lm IB©£W ~~©IBM WIB£IT~ £1LIT®~Mlm~~ BASELINE !SHEET 5
. ~>

SOUTH NORTH
rnn rnn rnn

R/W CL R/W

VARIES VARIES VARIES VARIES
R/W VARIES l--"13"".0""''±=-+~-----'3"-'6"-'.0'--''±=----~-i------'3=6=.0-='±'-----~+-'-13=.-=-0'=±-i R/W VARIES EX. AC/AB
- '(_EX. SIDEWALK, WHERE SHOWN - - 5'
EX. 8" C&G WHERE SHOWN )
EX.4" GAS
EX.12" -27"SEWER 1\ EX. C&G WHERE SHOWN
l----'15~'±c..-o,-=-8'~±-il \___EX.14" GAS
-- -
PROP. SD (60", 72"RCP OR 7'X7'RCB)-10]

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

BASELINE ROAD
N.T.S
SD STA 68+81 TO 135+00

UTILITY LOCATIONS VARY PER STREET SECTION
!SHEET 3

SOUTH NORTH
EXIST. EXIST. EXIST.

R/W CL R/W

VARIES VARIES VARIES VARIES
R/W VARIES l--"13=.0"-''±=-+~--3=6=.0'--''±=----~-i------'3=6=.0-='±'-----~+-'-1=3.-=-0'=±-i R/W VARIES EX. AC/AB 0 100 200 400
i.:.-.,.·.
- - - -'-lb5,~± - - - . ·,
'-EX. SIDEWALK, WHERE SHOWN
"', EX. C&G WHERE SHOWN
! ! ! !
SCALE 1" = 200'
N
600
! ~
< g 0: w 0:
w "'I in <
C.

FOORTHILL
~
!SHEET 4
!SHEET 2

LOCATION OF EXISTING UTILITY LINES IS BASED ON RECORD
DRAWINGS AND ATLASES PROVIDED BY lHE CITY AND UTILITY
COMPANIES. LOCATIONS TO BE VERIFIED BY CONTRACTOR BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
w
:::,
z
:::,
w :::, w :::, w :::,
w ~ z z <
~ z
~ !!! ~ < < <
,.
.... ~
C
;; w Iii II)
0: 0: :::, w z w
~ < w z :::, :::, w :::,
:::, 9 ~ " ~ C z
~ g z < < :::, !!! " <
BLVD
-'
w ~ "' "' < :::,
:s !le C
w
"' "

VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE:

EX. 8" C&G WHERE SHOWN Jl 10'
EX.4" GAS 14~15'± 15'±
EX.12" WATIER
\___EX.14" GAS
EX.12" -27"SEWER
HUITT-____ _

CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
CABLE

SPECTRUM
1500 AUTO CENTER DRIVE
ONTARIO, CA 91761
(800) 892-2253
PROP. SD (60", 72"RCP OR 7'X7'RCB)--10!

TYPICAL STREET SECTION

BASELINE ROAD
N.T.S
SD STA 30+00 TO 68+81

UTILITY LOCATIONS VARY PER STREET SECTION
Huitt-Zollars, Inc.
3990 CONCOURS, #330 • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 • (909) 941-7799 Ontario DRAWN BY:

H.Z. STAFF BASELINE STORM DRAIN SCALE: AS SHOWN
---------------------------I DESIGNED BY: DATE:

PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER~SION OF, JOHNNY MURAD H.Z. STAFF OCT 2018 67512 6-30-19
R.C.E. EXPIRES DAT£
CHECKED BY:

J.M./R.C./M.H.

DWG. NO.: 1
E
a.
-
"'
~
a,
a
(\J
r--
0 u
w
" ..,
0 .p
,
0 >,
d
_J
a,
~ ..,
>,
±'.
+'
::,
w
+'
-~
0 a.

E
0 u
/
>,
±'.
+'
::,
w
+'
-~
0 a.

E
0 u
/
~
"'
:,,
"
-iii
0 /
C
OJ
-~
w
"
"'
0 /
C
,:
d
E
d
>-
0 +'
~
,
+'
u
d
u
"
V)
w
C
w
~
d
"'
0 +'
d
ii1
a
0 "'
(\J
a,
0 "'
"'
/
~
0 ~
5 a.
/
i'
147 473

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
SEE SHEET 3
MATCHLINE STA. 30+00.00

BASELINE ROAD

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

BASELINE ROAD
------- -~ - I
,9
( :;;
I
I
I
\
( i
I
-
"' :;; '
·,
-
"' :;; '
I
J>
(/)
" I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l5
I
I
I
I
" I
I
\
"
\
1,
I
I
I
\
\ o I
I "
\ o
I, ~
I
I
" I I
j5 I
I
I
I I " I.,
I
I
I
I ~ -0
I" lj,.
0 I
"U
I "' I '!
I
I
I
I
I
I
" I
N I
'-\ I
?5 I -u I
I
I
I ~
" I
I
I
\
8\ ~1
I
I

SEALED MH
±5
V
~ :

DAM EMBANKMEN
0 CACTUS BASIN NO. 3A
0 EXISTING WATER LINES

EXISTING SEWER LINES

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINES

EXISTING ELEC, COM, TEL, & OH LINES

EXISTING GAS LINES

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ALIGNMENT
ALTERNATIVE 1 (EASEMENT REQUIRED)
ALTERNATIVE 2 (EASEMENT REQUIRED)
ALTERNATIVE 3
I
I
r\l
- --
0 20 40 80 120
! 1___J1 ____J1 ____J1
SCALE 1" - 40'
......
)a( El
*
~ -tOt0
~
0 -----
----
(")
0 z
(")
, -,,} IJ
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I

POWER POLE

GUY WIRE (ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SITE LIGHT

STREET LIGHT ON POWER POLE

STREET LIGHT

FIRE HYDRANT

TRAFFIC SIGN

WATER VALVE COVER

MANHOLE

WATER METER

CENTERLINE

RIGHT OF WAY
ASPH
-
ALTERNATIVE 3
I
7 /
I
I
l
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ALTERNATIVE 2
ALTERNATIVE 1
--------- I
/
,,,
1/
/
I
I /
! /
1/ I
1/
I
I I

I I I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
1 I
I
I I
I I J> I I (/)
" I I I
I I
I I ~
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I

I I I I I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
\
\
\
\
A
,/
,/
- ------ / /,.
/
---
(")
0 z
(")
'- ,,.. '- ......._..,,,.. --
/
' '-
---- -- - / ::::c:i
/
(")
0 z
(")
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
/~DAM EMBANKMENT
I
I
I
I
I
CACTUS BASIN NO. 3
-------t ~ --------------- ------
E
Cl.
(')
..,
-
00 -
0 (\J
"
0 u
w
A
"'
(\J
0 -P
J
0 >,
d
...J
Ol
~ .,,
,;.,
+'
~
:p
::,
w
+'
vi
0 Cl.

E
0 u
/
>,
±'.
:p
::,
w
+'
vi
0 Cl.

E
0 u
/
-~
"'
:><
A
-,rj
0 /
C
Ol
vi
w
A
If)
0 /
C
T
d
E
d
lo
+'
~
J
+'
u
d
u
A
(/)
w
£
,;
r--------T'""-----------------------,-----------------------------------1~ CITY OF RIALTO, OA.LIFOBNIA. "' 1-----------------------------------lo
~©!Mil~©~•li~ (!J]li•lL•liW ~[L~[N] =a 1--------r---------------------r-------1°' Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Ontario DRAWN BY: SCALE:
3990 CONCOURS, #330 * ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 * (909) 941-7799 H.Z. STAFF BASELINE STORM DRAIN AS SHOWN 8 1-----------------------IDESIGNED BY: BASIN CONNECTION ALTERNATIVES 1---D-A_TE_: ----I~ 00 PREPAREO UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF, JOHNNY MURAD H.Z. STAFF DCT 2018 ~ t---,c,-,--H=E=cKC"CE=D---cB=Y-,---: -+------------------------1-D-W_G_N_O~-----,I~ . .: 2 0 J.M./R.C./M.H. t;.
5 f
67512
R.C,E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES DATE
148 474

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND SEE SHEET 4 BOTTOM RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 56+37.00 MATCHLINE STA. 43+16.00 SEE BELOW LEFT

CEDAR AVE BASELINE ROAD
AYALA AVE SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 43+16.00 MATCHLINE STA. 30+00.00 SEE SHEET 2

BASELINE ROAD

FITZGERALD AVE

CAMPHOR AVE

JACKSON ST IDYLLWILD AVE

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND
• ./ ' COMOHP .PHP COM l i I - 1 I I , Q. , . T J/ ..., " " ..,... , " - vnr , " ¥-> T OHP ... OH ..-- _ .. GOU - ' / / 6" STEEL '°' ·5" STEEL - - - -6" STEEL = ~ 5" STEEL~ - - - ~ _.:_::._:._:::_.t,t-=-~~G~=,::~C,:j:_:~-i===-=-= G =- -11------ ./-G G ------G'~,,-----G --11'/ _____ G ----""--',z- ;._:_,,-,>f _ :..._ i>,+_---G _ __,,. \ ___ _ G ::::::::-----.. G / G---- ---=-~ G ------G I -------------- Ji'- "-:.___- \ CONG ~ i G-~-,.__~-------== =---G-----G-==-.....:::c,.__,=~G~::::::=-------- --==.:G~--,A~sPPtr,-l=::::::;G~~~~=-=-=-=-=--c---_- --_ ~ c=-===~~= ==~-c-=~....______ - ~ "f ~ , ASP~ ;,, - ") - - - ---:._: ' -· - ---:::::::: -----~ - ~ -=.__ - fl==.aa,!Mt----tt--_-+ft.f-_-:,-'-H'-'~;f;~-'1-"' 0:c. 4 27_"s_~_"_;, .._-_ -tt-l -tt---"-2. -,_~ 27"s1------- 27"s _..; __ - ~ 24" ~ E~R-_- _---+:_ , -:_-::_ : 7..:::..._g._ , ,,_ c. 1 p _ _ --+--_-_ . • _ _ _ _ -~ ---.::::: 2t'',; ~ ~ - ----~--~ 'r., 'n'?T.._y__CP, SEWER - ---"'j ~ . _.:; :- . _ 55 II ".: - ' -- ~ " v_S,.---- II 52 - ci1 - 50 49 ---- i> 27"Sca==---=-,2'i','s-- "'e:::~==-===--2,7"'.,, L ~ ....._ : 27"!=--=--=-~-=- - ======~-9---====--U'.S-S ---===...:2~4::!"Sq 48 ~ z 46---------- 45 - "4'4- -
12"
/
G
~ 43
II -
OHP
24"S
> -
12-yf'-SPH
G
I-
,., ,,,- l.
12"1
G
/ / G
l~ .. JII
n'- /
7'X7' RCB
12"W
G
I : :,,-. --
---- 12·w G..c-----G
CONG \
-- , ERED BRUS'-' ' I
<
I ii
0 OHP ·u ·U
·~ - G G . ...£.

G
24"S-~ - -.,,,... ___ :=----
= - - 42 41
7'X7' RCB
1 • -·
/
• ·- I
I
L
12"W
G G
roNc
G r
I

EXISTING WATER LINES

EXISTING SEWER LINES

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINES
1 ~ · ... y
1'fV (JJ
I, . I i

EXISTING ELEC, COM, TEL, & OH LINES

EXISTING GAS LINES

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ALIGNMENT
12"W
G
+ .
/1 /1
+--
. .

G
<O - .,-, UT
12 W
CONG
~ CONCr"'<--. (
•
·U
7'X7' RC
12·w ~ 7"2:"W
CONG . . • l. "1/L ....f i I_ -
lr-----....._l 11~,~ ~ --~ ---~
"' .,-, -N
.,., 12"W ~
-C:..
: CONG
G
r \
' . .,,.. .... ... G
7'X71 RCB
CONG
12"W
G
- -
12·w
G
ASPH ~ G------G 12·w
, I i . _,,,,.,, _,, '
7'X7' RCBG
/

1.':-N G------G 12"W 12"W -1·2 " - ~ G
'- 12" CMCL STEEL---=~~---=-~- - =--,~ =-='=c="T-=-=t rr"'..1,... -- ....__ .-/-, / ......... < - '
, l u
~D ?\ ., F . ' ~ j
· ,._" * \~~ ll r ..'.::'J'REE'--,
.......... , -
,,
~
12"w
~
0 ~
C
l
0 0
12"'11
·u
-
ASPH 1rw
----- ~
' ' '
L
12"W /_
2 12 ~ / 12· -
/ V -
j
, - CONG
\
12·w
ft' CMCL STEEL _ _,,_ . . -
/
(
\
OHP
- _/ 12"W
SEALED MH _ ,TA 30-tOu
,1U/(1t /
/
---
/_
E
C.
e,
-'-'
(D
-
0 ru
r--
0 u
•
"'
(7 • I I _ - . 0 i(l, I
n "'
e,
0 POWER POLE

GUY WIRE (ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SITE LIGHT

STREET LIGHT ON POWER POLE

STREET LIGHT

FIRE HYDRANT

TRAFFIC SIGN

WATER VALVE COVER

MANHOLE

WATER METER

CENTERLINE

RIGHT OF WAY
0 20 40 80
' '-' I
SCALE 1" = 40'
120
'
.;;
3 0
d "'
_J
a,
~ .,,
;..
+'
~
~
+'
•
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
+' "'
+'
:::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"'
-,rj
0 /
C
vi "'
•
"'
"'
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f--
0 +'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"'
V,
•
£
r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 ,g CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA t--------------------.;._------------------10 ©@~~@~•1r1g (U)1r•lL•1rW ~[Lffe.lNJ :; t:-:~~":".":---"'T'--------------------------------1°' DRAWN BY: BASELINE STORM DRAIN SCALE: - H.Z. STAFF AS SHOWN o t----------------------lDESIGNED BY: IDYLL WILD AVE TO CEDAR AVE 1-:D:--,-A=TEc-: ----1:ii H.Z. STAFF STA. 30+00.00 TO 56+37.00 OCT 2018 ~ t:C;;;H-;-;E=;C;:K;;::E,;;:D~B;::cYc;-:--t-------------------------+----~--J~ DWG. NO.: 3 ef J.M./R.C./M.H. ti_
5 ±
HUITT-~_
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Ontario
PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER~~ON OF, JOHNNY MURAD
67512
3990 CONCOURS, #330 • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 • (909) 941-7799 R.C.E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES DATE
149 475

SMOKE TREE AVE

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
LEGEND
CAUTION AREA SEE SHEET 5 BOTTOM RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 96+02.00 MATCHLINE STA. 82+80.00 SEE BELOW LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

MAPLE AVE
MAPLE AVE SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 82+80.00 MATCHLINE STA. 69+59.00 SEE BELOW LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

LOCUST AVE
LOCUST AVE SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 69+59.00 MATCHLINE STA. 56+37.00 SEE SHEET 3 TOP LEFT

LINDEN AVE BASELINE ROAD

LINDEN AVE

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

CEDAR AVE
./
I II
'
f--(
''""'
2"
I- · - · - -- · ,rw ~
A ,. ~ BitN , ' a·w s ·w
' ~ ~ 11 94
72" R• ,
I IA'i\/ .. 1 ,n 27"S • I , 14(10.10 - -~
I
--= --t- ~ ---- - - - - - - - - - - - -
-~ -~
w 12·w 12·w
~----..... I ./ ( l
_j' I ' .. . , - "
. .
1/ , r;:---,,{ 1 .·v ) ,..,... ' ~- t 1 · · · ··· ,_ A - ~ ~) . '"""' F ( \
\, ) '-.,
' '
\. ) F ' • .,__.,,,
.
f ' I .I ...,_ \. \
' J ' _.., ( ' J"' C 0
} ' '- f
,(",
l l
" '
., ---, .. - ' ' ( \. J 1
\ J"' ..f
• r..._
l { ,' I.
"' )
~ ' ' , ...... ~ J " \ -,,
.., ..l )__,. ... .f.1 "1.
l l\
a·w
93 '
27" VCP SEWER •
" " '
( '\
811W
91 't. J ' '- f "
, CAI 1eRED BRUSH
[ j " ( 1 t:_ CM ~L STJEI,_-- 'J /,>-j--,
~ _:w - ._,,_ TT"W ,a_j:n'/ ~ . a·w-= a"w )l( a·w . a·~ a·w -- -·· 'T1"W
~
8" ASBESTOS»
=
'
/ l CONC
1rw-:
86 ~
"
B"W
85 \. .I
• 'T1"W
B"W
90 "-_,/ 89 ~ ...L 88 •·n" 87 "-..
•L." RC • ~~ ±-..c ·' "72" R• P
27"S - .,, , * -,:::-~- .'1 ""2r~~ --:. , ·uo- , ' ., a ·, i ;.! , J ~ ' , ' ,_ L' "" F' c:.:.., •;a>-: '>PG . - ~ - ,. \Z -, J Z • ~ .. ~ . --,,.,,.~ --=-=F::.+=== 27.i~-=~ o '. ".~, 1i . = .., !_'I = ~ i~ -,..,-,,,~ ::.:i:Jffi . ~ l.lfi _ __ Q 'i: d'. _""=L _, _ _ 'i._ _ .=--1;1ct,.j:.::g '-:--.'.:..~ -- ""' z,'~""-- ~ - __/ _______ L _ ~ _'-"~ - 'G=-td~~'="- 'wt L ~H ' t' ~ J -'\.-..._,, ~ f U -~ K
,,
'
8"W
84 ,,-w
" " ' '
o•,.,
83 =.G..:: , ,,_-=l~ -~ ;;=-;;~ G--- - STA 92+70
= ~-G oo - G-e:-~---
~ G.=----=-C.=----=-G===~ ~:::'=~== ....---'
-;;;-;;;===G------G------G----- STA 87+70 1-'>.,
/ ~
't: G G G------G===:::::;;:;:;~~==== ~ =,;G
,2·w------12"w------12"w 12.:,.W-:::::----- 12"w 12"w Hc'w V ,2·w---- --12"w------12·w / ,~ CITY BOUND~; ~ LINt:: ,\ - ~'JAW 12": 2'' CMCL STEEL ~; ;,-2•w~ 12:~ -,=----11 ::,
t/
w ( 1
, CONC .
r 1~·,:i,_ '~ e I
'
I /J l , n 'F
i;;;--;J.., r
.... . ' .... '
/~ < JI
VVl'IV ,
<, J
//
-•
'
r I--.. l l
( 1 CONC
~ - --
l " "' . ' . 1f\ '-,.,,..f1,, I ,--fl RU SH--
' J \, J~.r' SCATTERED BRUSH ( K-J '--.J \ \J .._,, \.....) fl . ...J ~ - ~ II -------~:r:: . ~~-~,~~-.... ,., ....... ~T""'1,,ll.; ~--,. f ' \ J
.,J=..--""----.-:' ~)
.,_,, ( 1 I \ I 1-....... I "'
~H
ff
,
, ' ' , ,.,. \
t ·~
' ,· / .,, J
" F
t ...,__ 1...,Up,1l,
,-./ CONC "- (, 1 , " -.../ ' l /4 ( 3 ~ "
=
81 * -----=--.r- • - -· - -- --- -~ ~ ._ t - - 17"W 80 17"W,&_ ,,, 17"W .,.u_ 17"W ,, 1 7"W ----.....o, I 17"W 76 +-7"-W /5 ASPH :j,?"W
· -17" CMCL STEEL:'\ · ·, ·
F
72" RCP -1 72" RCP- F
/27 I 3J" 27"S 27"S ' ~ ~ r,- f:Jry27" VCP SEWER, ~ '27~ ~ yrs.,==r ='°L.lb. "27"S"'j""" - '"27?· - 7'rS"i' ~ • ·v s-c ' ~ c ~ ~ Tl I / 78" c~cL~STEEL k>f' ~ ~-:: - - - { L'" - -MH:: ~ - ~ <.: v q; Q a~ ~ v D..L~ -0 U +:....,,' , ~ _J_td- "~_,,=M;=-f F ~Q - :.::;-_ :: ~ z __,,_. ____ G------G------G G STA 79+60 4 -----~Alf'~"' ----G --> ~ ------G------,G~==;;:;:::::~~~Gf=::'.==.-=! ===:------G STA 74+60 / ____ G ' ,, 12"<1'. ' - ;-= ]:~~1~· ~-w!'..::=====~1,~ ."w-·---~= 12•w- ;~;::;::;;;::;;;;;;;::fi 12~·w~. ~~~::::::;:;c.J",lz;ww ::::.=====:-1.z:.w 12·w------12·w 12:w~ 12·w------12·w 12:w1- - -7~ -- -12"w ·, ~
I ~ ~ I- ~ - ~ 12"WfX', _-z -' ----; ''- ----
I_J----~-jfi'1rl f2 ~ / / - , ,,~ - , ,:~J ,"""'; ,., ~ ~ C= ,.=- "F""T="" ~•l- ~ :e_,~o~~v ho; r 1 ~' , _ " ~ ... :·,._ I- ~,-- ' - rl _/ ( 1390 ~ ~ ,,4::::;,,__'_"':'!J/ _ _:,. 1\ 1=~ <~ ) ..t}') ~ "'11 I ' 'i r.:, 0 ~ \_- ' I / I \ Cf ~ :--....t?,, l, Q I r""\.. - ,'\t.) <. .1 _j] / '\; A. _ ri'-" ,,,......_., .. ,~11 ,r-..., I I ' , rl
I
l__ll r, I
\
11,., \, ,..,CONC ( J
- rl ,, " Jf h =
I I "l
- l
CONC ' .J
,._,,__V_ ,p_o_OL;• _, 1~~/-<::::::.,__,.:::=:-T]7'-~1),r:~1,), lrs::::-:;;a1f-~-A-,~-M_~ l(__.--,1,CON( y ) lx1 .... r~ ,., ,,,--,
( l , ·,§ r \ ~ (
I '"'\. y"'c:--~--~-=--tr-,
'c7 \ tu)\,~:: ~ CONC ( J
'·)~~~~ ~~
I ' I
CTV \ -....

L T
'~---""'/
1 CUNL,;
~
-
E
C.
e,
-
'"'
(D
-
0 ru nL .., OHP r., ..__ 0,,-,
"- 6" STEEL. >i'- . . . ~ ·---=---- " \ ___ ~ _ _g~_g_ __ ./,G "-.____ '" -- -~ I ------- 6" STEEL""- "' -------- )I( - 30• RC" ~\ r-- 0 ,------G--....::,""s::° __ G -.., ---'::....===l:Gc=:=:t---G------G------J,rr,l~"' ~~ ""'"---G------G ~ G- G-...::::"'-=---G----'tl---G--------:::---_ G 6" STEEL= -t----G------G • ~'fls; ---~=-=-=-=-=-=-=-:-;f<lo=a ; ,,,_,.,.L. .,,-:=!_1~8':_' 'i!_VC~P~ ~~rlf.-~'lf- f !R 21·s ~ ~ 21•: 'X7' RCB 21~ zt"s-==~ ==.-=.-:--_~-~.,A ~ -~60~ ~ 1• VCP SE~ 1-·s--====-.... ===------ c:2:r" - ,, .-~- ASPH - •. s ' ,~ - G _ \~\ \ ____ G-
~
u
•
"
12''.W
l """""- j\ \\
·-. J.' ~ 1 I# ,,? l't" ~ MH ' CONC (.,....-V
r 1 12" CMCL STEEL~'-"="-= lf= =l==__,.,=i'ilfV:O. 1 _:;_TA 6.B+_A-! , 1/ U. u .~ ~- ?I .1 0 ASBESTOS
~ "-,1 ~j~!?; <~
~:+¥< ,'
0 ~
0 ----

POWER POLE

GUY WIRE (ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SITE LIGHT

STREET LIGHT ON POWER POLE

STREET LIGHT

FIRE HYDRANT

TRAFFIC SIGN
WATER VALl/f. COl/f.R

MANHOLE

WATER METER

CENTERLINE

RIGHT OF WAY

CITY BOUNDARY LINE
(
i,-
67 ~ ~ 66 _______ 1.'.6~5;:=j::.= -= :-;:;t :;=,,,+ ===::.16:)'.4~====::t=-'=t.~~----63.-----~- ~ ~2• ', -='..---=--~,,--Br -2----- ~ ~ :::6_Q:=l:= _.,.., ~-~-,;a~::_":::_;2~ - -59 I / - ,,,,. -- .,;i;- - 513.? .. 57 ..:: / _ \\ \ /
°'
..,
0 .;;
3 0
>,
d
.J
- " " I 7'X7' RC
/ ~ , I ~ ..----::;:- n "'
✓ G----12"W-G-- ========- 1_2"W - --~~ =-- 12"W - ~-- --12n _.- 12"W---+--+-- - 12"W _-- G - G ~- -----,;_- _- __...= - ~~-G------; -+-----.-G ~ F
~ (ON{ .....,,,_ ( J \, ]/~~ ) ~ l ~ v-1 t .~ ) (I.

EXISTING WATER LINES

EXISTING SEWER LINES

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINES

EXISTING ELEC, COM, TEL, & OH LINES

EXISTING GAS LINES

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ALIGNMENT
-
0 20 40 BO 120
! 1_1
SCALE 1 " - 40' '-~'
a,
~ .,,
;..
+'
~
~
+'
•
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
>,
+'
+'
::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"
-,rj
0 /
C
vi "'
•
"'
"'
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f0
+'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"
V,
•
£
r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 ,g CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA t--------------------,;._------------------10 ©@~~@~•1r1g (U)1r•lL•1rW ~[Lffe.lNJ :; t:-:~~":".":----r------------------------..--------1°' DRAWN BY: BASELINE STORM DRAIN SCALE: - H.Z. STAFF AS SHOWN a t-----------------------lDESIGNED BY: CEDAR A VE TO LOCUST A VE 1-:0,..,.A=TE,...: ----1:ii H.Z. STAFF STA. 56+37.00 TO 96+02.00 OCT 2018 "'
~ t:C:;;H-;;E=;C;;:K:;::E,;;:0~8;::cYc;:--t--------------.::....=--=.-=--=-=::.::.c=...::.._ __ +----~--J~ DWG. NO.: 4 ef
J.M./R.C./M.H. ti_
5 ±
HUITT-~-
Huitt-Zollars. Inc. Ontario
3990 CONCOURS, #330 • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 • (909) 941-7799 PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER~~ON OF, JOHNNY MURAD
67512
R.C.E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES DATE
150 476
SEE BELOW LEFT SEE BELOW LEFT SEE ABOVE RIGHT SEE ABOVE RIGHT MATCHLINE STA. 96+02.00 MATCHLINE STA. 122+45.00 MATCHLINE STA. 122+45.00 MATCHLINE STA. 109+23.00 MATCHLINE STA. 109+23.00 SHEET 4 TOP LEFT

BASELINE ROAD

UNDERGROUND UTILITY LEGEND

CONCEPTUAL

NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION

CAUTION AREA

TAMARIND AVE

ALDER AVE

BASELINE ROAD

LAUREL AVE BASELINE ROAD

LAUREL AVE

LOCUST AVE
LEGEND

CAUTION AREA
~ /
-CB #2
"' W=21', V=6.6'
~F GRATE:3
0 p

SCATTERED BRUSH
CONG 1i7. n I
"2:S'W "./ / 12" VCP SEWER ----,- _ - 11"w-=
6''RCP= J 66" RC,
"W 15"W MH
:, TA 134+60 15"\
~ 8 -~ ~ If W _,..
-===== _ "===t=======--
~i"-.. (;, RELOCATE 6" WATER (100') , FE~ FH12·s - 7
MH ,d..

STA 132+70 - ~ t;I w
"' I ,_.J----/?-'Hn~ 109
1 '-' · ,.,_ _:
1 < , ...__ / ~ C,P ,/M;J" "['rffll,'s
.---' ' '-~ / \ l OS,:_
,---llS'-~-.il~.1rJcc~E-D .. ~RUSP \ ~,I _I ~ I .... .. :1" , ~ 1 ~ ' . ~ o I 8" WATER RELOCATION
,- :=:::::, -
H
- I ; I r----\:-_ '/ Ii l) l '""(' 12" CMCL STEELL - I / :~ '- \ +
'
8" VCP SEWER Jr, I ~ I_., c~ ~ ) ,L i / ~ ~ ~ I.. ) ' ) l
, 7U/j
-n6" RCP .,
..
"-==c:w~== =::a:1-,i,--1b-;,"'~
~ :..j... · _j.'\,_j..._ 24"S
· --- •- - I ' ?$ I " ------MH ·- ,, ~ Sh 108+23
' ,....,.,, -·-
7 0
I
- 17'"n
CUJ
'

24.,5 ,,..-24" VCP S-==~
20 40
I_I
- " ' ' s
-~ - - ' ,
BO 120
1---..JI
SCALE 1" = 40'
' ~
' < -
L./
12:"W
-
0 , 1 - \
_,
15"W
- <O
CONG
' \. j
f
17"W
'"
,V
.OHP • V -
~, 1-7"'"'
•
12"S:, 1211S -~ T .1 12"S
-- 15"W \ -:1:S-"W
- u
/ I
370' OF 8" WATER RELOCATION
CITY OF RIAL _,,_ TO - ·- / - \ m~ - _ ·- . l _,,_ W=14', V=5.5'!1'-oaa , _ __ o_ 15..,".;"'-c_M_C~L-.i.·~ll'-TE- E_L==-.....,~ = = =-'ll>I

25.~ ..,, -·;,--17" CMCL STEEL _.,, ,k '\ (S§iJ > -25" CMCL STEEL ,k. ___ -~&~ ,-_!_1/0~F~ G: R~A~TE~::2 :::
" t•~·w;;:i:;~• ~ ~~~15~•w;·•g,~i ~-l - ,7 •. ,. : =::::::::::::::~:::i,f::;::=;;:;rr-,==~22!5i'.'.!"W~==;;~=====--25"W----=::--=-=:-=--:: "'~ ~ ~ ~ /:;;;:c,~25~"'!/- w==:;;;:=-=:-=--::::--::~i;:::f=-:= 25"W---t-----=~ - 25"W ., .... , I 1t"'W I ~v " - f-2¥ "- tllf'N-" - =f-27 -= 1-26- - f-25-- - - -f-2,f- "-. 136" RCP- ~ . 66"
-----
R•
.
12"5 12"S
•
12·s , 66" RCP~ ~ , ~ ~
V
MH ~ ' 15"W -STA 127+7fl=...1S"W - - 15"W
G\ G @ I W
f5"ff
- ·-., 15"W - - - u "
- ·u
'
. -
-
=-l-2""'
15"W
=-4-2"'"'
5"W
"
-
~
1{'""' - ,,_
- _____ _ ,___
' AC-riH .__ 25" CMCL STEEL
25·w== ====:M ''H - +-~w,.,e===:=I
STA 122+707'/ ~
• ~ 15" CMCL STEEL
\_CITY BOUNDARY LINE
"'-
17" CMCL STEEL 7" ✓ '

CITY OF FONTANA
... ,., H:,w--- -~., ~ -·- '<
- "
' f )I
~
7 V' '
ASPH

12."W
I.Ob =:::::::__1 rw
72" RC
I
- II'--..;
"- rnNr I I
(
.J
;
__,,
/
' , '
.. - _,,, ·u .. OHP
\
~CONG
~ "-...,,- l"\ 1 :7"' CONG
~ ( 77"'~ I
, ' ' I - ..
- ,
17" CM CL STEEL
OHP
__J o
' _, - "
•
~ 17" CMCL 's1TEEL OHf' OH
~
- " '
oOOoo
__ ] \ ;;uo
br-17" """ CMCL _/ STEEL
CB /fl
---t---- 17" CMCL STEEL.:> .,,.,-
" OHP------OHP--11
/H
SCATTERED BRU:
/\

CITY OF RIAL TO
./'TV '" ~ )/
17"W t_[Q ASPH 17"~
,_
- -
=
-
- - ) OHP~
--1e'-",...-~------=-- ---- C t ~O~~--~Z_.
- -- - -- .. '
E
C.
e,
-
'"'
(D
-
0 ru
r--
0 ' ,,
~- "" 'rJJ ~--✓ ' (\') ./ , nNc.---,CB #6 ~ - (_ : _) ~_r W 14', V 5.6' '1-"'"111· "-f \._j I/ ( ~ #OF GRATE:2~ ~ W 14', V 6.4
F GRATE: 2
' ~
'
u
•
"
.,
°'
-
W4
CON I
0 C
----
- l --··· •• _:,;:_-, _,. r-.. I >
~ 36"RCP ~ "-C'DLJ
'- I l I <

POWER POLE

GUY WIRE (ANCHOR)

TRAFFIC SIGNAL

SITE LIGHT
'

STREET LIGHT ON POWER POLE

STREET LIGHT

FIRE HYDRANT
I.I. \ \
'
.~ ,. !>t.. ---
, I _ rnNr
"
17"W nil 17"W /UU
"
' ,
17"'"' gg 17"W
-'O" RCP
,·w --98 ~
72"RCP=- +
'
I I
'
CONG
\

EXISTING WATER LINES

EXISTING SEWER LINES

EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINES
-
.r-- J

EXISTING ELEC, COM, TEL, & OH LINES

EXISTING GAS LINES

PROPOSED STORM DRAIN ALIGNMENT
CONG
y j l"W
; 1 L" RC
f
COM-
\
0 { r "'
-D -
coNc \
0 .;;
3 0
>,
d
..J
a,
~ .,,
;.,
+'
~
~
+'
•
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
>,
+'
+'
::,
•
+'
vi
0 C.

E
0 u
/
~
i::,
:,.
"
-lri
0 /
C
vi "'
•
.,
"
0 /
C
i:
d
E
d
f--
0 +'
~
3 +'
u
d
u
"
V,
•
£
TRAFFIC SIGN r--------7--------------------------,---------------------------------------11 .g WATER VALVE COVER

MANHOLE

WATER METER

CENTERLINE

RIGHT OF WAY

CITY BOUNDARY LINE
HUITT-~_
Huitt-Zollars, Inc. Ontario
CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA t--------------------.;._------------------10 ©@~~@~•1r1g (U)1r•lL•1rW ~[Lffe.lNJ :; t:-:~~":".":----r--------------------------------1°' DRAWN BY: BASELINE STORM DRAIN SCALE: - H.Z. STAFF AS SHOWN a t----------------------lDESIGNED BY: LOCUST AVE TAMARIND A VE 1--:D,..,.A=Tlc,...: ----1:ii ~ H.Z. STAFF STA 96+02.00 TO 134+00.00 OCT 2018 "' t:C;;;H-;-;E:-;C;;:K;;::E,;;:D~B;::cYc;-:--t------------'-'--'---"---=---'=-=-=---'=-=:..:..:=-::__ __ +----~--1~ DWG. NO.: S ef
J.M./R.C./M.H. ti_
5 ±
3990 CONCOURS, #330 • ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91761 • (909) 941-7799 PREPARED UNDER THE SUPER~~DN DF, JOHNNY MURAD
67512
R.C.E.
6-30-19

EXPIRES DATE
151 477
APPENDIX 2
152 478

AIR QUALITY and GHG IMPACT ANALYSES
HZ-116

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

CITY OF RIALTO, CALIFORNIA
Prepared by:

Giroux & Associates
1800 E Garry St., #205
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Prepared for:

Tom Dodson & Associates
Attn: Kaitlyn Dodson
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, California 92405
Date:

April 15, 2019
Project No.: P19-009 A
153 479

ATMOSPHERIC SETTING
The climate of western San Bernardino County, as with all of Southern California, is governed largely by the strength and location of the semi-permanent high-pressure center over the Pacific Ocean and the moderating effects of the nearby vast oceanic heat reservoir. Local climatic conditions are characterized by very warm summers, mild winters, infrequent rainfall, moderate daytime on-shore breezes, and comfortable humidities. Unfortunately, the same climatic conditions that create such a desirable living climate combine to severely restrict the ability of the local atmosphere to disperse the large volumes of air pollution generated by the population and industry attracted in part by the climate.

Winds across the project area are an important meteorological parameter because they control both the initial rate of dilution of locally generated air pollutant emissions as well as controlling their regional trajectory. Winds across the project site display a very unidirectional onshore flow from the southwest-west that is strongest in summer with a weaker offshore return flow from the northeast that is strongest on winter nights when the land is colder than the ocean. The onshore winds during the day average 6-10 mph while the offshore flow is often calm or drifts slowly westward at 1-3 mph.

During the daytime, any locally generated air emissions are readily transported northeastward toward Cajon Pass without generating any localized air quality impacts. The nocturnal drainage winds which move slowly across the area have some potential for localized stagnation, but fortunately, these winds have their origin in the adjacent mountains where background pollution levels are low such that any localized contributions do not create any unhealthful impacts.

In conjunction with the two characteristic wind regimes that affect the rate and orientation of horizontal pollutant transport, there are two similarly distinct types of temperature inversions that control the vertical depth through which pollutants are mixed. The summer on-shore flow is capped by a massive dome of warm, sinking air which caps a shallow layer of cooler ocean air. These marine/subsidence inversions act like a giant lid over the basin. They allow for local mixing of emissions, but they confine the entire polluted air mass within the basin until it escapes into the desert or along the thermal chimneys formed along heated mountain slopes.

In winter, when the air near the ground cools while the air aloft remains warm, radiation inversions are formed that trap low-level emissions such as automobile exhaust near their source. As background levels of primary vehicular exhaust rise during the seaward return flow, the combination of rising non-local baseline levels plus emissions trapped locally by these radiation inversions creates micro-scale air pollution "hot spots" near freeways, shopping centers and other 154 480
traffic concentrations in coastal areas of the Los Angeles Basin. Because the nocturnal airflow across the project site has its origin in very lightly developed areas of the San Gabriel Mountains, background pollution levels at night in winter are very low in the project vicinity. Localized air pollution contributions are insufficient to create a "hot spot" potential when superimposed upon the clean nocturnal baseline. The combination of winds and inversions are critical determinants in leading to the degraded air quality in summer, and the generally good air quality in winter in the project area.
155 481

AIR QUALITY SETTING

AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS (AAQS)
In order to gauge the significance of the air quality impacts of the proposed project, those impacts, together with existing background air quality levels, must be compared to the applicable ambient air quality standards. These standards are the levels of air quality considered safe, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health and welfare. They are designed to protect those people most susceptible to further respiratory distress such as asthmatics, the elderly, very young children, people already weakened by other disease or illness, and persons engaged in strenuous work or exercise, called "sensitive receptors." Healthy adults can tolerate occasional exposure to air pollutant concentrations considerably above these minimum standards before adverse effects are observed. Recent research has shown, however, that chronic exposure to ozone (the primary ingredient in photochemical smog) may lead to adverse respiratory health even at concentrations close to the ambient standard.

National AAQS were established in 1971 for six pollution species with states retaining the option to add other pollutants, require more stringent compliance, or to include different exposure periods.

The initial attainment deadline of 1977 was extended several times in air quality problem areas like Southern California. In 2003, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a rule, which extended and established a new attainment deadline for ozone for the year 2021. Because the State of California had established AAQS several years before the federal action and because of unique air quality problems introduced by the restrictive dispersion meteorology, there is considerable difference between state and national clean air standards. Those standards currently in effect in California are shown in Table 1. Sources and health effects of various pollutants are shown in Table 2.

The Federal Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 required that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) review all national AAQS in light of currently known health effects.

EPA was charged with modifying existing standards or promulgating new ones where appropriate.

EPA subsequently developed standards for chronic ozone exposure (8+ hours per day) and for very small diameter particulate matter (called "PM-2.5"). New national AAQS were adopted in 1997 for these pollutants.

Planning and enforcement of the federal standards for PM-2.5 and for ozone (8-hour) were challenged by trucking and manufacturing organizations. In a unanimous decision, the U.S.

Supreme Court ruled that EPA did not require specific congressional authorization to adopt national clean air standards. The Court also ruled that health-based standards did not require preparation of a cost-benefit analysis. The Court did find, however, that there was some inconsistency between existing and "new" standards in their required attainment schedules. Such attainment-planning schedule inconsistencies centered mainly on the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA subsequently agreed to downgrade the attainment designation for a large number of communities to “non-attainment” for the 8-hour ozone standard.
156 482
Table 1
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Averaging Callfornla Standards 1 Natlonal Standards 2
Pollutant Time Concentration 3 Method 1 Primary 3
.> Secondary "·" Method '
I Hour 0.09 ppm (ISO µg,;,,·') - Ozone(03)' U"raviole-t Same es Ultre•.1i~e f 8 Hour 0.070 pprn t:137 1,1 g:'nr°')
Pho;ometry 0.070 wn (137 µg:nr')
Primar/ Standard Photometry
Respirable 24 Hour 50 µgfrn1 150 ~IQ•'rll1 lnenial Se~ration Particulate Gra·~irnetric or Sanie .:.s and ·~ra\•im.e1ric Matter (PM1 0)
9 Annu.JI 20 1Jgrrn3 B.:ta Attenu~fon Primar1 Standard Analysi:s, Arithmetic M: ,m - Fine 24 Hour 35 ~91m> S .::inie ,:.s
- - Primar1 Standard Inertial Separation Particulate
Matter and Gravimeiric Annual 12 ~9fm'
Grtwirneb·ic; or 12.0 µgiml 15 µg/m·' ,4.nal)'Si:S.
(PM2.5)
9 Arithn1etic M~an S;ta Att~nuafon
1 Hour 20 ppm (23 mg:m'); J S ppin (40 1nglm')) - Carbon Non-Oisj)@f'SiV& No-r-.Ois~ rsiv• Monoxide 8 Hour ~.o ~ m (10 mgl in') Infrared Photon-.;tty 9 ppm (1 O ,r,;ifm' ) - lnfoued PhotomE1:r1' (CO) (NDIR; (NDIR)
8 Hour
{Lske- Tsho-e.) 0 ppm (7 rrg/m-..) - -
Nitrogen ·1 Hour 0.18 ppm (S$9 µgim' i 100 pp!> (1 e-3 ~g:m ') - Dio xide Gas Pl\ :1s.e Gas P'oase (N0 z)'
0 AnOIJi.I o.030 pr,11 (57 µg,in.' l
Chemi'umil• s,ce,nc& o.os3 wn i100 µg:n,·
1 1 Same S.i' Ch&ni luminescenoe
Arithn1etic Mean Primary Standard
1 Hour o.25 ppm (655 µg,in.' J 75 ppb (196 l1Qitn1) -

0.5 ~1"11 Uitrtrvi olet
S 3 Hour - - Flouresc:nc:; ulfur Dioxide UI1rsviole-: (I30G~g.'m' J (SOt)'1 FtuQ-l'noenoe 0.14 ppm
~i:edrophotometry
24 Hour o.04 ppm (105 µg,in.' J - {Pararosaniline
(fer ce;rtaL1 area.st Method\
An nual - 0.030 ppm - Arithmetic Mean (fer cem:iL1 area.sf 30 03f A-,1ar~;,a 1.5 1,,1gkn:" - -
Lead12
·' ; C::i~ nd ar Ouarter 1.5 µg/m·i High Vo lume
- Atcmi~ .A.bi orption (fer ce,m:iL1 areas)
1 ~ t-.ampler a.nd Atomic Same ss Absorp1ion
Rolling ~ Month Primar/ Standard
A,•ar~ga - 0.15 µgr'm'
Visibility Be~a Attenuation arKI
Reducing 8 Hour See footnote ·14 Transmitte.nc• No
Particles 14 through Filt,e;r Ta~
Sulfates 2' Hour 251-1grm' lcn Chron1.::togr.::phy
Nation a l
Hydrogen 1 Hour 0.03 PP•• (42 µglm') U11raviole;
Sulfide Ftuoresc:ence Standards
Viny l 2' Hour 0.01 ppm (26 1->3/m 1
; Gas
Cll lorlde1
~ Chrorn:,togr~phy
See footnotes on next page ...
.1-til' mot•e iulb1·w :11iuu J>le:t'it' l':dl ~\.KH-.f10 :~( (!>16) 322-2.990 C:dil'or n in Air Re-su1u-.:es llo11n l (514/16) 157 483
Table 1 (continued)

1. c:::..lifomia stan,fa rd:. for l'l7on-:. ca.rb(in nlonoxid~ (accpt S-hour I .ake rahl~ }, sulfilr dioxide (1 and 2·1 honr), nitrogen dioxi,k, and pank ul:tli.: lllillh.:r (1-'(Vl 10. l'M2 . .5. aml visibility rc1h1ci11g partid .. •s). ~m.: vah1t::. lhal mi.: 1101 IO he ..:xcccd...:d. /\II olhL'TS ;m.: 11ot h> h...:
cc111.ah:1l m i.:X~'i.:\)(kd. ( :tlifomia mnhicnl air q11.alily slandanl.,; an; Uistccl in lhi.: T:i.hk nl'S1:1111l:ml-; iu S~t·liun i 0200 l) f Ti1k 1 i of the California Code of Reg1~atioJ1S.

2. National smndards (other tban ozone. particulate n,,ner, and clto,e ba5ed e>n annual aritluuetic mean) are. nN ,e> be exceeded more tbau 0111:i.: a y.:ar. Th-: t>:tOlh.: slarnl:inl is allairn.:il whi.:11 tltc l"htfflli high-c:--l S-llom t'(1t1<:c111r:ilion 111casun.:cl :1J cad , !-.i i...: i11 ;t y..:ar, a,..i.:rn,gccl over 1liree. ye:1rs, is ct111a) 10 01 le:--s 01:111 1l1c :--1.m1d:ml. Frn PM10. the 14 l1our slanclanl is :111:llned whcu the cxpccl~1l m1111her nl'<lays Jlcr calendar year witll a 24-h011r m•e,-age ce>neentratiou above 150 pgtm' is equal to or less chan one .. For PM2.5, rbe 24 Jtour standard is attained when 98 percem ofrbe daily concenti-a!ious, averaged over !ltree. year.;. are equal 10 or Jess dtan the standard. Contact rite U.S. r,p.,\ for r11rtl1 ... -r cl:trllk a1im1 ;m:l l'll1TC11t 11a1fo11al l>l)liciL'S . . , . C:on<.·-....1111<ilim1 c.\J>ri.:SSi.:d lllsl in m1its in wllid 1 il wa:-- 1mmmlJ:!;al.cd. F.q11iv:1k 111 1111i1s giv1.:11 in patl11lhi.:scs arc lm:--c.d upon a n.: l\.1'1.11<:..: . lc111p::rnt11re l>r 2::i,..C arnl a rd Crcnr..:-: p1ci.sme of7(i0 ton . \ Jost measur-:111:nls nr airtLILaJily otre. to b:: i.:on :t'lcd lo a n::li::rcm:c lemp..-,rnlL1rr:-: L)f 25,..C au<l n rd (T<"lU.:{' p1essure of ?GO ku ; ppm iu Ibis h1bl{' rd t'l~ h1 . pp1u t,y VL'lume. L,r lHk n.\mole\ of pL,JluHml pet llR'l<" of ~a:-..

4. Any equivalent lllMStlfemeur method which can be. sltown to the satisfaction of !lte. ARB te> give equivalent r~ulcs at or near cite level of !lte air qualicy standard may be u,e.d.

5. K;11io11al Pllmary S1;m1l;mls: Th...: k vds of' air .:111.aliLy lli.:<.'...:ssary. \"·i1h 1111 adc11m1h.: 111:1q~in of s.tli.:ty lo prntcc:l 1h..: 1111l1lk hcaJ1h.

G. National Secmdary Standards: Toe levels of ail' ,1uality nece,sary to protect rbe public welliire irom any known or anticipmed adverse effects of a pollmam.

Refore.nce mtrllod as described by rbe U.S. EPA. An "equivalem metltod" of measuremem may be used bur Jm1, t have a "con,i;1ent relatiomltip to rhe reference methO<I" and muH be approved by 11te U.S. I:::l'A.

R. Ou Octoln:r 1. 201.5. Ill~ uali<lnal S-llom 01.nrn.: p1imary and :-i.: c.:ond;iry :-l:mt~ird:- w~l'C lo•,Y\.'1\.~I frurn 0.075 10 0.0'70 ppm.

9. Ou Occcmhcr 14. 20 12, 1J1c nalfoual aurnrnl P1Vf2.:5 pllm;ny ~l.auclanl 'Nas lowered from 1 :'i 11g.'11l lo 12.0 pg..,.n?. The .:xis1i 11g national 24- Lour PY12. 5 slm1darJs (primary uu<l st'r~,udm y) ,,vere rt'lniued al 35 !lg.:101. as was lhc- awnml 'i<"'C:om.la1·y '>lamhird Llf 15 i1.g:'u?. Tht' exh!i11g 21-liour PMIQ >1ao<lards (priu1a1y aud ;e(onclaiy) •f I ~o i1g,'m1 also vme retained. Tile form of the arumal primai-y and sccomlary ;-;1.amlanl-; is. the ;m11u,1I me.au, avi.:rn,g..xl ov~r ~ y1.:ars.

IO. To anain 1ltc I-hour national ~tandard. the 3-year average of 11te. annual 9S!lt percentile of the 1-ltour daily uu,xinmm concemrations at each site nm,! uot exceed 100 ppb. Noie rltm the na!ional 1-ltour :.1rutdard is in uni!s of prn; per billion <ppb). California standards are iJt rn1ils of parl'i po million {ppm). To din::d ly cm11pare 01i::: nalim1al 1-lionr staudanl lo 1l1c Calilhmia slamlarcls. Lhc nuils can he c.:1mve1 1ed frolll [Jpt, lu ppm. Iu lh.i-,, t:.a'ie. tht' 1mlioual slaudanl o[ 100 pyb is id~Hlind l1..1 0.JOO ppm.

11. Ou Juue 2, 2010, a 11ew I -hour S0 1 starnl:ml was eslahli-;hecl arnl 1J1c cxi.-;1in.g ·24-lumr am:) an1111al lili mary !-lamlarcl<i were r-:v(iked. To attain the I -ltour 1u,1ional standard, che 3-year average of tlte aw1ual 9'.Jlb percentile of !he 1-llour daily maximum <OJKenrration, at each silc m1L'il 110 1 c:\cccil j :~ pph. Th~ 1971 SO;i rn11 io11al s1;md:mls (24-lmur arnl mnmal) 1'\:mai11 in cl'lb.:1 unlil on~ yc;i.r ancr :m an.:a is designated for !he 2010 standard, excep! dtm in areas desig»~ted 11ona11aiwnem for the Jn I standatds. che. 1971 ~taudard~ reJt1ain in effect until implemenmion plan, 10 anain or maintain tlte :!OIO &truidards are appnwed.

Nole that lhe. l•I.Jour ualfomtl stau<lanl b iu uuils L'f parl'> per billio n (p)Jb). CalilOmiu slarnhu<ls u.r~. iu lDilh. L)f parl'.> pa utlllfou (ppm). To dire.:tly com par-: rhc 1-honr national f.tandaa l to the C 'al ifornia standard the unit~ can he converted to ppiu. In thi~ c-a::.c. the national s1m11l.ml o ( 75 ppb is idi.:111ical to 0.075 p1n11.

12. Tltc ARil ltas identified kad and vinyl chloride a; 'toxic air coutantinaut;' witlt no tbrcsltold kw! of exposure for idwr.c health effect; di.:lt:1111irn.:<L TIies,;,: :u.:1io11s allnw f< ir lhc hrq1k1nL11l;11hm of <.'<lll lrnl mi.:a:-urcs at kvcls hdow lh-t: ;n 111Ji..:111 cmu.:cutralious sp,.:cifk d f<a r 111~ 1.: po1hthm1:-.

13. TILe JU1lio11al sh1mh1r<l for k.id wn,;. revised L'H Oc:t1..,l>t'r 15, 2008 lo a td liug 3•utouth av~ragt'. TlJt" l!:r78 . letid shunhm1 . (J.5 pg/ul ~1s tt ,1uanel'ly ave111ge) remain, in effect unril one year af,er an area is designated for ,be 2008 standard. excepr that in areas desi?J}atcd rnm:t1 1:1im11L111 1hr Lhi.: 19·i ~ :-1:mdanl, Ilic 19,x :-1:1111l ml n ... ·111.-iiu:-. in d Tci.:1 m11il i11111km..:ulathm 11h111s w allaiu or 111ai111ain 1hi.: 200& s1:1.111kml are :1p111 ovcd.
1,1. In 19~9, lhc ,\ RI) (.'(lflVCrlc(I b(ll.h th.: ~CIK:ral slalt:Wi(k I0-1nik visil1ili1y :-lm1tlanl ;1ml th...: I .at e ·1 :du).: J0-111ilc visil,iliLy st:n,d:tnl lo iustnu11c:n1:1J c.:111ivalcnls. wlth:h m·-: "cxtim.:1io11 of O.B per ldlornc:1-:r" :mcl "c:xtim.:tion ol' 0.07 per kilrn m:ler" for the sl:tlewidc aml T .:1lc T.tl.io~ Air Ba,;iu <;.tam.kud$, R'S})t't livd y.

Fut· mut•e iufo1·w:,tiou 1->h•:1,;to 1.·:tll ARB-PIO ~• (916) .322-2990 Cs1lifornfo Air Resourc..:t's llo1ar<l (5/4/16} 158 484
Table 2
Health Effects of Major Criteria Pollutants
Pollutants Sources Primary Effects
Carbon Monoxide
(CO)
• Incomplete combustion of fuels and other
carbon-containing substances, such as motor
exhaust.
• Natural events, such as decomposition of
organic matter.
• Reduced tolerance for exercise.
• Impairment of mental function.
• Impairment of fetal development.
• Death at high levels of exposure.
• Aggravation of some heart diseases (angina).

Nitrogen Dioxide
(NO2)
• Motor vehicle exhaust.
• High temperature stationary combustion.
• Atmospheric reactions.
• Aggravation of respiratory illness.
• Reduced visibility.
• Reduced plant growth.
• Formation of acid rain.

Ozone
(O3)
• Atmospheric reaction of organic gases with
nitrogen oxides in sunlight.
• Aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular diseases.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Impairment of cardiopulmonary function.
• Plant leaf injury.

Lead (Pb) • Contaminated soil. • Impairment of blood function and nerve construction.
• Behavioral and hearing problems in children.

Respirable Particulate
Matter
(PM-10)
• Stationary combustion of solid fuels.
• Construction activities.
• Industrial processes.
• Atmospheric chemical reactions.
• Reduced lung function.
• Aggravation of the effects of gaseous
pollutants.
• Aggravation of respiratory and cardio
respiratory diseases.
• Increased cough and chest discomfort.
• Soiling.
• Reduced visibility.

Fine Particulate Matter
(PM-2.5)
• Fuel combustion in motor vehicles,
equipment, and industrial sources.
• Residential and agricultural burning.
• Industrial processes.
• Also, formed from photochemical reactions
of other pollutants, including NOx, sulfur
oxides, and organics.
• Increases respiratory disease.
• Lung damage.
• Cancer and premature death.
• Reduces visibility and results in surface
soiling.

Sulfur Dioxide
(SO2)
• Combustion of sulfur-containing fossil fuels.
• Smelting of sulfur-bearing metal ores.
• Industrial processes.
• Aggravation of respiratory diseases (asthma,
emphysema).
• Reduced lung function.
• Irritation of eyes.
• Reduced visibility.
• Plant injury.
• Deterioration of metals, textiles, leather,
finishes, coatings, etc.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2002.
159 485
Evaluation of the most current data on the health effects of inhalation of fine particulate matter prompted the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to recommend adoption of the statewide PM-2.5 standard that is more stringent than the federal standard. This standard was adopted in 2002. The State PM-2.5 standard is more of a goal in that it does not have specific attainment planning requirements like a federal clean air standard, but only requires continued progress towards attainment.

Similarly, the ARB extensively evaluated health effects of ozone exposure. A new state standard for an 8-hour ozone exposure was adopted in 2005, which aligned with the exposure period for the federal 8-hour standard. The California 8-hour ozone standard of 0.07 ppm is more stringent than the federal 8-hour standard of 0.075 ppm. The state standard, however, does not have a specific attainment deadline. California air quality jurisdictions are required to make steady progress towards attaining state standards, but there are no hard deadlines or any consequences of nonattainment. During the same re-evaluation process, the ARB adopted an annual state standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) that is more stringent than the corresponding federal standard, and strengthened the state one-hour NO2 standard.

As part of EPA’s 2002 consent decree on clean air standards, a further review of airborne particulate matter (PM) and human health was initiated. A substantial modification of federal clean air standards for PM was promulgated in 2006. Standards for PM-2.5 were strengthened, a new class of PM in the 2.5 to 10 micron size was created, some PM-10 standards were revoked, and a distinction between rural and urban air quality was adopted. In December, 2012, the federal annual standard for PM-2.5 was reduced from 15 g/m3 to 12 g/m3 which matches the California AAQS. The severity of the basin’s non-attainment status for PM-2.5 may be increased by this action and thus require accelerated planning for future PM-2.5 attainment.

In response to continuing evidence that ozone exposure at levels just meeting federal clean air standards is demonstrably unhealthful, EPA had proposed a further strengthening of the 8-hour standard. A new 8-hour ozone standard was adopted in 2015 after extensive analysis and public input. The adopted national 8-hour ozone standard is 0.07 ppm which matches the current California standard. It will require three years of ambient data collection, then 2 years of nonattainment findings and planning protocol adoption, then several years of plan development and approval. Final air quality plans for the new standard are likely to be adopted around 2022.

Ultimate attainment of the new standard in ozone problem areas such as Southern California might be after 2025.

In 2010 a new federal one-hour primary standard for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) was adopted. This standard is more stringent than the existing state standard. Based upon air quality monitoring data in the South Coast Air Basin, the California Air Resources Board has requested the EPA to designate the basin as being in attainment for this standard. The federal standard for sulfur dioxide (SO2) was also recently revised. However, with minimal combustion of coal and mandatory use of low sulfur fuels in California, SO2 is typically not a problem pollutant. 160 486

BASELINE AIR QUALITY
Existing levels of ambient air quality and historical trends and projections in the project area are best documented from measurements made near the project site. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) operates a monitoring station in Fontana that monitors the complete spectrum of gaseous and particulate pollutants for which there are clean air standards.

From these data resources, one can well infer that baseline air quality levels near the project site are improving, but occasionally unhealthful. Full attainment may still be many years away. Table 3 summarizes the last four years of published monitoring data from the Fontana station.

5. More localized pollutants such as nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are very low near the project site because background levels never exceed allowable levels, and there are only limited sources of such emissions near the project site.
161 487
Table 3
Air Quality Monitoring Summary (2014-2017)
(Number of Days Standards Were Exceeded, and
Maximum Levels During Such Violations)
(Entries shown as ratios = samples exceeding standard/samples taken) Pollutant/Standard 2014 2015 2016 2017
Ozone
1-Hour > 0.09 ppm (S) 31 36 34 33
8-Hour > 0.07 ppm (S) 52 57 49 49
8- Hour > 0.075 ppm (F) 37 39 34 38
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.127 0.133 0.139 0.137
Max. 8-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.105 0.111 0.105 0.118
Carbon Monoxide
8- Hour > 9. ppm (S,F) 0 0 0 0
Max 8-hour Conc. (ppm) 1.2 1.2 1.0 1.3
Nitrogen Dioxide
1-Hour > 0.18 ppm (S) 0 0 0 0
Max. 1-Hour Conc. (ppm) 0.074 0.089 0.071 0.069
Inhalable Particulates (PM-10)
24-hour > 50 g/m3 (S) 13/58 13/55 15/61 7/43
24-hour > 150 g/m3(F) 0/58 0/55 0/61 0/43
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 68. 96. 94. 75.

Ultra-Fine Particulates (PM-2.5)
24-Hour > 35 g/m3 (F) 1/58 2/113 0/111 1/120
Max. 24-Hr. Conc. (g/m3) 78.9 47.3 30.4 39.2
S=State Standard
F=Federal Standard
Source: South Coast AQMD – Fontana Air Quality Monitoring Station data: www.arb.ca.gov/adam/77
162 488

AIR QUALITY PLANNING
The Federal Clean Air Act (1977 Amendments) required that designated agencies in any area of the nation not meeting national clean air standards must prepare a plan demonstrating the steps that would bring the area into compliance with all national standards. The SCAB could not meet the deadlines for ozone, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, or PM-10. In the SCAB, the agencies designated by the governor to develop regional air quality plans are the SCAQMD and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The two agencies first adopted an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in 1979 and revised it several times as earlier attainment forecasts were shown to be overly optimistic.

The 1990 Federal Clean Air Act Amendment (CAAA) required that all states with air-sheds with “serious” or worse ozone problems submit a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Amendments to the SIP have been proposed, revised and approved over the past decade. The most current regional attainment emissions forecast for ozone precursors (ROG and NOx) and for carbon monoxide (CO) and for particulate matter are shown in Table 4. Substantial reductions in emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are forecast to continue throughout the next several decades.

Unless new particulate control programs are implemented, PM-10 and PM-2.5 are forecast to slightly increase.

The Air Quality Management District (AQMD) adopted an updated clean air “blueprint” in August 2003. The 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was approved by the EPA in 2004. The AQMP outlined the air pollution measures needed to meet federal health-based standards for ozone by 2010 and for particulates (PM-10) by 2006. The 2003 AQMP was based upon the federal onehour ozone standard which was revoked late in 2005 and replaced by an 8-hour federal standard.

Because of the revocation of the hourly standard, a new air quality planning cycle was initiated.

Because projected attainment by 2021 required control technologies that did not exist yet, the SCAQMD requested a voluntary “bump-up” from a “severe non-attainment” area to an “extreme non-attainment” designation for ozone. The extreme designation was to allow a longer time period for these technologies to develop. If attainment cannot be demonstrated within the specified deadline without relying on “black-box” measures, EPA would have been required to impose sanctions on the region had the bump-up request not been approved. In April 2010, the EPA approved the change in the non-attainment designation from “severe-17” to “extreme.” This reclassification set a later attainment deadline (2024), but also required the air basin to adopt even more stringent emissions controls.
163 489
Table 4
South Coast Air Basin Emissions Forecasts (Emissions in tons/day) Pollutant 2015a 2020b 2025b 2030b
NOx 357 289 266 257
VOC 400 393 393 391
PM-10 161 165 170 172
PM-2.5 67 68 70 71
a2015 Base Year.
bWith current emissions reduction programs and adopted growth forecasts.

Source: California Air Resources Board, 2013 Almanac of Air Quality In other air quality attainment plan reviews, EPA had disapproved part of the SCAB PM-2.5 attainment plan included in the AQMP. EPA stated that the current attainment plan relied on PM2.5 control regulations that had not yet been approved or implemented. It was expected that a number of rules that were pending approval would remove the identified deficiencies. If these issues were not resolved within the next several years, federal funding sanctions for transportation projects could result. The 2012 AQMP included in the current California State Implementation Plan (SIP) was expected to remedy identified PM-2.5 planning deficiencies.

The federal Clean Air Act requires that non-attainment air basins have EPA approved attainment plans in place. This requirement includes the federal one-hour ozone standard even though that standard was revoked almost ten years ago. There was no approved attainment plan for the onehour federal standard at the time of revocation. Through a legal quirk, the SCAQMD is now required to develop an AQMP for the long since revoked one-hour federal ozone standard. Because the current SIP for the basin contains a number of control measures for the 8-hour ozone standard that are equally effective for one-hour levels, the 2012 AQMP was believed to satisfy hourly attainment planning requirements.

AQMPs are required to be updated every three years. The 2012 AQMP was adopted in early 2013.

An updated AQMP was required for completion in 2016. The 2016 AQMP was adopted by the SCAQMD Board in March, 2017, and has been submitted the California Air Resources Board for forwarding to the EPA. The 2016 AQMP acknowledges that motor vehicle emissions have been effectively controlled and that reductions in NOx, the continuing ozone problem pollutant, may need to come from major stationary sources (power plants, refineries, landfill flares, etc.). The current attainment deadlines for all federal non-attainment pollutants are now as follows:
8-hour ozone (70 ppb) 2032
Annual PM-2.5 (12 g/m3) 2025
8-hour ozone (75 ppb) 2024 (former standard)
1-hour ozone (120 ppb) 2023 (rescinded standard)
I I
164 490
24-hour PM-2.5 (35 g/m3
) 2019
The key challenge is that NOx emission levels, as a critical ozone precursor pollutant, are forecast to continue to exceed the levels that would allow the above deadlines to be met. Unless additional stringent NOx control measures are adopted and implemented, ozone attainment goals may not be met.

The proposed project does not directly relate to the AQMP in that there are no specific air quality programs or regulations governing storm drain improvement projects. Conformity with adopted plans, forecasts and programs relative to population, housing, employment and land use is the primary yardstick by which impact significance of planned growth is determined. The SCAQMD, however, while acknowledging that the AQMP is a growth-accommodating document, does not favor designating regional impacts as less-than-significant just because the proposed development is consistent with regional growth projections. Air quality impact significance for the proposed project has therefore been analyzed on a project-specific basis. 165 491

AIR QUALITY IMPACT

STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Air quality impacts are considered “significant” if they cause clean air standards to be violated where they are currently met, or if they “substantially” contribute to an existing violation of standards. Any substantial emissions of air contaminants for which there is no safe exposure, or nuisance emissions such as dust or odors, would also be considered a significant impact.

Appendix G of the California CEQA Guidelines offers the following five tests of air quality impact significance. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Primary Pollutants
Air quality impacts generally occur on two scales of motion. Near an individual source of emissions or a collection of sources such as a crowded intersection or parking lot, levels of those pollutants that are emitted in their already unhealthful form will be highest. Carbon monoxide (CO) is an example of such a pollutant. Primary pollutant impacts can generally be evaluated directly in comparison to appropriate clean air standards. Violations of these standards where they are currently met, or a measurable worsening of an existing or future violation, would be considered a significant impact. Many particulates, especially fugitive dust emissions, are also primary pollutants. Because of the non-attainment status of the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) for PM-10, an aggressive dust control program is required to control fugitive dust during project construction.

Secondary Pollutants
Many pollutants, however, require time to transform from a more benign form to a more unhealthful contaminant. Their impact occurs regionally far from the source. Their incremental regional impact is minute on an individual basis and cannot be quantified except through complex photochemical computer models. Analysis of significance of such emissions is based upon a specified amount of emissions (pounds, tons, etc.) even though there is no way to translate those emissions directly into a corresponding ambient air quality impact.

Because of the chemical complexity of primary versus secondary pollutants, the SCAQMD has designated significant emissions levels as surrogates for evaluating regional air quality impact significance independent of chemical transformation processes. Projects with daily emissions that 166 492
exceed any of the following emission thresholds are recommended by the SCAQMD to be considered significant under CEQA guidelines.

Table 5
Daily Emissions Thresholds
Source: SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, November, 1993 Rev.

Pollutant Construction Operations
ROG 75 55
NOx 100 55
CO 550 550
PM-10 150 150
PM-2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
Lead 3 3
167 493

CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTS
CalEEMod was developed by the SCAQMD to provide a model by which to calculate construction emissions from a variety of land use projects. It calculates both the daily maximum and annual average emissions for criteria pollutants as well as total or annual greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The City of Rialto proposes to upgrade the existing drainage infrastructure conditions within Baseline Road from Cactus Basin (Cactus Avenue) to Tamarind Avenue. The project consists of installing approximately 11,000 lineal feet (LF) of various diameter storm drains that would capture flows north of Baseline Road.

The Project will be constructed once funding becomes available, which is anticipated to be secured in 2021 or 2022. Construction is anticipated to require between 6 months and one year to complete.

At any given time during construction a maximum of 30 employees would be required each day, though the number of construction workers required will range from 10 to 30 persons per day.

Although exhaust emissions will result from on and off-site equipment, the exact types and numbers of equipment will vary among contractors such that such emissions cannot be quantified with certainty. The CalEEMod.2016.3.2 computer model was used to calculate emissions from the prototype construction equipment fleet and schedule as indicated in Table 6.

Table 6
CalEEMod Construction Activity Equipment Fleet and Workdays (30 workers daily)
Prep and Concrete Removal
(3 months)
1 Concrete Saw
1 Dozer
1 Loader/Backhoe
2 Skid Steer Loaders
Trench and Install Pipeline
(4 months)
1 Loader/Backhoe
2 Trenchers
1 Forklifts
1 Crane
1 Excavator
Backfill and Paving
(3 months)
1 Paver
1 Roller
1 Loader/Backhoe
4 Mixers
2 Compactors
Utilizing the indicated equipment fleet shown in Tables 6 the following worst-case daily construction emissions are calculated by CalEEMod and are listed in Table 7. 168 494
Table 7
Construction Activity Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions (pounds/day)
Maximal Construction
Emissions per Calendar
Year
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM-10 PM-2.5
Year 2021 2.4 21.9 19.5 0.0 1.8 1.2
SCAQMD Thresholds 75 100 550 150 150 55
Source: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 output in appendix
Peak daily construction activity emissions are below their respective SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds without the need for any additional mitigation.

LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
The SCAQMD has developed analysis parameters to evaluate ambient air quality on a local level in addition to the more regional emissions-based thresholds of significance. These analysis elements are called Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). LSTs were developed in response to Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative 1-4 and the LST methodology was provisionally adopted in October 2003 and formally approved by SCAQMD’s Mobile Source Committee in February 2005.

For the proposed project, the primary source of possible LST impact would be during construction.

Table 8
LST and Project Emissions (pounds/day)
LST 1 acre/25 meters
Central San Bernardino Valley CO NOx PM-10 PM-2.5
LST Thresholds 667 118 4 3
Max On-Site Project Emissions 20 22 2 1
LSTs were compared to the maximum daily construction activities. As seen in Table 8, even without use of mitigation, emissions easily meet the LST thresholds. LST impacts are less-thansignificant.

OPERATIONAL IMPACTS
There are no operational air pollution emissions associated with a gravity fed storm drain.

I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I

I I I I II
169 495

CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS MINIMIZATION
Construction activities are not anticipated to cause dust emissions to exceed SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. Nevertheless, emissions minimization through enhanced dust control measures is recommended for use because of the non-attainment status of the air basin. Recommended measures include:

Fugitive Dust Control
• Apply soil stabilizers or moisten inactive areas.
• Water exposed surfaces as needed to avoid visible dust leaving the construction site (typically 2-3 times/day).
• Cover all stock piles with tarps at the end of each day or as needed. • Provide water spray during loading and unloading of earthen materials. • Minimize in-out traffic from construction zone
• Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, or loose material and require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried out from the construction site Similarly, ozone precursor emissions (ROG and NOx) are calculated to be below SCAQMD CEQA thresholds. However, because of the regional non-attainment for photochemical smog, the use of reasonably available control measures for diesel exhaust is recommended. Combustion emissions control options include:

Exhaust Emissions Control
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment.
• Establish a preference for contractors using Tier 3 or better rated heavy equipment. • Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment. 170 496

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
“Greenhouse gases” (so called because of their role in trapping heat near the surface of the earth) emitted by human activity are implicated in global climate change, commonly referred to as “global warming.” These greenhouse gases contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere by transparency to short wavelength visible sunlight, but near opacity to outgoing terrestrial long wavelength heat radiation in some parts of the infrared spectrum. The principal greenhouse gases (GHGs) are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, and water vapor. For purposes of planning and regulation, Section 15364.5 of the California Code of Regulations defines GHGs to include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride. Fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (onroad motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of GHG emissions, accounting for approximately half of GHG emissions globally. Industrial and commercial sources are the second largest contributors of GHG emissions with about one-fourth of total emissions.

California has passed several bills and the Governor has signed at least three executive orders regarding greenhouse gases. GHG statues and executive orders (EO) include AB 32, SB 1368, EO S-03-05, EO S-20-06 and EO S-01-07.

AB 32 is one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation that California has adopted. Among other things, it is designed to maintain California’s reputation as a “national and international leader on energy conservation and environmental stewardship.” It will have wideranging effects on California businesses and lifestyles as well as far reaching effects on other states and countries. A unique aspect of AB 32, beyond its broad and wide-ranging mandatory provisions and dramatic GHG reductions are the short time frames within which it must be implemented.

Major components of the AB 32 include:
• Require the monitoring and reporting of GHG emissions beginning with sources or categories of sources that contribute the most to statewide emissions. • Requires immediate “early action” control programs on the most readily controlled GHG sources.
• Mandates that by 2020, California’s GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels. • Forces an overall reduction of GHG gases in California by 25-40%, from business as usual, to be achieved by 2020.
• Must complement efforts to achieve and maintain federal and state ambient air quality standards and to reduce toxic air contaminants.

Statewide, the framework for developing the implementing regulations for AB 32 is under way.

Maximum GHG reductions are expected to derive from increased vehicle fuel efficiency, from greater use of renewable energy and from increased structural energy efficiency. Additionally, through the California Climate Action Registry (CCAR now called the Climate Action Reserve), general and industry-specific protocols for assessing and reporting GHG emissions have been 171 497
developed. GHG sources are categorized into direct sources (i.e. company owned) and indirect sources (i.e. not company owned). Direct sources include combustion emissions from on-and offroad mobile sources, and fugitive emissions. Indirect sources include off-site electricity generation and non-company owned mobile sources.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS
In response to the requirements of SB97, the State Resources Agency developed guidelines for the treatment of GHG emissions under CEQA. These new guidelines became state laws as part of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations in March 2010. The CEQA Appendix G guidelines were modified to include GHG as a required analysis element. A project would have a potentially significant impact if it:
• Generates GHG emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, or,
• Conflicts with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted to reduce GHG emissions.

Section 15064.4 of the Code specifies how significance of GHG emissions is to be evaluated. The process is broken down into quantification of project-related GHG emissions, deciding significance, and specification of any appropriate mitigation if impacts are found to be potentially significant. At each of these steps, the new GHG guidelines afford the lead agency with substantial flexibility.

Emissions identification may be quantitative, qualitative or based on performance standards.

CEQA guidelines allow the lead agency to “select the model or methodology it considers most appropriate.” The most common practice for transportation/combustion GHG emissions quantification is to use a computer model such as CalEEMod, as was used in the ensuing analysis.

The significance of those emissions then must be evaluated; the selection of a threshold of significance must take into consideration what level of GHG emissions would be cumulatively considerable. The guidelines are clear that they do not support a zero net emissions threshold. If the lead agency does not have sufficient expertise in evaluating GHG impacts, it may rely on thresholds adopted by an agency with greater expertise.

PROJECT RELATED GHG EMISSIONS GENERATION
Construction Activity GHG Emissions
The project is assumed to require 10 months for construction starting in November of 2019 and continuing September 2021. During project construction, the CalEEMod2016.3.2 computer model predicts that the construction activities will generate the annual CO2e emissions identified in Table

9. Table 9
Construction Emissions (Metric Tons CO2(e))
Year 2021
Total 252.4
Amortized 8.4
Significance Threshold 3,000
*CalEEMod Output provided in appendix
SCAQMD GHG emissions policy from construction activities is to amortize emissions over a 30-year lifetime. The amortized level is also provided. GHG impacts from construction are considered individually less-than-significant.

CONSISTENCY WITH GHG PLANS, PROGRAMS AND POLICIES
The City of Rialto has participated in the San Bernardino County Regional Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan with the San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG). This study includes an inventory compilation of GHG emissions and an evaluation of reduction measures that could be adopted by the 21 partnership cities of San Bernardino County.

The proposed project has no associated operational emissions and generates minimal construction GHG emissions. Project GHG emissions will cease after the 10-month construction period.

Therefore, there are no applicable mitigation measures for the proposed project.

CALEEMOD OUTPUT
• Construction Daily
• Construction Annual
174 500
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 11,000 lf x 72"
Construction Phase - Prep and Concrete Removal: 3 months, Trench and Install Pipe: 4 months, Cover and Fill: 3 months Off-road Equipment - Cover and Fill: 4 mixers, 1 paver, 1 roller, 1 loader/backhoe, 2 compactors Off-road Equipment - Prep and Concrete Removal: 1 concrete saw, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes, 2 skid steer loaders Off-road Equipment - Pipeline Install: 1 loader/backhoe, 2 trenchers, 1 forklift, 1 crane, 1 excavator Trips and VMT - 30 workers-60 trips per day
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 1.50 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2021
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Riato Storm Drain
South Coast Air Basin, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
175 501

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 60.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 60.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/28/2021 3/25/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/26/2021 10/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2021 8/1/2021 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 1.50
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.20 0.20
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.29 0.29
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Forklifts
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cranes
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 60.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 25.00 60.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 60.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
I I I
I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------I------------------------------~-------------------------- 176 502

2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.3945 21.8593 19.5140 0.0349 0.6771 1.1272 1.7979 0.1797 1.0509 1.2287 0.0000 3,385.629 5 3,385.629
5 0.7408 0.0000 3,404.150
1 Maximum 2.3945 21.8593 19.5140 0.0349 0.6771 1.1272 1.7979 0.1797 1.0509 1.2287 0.0000 3,385.629 5 3,385.629
5 0.7408 0.0000 3,404.150
1 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2021 2.3945 21.8593 19.5140 0.0349 0.6771 1.1272 1.7979 0.1797 1.0509 1.2287 0.0000 3,385.629 5 3,385.629
5 0.7408 0.0000 3,404.150
1 Maximum 2.3945 21.8593 19.5140 0.0349 0.6771 1.1272 1.7979 0.1797 1.0509 1.2287 0.0000 3,385.629 5 3,385.629
5 0.7408 0.0000 3,404.150
1 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
., ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I ' ' '
., ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
177 503

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.3000e004 Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 0.0000 2.3000e004 Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
& & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• & & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••--------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• -- & &
i
& & & • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• & & & • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~••••••••-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• & & & & 178 504

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Prep and Concrete Removal Demolition 1/1/2021 3/25/2021 5 60 2 Pipeline Install Trenching 4/1/2021 7/21/2021 5 80
3 Cover and Fill Paving 8/1/2021 10/22/2021 5 60
OffRoad Equipment
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I
• • I I I I I
•····••l••····················••I-----------------------I------------~------------~--------~--------~---······················ • • I I I I I • • I I I I I -------1------------------------~-----------------------1-------------1-------------1---------~--------~------------------------- • •
•
•
.
.
179 505

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Cover and Fill Plate Compactors 2 7.00 8 0.43
Cover and Fill Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Prep and Concrete Removal Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Prep and Concrete Removal Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37 Pipeline Install Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Pipeline Install Trenchers 2 8.00 78 0.50
Pipeline Install Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20
Cover and Fill Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Cover and Fill Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Prep and Concrete Removal Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Pipeline Install Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Pipeline Install Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Prep and Concrete Removal Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Cover and Fill Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Cover and Fill Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Prep and Concrete
Removal
7 60.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Pipeline Install 6 60.00 1.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Cover and Fill 10 60.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
I I
I
I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
----------------------------=---------------------------~---------------- I I
i
I -------------1---------T-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------T••------------ 1
I
------------ •1---------T•••••••••••••• I
I
------------ .1---------T••------------ 1
I -------------1---------T-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------T••------------ 1
I
------------ •1---------T•••••••••••••• I
I
------------ .1---------T••------------ 1
I -------------1---------T-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------T••------------ 1
I
------------ •1---------T•••••••••••••• I
I
------------ .1---------T••------------ 1
I
1 -------------1---------T-------------- I
I I I
----------------------------~---------------------------1----------------- ~ ------------1--------------~-------------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------l---------------~----------1----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------~---------------l-----------~----------l----------~-----------l-----------~----------l---------------1-----------1----------- 180 506

3.2 Prep and Concrete Removal - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1434 21.6955 17.2612 0.0282 1.1222 1.1222 1.0463 1.0463 2,721.490 6 2,721.490
6 0.7229 2,739.563
6 Total 2.1434 21.6955 17.2612 0.0282 1.1222 1.1222 1.0463 1.0463 2,721.490 6 2,721.490
6 0.7229 2,739.563
6 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
.,
.,
.,
..
.,
..
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I
181 507

3.2 Prep and Concrete Removal - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 2.1434 21.6955 17.2612 0.0282 1.1222 1.1222 1.0463 1.0463 0.0000 2,721.490 6 2,721.490
6 0.7229 2,739.563
6 Total 2.1434 21.6955 17.2612 0.0282 1.1222 1.1222 1.0463 1.0463 0.0000 2,721.490 6 2,721.490
6 0.7229 2,739.563
6 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
.,
.,
.,
..
.,
..
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I
182 508

3.3 Pipeline Install - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7258 17.1142 13.9215 0.0223 1.0086 1.0086 0.9279 0.9279 2,163.336 4 2,163.336
4 0.6997 2,180.828
1 Total 1.7258 17.1142 13.9215 0.0223 1.0086 1.0086 0.9279 0.9279 2,163.336 4 2,163.336
4 0.6997 2,180.828
1 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.8100e0030.0958 0.0233 2.5000e0046.4000e0032.0000e0046.5900e0031.8400e0031.9000e0042.0300e00327.0744 27.0744 1.6700e00327.1162 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2539 0.2596 2.2761 6.9200e0030.6771 5.1600e0030.6822 0.1797 4.7600e0030.1845 691.2133 691.2133 0.0196 691.7027 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
.,
.,
.,
..
.,
..
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I
183 509

3.3 Pipeline Install - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.7258 17.1142 13.9215 0.0223 1.0086 1.0086 0.9279 0.9279 0.0000 2,163.336 4 2,163.336
4 0.6997 2,180.828
1 Total 1.7258 17.1142 13.9215 0.0223 1.0086 1.0086 0.9279 0.9279 0.0000 2,163.336 4 2,163.336
4 0.6997 2,180.828
1 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 2.8100e0030.0958 0.0233 2.5000e0046.4000e0032.0000e0046.5900e0031.8400e0031.9000e0042.0300e00327.0744 27.0744 1.6700e00327.1162 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2539 0.2596 2.2761 6.9200e0030.6771 5.1600e0030.6822 0.1797 4.7600e0030.1845 691.2133 691.2133 0.0196 691.7027 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
.,
.,
.,
..
.,
..
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
' ' ' '
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••·-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I
184 510

3.4 Cover and Fill - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9763 9.0104 9.9190 0.0160 0.4646 0.4646 0.4322 0.4322 1,470.867 1 1,470.867
1 0.4292 1,481.596
5 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9763 9.0104 9.9190 0.0160 0.4646 0.4646 0.4322 0.4322 1,470.867 1 1,470.867
1 0.4292 1,481.596
5 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 11 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
I
I
I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

3.4 Cover and Fill - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.9763 9.0104 9.9190 0.0160 0.4646 0.4646 0.4322 0.4322 0.0000 1,470.867 1 1,470.867
1 0.4292 1,481.596
5 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.9763 9.0104 9.9190 0.0160 0.4646 0.4646 0.4322 0.4322 0.0000 1,470.867 1 1,470.867
1 0.4292 1,481.596
5 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Total 0.2511 0.1638 2.2528 6.6700e0030.6707 4.9600e0030.6756 0.1779 4.5700e0030.1824 664.1390 664.1390 0.0179 664.5865 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
I
I
I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

I
I
I
I
I
I
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• •• I •• I I I
186 512
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
User Defined Industrial 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by User Defined Industrial 16.60 8.40 6.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH User Defined Industrial 0.551391 0.043400 0.201050 0.120272 0.016162 0.005864 0.021029 0.030512 0.002059 0.001866 0.004766 0.000706 0.000924 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - .r-------"'T"-------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T"-------r-------"'T"-------r--------r--------• - - - - - - -,--------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T - - - - - - - •I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I •I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
187 513

5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' ' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' 189 515
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004 Unmitigated 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004 Total 1.0000e0050.0000 1.0000e0040.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.2000e0042.2000e0040.0000 2.3000e004 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
.,
., &
&
& • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - .,.. ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ .,.. ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ .,.. _______ ,. - - - - - - -,-------"'T"------"'T"-------r-------"T - - - - - - - ., .,
&
&
& •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- & &
& •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- ., ., &
&
i
190 516

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

8.0 Waste Detail

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
I
I
I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I
&
191 517

11.0 Vegetation
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 18 Date: 4/12/2019 12:15 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Summer
192 518
Project Characteristics -
Land Use - 11,000 lf x 72"
Construction Phase - Prep and Concrete Removal: 3 months, Trench and Install Pipe: 4 months, Cover and Fill: 3 months Off-road Equipment - Cover and Fill: 4 mixers, 1 paver, 1 roller, 1 loader/backhoe, 2 compactors Off-road Equipment - Prep and Concrete Removal: 1 concrete saw, 1 dozer, 3 loader/backhoes, 2 skid steer loaders Off-road Equipment - Pipeline Install: 1 loader/backhoe, 2 trenchers, 1 forklift, 1 crane, 1 excavator Trips and VMT - 30 workers-60 trips per day
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population User Defined Industrial 1.00 User Defined Unit 1.50 0.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
10 Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 31

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
Operational Year 2021
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 CH4 Intensity 0.029
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.006
(lb/MWhr)
Riato Storm Drain
South Coast Air Basin, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 1 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
193 519

2.0 Emissions Summary
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 60.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 60.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 1/28/2021 3/25/2021
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 11/26/2021 10/22/2021 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 11/13/2021 8/1/2021 tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 1.50
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.37 0.37
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.50 0.50
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.20 0.20
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.29 0.29
tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.38
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Skid Steer Loaders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Trenchers
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Forklifts
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Cranes
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Excavators
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 4.00 tblTripsAndVMT VendorTripNumber 0.00 1.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 18.00 60.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 25.00 60.00
tblTripsAndVMT WorkerTripNumber 15.00 60.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 2 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I I I
I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------l------------------------------t-------------------------- • • I • • I -----------------------------4------------------------------I------------------------------~-------------------------- 194 520

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1877 1.6281 1.5826 2.8600e0030.0661 0.0885 0.1545 0.0176 0.0819 0.0995 0.0000 250.9695 250.9695 0.0584 0.0000 252.4283 Maximum 0.1877 1.6281 1.5826 2.8600e0030.0661 0.0885 0.1545 0.0176 0.0819 0.0995 0.0000 250.9695 250.9695 0.0584 0.0000 252.4283 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1877 1.6281 1.5826 2.8600e0030.0661 0.0885 0.1545 0.0176 0.0819 0.0995 0.0000 250.9692 250.9692 0.0584 0.0000 252.4280 Maximum 0.1877 1.6281 1.5826 2.8600e0030.0661 0.0885 0.1545 0.0176 0.0819 0.0995 0.0000 250.9692 250.9692 0.0584 0.0000 252.4280 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 3 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
., ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I ' ' '
., ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I
., ' ' ' ' I ' ' ' ' I ' ' I ' I ' ' '

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
195 521

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005 Energy 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Mobile 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005 Unmitigated Operational
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 1-1-2021 3-31-2021 0.7289 0.7289
2 4-1-2021 6-30-2021 0.6290 0.6290
3 7-1-2021 9-30-2021 0.3718 0.3718
Highest 0.7289 0.7289
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 4 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
& & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- & & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- & & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- & & & •I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I -------------------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~-------~---------------~-------~-------~-------~------- & & - i -
196 522

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Prep and Concrete Removal Demolition 1/1/2021 3/25/2021 5 60 2 Pipeline Install Trenching 4/1/2021 7/21/2021 5 80
3 Cover and Fill Paving 8/1/2021 10/22/2021 5 60
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 5 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------~-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T------- I I I &

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I
• • I -------l------------------------l-----------------------l------------~------------4--------4--------4------------------------- • • 1 I I I I • • 1 I I I I
-------l------------------------~-----------------------1-------------1-------------I---------~--------~------------------------- • . • . . '
197 523
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Cover and Fill Plate Compactors 2 7.00 8 0.43
Cover and Fill Cement and Mortar Mixers 4 6.00 9 0.56
Prep and Concrete Removal Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73 Prep and Concrete Removal Skid Steer Loaders 2 8.00 65 0.37 Pipeline Install Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Pipeline Install Trenchers 2 8.00 78 0.50
Pipeline Install Forklifts 1 8.00 89 0.20
Cover and Fill Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Cover and Fill Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Prep and Concrete Removal Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40 Pipeline Install Cranes 1 8.00 231 0.29
Pipeline Install Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Prep and Concrete Removal Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37 Cover and Fill Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Cover and Fill Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37 Trips and VMT
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 6 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I I
I
I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------1---------------------------~---------------- I I ----------------------------~---------------------------1----------------- I I
i
I
------------ :1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ ·1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ ·1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ ·1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ .1---------+-------------- 1
I
------------ :1---------+-------------- 1
I I
~ ------------1--------------~--------------
198 524

3.2 Prep and Concrete Removal - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0643 0.6509 0.5178 8.5000e0040.0337 0.0337 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 74.0668 74.0668 0.0197 0.0000 74.5587 Total 0.0643 0.6509 0.5178 8.5000e0040.0337 0.0337 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 74.0668 74.0668 0.0197 0.0000 74.5587 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Water Exposed Area
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Prep and Concrete
Removal
7 60.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Pipeline Install 6 60.00 1.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Cover and Fill 10 60.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 7 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
• I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------l---------------~----------1----------~----------l-----------t----------~----------1--------------1----------~---------- • I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I ----------------~---------------l-----------~----------l----------~-----------l-----------~----------l---------------1-----------1----------- - I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
199 525

3.2 Prep and Concrete Removal - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Total 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0643 0.6509 0.5178 8.5000e0040.0337 0.0337 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 74.0668 74.0668 0.0197 0.0000 74.5586 Total 0.0643 0.6509 0.5178 8.5000e0040.0337 0.0337 0.0314 0.0314 0.0000 74.0668 74.0668 0.0197 0.0000 74.5586 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 8 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --

I I I I
200 526

3.3 Pipeline Install - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0690 0.6846 0.5569 8.9000e0040.0403 0.0403 0.0371 0.0371 0.0000 78.5018 78.5018 0.0254 0.0000 79.1366 Total 0.0690 0.6846 0.5569 8.9000e0040.0403 0.0403 0.0371 0.0371 0.0000 78.5018 78.5018 0.0254 0.0000 79.1366 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 9 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --

I I I I
201 527

3.3 Pipeline Install - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 1.1000e0043.8900e0039.8000e0041.0000e0052.5000e0041.0000e0052.6000e0047.0000e0051.0000e0058.0000e0050.0000 0.9712 0.9712 6.0000e0050.0000 0.9728 Worker 9.9700e0037.4000e0030.0838 2.5000e0040.0263 2.0000e0040.0265 6.9900e0031.8000e0047.1800e0030.0000 22.9597 22.9597 6.2000e0040.0000 22.9751 Total 0.0101 0.0113 0.0847 2.6000e0040.0266 2.1000e0040.0268 7.0600e0031.9000e0047.2600e0030.0000 23.9309 23.9309 6.8000e0040.0000 23.9479 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0690 0.6846 0.5569 8.9000e0040.0403 0.0403 0.0371 0.0371 0.0000 78.5017 78.5017 0.0254 0.0000 79.1365 Total 0.0690 0.6846 0.5569 8.9000e0040.0403 0.0403 0.0371 0.0371 0.0000 78.5017 78.5017 0.0254 0.0000 79.1365 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 10 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• --

I I I I
202 528

I
I
I
I
i
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: I
I
I
203 529

3.4 Cover and Fill - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Total 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0293 0.2703 0.2976 4.8000e0040.0139 0.0139 0.0130 0.0130 0.0000 40.0304 40.0304 0.0117 0.0000 40.3224 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0293 0.2703 0.2976 4.8000e0040.0139 0.0139 0.0130 0.0130 0.0000 40.0304 40.0304 0.0117 0.0000 40.3224 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 12 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I
I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------.,..-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• ..
..

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

3.4 Cover and Fill - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Total 7.4800e0035.5500e0030.0628 1.9000e0040.0198 1.5000e0040.0199 5.2400e0031.4000e0045.3800e0030.0000 17.2197 17.2197 4.6000e0040.0000 17.2313 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 13 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I •• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I I I 205 531
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

4.2 Trip Summary Information

5.0 Energy Detail

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH User Defined Industrial 0.551391 0.043400 0.201050 0.120272 0.016162 0.005864 0.021029 0.030512 0.002059 0.001866 0.004766 0.000706 0.000924 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 14 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
- - - - - - - - - - - .r-------"'T"-------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T"-------r-------"'T"-------r--------r--------· - - - - - - -,--------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T - - - - - - - • I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I • I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I • I I I I I
206 532
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 15 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual

I I I I I I I I I
I
I
I

I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••n-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,--------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - ..-------"'T"-------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T"-------r-------"'T"-------r--------r--------• - - - - - - -,--------r--------r-------"'T"------"'T - - - - - - - ' 1, ' I I I I I I I I I ' I I I ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' 207 533

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 16 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' I ' ' ' ' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' 1, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' & ' I ' ' ' ' I, ' I ' ' I, ' I ' ' I, ' I ' ' 1, ' I '
208 534

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005 Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 17 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
' 1, ' I ' ' 1, ' I ' ' 1, ' I ' ' I, ' I '

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
• I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
•I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
-----------.,
... -------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------.--------• -------.--------.--------.--------.--------. ------- ., .,
.,
209 535

7.0 Water Detail

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5 Total Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Landscaping 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005 Total 0.0000 0.0000 1.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.0000e0052.0000e0050.0000 0.0000 3.0000e005 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 18 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I
I
I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• I I
I • I I I I I I I I I I & I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• .,
.,
I
I
I
&
i
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
I • I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I •••••••••••m-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------,-------T-------~•••••••1-------,-------,-------,-------T••••••• :: i
I
I
210 536

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated

7.0 Water Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 19 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
I I I
I
• I I I I - - - - - - - - - - - .,.. ______ "'T" ______ "'T" ______ "T - - - - - - - ' I, I I I
' I, ' ' ' ' I,
' 1, ' ' '
211 537

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 / 0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 20 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
' 1, ' ' ' ' 1, ' ' ' ' 1, ' ' ' ' I, ' ' '
I I I
.,
•I I I I
-----------... -------.--------.--------. ------- .,
.,
212 538

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
User Defined
Industrial
0 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 21 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
' 1, ' ' ' ' 1, ' ' ' ' 1, ' ' ' ' I, ' ' '
' I, ' ' ' ' I,
' I,
' 1, ' ' '
213 539

11.0 Vegetation

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Page 22 of 23 Date: 4/12/2019 12:17 PM Riato Storm Drain - South Coast Air Basin, Annual
214 540
APPENDIX 3
215 541
May 20, 2019
Tom Dodson
Tom Dodson and Associates
2150 N Arrowhead Ave
San Bernardino, CA 92405
RE: Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Waters Delineation Rialto Storm Drain, Rialto, CA
Dear Tom:

Jericho Systems, Inc. (Jericho) is pleased to provide this letter report that details the results of a general Biological Resources Assessment/Jurisdictional Waters Delineation (BRA/JD) for a proposed storm drainage system located in the City of Rialto.

Jericho Systems, Inc. (Jericho) is pleased to provide this letter report that details the results of a general Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) that includes habitat suitability assessments for nesting birds, Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW], Delhi sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) [DSF], small mammals such as the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) [SBKR] and Los Angeles Pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris brevinasus) [LAPM] and a Jurisdictional Waters Delineation (JD) for the proposed construction and operation of the Rialto Storm Drain Project (Project).

This report is designed to address potential effects of the proposed Project to designated Critical Habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), or species designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Attention was focused sensitive species known to occur locally. This report also addresses resources protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, federal Clean Water Act (CWA) regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) respectively; and Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FCG) administered by the CDFW.

PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project is located at Cactus Basin (just west of Cactus Avenue and Baseline Road) connecting to Baseline Road south of Cactus Basin and traveling west within Baseline Road to just west of Tamarind Avenue within the City of Rialto, CA. The Project is mostly located within existing roadways, though Cactus Basin (which the proposed project will connect the new storm drain to) is located on land designated for Open Space Resource Use. The project is located in Section 34 Township 1 North, Range 5 West within the Fontana USGS Topo 7.5-minute series maps. The project is primarily 216 542
linear with an approximate Lat/Long of 34.124043, -117.388063 at the eastern portion of the project and

34.121298, -117.422797 at the western portion of the project.

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING
The project consists of installing an approximately 2-mile or 11,000 lineal feet (LF) storm drain system within Baseline Road that would capture flows north of Baseline Road. The storm drain line starts at the Tamarind Avenue/Baseline Road intersection and runs along Baseline Road to the outlet at Cactus Basin No. 3. The City of Rialto Master Plan of Drainage was used to size the storm drain system to improve drainage systems In the City of Rialto. The new storm drain will be developed within a reinforced concrete box (RCB) that will vary in size between 6’ x 12’, 7’ x 7’, and 3’ x 10’ depending on the location within the new storm drain alignment. The majority of the storm drain footprint (located within Baseline Road) will be constructed as a 72” reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), though a portion of the easternmost section of the alignment, which leaves from Baseline Road to Cactus Basin, will vary in size as either a 72”, 84”, 48”, 36”, or 30” RCP.

The project site corresponds to the proposed storm drain “Line D” as described in the City of Rialto Master Plan of Drainage. The project area is located within the Renaissance Development, which consists of the redevelopment of the Rialto Airport and the surrounding areas. The Renaissance Specific Plan was used to get additional information for Line D and meet drainage facility requirements. Subarea D is bounded by 210 freeway on the north, Baseline Road on the south, Cactus Avenue on the east, and Palmetto Avenue on the west. Overland flow travels in southeastern direction in the southern portion of the Renaissance site before it is captured by Line D and outlets to Cactus Basin No. 3.

Flows leaving Basin No. 3 continue on to Basin 1 and 2 and Rialto Channel, which ultimately discharges to the Santa Ana River. Outflow from the Cactus Basin System are limited due to the poor downstream channel capacities.

The proposed project will install one of three Alternative Alignments that will connect the new Baseline Road storm drain alignment with Cactus Basin. The project will retrofit an existing 36” RCP outlet to the larger structure. Energy dissipation measures (such as rip rap pad, baffle) may be installed at the outlet, to control erosive damage from the higher volume discharged from the new pipeline.

SETTING
The City of Rialto sits at the base of the Cajon Pass, where high winds are common meteorological events within the region. The climate in the region is typically characterized as Mediterranean. Typical rainfall averages approximately 17 inches per year. Hydrologically, the Project site is within the Chino Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA 801.21) which comprises a 17,765-acre drainage area within the larger Middle Santa Ana River Watershed (HUC 180702030804).

The subject parcel is situated in a developing area of the Inland Valleys ecoregion.

Most of the project occurs along Baseline Road, and the stretch of road consists of residential and commercial development with ornamental vegetation that is regularly gardened. Plots of undeveloped land adjacent to Baseline Road consist primarily of ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) and wild oat (Avena fatua). Habitat within and adjacent to the Cactus Basin portion consists of degraded alluvial fan sage scrub.
217 543
The stretch that parallels the northbound portion of fence line consists of a steep grade (~70 degree) with evidence of standing water. The northeast portion of the basin consists of a shallow grade (~10 degree).

METHODS
As stated above, the objective of this document is to determine whether the Project area supports special status or otherwise sensitive species and/ or their habitat, and to address the potential effects associated with the Proposed project on those resources. The species and habitats addressed in this document are based on database information and field investigation.

These sources include:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) threatened and endangered species occurrence GIS overlay; • USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation System (IPaC); • California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 5); • CNDDB Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS); • California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) database; • Calflora Database;
• USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey; • USFWS National Wetland Inventory;
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” data layers • USFWS Designated Critical Habitat Maps
We also reviewed other available technical information on the biological resources of the site, including previous trapping surveys and discussed recent findings with researchers in the field.

Jericho biologist Christian Nordal conducted a general biological resources assessment on March 1, 2019, with an emphasis on special-status species known to occur in the area. Mr. Nordal has advanced degrees and multiple years of experience surveying biological resources within Southern California. Mr. Nordal conducted the systematic and comprehensive survey during calm weather, between the hours of 77 a.m. and 11 a.m. Weather conditions during the survey consisted of clear skies with temperatures ranging from 65 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) to 73° F and light wind <5 mph.

On March 30, 2019, Jericho ecologist Shay Lawrey performed a follow up site assessment to evaluate the potential to support for DSF, BUOW and small mammals to occur on site, specifically the federally endangered SBKR and State species of special concern LAPM and federally threatened CAGN. Ms.

Lawrey has advanced degrees in biology, is permitted to trap and handle SBKR and has two decades of experience with surveying for sensitive small mammals and birds.

Wildlife species were detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign. In addition to species observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined per known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. The focus of the faunal species surveys was to identify potential habitat for special status wildlife within the project area.

Disturbance characteristics and all animal sign encountered on the site are recorded in the results section.

The Project area was also evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters, i.e. waters of the U.S. as regulated by the USACE and RWQCB, and/or streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW. Evaluation of potential federal jurisdiction followed the regulations set forth in 33CFR part 328 and the USACE guidance documents and evaluation of potential State jurisdiction followed guidance 218 544
in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (CDFW, 2010).

RESULTS
The project site is primarily a multi-use urban setting, with the Cactus Basin component holding the only vegetation not actively managed by landscaping. The habitat adjacent to the north-bound fencing in Cactus Basin is high disturbance new growth, whereas the habitat in the northeast corner of the project site is high disturbance alluvial fan sage scrub.

Habitat within or adjacent to the north-bound portion on the easternmost part of the Project alignment at Cactus Basin consists primarily of foxtail (Hordeum murinum), wild oat (Avena fatua), stinging nettle (Urtica urens), coastal heron’s bill (Erodium cicutarium) and common fiddleneck (Amsinckia intermedia). Shrubs become increasingly numerous the further north into the basin. Those shrubs are primarily California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and California sagebrush (Artemesia californica). Adjacent to the northernmost portion of the basin is degraded alluvial fan sage scrub that consists of interspersed California sagebrush, California buckwheat, foxtail, ripgut (Bromus diandrus), a single holly-leaf cherry (Prunus ilicifolia) shrub, and a single beavertail cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. basilaris). Vegetation on or adjacent to all other aspects of the project are ornamental landscaped shrubs or ruderal vegetation composed of ripgut and foxtail.

Common wildlife was observed during survey which included side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), white-crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia leucophrys), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), and American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).

The soil conditions within the Project are composed of loam and are not Delhi sands. The loamy soils not suitable to support Delhi sands flower-loving fly [DSF]. Further investigation in to DSF is not warranted or recommended.

Due to the habitat conditions at the east end, northbound portion of the alignment that approaches Cactus Basin, and due to previous records of SBKR in Cactus Basins, there remains a moderate potential for occurrence of SBKR and LAPM. Further the Project site at Cactus Basin is potentially suitable for BUOW.

San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (SBKR)
The SBKR is one of several kangaroo rat species in its range. The Dulzura kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans), the Pacific kangaroo rat (Dipodomys agilis) and the Stephens kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi) can occur in areas occupied by the SBKR, but these other species have a wider habitat range.

The habitat of the SBKR is confined to primary and secondary alluvial fan scrub habitats, with sandy soils deposited by fluvial (water) rather than aeolian (wind) processes. Burrows are dug in loose soil, usually near or beneath shrubs. SBKR, are confined to inland valley scrub communities, and more particularly, to scrub communities occurring along rivers, streams and drainage.

Most of these drainages have been historically altered as a result of flood control efforts and the resulting increased use of river resources, including mining, off-road vehicle uses and road and housing development. This increased use of river resources has resulted in a reduction in both the amount and quality of habitat available for the SBKR. The past habitat losses and potential future losses prompted the emergency listing of the SBKR as an endangered species. 219 545
The Cactus Basin aspect of the Project area does contain habitat elements typically associated with SBKR. Further, small mammal burrows were noted of appropriate size, shape or aspect for SBKRs.

There are documented occurrences of this species within Cactus Basins. For these reasons absence cannot be presumed without a focused presence/absence survey.

Los Angeles Pocket Mouse (LAPM)
The LAPM is one of two pocket mice found in this area of San Bernardino County. Both the LAPM and the San Diego pocket mouse occupy similar habitats, but the San Diego pocket mouse has a wider range extending south into San Diego County. The habitat of the LAPM is confined to lower elevation grasslands and coast sage scrub habitats, in areas with soils composed of fine sands. The present known distribution of this species extends from Rancho Cucamonga east to Morongo and south to the San Diego County border. LAPM forages in open ground and underneath shrubs. Pocket mice in general dig burrows in loose soil, although this has not been completely documented for this subspecies. The LAPM is listed as a Critical Species of Concern by the CDFW.

The Project site contains habitat marginally suitable habitat for LAPM and there are several documented occurrences of LAPM in the near vicinity of the Cactus Basin. No protocol surveys were conducted as part of this assessment, therefore presence or absence of LAPM was not determined, only their potential to occur. Potential of occurrence for LAPM is moderate. Presence or absence of LAPM cannot be presumed without a focused presence/absence survey..

Burrowing owl (BUOW)
BUOW are known to occur locally within suitable habitat areas. BUOW is a ground-dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground.

The BUOW depends on the presence of mammal burrows, i.e. ground squirrel burrows to provide shelter from predators, inclement weather and to provide a nesting place. They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows. They feed primarily on insects but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night, generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31. The BUOW is not listed under the State or Federal Endangered Species Act but is considered both a State and federal SSC. The BUOW is a protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 and by State law under the California Fish and Game Code (CDFG Code #3513 & #3503.5).

Per the definition provided in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, “Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.” Therefore, the Cactus Basin aspect of the Project area and immediate vicinity contains suitable habitat for this species.

No evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area. No burrows of appropriate shape size or aspect for BUOW or BUOW pellets, feathers or whitewash were found on site. No BUOW individuals were observed. Therefore, BUOW are considered absent from the site at the time of surveys. 220 546
Nesting Birds and Raptors
The site is suitable for use by raptors for foraging purposes. The project site and immediate surrounding areas do contain habitat suitable for nesting birds in general, including the shrubs on site.

Nesting birds are protected under the MBTA which provides protection for nesting birds that are both residents and migrants whether they are considered sensitive by resource agencies. The MBTA makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed under 50 CFR 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). The direct injury or death of a migratory bird, due to construction activities or other construction-related disturbance that causes nest abandonment, nestling abandonment, or forced fledging would be considered take under federal law. The USFWS, in coordination with the CDFW administers the MBTA. CDFW’s authoritative nexus to MBTA is provided in FGC Sections 3503.5 which protects all birds of prey and their nests and FGC Section 3800 which protects all non-game birds that occur naturally in the State.

Jurisdiction Waters
Cactus Basin is a jurisdictional water subject to Sections 404 and 401 of the CWA and Section 1600 of the FGC. Modifications within the basin will likely require permits from the USACE, RWQCB and CDFW.

CONCLUSIONS
Several occurrences of SBKR and LAPM are documented in the immediate vicinity of the east end of the Project area. Although the habitat conditions are marginal for these species, absence of either species cannot be determined without focused survey.

Habitat suitability of BUOW is marginal along the alignment where there is vacant land. This species was not observed during survey and no sign of the presence was found. Prior to construction a 30-day survey is warranted and recommended..

The vegetation on site does have a potential to support nesting birds and foraging raptors such as redtailed hawks. Therefore, to reduce the potential impacts to nesting birds, the following is recommended:
• Bird nesting season generally extends from February 1 through September 15 in southern California and specifically, April 15 through August 31 for migratory passerine birds. To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist will conduct pre‐construction Nesting Bird Surveys (NBS) prior to project‐related disturbance to nestable vegetation to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist will set appropriate no‐ work buffers around the nest which will be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance. The nests and buffer zones shall be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone shall be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity shall commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.
221 547
Jericho appreciates the opportunity to continue to be of service. If you have any questions or need any clarifications, feel free to contact me at (909) 915-5900 or at [email protected] Sincerely,
Shay Lawrey, President
Attachments:

Attachment 1 - Figures
Attachment 2 – Table of Potential to Occur
Attachment 3 – Site Photos
222 548
Santa Oarita
s,mi Valley
xnard Thousand
Oaks
Santa
Monica
Lancaster
Palmdale
Victorville
Rancho Cuca...A.,..a Ontario ' '),{'1
Pomona Riverside
Long Anaheim
Beadi San ta An a
Corona
Murrieta
8ann,ng
Twen tymne
Palms
Caltledra/ City Pam Indio Desert
6 Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed 0 0. 75 1.5 3 4.5 Esri, HERE, Delorme, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user •-•c:::::i-•c:::::i••••••=====:::•••••-Miles,------------------..:c=o=mm::un:::it:!.y __ 1 _____________________ 1 0 Figure 1 - Regional Overview Site Vicinity
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
City of Rialto 223 549
0 0.175 0.35 0.7
~ & 1 inch = 2,000 feet

1.05 1.4
Miles
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors Imagery Date: 11/9/2017 Source: Esri,
DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, Figure 2
Pro· ect Location
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
Cit of Rialto 224 550
0 ProJect Location
3 Mile Radius
Occurrences
• Crolch bumble bee
0 Parry's spineflower
• Plummer's manposa-lily
0 Riversidian Alluv ial fan Sage Scrub
• San Bernardino kangaroo rat
0 San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit
0 San Diego desert wood rat
• Santa Ana River woollystar
• burrowing owl
• coast horned lizard
0 coastal Callforn1a gnatcatcher
0 mesa horkeha
0 northwestern San Diego pocket mouse
• singlewhor1 burrobrush
0 smooth tarplant
• soulhem Cahfomia legless hzard
0 western yellow bat

0.5 2
1 inch = 5,417 feet
3 4
Miles Imagery Date: 11/9/201 7
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, Figure 3
3 Mile CNDDB Occurrences
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
City of Rialto 225 551
ProJect Location
1 Mile Radius
Occurrences
• Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub
0 0 burrowing owl
• coast horned lizard

0.175 0.35
~ &

0.7 1 inch = 1,948 feet

1.05 1.4
Miles
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors Imagery Date: 11/9/2017 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, Figure 3.2
1 Mile CNDDB Occurrences
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
City of Rialto 226 552
0 0.5 2
1 inch = 5,399 feet
3 4
Miles Imagery Date: 11/9/2017
Legend
Project Location
3 Mile Radius
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies, CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, Figure 4
M Waters Overla
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
City of Rialto 227 553
0 0.3 0.6 1.2 1.8
~ & 1 inch = 3,333 feet

2.4 Miles
Legend
Project Location
~ Flood Zone
3 Mile Buffer
Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin,© OpenStreetMap contributors Imagery Date: 11/9/2017 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographies. CNES/Airbus OS, USDA, USGS, Figure 5
100-Year FEMA Flood Zone
Rialto Baseline Storm Drain
City of Rialto 228 554
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird
None/
Candidate
Endangered
Highly colonial species, most numerous in
Central Valley & vicinity. Largely endemic to
California. Requires open water, protected
nesting substrate, and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the colony.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Ambrosia monogyra singlewhorl burrobrush None/None
Chaparral, Sonoran desert scrub. Sandy soils.
5-475 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Anniella stebbinsi
southern California legless
lizard None/None
Generally south of the Transverse Range,
extending to northwestern Baja California.

Occurs in sandy or loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Disjunct populations in the
Tehachapi and Piute Mountains in Kern
County. Variety of habitats; generally in moist,
loose soil. They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort
Endangered/
Endangered
Marshes and swamps. Growing up through
dense mats of Typha, Juncus, Scirpus, etc. in
freshwater marsh. Sandy soil. 3-170 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Arizona elegans
occidentalis California glossy snake None/None
Patchily distributed from the eastern portion of
San Francisco Bay, southern San Joaquin
Valley, and the Coast, Transverse, and
Peninsular ranges, south to Baja California.

Generalist reported from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with loose or sandy
soils.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Artemisiospiza belli
belli Bell's sage sparrow None/None
Nests in chaparral dominated by fairly dense
stands of chamise. Found in coastal sage scrub
in south of range. Nest located on the ground
beneath a shrub or in a shrub 6-18 inches
above ground. Territories about 50 yds apart.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None/None
Open, dry annual or perennial grasslands,
deserts, and scrublands characterized by lowgrowing vegetation. Subterranean nester, dependent upon burrowing mammals, most
notably, the California ground squirrel.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin and within the
vacant parcels bordering the
alignment. This species or sign of
BUOW was not observed during
survey. Potential to occur is low to
moderate.
229 555
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
Batrachoseps
gabrieli
San Gabriel slender
salamander None/None
Known only from the San Gabriel Mountains.

Found under rocks, wood, and fern fronds, and
on soil at the base of talus slopes. Most active
on the surface in winter and early spring.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None/None
Coastal California east to the Sierra-Cascade
crest and south into Mexico. Food plant genera
include Antirrhinum, Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia, and Eriogonum.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin. This species
was not observed during survey.

Potential to occur is low to moderate.

Calochortus
plummerae Plummer's mariposa-lily None/None
Coastal scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill
grassland, cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest. Occurs on rocky
and sandy sites, usually of granitic or alluvial
material. Can be very common after fire. 60-
2500 m.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin. This species
was not observed during survey.

Potential to occur is low to moderate.

Catostomus
santaanae Santa Ana sucker
Threatened/
None
Endemic to Los Angeles Basin south coastal
streams. Habitat generalists, but prefer sandrubble-boulder bottoms, cool, clear water, and algae.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Chaetodipus fallax
fallax
northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse None/None
Coastal scrub, chaparral, grasslands,
sagebrush, etc. in western San Diego County.

Sandy, herbaceous areas, usually in association
with rocks or coarse gravel.

Suitable habitat to support this species
occurs within the Project area at
Cactus Basin. Potential to occur is
moderate.

Chaetodipus fallax
pallidus
pallid San Diego pocket
mouse None/None
Desert border areas in eastern San Diego
County in desert wash, desert scrub, desert
succulent scrub, pinyon-juniper, etc. Sandy,
herbaceous areas, usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum salt marsh bird's-beak
Endangered/
Endangered
Marshes and swamps, coastal dunes. Limited
to the higher zones of salt marsh habitat. 0-10
m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi Parry's spineflower None/None
Coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, valley and foothill grassland. Dry
slopes and flats; sometimes at interface of 2
vegetation types, such as chaparral and oak
woodland. Dry, sandy soils. 90-1220 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Chorizanthe xanti
var. leucotheca white-bracted spineflower None/None
Mojavean desert scrub, pinyon and juniper
woodland, coastal scrub (alluvial fans). Sandy
or gravelly places. 365-1830 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.
230 556
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
Cicindela
tranquebarica
viridissima greenest tiger beetle None/None
Inhabits the woodlands adjacent to the Santa
Ana River basin. Usually found in open spots
between trees.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Dipodomys
merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Endangered/
None
Alluvial scrub vegetation on sandy loam
substrates characteristic of alluvial fans and
flood plains. Needs early to intermediate seral
stages.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin. Potential to
occur is low to moderate.

Dodecahema
leptoceras slender-horned spineflower
Endangered/
Endangered
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub
(alluvial fan sage scrub). Flood deposited
terraces and washes; associates include
Encelia, Dalea, Lepidospartum, etc. Sandy
soils. 200-765 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar
Endangered/
Endangered
Coastal scrub, chaparral. In sandy soils on
river floodplains or terraced fluvial deposits.
180-705 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Gila orcuttii arroyo chub None/None
Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San
Luis Rey River basin. Introduced into streams
in Santa Clara, Ventura, Santa Ynez, Mojave
& San Diego river basins. Slow water stream
sections with mud or sand bottoms. Feeds
heavily on aquatic vegetation and associated
invertebrates.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula mesa horkelia None/None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub. Sandy or gravelly sites. 15-1645 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None/None
Found in valley foothill riparian, desert
riparian, desert wash, and palm oasis habitats.

Roosts in trees, particularly palms. Forages
over water and among trees.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Lepidium virginicum
var. robinsonii Robinson's pepper-grass None/None
Chaparral, coastal scrub. Dry soils, shrubland.
4-1435 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego black-tailed
jackrabbit None/None
Intermediate canopy stages of shrub habitats &
open shrub / herbaceous & tree / herbaceous
edges. Coastal sage scrub habitats in Southern
California.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Lilium parryi lemon lily None/None
Lower montane coniferous forest, meadows
and seeps, riparian forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Wet, mountainous terrain;
Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.
231 557
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
generally in forested areas; on shady edges of
streams, in open boggy meadows & seeps.
625-2930 m.

Lycium parishii Parish's desert-thorn None/None
Coastal scrub, Sonoran desert scrub. 135-1000
m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Malacothamnus
parishii Parish's bush-mallow None/None
Chaparral, coastal sage scrub. In a wash. 305-
455 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Monardella pringlei Pringle's monardella None/None Coastal scrub. Sandy hills. 300-400 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Nyctinomops
femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat None/None
Variety of arid areas in Southern California;
pine-juniper woodlands, desert scrub, palm
oasis, desert wash, desert riparian, etc. Rocky
areas with high cliffs.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus pop.
10 steelhead - southern
California DPS
Endangered/
None
Federal listing refers to populations from Santa
Maria River south to southern extent of range
(San Mateo Creek in San Diego County).

Southern steelhead likely have greater
physiological tolerances to warmer water and
more variable conditions.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Opuntia basilaris
var. brachyclada short-joint beavertail None/None
Chaparral, Joshua tree woodland, Mojavean
desert scrub, pinyon-juniper woodland. Sandy
soil or coarse, granitic loam. 425-1800 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse None/None
Lower elevation grasslands and coastal sage
communities in and around the Los Angeles
Basin. Open ground with fine, sandy soils.

May not dig extensive burrows, hiding under
weeds and dead leaves instead.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin. Potential to
occur is low to moderate.

Phrynosoma
blainvillii coast horned lizard None/None
Frequents a wide variety of habitats, most
common in lowlands along sandy washes with
scattered low bushes. Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of loose soil for
burial, and abundant supply of ants and other
insects.

Marginally suitable habitat to support
this species occurs within the Project
area at Cactus Basin. Potential to
occur is low to moderate.

Polioptila
californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
Threatened/
None
Obligate, permanent resident of coastal sage
scrub below 2500 ft in Southern California.

Low, coastal sage scrub in arid washes, on
Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.
232 558
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
mesas and slopes. Not all areas classified as
coastal sage scrub are occupied.

Rana muscosa
southern mountain yellowlegged frogEndangered/
Endangered
Federal listing refers to populations in the San
Gabriel, San Jacinto and San Bernardino
mountains (southern DPS). Northern DPS was
determined to warrant listing as endangered,
Apr 2014, effective Jun 30, 2014. Always
encountered within a few feet of water.

Tadpoles may require 2 - 4 years to complete
their aquatic development.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands flower-loving
fly
Endangered/
None
Found only in areas of the Delhi Sands
formation in southwestern San Bernardino &
northwestern Riverside counties. Requires
fine, sandy soils, often with wholly or partly
consolidated dunes & sparse vegetation.

Oviposition req. shade.

No Delhi sands or host plant species
on site. Suitable habitat to support this
species does not occur onsite.

Potential to occur is low.

Rhinichthys osculus
ssp. 3 Santa Ana speckled dace None/None
Headwaters of the Santa Ana and San Gabriel
rivers. May be extirpated from the Los
Angeles River system. Requires permanent
flowing streams with summer water temps of
17-20 C. Usually inhabits shallow cobble and
gravel riffles.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Riversidian Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub None/None Habitat Type Present within Cactus Basin.

Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort None/None
Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub. Drying alkaline flats. 20-855 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Southern Riparian Forest None/None Habitat Type Habitat type does not occur onsite.

Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland None/None Habitat Type Habitat type does not occur onsite.

Sphenopholis
obtusata prairie wedge grass None/None
Cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps.

Open moist sites, along rivers and springs,
alkaline desert seeps. 15-2625 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Streptanthus
bernardinus
Laguna Mountains
jewelflower None/None
Chaparral, lower montane coniferous forest.

Clay or decomposed granite soils; sometimes
in disturbed areas such as streamsides or
roadcuts. 1440-2500 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.
233 559
Scientific Name Common Name
State/Federal
Ranking Habitat Potential to Occur
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum San Bernardino aster None/None
Meadows and seeps, cismontane woodland,
coastal scrub, lower montane coniferous forest,
marshes and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland. Vernally mesic grassland or near
ditches, streams and springs; disturbed areas.
3-2045 m.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo
Endangered/
Endangered
Summer resident of Southern California in low
riparian in vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests placed along
margins of bushes or on twigs projecting into
pathways, usually willow, Baccharis,
mesquite.

Suitable habitat to support this species
does not occur onsite. Potential to
occur is low.

Source: USFWS/NMFS- 2019 IPaC species list; CNDDB 2019; CNPS 2019.

Status Codes:

E = endangered;
T = threatened;
P = proposed for listing;
C = candidate for listing; and
CH = designated critical habitat
CP = CA state proposed for listing;
FP = CDFW fully protected
234 560
Photo 1 – Vantage
point facing north into
Cactus Basin from
Baseline Rd
Photo 2 – Photo
depicting the
conditions east at any
location within the
fence line stretch of
the project as well as
the levee that separates
the concrete wash
from adjacent land
Photo 3 – Photo
taken facing
southwest from
the northeast
corner of the
project site
depicting the
alluvial fan sage
scrub
Photo 4 – Photo taken
facing northeast from
the southwest corner
of the project site
depicting the alluvial
fan sage scrub
235 561
Photo 5 – Westfacing picture of
the vegetation of
the hillside near
the entrance of the
project site from
Baseline Rd
Photo 6 – Westfacing picture of the
vegetation of the
hillside midway
between the alluvial
fan sage scrub and
Baseline Rd
Photo 7 – Westfacing picture of the
vegetation of the
hillside as the
community transitions
to alluvial fan sage
scrub
Photo vantage Points
236 562
APPENDIX 4
237 563

HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES SURVEY REPORT

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT
City of Rialto
San Bernardino County, California
For Submittal to:

City of Rialto
Public Works/Engineering Division
335 W. Rialto Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Prepared for:

Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
Prepared by:

CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator
Michael Hogan, Principal Investigator
May 16, 2019
CRM TECH Contract No. 3454
238 564
Title: Historical/Archaeological Resources Survey Report: Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California Author(s): Bai “Tom” Tang, Principal Investigator/Historian Ben Kerridge, Archaeologist/Report Writer
Daniel Ballester, Archaeologist/Field Director
Nina Gallardo, Archaeologist/Native American Liaison
Consulting Firm: CRM TECH
1016 East Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
Date: May 16, 2019
For Submittal to: City of Rialto
Public Works/Engineering Division
335 W. Rialto Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
(909) 421-7210
Prepared for: Kaitlyn Dodson, Vice President
Tom Dodson & Associates
2150 N. Arrowhead Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92405
(909) 882-3612
USGS Quadrangle: Fontana, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle (Sections 32-34, T1N R5W, and 3-5, T1S R5W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian)
Project Size: Approximately 2.25 linear miles
Keywords: Eastern San Bernardino Valley; Phase I historical/archaeological resources survey; Site 36-015497 (San Bernardino Baseline/Baseline Road); no “historical resources” under CEQA
239 565

MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
Between March and May 2019, at the request of Tom Dodson & Associates, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study for the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California. The project seeks to upgrade current drainage infrastructure along Baseline Road from a retention basin known as Cactus Basin No. 3 west to the intersection with Tamarind Avenue. The subject property of the study consists of approximately 2.25 linear miles of storm drain right-of-way lying mostly within the existing right-of-way of Baseline Road, in Sections 32-34 of T1N R5W and Sections 3-5 of T1S R5W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian.

The study is part of the environmental review process for the project. The City of Rialto, as the project sponsor and the lead agency, required the study in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The purpose of the study is to provide the City with the necessary information and analysis to determine whether the proposed project would cause substantial adverse changes to any “historical resources,” as defined by CEQA, that may exist in or near the project area. In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, consulted with the Native American representatives, and carried out a systematic field survey.

The historic value of Site 36-015497, however, is symbolic in nature and is derived from the conceptual line across the landscape instead of the existing roadway, a heavily traveled major thoroughfare of entirely modern character and appearance. Therefore, the current configuration and physical features of Baseline Road do not contribute to the historic significance of the site. Since Site 36-015497 exists in the project area largely on paper only, this study concludes that the proposed project has no potential to affect the significance or integrity of this “historical resource.”
240 566
During the course of the Native American contacts, the State of California Native American Heritage Commission reported the presence of unspecified Native American cultural resource(s) in the project vicinity but referred further inquiries to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. In subsequent correspondence, however, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation did not provide any further information on such resources.

According to CEQA guidelines, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resources” is beyond the scope of this study and needs to be addressed through government-to-government consultations between the City of Rialto and the pertinent Native American groups pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.

Based on these findings, CRM TECH recommends to the City of Rialto a preliminary conclusion of No Impact on cultural resources, pending the completion of the City’s government-to-government consultation process with local Native American tribes. No additional cultural resources investigation is recommended for the project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. However, if buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds. 241 567

TABLE OF CONTENTS
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY............................................................................................................. i INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 1 SETTING.............................................................................................................................................. 4 Current Natural Setting..................................................................................................................... 4 Cultural Setting ................................................................................................................................. 5 Prehistoric Context........................................................................................................................ 5 Ethnohistoric Context ................................................................................................................... 5 Historic Context............................................................................................................................ 6 RESEARCH METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 7 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 7 Historical Background Research....................................................................................................... 7 Native American Consultation.......................................................................................................... 7 Field Survey...................................................................................................................................... 8 RESULTS AND FINDINGS................................................................................................................ 8 Records Search.................................................................................................................................. 8 Historical Background Research..................................................................................................... 10 Native American Consultation........................................................................................................ 12 Field Survey.................................................................................................................................... 13 DISCUSSION..................................................................................................................................... 13 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................... 14 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................... 15 APPENDIX 1: Personnel Qualifications............................................................................................ 18 APPENDIX 2: Correspondence with Native American Representatives........................................... 22

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project vicinity...................................................................................................................... 1 Figure 2. Project location..................................................................................................................... 2 Figure 3. Recent aerial photograph of the project area........................................................................ 3 Figure 4. Typical landscape in the project area ................................................................................... 4 Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies....................................................................................... 9 Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1852-1874........................................................................ 10 Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1893-1894........................................................................ 10 Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1936-1938........................................................................ 11 Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954........................................................................ 11 242 568

INTRODUCTION
Between March and May 2019, at the request of Tom Dodson & Associates, CRM TECH performed a cultural resources study for the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California (Figure 1). The project seeks to upgrade current drainage infrastructure along Baseline Road from a retention basin known as Cactus Basin No. 3 west to the intersection with Tamarind Avenue. The subject property of the study consists of approximately

2.25 linear miles of storm drain right-of-way lying mostly within the existing right-of-way of Baseline Road, in Sections 32-34 of T1N R5W and Sections 3-5 of T1S R5W, San Bernardino Baseline and Meridian (Figures 2, 3).

In order to identify such resources, CRM TECH conducted a historical/archaeological resources records search, pursued historical background research, consulted with the Native American representatives, and carried out a systematic field survey. The following report is a complete account of the methods, results, and final conclusion of the study. Personnel who participated in the study are named in the appropriate sections below, and their qualifications are provided in Appendix 1.

Figure 1. Project vicinity. (Based on USGS San Bernardino, Calif., 60’x30’ quadrangle [USGS 1969]) 243 569
Figure 2. Project location. (Based on USGS Fontana and Devore, Calif., 7.5’ quadrangle [USGS 1980; 1988]) Devore Quad. ~.
,,
II
Fontana Quad.~----
• \Vel~ 32
;.._
: ... ; ... :~
• 1· •
-- • • • It •
~ Resec'VOtfs ~
~~ ~~=i ,, Q
• II • • It •
:: ----~~
:::t,- .1<<>-,-... _ _ .::~~ - - ..::.:~
0 SCALE 1 :24,000
1/2

HIGHLAND
1 mile
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 feet
1500
: , Subsiat10n
244 570
Figure 3. Recent aerial photograph of the project area. (Based on Google Earth imagery) 245 571

SETTING

CURRENT NATURAL SETTING
The City of Rialto is situated in the eastern portion of the San Bernardino Valley, a broad inland valley defined by the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountain Ranges on the north and a series of low rocky hills on the south. The environment of the region is characterized by its temperate Mediterranean climate, with the average maximum temperature in July reaching above 90 degrees Fahrenheit and the average minimum temperature in January hovering around 35 degrees. Annual rainfall is typically less than 20 inches, most of which occurs between November and March.

As mentioned above, most of the project alignment lies within the Baseline Road right-of-way, while the easterly end of the project, from Baseline Road to the Cactus Basins, follows the course of an unpaved access road (Figure 3). This segment of Baseline Road, a heavily traveled local thoroughfare, is lined predominantly by suburban residential neighborhoods on the south and by recent commercial and warehouse developments on the north, with some vacant land and a few older residences of rural character still present (Figures 3, 4).

The terrain in the vicinity is relatively level, with a slight incline to the west, and the elevations in the project area range approximately from 1,360 feet to 1,415 feet above mean sea level. Virtually the entire project area has been disturbed by past construction activities associated with Baseline Road, the retention basins, the access road, underground utilities, nearby buildings, and other urban development. The existing vegetation in and around the project area consisted mainly of landscaping plants with some small grasses and shrubs, and little vestige of the native landscape remains (Figure 4).

Figure 4. Typical landscape in the project area. Photograph taken on March 22, 2019, along Baseline Road near the intersection of Ayala Drive; view to the west.
246 572

CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistoric Context
The earliest evidence of human occupation in inland southern California was discovered below the surface of an alluvial fan in the northern portion of the Lakeview Mountains, overlooking the San Jacinto Valley, with radiocarbon dates clustering around 9,500 B.P. (Horne and McDougall 2008).

Another site found near the shoreline of Lake Elsinore, close to the confluence of Temescal Wash and the San Jacinto River, yielded radiocarbon dates between 8,000 and 9,000 B.P. (Grenda 1997).

Additional sites with isolated Archaic dart points, bifaces, and other associated lithic artifacts from the same age range have been found in the nearby Cajon Pass area, typically atop knolls with good viewsheds (Basgall and True 1985; Goodman and McDonald 2001; Goodman 2002; Milburn et al. 2008).

The cultural history of southern California has been summarized into numerous chronologies, including the works of Chartkoff and Chartkoff (1984), Warren (1984), and others. The prehistory of Riverside County specifically has been addressed by O’Connell et al. (1974), McDonald, et al. (1987), Keller and McCarthy (1989), Grenda (1993), Goldberg (2001), and Horne and McDougall (2008). Although the beginning and ending dates of different cultural horizons vary regionally, the general framework of the prehistory of inland southern California can be divided into three primary periods:
• Paleoindian Period (ca. 18,000-9,000 B.P.): Native peoples of this period created fluted spearhead bases designed to be hafted to wooden shafts. The distinctive method of thinning bifaces and spearhead preforms by removing long, linear flakes leaves diagnostic Paleoindian markers at tool-making sites. Other artifacts associated with the Paleoindian toolkit include choppers, cutting tools, retouched flakes, and perforators. Sites from this period are very sparse across the landscape and most are deeply buried.
• Archaic Period (ca. 9,000-1,500 B.P.): Archaic sites are characterized by abundant lithic scatters of considerable size with many biface thinning flakes, bifacial preforms broken during manufacture, and well-made groundstone bowls and basin metates. As a consequence of making dart points, many biface thinning waste flakes were generated at individual production stations, which is a diagnostic feature of Archaic sites.
• Late Prehistoric Period (ca. 1,500 B.P.-contact): Sites from this period typically contain small lithic scatters from the manufacture of small arrow points, expedient groundstone tools such as tabular metates and unshaped manos, wooden mortars with stone pestles, acorn or mesquite bean granaries, ceramic vessels, shell beads suggestive of extensive trading networks, and steatite implements such as pipes and arrow shaft straighteners.

Ethnohistoric Context
Ethnographically, the present-day Rialto area lies between the traditional territories of the Serrano and the Gabrielino, which adjoined and overlapped with each other, at least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Gabrielinos, probably the most influential Native American group in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin and reached as far east as the San Bernardino-Riverside area. 247 573
The homeland of the Serranos was centered in the San Bernardino Mountains but also included the slopes and lowlands on the flanks of the mountain range and the southern portion of the Mojave Desert.

Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the Rialto area exhibited similar social organization and resource procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/base sites are marked by midden deposits, often with bedrock mortars. During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and animals. Their gathering strategies often left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources.

As early as 1542, the Gabrielino were in contact with the Spanish during the historic expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo, but it was not until 1769 that the Spaniards took steps to colonize Gabrielino territory. Shortly afterwards, most of the Gabrielino people were incorporated into Mission San Gabriel and other missions in southern California. The Serrano were brought into the mission system during the 1810s, when an asistencia of Mission San Gabriel was established in present-day Loma Linda. Due to introduced diseases, dietary deficiencies, and forceful reduction, Gabrielino and Serrano population dwindled rapidly. By 1900, the Gabrielino had almost ceased to exist as a culturally identifiable group (Bean and Smith 1978a:540). The Serrano, meanwhile, were mostly settled on the San Manuel and the Morongo Indian Reservations (Bean and Smith 1978b:573).

Historic Context
In 1772, three years after the beginning of Spanish colonization of Alta California, Pedro Fages, comandante of the new province, and a small force of soldiers under his command became the first Europeans to set foot in the San Bernardino Valley (Beck and Haase 1974:15). They were followed in the next few years by two other famed Spanish explorers, Juan Bautista de Anza and Francisco Garcés, who traveled through the valley in the mid-1770s (ibid.). Despite these early visits, for the next 40 years the inland valley received little impact from the Spanish colonization activities in Alta California, which were concentrated predominantly in the coastal regions.

Following the establishment of Mission San Gabriel in 1771, the San Bernardino Valley became nominally a part of the landholdings of that mission. The name “San Bernardino” was bestowed on the region at least by 1819, when a mission asistencia and an associated rancho were officially established under that name in the eastern end of the valley (Lerch and Haenszel 1981). After gaining independence from Spain in 1821, the Mexican government began in 1834 the process of secularizing the mission system in Alta California, which in practice meant the confiscation of the Franciscan missions’ vast land holdings, to be distributed later among prominent citizens of the province. During the 1830s and 1840s, several large land grants were made around present-day Rialto (Beck and Haase 1974:38). However, most of what is now the City of Rialto, including the project area, was not included in any of these land grants, and thus remained unclaimed public land when California was annexed by the U.S. in 1848.

Used primarily as cattle ranches, the area around Rialto saw little development until the mid-19th century, when a group of Mormon settlers from Salt Lake City founded the town of San Bernardino in 1851. After the completion of the Southern Pacific Railroad and the competing Atchison, Topeka 248 574
and Santa Fe Railway in the 1870s-1880s, a phenomenal land boom swept through much of southern California, ushering in a number of new settlements in the San Bernardino Valley. In 1887, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company purchased a large tract of land near the mouth of Lytle Creek, together with the necessary water rights to the creek, and laid out the townsites of Rialto, Bloomington, and Rosena (now Fontana; Ingersoll 1904:619; Brown and Boyd 1922:249-250).

With the collapse of the 1880s land boom, the Semi-Tropic Land and Water Company lost its holdings to its creditors in 1896, and the entire enterprise was thrown into financial turmoil (Schuiling 1984:90, 102). The community of Rialto survived, thanks largely to the newly established citrus industry. Throughout the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Rialto grew steadily as one of San Bernardino Valley’s “citrus showcases,” with most of its residents devoted primarily to the cultivation of the navel orange (Brown and Boyd 1922:249-250). Since the mid-20th century, the Rialto area became increasingly urbanized—and its economic livelihood diversified—along with the rest of southern California. Today, the area’s once thriving citrus industry is more a part of its cultural heritage than a force in the local economy.

RESEARCH METHODS

RECORDS SEARCH
On March 20, 2019, CRM TECH archaeologist Ben Kerridge completed the historical/ archaeological resources records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), California State University, Fullerton. During the records search, Kerridge examined maps, records, and electronic databases at the SCCIC for previously identified cultural resources and existing cultural resources reports within a one-mile radius of the project area. Previously identified cultural resources include properties designated as California Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, or San Bernardino County Historical Landmarks, as well as those listed in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the California Historical Resources Inventory.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical background research on the project area was conducted by CRM TECH principal investigator/historian Bai “Tom” Tang on the basis of published literature in local and regional history, U.S. General Land Office (GLO) land survey plat maps dated 1856-1875, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps dated 1901-1988, and aerial photographs taken in 1938-2018.

The historic maps are collected at the Science Library of the University of California, Riverside, and the California Desert District of the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, located in Moreno Valley.

The aerial photographs are available at the Nationwide Environmental Title Research (NETR) Online website and through the Google Earth software.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
On March 14, 2019, CRM TECH submitted a written request to the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for a records search in the commission’s Sacred Lands 249 575
File. Following the NAHC’s recommendations and previously established consultation protocol, CRM TECH further contacted a total of nine nearby tribes in writing on March 28 for additional information on potential Native American cultural resources in the vicinity. Correspondence between CRM TECH and the Native American representatives is summarized below and attached to this report in Appendix 2.

FIELD SURVEY
On March 22, 2019, CRM TECH archaeologist Daniel Ballester carried out the field survey of the project area. The portion of the project area along the dirt access road between the Cactus Basins and Baseline Road was surveyed at an intensive level by walking two parallel transects placed on either side of the alignment, and the rest of the project area, lying within the Baseline Road right-ofway, was surveyed at a reconnaissance level from a slow-moving motor vehicle. In this way, the ground surface in the entire project area was systematically examined for any evidence of human activities dating to the prehistoric or historic period (i.e., 50 years or older). Visibility of the native ground surface was poor within the Baseline Road right-of-way but good (80 percent) along the dirt access road.

RESULTS AND FINDINGS

RECORDS SEARCH
According to SCCIC records, five previous cultural resources studies completed between 1995 and 2016 have evidently included various portions of the project area (Figure 5). As a result of these studies, one historical/archaeological site, designated 36-015497 in the California Historical Resources Inventory, was previously recorded as lying partially within the project area. The site represents the San Bernardino Baseline, which is embodied by Baseline Road in the project vicinity, and was officially designated a California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI-SBr-12) in 1973 (OHP 1973). In addition to 36-015497, four other sites were previously recorded on properties adjacent to the project area. The four adjacent sites are listed below:
36-010659 (CA-SBR-10659H) sparse refuse scatter
36-010908 (CA-SBR-10908H) structural foundation, standpipe, and refuse scatter 36-021612 three early 20th century bungalows
36-029057 (CA-SBR-29057H) multi-origin refuse dumping site Outside the project area but within the one-mile radius, SCCIC records show more than 20 other studies on various tracts of land and linear features, including at least four studies on adjacent properties (Figure 5). In all, approximately 75 percent of the land within the scope of the records search has been surveyed, resulting in the identification of seven additional sites. Like the five sites within or adjacent to the project boundaries, all of these sites dated to the historic period. Among them were buildings, structural foundations, water storage tanks, refuse scatters, and the former Rialto Municipal Airport. None of these seven sites was found in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Therefore, none of them requires further consideration during this study. 250 576
Figure 5. Previous cultural resources studies in the vicinity of the project area, listed by SCCIC file number. Locations of historical/archaeological sites are not shown as a protective measure.
,~-----~~Q@J,g.1,4
1063533,,
1066914 <t
I.SOO
~ • SubS!4tJOn /
- Project area CJ :~eas previously
rveyed
-- Linear surveys
1000 SCALE 1 :24,000
_ 2000 feet ~===~o==~1goo~ok~~
251 577

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND RESEARCH
Historical maps demonstrate that in the mid-19th century, when the U.S. government conducted the earliest systematic land surveys in the San Bernardino Valley, the only man-made features known to be present in the project vicinity were a few winding roads (Figure 6). The most notable among these was the forerunner of present-day Baseline Road, which was then a part of a main thoroughfare between San Bernardino and Los Angeles. The road was blazed by the Mormon settlers in San Bernardino in the mid-1850s and was laid out generally along the San Bernardino Baseline (Haenszel 1979:31). In the vicinity of the project area, however, the actual route of that road was roughly a half-mile south of the baseline and well outside the project area (Figure 6).

By the late 19th century, the early roads had been replaced by a grid of widely spaced roads lined by scattered buildings, in a settlement pattern that was typical of rural southern California at the time (Figure 7). The current alignments of Baseline Road and some of the intersecting streets across the project area dated to that period. Between the 1890s and the 1940s, a few buildings, presumably farmsteads, were noted along the segment of Baseline Road in the project area, but most of the land was used as agricultural fields, including citrus groves or other types of orchards (Figure 8; NETR Online 1938; 1948).

In the early days of the post-World War II boom, the number of building along the project route began to rise, but the rural character of the area did not change until the 1966-1980 era, when the first suburban residential tract developments occurred on the south side of Baseline Road (Figure 9; NETR Online 1948-1980). To the east of the project area, a gravel quarry was in operation in the Figure 6. The project area and vicinity in 1852-1874
(Source: GLO 1856; 1875)
Figure 7. The project area and vicinity in 1893-1894
(Source: USGS 1901)
<..-: "·\ .,1
~ /(IQ 6'0 ,· ~
'..-----
---- ,,,,,,Zat •.·~Vhd~,.&""Jr._ .. .. 12. 78 ~;,.).l .,,.. / H -.,v. ~ :.<J.&!.- .J'83":I .,., ~- • 1,.· ~'1 -~~ ... ~~~~~\L:1!~ t?. ~i~~NCnd •
?. ' Project ,\"'p,-• ,1-4- ------.,----
area 6' to '\..
'
"§: ':f cd;. I \ -,:·!/ ii! , . :z: ~ .. ::: 1) '& • I "'Ii ~ l ! ~ . ,: " ~" ,o 1•\~ :: ... ~hr~ - r ~-
ii! 1 ,.,,_,.,, ~ . !
"' '
.,,,,.,,,. ,., .,,,,.+, '11. .,{-41,_,,. A-'N.fl r~ -,,,.7.v .-1~,.) .,/1.,J.']'~ ,/-., ,~c ii • - ' ~
~ )l•t N°I ,.,.., ,i ., ,,,-, Jin, ~ i'o ,+ 8• .,4 J.,~ 1,. S....., A 1, :JJ e.,rr1 -:tr•··-· '-: I),_ ,) ,.;01 •• •• ··- !>'O r,, .,., i .... _ ....... ·············{f l<y'~······ -f6 IY;-'11r .-:/. 1t & ,/-t&o .,{1r.o ., 4/l,d .,f /{;1
t -~
., ~ ..
,, ., ~t.J " . "
Y./:r"""r
0 2000 4000 feet
I 0
SCALE 1 :62,500
1 mile
252 578
Figure 8. The project area and vicinity in 1936-1938. (Source: USGS 1941; 1943) Figure 9. The project area and vicinity in 1952-1954. (Source: USGS 1953; 1954) ~::~ 1: i! 11• ____ IL II
y 11 . II
:;:".:1r······ _J:. ......... ~T-·_ /~ -_~_=--- -=-- - "----' ~-,._,._ ____. ""'l~-n<----:::·- • /' ,.,.-- M I RO· F == All\l\A
--~ Devore Quad. ------ - ~---- -1/--=-----::;;-L---------, ------ ....
34 Fontana Quad.
••
: __ •J....!.~X~- . LL. ___ .__
3 SCALE 1 :24,000 /31/-0
o 1 000 2000 feet
253 579
area of the present-day Cactus Basins during the 1940s-1970s (Figure 9; NETR Online 1948-1980).

The retention basins adjacent to the project area today, namely Cactus Basins No. 3 and No. 3A, were built sometime between 1980 and 1994, after the quarry ceased operation (NETR Online 1980; 1994).

By the mid-1990s, most of the land along the south side of Baseline Road had been developed into residential neighborhoods (NETR Online 1994; Google Earth 1994; 1995). The final infill development, along Grove Place between Maple Avenue and Locus Avenue, was completed between 2005 and 2009 (Google Earth 2002-2009). On the north side of Baseline Road, the rural land uses persisted well into the 1990s before the construction of two self-storage facilities near the eastern end of the project area began to transform the landscape, followed by two strip malls at the intersection of Ayala Road in 2004-2005 (Google Earth 1994-2005).

The large warehouses that dominate the land use on that side of Baseline Road is the most recent development along the project route, dating only to 2013-2018 (Google Earth 2005-2018). With the accelerated residential and commercial development along its course since the 1980s, the character and configuration of Baseline Road itself have also been significantly altered, most notably with the addition of curbs, sidewalks and, during the current decade, landscaped medians (NETR Online 1968-1994; Google Earth 1994-2018).

NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
In response to CRM TECH’s request, the NAHC reported in a letter dated March 26, 2019, that the sacred Lands Record File indicated the presence of Native American cultural resource(s) in the project vicinity but referred further inquiries to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation. In the meantime, the NAHC also recommended that other local Native American groups be contacted for further information and provided a list of potential contacts in the region (see Appendix 2).

Upon receiving the NAHC’s reply, CRM TECH sent written requests for comments to all nine tribal organizations on the referral list (see Appendix 2). For some of the tribes, the designated spokespersons on cultural resources issues were contacted in lieu of the tribal political leaders on the referral list, as recommended in the past by the pertinent tribal government staff. The nine tribal representatives contacted during this study are listed below:
• Andy Salas, Chairperson, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation; • Sandonne Goad, Chairperson, Gabrielino/Tongva Nation; • Anthony Morales, Chairperson, Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians; • Robert Dorame, Chairperson, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council; • Charles Alvarez, Chairperson, Gabrielino Tongva Tribe; • Travis Armstrong, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Morongo Band of Mission Indians; • Donna Yocum, Chairperson, San Fernando Band of Mission Indians; • Jessica Mauck, Cultural Resources Analyst, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians; • Mark Cochrane, Chairperson, Serrano Nation of Mission Indians. 254 580
As of this time, three of the nine tribes have responded in writing (see Appendix 2). Travis Armstrong of the Morongo Band and Jessica Mauck of the San Manuel Band stated that their respective tribes have no additional information to provide for this study. Ms. Mauck indicated that the San Manuel Band “is unlikely to have concerns during formal consultation with the lead agency,” while Mr. Armstrong indicated that the Morongo Band “may provide other information to the lead agency during the AB 52 consultation process.” On behalf of the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, Brandy Salas, Tribal Administrative Specialist, replied that the tribe would like to pursue government-to-government consultation with the City of Rialto. She did not, however, provide any further information on Native American cultural resource(s) that may exist in the project vicinity.

FIELD SURVEY
The results of the field survey indicate that all four of the historical/archaeological sites previously recorded on properties adjacent to the project area (36-010659, 36-010908, 36-021612, and 36- 029057) have been removed. Their former locations are now occupied by the residential neighborhood along Grove Place and the warehouses between Maple Avenue and Laurel Avenue, which were built in 2005-2009 and 2013-2018, respectively (Google Earth 2005-2018).

Baseline Road, the physical embodiment of Site 36-015497 (San Bernardino Baseline), remains in heavy use today as a local thoroughfare. As a result of continuous alterations in response to the gradual urbanization of the area along its course, this segment of the road is now entirely modern in appearance and demonstrates no historical characteristics despite its 19th century origin (Figure 4).

No other potential “historical resources” were encountered within the project area throughout the course of the survey.

DISCUSSION
The purpose of this study is to identify any cultural resources within or adjacent to the project area and assist the City of Rialto in determining whether such resources meet the official definition of “historical resources” or as provided in the California Public Resources Code, in particular CEQA.

According to PRC §5020.1(j), “‘historical resource’ includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant, or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.” More specifically, CEQA guidelines state that the term “historical resources” applies to any properties listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, included in a local register of historical resources, or determined to be historically significant by the lead agency (Title 14 CCR §15064.5(a)(1)-(3)). In other words, buildings, structures, sites, or districts that belong to one or more of the following three categories are to be considered “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA compliance (160 Cal. App. 4th 1051):
• Mandatory historical resources: properties that are listed in or formally determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources; 255 581
• Presumptive historical resources: properties that are designated in an officially established local register, recognized by local ordinance, resolution, or general plan, or identified in a local survey prepared in accordance with PRC §5024.1(g), unless determined not to be historically or culturally significant by the lead agency upon a preponderance of the evidence; • Discretionary historical resources: properties that are determined to be historically significant in the lead agency’s discretion, independent of any decision to list or designate them in a national, state, or local register of historical resources.

In summary of the research results presented above, five historical/archaeological sites were previously recorded within or adjacent to the project area, but four of them, 36-010659, 36-010908, 36-021612, and 36-029057, are no longer extant today. The remaining site, 36-015497, represents the San Bernardino Baseline, which is embodied by Baseline Road in the project vicinity. As a part of the basis for all land surveys and titles in southern California since 1853, the San Bernardino Baseline has been designated a California Point of Historical Interest (CPHI-SBr-12). As a property included in a state-wide register of local historical resources, Site 36-015497 clearly meets the definition of a “historical resource” in the category of “presumptive historical resources.” The historic value of Site 36-015497, however, is symbolic in nature and is derived from the conceptual line across the landscape instead of the existing roadway. The current configuration and physical features of Baseline Road, which are modern and in fact quite recent in origin, do not contribute to the historic significance of the site. Since Site 36-015497 exists in the project area largely on paper only, CRM TECH concludes that the proposed project has no potential to affect the significance or integrity of this “historical resource.” As no other potential “historical resources” were identified within the project area, CRM TECH further concludes that no “historical resources” will be impacted by the project.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
CEQA establishes that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a “historical resource” or a “tribal cultural resource” is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC §21084.1-2). “Substantial adverse change,” according to PRC §5020.1(q), “means demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of a historical resource would be impaired.”
As stated above, the results of the present study indicate that no “historical resources” will be impacted by the proposed project. However, the NAHC reported the presence of unspecified Native American cultural resource(s) in the project vicinity and referred further inquiries to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians–Kizh Nation, who did not provide any information on such resources during this study. According to CEQA guidelines, the identification of potential “tribal cultural resources” is beyond the scope of this study and needs to be addressed through government-togovernment consultations between the City of Rialto and the pertinent Native American groups pursuant to Assembly Bill 52.

Based on these findings, CRM TECH presents the following recommendations to the City of Rialto:
256 582
• A preliminary conclusion of No Impact on cultural resources appears to be appropriate for this project, pending the completion of the City’s government-to-government consultation process with local Native American tribes to ensure the proper identification of potential “tribal cultural resources.”
• No additional cultural resources investigation will be necessary for the project unless construction plans undergo such changes as to include areas not covered by this study. • If buried cultural materials are encountered inadvertently during any earth-moving operations associated with the project, all work within 50 feet of the discovery should be halted or diverted until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the nature and significance of the finds.

REFERENCES
Basgall, Mark E., and D.L. True
1985 Archaeological Investigations in Crowder Canyon, 1973-1984: Excavations at Sites SBR421B, SBR-421C, SBR-421D, and SBR-713, San Bernardino County, California. On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Bean, Lowell John, and Charles R. Smith
1978a Gabrielino. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:

California; pp. 538-549. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 1978b Serrano. In Robert F. Heizer (ed.): Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8:

California; pp. 570-574. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase
1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.

Brown, John, Jr., and James Boyd
1922 History of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago.

Chartkoff, Joseph L., and Kerry Kona Chartkoff
1984 The Archaeology of California. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California.

GLO (General Land Office, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1856 Plat Map: Township No. 1 South Range No. 5 West, SBBM; surveyed in 1852-1856. 1875 Plat Map: Township No. 1 North Range No. 5 West, SBBM; surveyed in 1852-1874.

Goldberg, Susan K. (ed.)
2001 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations. On file, Eastern information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Goodman, John D., II
2002 Archaeological Survey of the Charter Communications Cable Project, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-102. San Bernardino.

Goodman, John D., II, and M. McDonald
2001 Archaeological Survey of the Southern California Trials Association Event Area, Little Pine Flats, Mountaintop Ranger District, San Bernardino National Forest, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-BB-106. San Bernardino.

Google Earth
1994-2018 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1994, 1995, 2002-2007, 2009, 2011-2014, 2016, and 2018. Available through the Google Earth software. 257 583
Grenda, Donn
1993 Archaeological Treatment Plan for CA-RIV-2798/H, Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. 1997 Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore. Statistical Research Technical Series 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.

Haenszel, Arda M.
1979 The Base Line Road. Odyssey I(4):29, 31. City of San Bernardino Historical Society, San Bernardino.

Horne, Melinda C., and Dennis P. McDougall
2008 CA-RIV-6069: Early Archaic Settlement and Subsistence in the San Jacinto Valley, Western Riverside County, California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

Ingersoll, L.A.
1904 Ingersoll’s Century Annals of San Bernardino County, 1769 to 1904. L.A. Ingersoll, Los Angeles.

Keller, Jean S., and Daniel F. McCarthy
1989 Data Recovery at the Cole Canyon Site (CA-RIV-1139), Riverside County, California.

Pacific Coast Archeological Society Quarterly 25.

Lerch, Michael K., and Arda M. Haenszel
1981 Life on Cottonwood Row. Heritage Tales 1981:33-71. Fourth Annual Publication of the City of San Bernardino Historical Society, San Bernardino.

McDonald, Meg, Philip J. Wilke, and Andrea Kauss
1987 McCue: An Elko Site in Riverside County. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 9(1):46-73.

Milburn, Doug, U.K. Doan, and John D. Goodman II
2008 Archaeological Investigation at Baldy Mesa-Cajon Divide for the Baldy Mesa OffHighway-Vehicle Recreation Trails Project, San Bernardino National Forest, San Bernardino County, California. San Bernardino National Forest Technical Report 05-12-53-091. San Bernardino.

NETR Online
1938-1994 Aerial photographs of the project vicinity; taken in 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1980, and 1994. http://www.historicaerials.com.

O’Connell, James F., Philip J. Wilke, Thomas F. King, and Carol L. Mix (eds.) 1974 Perris Reservoir Archaeology: Late Prehistoric Demographic Change in Southeastern California. On file, Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.

OHP (Office of Historic Preservation, State of California) 1973 California Point of Historical Interest designation form, CPHI-SBr-12 (36-015497). On file, South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton.

Schuiling, Walter C.
1984 San Bernardino County: Land of Contrasts. Windsor Publications, Woodland Hills, California.

USGS (United States Geological Survey, U.S. Department of the Interior) 1901 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (15’, 1:62,500); surveyed in 1893-1894. 1941 Map: Devore, Calif. (1:31,680); surveyed in 1936.
1943 Map: Fontana, Calif. (1:31,680); surveyed in 1938. 258 584
1953 Map: Fontana, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1952, field-checked in 1953.
1954 Map: Devore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); aerial photographs taken in 1952, field-checked in 1954.
1969 Map: San Bernardino, Calif. (1:250,000); 1958 edition revised. 1980 Map: Fontana, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1967 edition photorevised in 1978. 1988 Map: Devore, Calif. (7.5’, 1:24,000); 1966 edition photorevised in 1985.

Warren, Claude N.
1984 The Desert Region. In Michael J. Moratto (ed.): California Archaeology; pp. 339-430.

Academic Press, Orlando, Florida.
259 585
APPENDIX 1:

PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/HISTORIAN
Bai “Tom” Tang, M.A.

Education
1988-1993 Graduate Program in Public History/Historic Preservation, UC Riverside. 1987 M.A., American History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut. 1982 B.A., History, Northwestern University, Xi’an, China. 2000 “Introduction to Section 106 Review,” presented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the University of Nevada, Reno.
1994 “Assessing the Significance of Historic Archaeological Sites,” presented by the Historic Preservation Program, University of Nevada, Reno.

Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1993-2002 Project Historian/Architectural Historian, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1993-1997 Project Historian, Greenwood and Associates, Pacific Palisades, California. 1991-1993 Project Historian, Archaeological Research Unit, UC Riverside. 1990 Intern Researcher, California State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 1990-1992 Teaching Assistant, History of Modern World, UC Riverside. 1988-1993 Research Assistant, American Social History, UC Riverside. 1985-1988 Research Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1985-1986 Teaching Assistant, Modern Chinese History, Yale University. 1982-1985 Lecturer, History, Xi’an Foreign Languages Institute, Xi’an, China.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Preliminary Analyses and Recommendations Regarding California’s Cultural Resources Inventory System (with Special Reference to Condition 14 of NPS 1990 Program Review Report). California State Office of Historic Preservation working paper, Sacramento, September 1990.

Numerous cultural resources management reports with the Archaeological Research Unit, Greenwood and Associates, and CRM TECH, since October 1991. 260 586

PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/ARCHAEOLOGIST
Michael Hogan, Ph.D., RPA*
Education
1991 Ph.D., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside. 1981 B.S., Anthropology, University of California, Riverside; with honors. 1980-1981 Education Abroad Program, Lima, Peru.
2002 Section 106—National Historic Preservation Act: Federal Law at the Local Level.

UCLA Extension Course #888.
2002 “Recognizing Historic Artifacts,” workshop presented by Richard Norwood, Historical Archaeologist.
2002 “Wending Your Way through the Regulatory Maze,” symposium presented by the Association of Environmental Professionals.
1992 “Southern California Ceramics Workshop,” presented by Jerry Schaefer. 1992 “Historic Artifact Workshop,” presented by Anne Duffield-Stoll.

Professional Experience
2002- Principal Investigator, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 1999-2002 Project Archaeologist/Field Director, CRM TECH, Riverside. 1996-1998 Project Director and Ethnographer, Statistical Research, Inc., Redlands. 1992-1998 Assistant Research Anthropologist, University of California, Riverside 1992-1995 Project Director, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1993-1994 Adjunct Professor, Riverside Community College, Mt. San Jacinto College, U.C.

Riverside, Chapman University, and San Bernardino Valley College. 1991-1992 Crew Chief, Archaeological Research Unit, U. C. Riverside. 1984-1998 Archaeological Technician, Field Director, and Project Director for various southern California cultural resources management firms.

Research Interests
Cultural Resource Management, Southern Californian Archaeology, Settlement and Exchange Patterns, Specialization and Stratification, Culture Change, Native American Culture, Cultural Diversity.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Author and co-author of, contributor to, and principal investigator for numerous cultural resources management study reports since 1986.

Memberships
* Register of Professional Archaeologists; Society for American Archaeology; Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society; Coachella Valley Archaeological Society. 261 587

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/FIELD DIRECTOR
Daniel Ballester, M.S.

Education
2013 M.S., Geographic Information System (GIS), University of Redlands, California. 1998 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, San Bernardino. 1997 Archaeological Field School, University of Las Vegas and University of California, Riverside.
1994 University of Puerto Rico, Rio Piedras, Puerto Rico. 2007 Certificate in Geographic Information Systems (GIS), California State University, San Bernardino.
2002 “Historic Archaeology Workshop,” presented by Richard Norwood, Base Archaeologist, Edwards Air Force Base; presented at CRM TECH, Riverside, California.

Professional Experience
2002- Field Director/GIS Specialist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 2011-2012 GIS Specialist for Caltrans District 8 Project, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California.
2009-2010 Field Crew Chief, Garcia and Associates, San Anselmo, California. 2009-2010 Field Crew, ECorp, Redlands.
1999-2002 Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside, California. 1998-1999 Field Crew, K.E.A. Environmental, San Diego, California. 1998 Field Crew, A.S.M. Affiliates, Encinitas, California. 1998 Field Crew, Archaeological Research Unit, University of California, Riverside.

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/NATIVE AMERICAN LIAISON
Nina Gallardo, B.A.

Education
2004 B.A., Anthropology/Law and Society, University of California, Riverside.

Professional Experience
2004- Project Archaeologist, CRM TECH, Riverside/Colton, California. 262 588

PROJECT ARCHAEOLOGIST/REPORT WRITER
Ben Kerridge, M.A.

Education
2014 Archaeological Field School, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2010 M.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton. 2009 Project Management Training, Project Management Institute/CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California.
2004 B.A., Anthropology, California State University, Fullerton.

Professional Experience
2015- Project Archaeologist/Report Writer, CRM TECH, Colton, California. 2015 Teaching Assistant, Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece. 2009-2014 Publications Delivery Manager, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California. 2010- Naturalist, Newport Bay Conservancy, Newport Beach, California. 2006-2009 Technical Publishing Specialist, CH2M HILL, Santa Ana, California. 2002-2006 English Composition/College Preparation Tutor, various locations, California.

Papers Presented
• Geomorphological Survey of Tracts T126–T151 to Support Archaeological Shoreline Research Project. Institute for Field Research, Kephallenia, Greece, 2014. • The Uncanny Valley of the Shadow of Modernity: A Re-examination of Anthropological Approaches to Christianity. Graduate Thesis, California State University, Fullerton, 2010. • Ethnographic Endeavors into the World of Counterstrike. 74th Annual Conference of the Southwestern Anthropological Association, 2003.

Cultural Resources Management Reports
Co-author and contributor to numerous cultural resources management reports since 2013.

Memberships
Society for California Archaeology; Pacific Coast Archaeological Society. 263 589
APPENDIX 2

CORRESPONDENCE WITH
NATIVE AMERICAN REPRESENTATIVES*
* Nine local Native American representatives were contacted; a sample letter is included in this report. 264 590

SACRED LANDS FILE & NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS LIST REQUEST

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
1550 Harbor Boulevard, Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA 95691
(916)373-3710
(916)373-5471 (Fax)
[email protected]
Project: Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project (CRM TECH No. 3454) County: San Bernardino
USGS Quadrangle Name: Devore and Fontana, Calif.

Township 1 North Range 5 West SB BM; Section(s): 32-34
Township 1 South Range 5 West SB BM; Section(s): 3-5
Company/Firm/Agency: CRM TECH
Contact Person: Nina Gallardo
Street Address: 1016 E. Cooley Drive, Suite A/B
City: Colton, CA Zip: 92324
Phone: (909) 824-6400 Fax: (909) 824-6405
Email: [email protected]
Project Description: The primary component of the project is to install 2.25 linear miles of new storm drain system that runs south from the existing Cactus Basin to Baseline Road and then west within the Baseline Road right-of way to Tamarind Avenue, in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County, California.

March 14, 2019
265 591
March 26, 2019
Nina Gallardo
CRM Tech
VIA Email to: [email protected]
RE: Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, San Bernardino County Dear Ms. Gallardo:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were positive. Please contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation on the attached list for more information. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify the NAHC. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address:
[email protected].

Sincerely,
Steven Quinn
Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Attachment
266 592
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Robert Martin, Chairperson
12700 Pumarra Rroad
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
Morongo Band of Mission
Indians
Denisa Torres, Cultural Resources
Manager
12700 Pumarra Rroad
Banning, CA, 92220
Phone: (951) 849 - 8807
Fax: (951) 922-8146
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Serrano
San Fernando Band of Mission
Indians
Donna Yocum, Chairperson
P.O. Box 221838
Newhall, CA, 91322
Phone: (503) 539 - 0933
Fax: (503) 574-3308
[email protected]
Kitanemuk
Vanyume
Tataviam
San Manuel Band of Mission
Indians
Lee Clauss, Director of Cultural
Resources
26569 Community Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
Phone: (909) 864 - 8933
Fax: (909) 864-3370
[email protected]
Serrano
Serrano Nation of Mission
Indians
Goldie Walker, Chairperson
P.O. Box 343
Patton, CA, 92369
Phone: (909) 528 - 9027
Serrano
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project, San Bernardino County.

PROJ-2019-
001874
03/26/2019 08:29 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
San Bernardino County
3/26/2019
267 593
From: Nina Gallardo <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 12:27 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (CRM TECH #3454)
Hello Mr. Salas,
I’m emailing to inform you that CRM TECH will be conducting a cultural study for the proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (CRM TECH #3454). We have received the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) SLF response and NA contact list. The NAHC reports that SLF indicates the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area and recommends that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation be contacted for further information (see attached).

I’m contacting you to see if the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation has any specific information regarding cultural sites located in the project area. I’m also attaching the NA scoping letter, a copy of the NAHC response letter, and a project area map.

Thanks for your time and input on this project.

Nina Gallardo
Project Archaeologist/Native American liaison

CRM TECH
1016 E. Cooley Drive Ste. A/B
Colton, CA 92324
(909) 824-6400
March 28, 2019
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
P.O. Box 86908
Los Angeles, CA 90086
RE: Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project

2.25 Linear Miles of Pipeline Alignment in the City of Rialto San Bernardino County, California
CRM TECH Contract #3454
Dear Ms. Goad:

I am writing to bring your attention to an ongoing CEQA-compliance study for the proposed project referenced above. The project entails the installation of approximately 2.25 linear miles of new storm drain pipeline from the existing Cactus Basins south to Baseline Road and then west within the Baseline Road right-of-way to Tamarind Avenue. The accompanying map, based on USGS 268 594
Devore and Fontana, Calif., 7.5' quadrangles, depicts the location of the project area in Sections 32- 34, T1N R5W, and Sections 3-5, T1S R5W, SBBM.

Records on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) report that Baseline Road (Site 36-015497) is the only known historical/archaeological site in the project area. However, the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File indicates the presence of Native American cultural resources in the project area, and the commission recommends that the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation and other local tribes be contacted for further information (see attached). Therefore, as part of the cultural resources study for this project, I am writing to request your input on potential Native American cultural resources in or near the project area.

Please respond at your earliest convenience if you have any specific knowledge of sacred/religious sites or other sites of Native American traditional cultural value in or near the project area, or any other information to consider during the cultural resources investigations. Any information or concerns may be forwarded to CRM TECH by telephone, e-mail, facsimile, or standard mail.

Requests for documentation or information we cannot provide will be forwarded to our client and/or the lead agency, namely the City of Rialto.

We would also like to clarify that, as the cultural resources consultant for the project, CRM TECH is not involved in the AB 52-compliance process or in government-to-government consultations. The purpose of this letter is to seek any information that you may have to help us determine if there are cultural resources in or near the project area that we should be aware of and to help us assess the sensitivity of the project area. Thank you for your time and effort in addressing this important matter.

Respectfully,
Nina Gallardo
Project Archaeologist/Native American liaison

CRM TECH
Email: [email protected]
Encl.: NAHC response letter and project location map
From: Tribal Historic Preservation Office <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 28, 2019 3:44 PM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (CRM TECH #3454)
Hello,
Regarding the above referenced project, we have no additional information to provide at this time but may provide other information to the lead agency during the AB 52 consultation process.

Thank you for reaching out to our office.
269 595
Sincerely,
Travis Armstrong
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Morongo Band of Mission Indians
951-755-5259
Email: [email protected]
From: Jessica Mauck <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2019 4:08 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (CRM TECH #3454)
Hi Nina,
Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above referenced project. SMBMI appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on 28 March 2019. While SMBMI consults on projects within the City of Rialto, this particular area has not historically been of major concern. Additionally, based on recent information obtained by the Tribe, I am going to start pulling back on the nearby areas for which SMBMI previously expressed concern. As such, SMBMI does not have information to provide for the study and is unlikely to have concerns during formal consultation with the lead agency.

Thank you,
Jessica Mauck

CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYST
O: (909) 864-8933 x3249
M: (909) 725-9054
26569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346
From: Administration Gabrieleno <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2019 1:34 PM
To: Nina Gallardo
Subject: Re: NA Scoping Letter for the Proposed Rialto Baseline Storm Drain Project in the City of Rialto, San Bernardino County (CRM TECH #3454)
Hello Nina
Thank you for your letter dated March 28, 2018. If there will be any ground disturbance taking place regarding the project our Tribal government would like to consult with the lead agency. Can you please provide us with the lead agency contact info.

Thank you
270 596
Sincerely,
Brandy Salas
Admin Specialist
Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation
PO Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
Office: 844-390-0787
website: www.gabrielenoindians.org
271 597

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 1
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air QualityAIR-1 Dust Control. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation: • Apply soil stabilizers such as hay bales or aggregate cover to inactive areas.
• Prepare a high wind dust control plan and implement plan elements and terminate soil disturbance when winds exceed 25 mph. • Stabilize previously disturbed areas if subsequent construction is delayed.
• Water exposed surfaces and haul roads 3 times/day.• Cover all stockpiles with tarps. • Replace ground cover in disturbed areas quickly. • Reduce speeds on unpaved roads to less than 15 mph. • Trenches shall be left exposed for as short a time as possible. • Implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices identified in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

A copy of the construction contract including
this air mitigation measure shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the air quality measures have been implemented as required in these measures. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / MMRP City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Air QualityAIR-2 Exhaust Emissions Control. The following measures shall be incorporated into Project plans and specifications for implementation:
• Utilize well-tuned off-road construction equipment that has met or exceeded the maker’s recommendations for
vehicle/equipment maintenance schedule.
• Establish a preference for Contractors shall using utilize Tier 4 3 or better heavy equipment.
• Enforce 5-minute idling limits for both on-road trucks and off-road equipment.

This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
272 598

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 2
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-1 Burrowing Owl. Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 30 no less than 14 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity by a qualified biologist. The burrowing owl surveys shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife in the “California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation.” In the event this species is not identified within the Project limits, no further mitigation is required, and a letter shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the survey. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW prior to commencement of Project activities. If during the preconstruction survey, the burrowing owl if is found to occupy the site, Mitigation Measure BIO- 2 shall be required.

This measure shall be implemented no less
than 14 days prior to initiation of construction.

A copy of the preconstruction survey a shall
be documented and retained in the project file.

A notation stating whether the burrowing owl
is present or absent from the site shall be included in the file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-2 If burrowing owls are identified during the survey period, the City shall take the following actions to offset impacts prior to ground disturbance:

Active nests within the areas scheduled for disturbance or degradation shall be avoided from February 1 through August 31, and a minimum of 250-foot buffer shall be provided until fledging has occurred, as confirmed by a qualified biologist. Following fledging, owls may be passively relocated by a qualified biologist, as described below.

If relocation of the owls is approved for the site by the CDFW, CDFW shall require the City to hire a qualified biologist to prepare a plan for relocating the owls to a suitable site and conduct an impact assessment. A qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a passive relocation program in accordance with Appendix E (i.e., Example Components for Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrow and Exclusion Plans) of the 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFG 2012) to the This measure shall be implemented during
construction and followed through until construction is complete. This shall be incorporated into the construction contract.

The City shall document that, if appropriate,
active nests are avoided during nesting season; outside of nesting season, verification that passive techniques are utilized to encourage owl relocation shall be provided to the City. The City shall retain the relocation plan, if required, and the impact assessment prepared in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to commencing project construction. The final letter report shall be retained in the project file, as shall documentation that the letter is submitted to CDFW. All field notes generated by the biologist shall be retained in the project file. Documentation of any burrowing owls located on site and any actions taken shall be retained in the project file. 273 599

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 3
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification CDFW for review/approval prior to the commencement of disturbance activities onsite.

The relocation plan must include all of the following and as indicated in Appendix E:
• The location of the nest and owls proposed for relocation. • The location of the proposed relocation site. • The number of owls involved and the time of year when the relocation is proposed to take place.
• The name and credentials of the biologist who will be retained to supervise the relocation.
• The proposed method of capture and transport for the owls to the new site.
• A description of site preparation at the relocation site (e.g., enhancement of existing burrows, creation of artificial burrows, one-time or long-term vegetation control).

The applicant shall conduct an impact assessment, in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation prior to commencing Project activities to determine appropriate mitigation, including the acquisition and conservation of occupied replacement habitat at no less than a 2:1 ratio.

Prior to passive relocation, suitable replacement burrows site(s) shall be provided at a ratio of 2:1 and permanent conservation and management of burrowing owl habitat such that the habitat acreage, number of burrows and burrowing owl impacts are replaced consistent with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation including its Appendix A within designated adjacent conserved lands identified through coordination with CDFW and the City of Rialto. A qualified biologist shall confirm the natural or artificial burrows on the conservation lands are suitable for use by the owls. Monitoring and management of the replacement burrow site(s) shall be conducted and a reporting plan shall be prepared. The objective shall be to manage the replacement burrow sites for the benefit of burrowing owls (e.g., minimizing weed cover), with the specific goal of maintaining the functionality of the burrows for a minimum of 2 years.

A final letter report shall be prepared by the qualified biologist documenting the results of the passive relocation. The letter shall be submitted to CDFW.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments
City of Rialto
274 600

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 4
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-3 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for San Bernardino kangaroo rat (SBKR) shall be conducted within 45 365 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity by a permitted biologist. SBKR surveys shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). If no presence of SBKR is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO-34 need not be enforced.

This measure shall be implemented within a
year prior to initiation of construction.

A copy of the preconstruction survey a shall
be documented and retained in the project file.

A notation stating whether the SBKR is
present or absent from the site shall be included in the file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-4 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of SBKR, and complete avoidance is not possible, the Project proponent shall acquire a CESA Incidental Take Permit (ITP) prior to any vegetation- or ground disturbing activities. Any take of SBKR without take authorization would be a violation of Fish and Game Code section 2050 et seq. the following actions shall be implemented:. The the City shall provide compensation for temporary loss of habitat and individual to SBKR in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the City shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat to SBKR by purchase purchasing of acceptable suitable SBKR habitat at a minimum 3:1 1:1 ratio depending on the habitat quality of the impact site and the location and habitat quality of the identified mitigation site; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed in perpetuity by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance within potential SBKR habitat shall occur until an ITP is obtained by the City from CDFW and USFWS. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation package, but the City finds that this compensation package shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this measure.

This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction. Prior to implementing construction in an area with a population of SBKR, the City shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. All measures identified in the ITP shall be completed in accordance with the time schedule in this document.

A copy of both the SBKR survey and, if
required, the ITP shall be retained in the project file. The City shall document shall document specific compliance with each ITP condition and retain the documented verification in the project file. The City shall retain documentation of any required compensation for loss of habitat.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
275 601

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 5
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-5 Preconstruction presence/absence surveys for Los Angeles pocket mouse (LAPM) shall be conducted in conjunction with SBKR trapping within 30 days prior to any onsite ground disturbing activity.

LAPM survey shall be conducted pursuant to the recommendations and guidelines established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. If no presence of LAPM is found during the survey, mitigation measure BIO-56 need not be enforced.

This measure shall be implemented in
conjunction with SBKR trapping, prior to the initiation of construction.

A copy of the preconstruction survey a shall
be documented and retained in the project file.

A notation stating whether the LAPM is
present or absent from the site shall be included in the file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-6 In the event that the preconstruction survey determines the presence of LAPM, the following actions shall be implemented: 1) the City shall prepare and implement a set of avoidance and minimization measures aimed at protecting special-status small mammals from Project-related impacts. The proposed avoidance and minimization measures shall be provided to CDFW for review and approval no fewer than 30 days prior to the initiation of Project activities 2) the City shall provide compensation for temporary loss of habitat to and individual LAPM in the following manner: 1) the City shall obtain a 2081 Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the CDFW; the City shall offset the loss of the temporarily disturbed habitat by purchase purchasing of acceptable suitable LAPM habitat at a 1:1 2:1 ratio; and any conserved habitat shall be provided with an appropriate endowment to ensure permanent protection and the conserved habitat shall be managed in perpetuity by an agency or party considered acceptable to the CDFW. No ground disturbance shall occur within potential LAPM habitat until CDFW approves appropriate mitigation and avoidance and minimization measures an ITP is obtained by the City. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit may differ from the above compensation package, but the City finds that this compensation package shall at a minimum meet the requirements of this measure.

This measure shall be included in the
construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction. Prior to implementing construction in an area with a population of LAPM, the City shall obtain an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the State Department of Fish and Wildlife. All measures identified in the ITP shall be completed in accordance with the time schedule in this document.

A copy of both the LAPM survey and, if
required, the ITP shall be retained in the project file. The City shall document shall document specific compliance with each ITP condition and retain the documented verification in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
276 602

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 6
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-7 The City shall prepare and submit a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) a Section 401 Certification Permit to the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board; and, a Section 404 (Nationwide Permit No. 43) Permit to the USACE. No ground disturbance within jurisdictional waters shall occur until the City obtains the above permits. Note that the final compensation package contained in the permit shall be implemented by the City. If the permit conditions are different than the mitigation listed in this Document to protect biological resources, the City shall implement the mitigation identified in the permits, which must be equivalent or more effective in mitigating or avoiding potential significant effects and the substitution of any mitigation measure will not cause any potentially significant effect on the environment.

If necessary, the Streambed Alteration
Agreement from the CDFW shall be obtained
prior to ground disturbance within the
jurisdictional area and the conditions of the
permits shall be implemented as defined within the permits by each permit.

A copy of these permit—if required—shall be
retained in the project file, and verification thatall conditions have been implemented shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological ResourcesBIO-8 The State of California prohibits the “take” of active bird nests. To avoid an illegal take of active bird nests, any grubbing, brushing or tree removal should be conducted outside of the the State identified nesting season (generally, Rraptor nesting season is February 15 January 1 through July 31 September 15; and migratory passerine bird nesting season is March 15 February 1 through September 1).

Alternatively Additionally, the site shall be evaluated surveyed by a qualified biologist 3 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds, at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions.

Active bird nests MUST be avoided during the nesting season. If an active nest is located in the Project construction area it will be flagged and a 300-foot avoidance buffer placed around it for passerines and a 500-foot avoidance buffer for raptors. No activity shall occur within the 300-foot or 500-foot buffer until the young have fledged the nest, as confirmed by a qualified biologist.

Construction shall occur outside of the nesting
season or a copy of the field survey documenting no nesting birds shall be completed prior to initiating construction within the nesting season.

City personnel shall document the dates of
construction. If construction is proposed to occur within the nesting season, a copy of the field survey documenting the absence of nesting birds shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
277 603

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 7
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological Resources
BIO-9 Any impacts to RAFSS shall be mitigated at a minimum 3:1 or greater depending on the location and habitat quality of the mitigation site.

This measure shall be implemented by the
City upon any impacts to RAFSS as a result of implementation of construction. It shall be implemented prior to any impacts to this species.

The City shall retain any documentation of
mitigation for RAFSS. All field notes generated by the biologist shall be retained in the project file. Documentation of any burrowing owls located on site and any actions taken shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Biological Resources
BIO-10 The City shall work with SBCFCD to minimize impacts to their obligatory habitat mitigation within Cactus Basin No. 3. The City shall work collaboratively with SBCFCD to avoid and minimize impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

This measure shall occur prior to construction
within Cactus Basin No. 3.

The City shall retain documentation of
communication with the SBCFCD and shall document habitat mitigation carried out in collaboration. Documentation shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural ResourcesCUL-1 Should any cultural resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection shall be performed immediately by a qualified archaeologist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City’s onsite inspector. The archaeological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act.

Any response to exposed resources shall
occur during construction. Any reports documenting management and findings for accidentally exposed resources shall be completed within one year of the discovery.

A copy of the Program shall be retained in the
project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the archaeological monitoring program is being implemented by the contractor as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
278 604

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 8
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Cultural ResourcesCUL-2 Should human remains or funerary objects be encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health and Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.

This measure shall be implemented during construction if human remains are exposed during construction The City shall retain all records of the discovery and management actions taken in regard to human remains in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and SoilsGEO-1 Stored backfill material shall be covered with water resistant material during periods of heavy precipitation to reduce the potential for rainfall erosion of the material. If covering is not feasible, then measures such as the use of straw bales or sand bags shall be used to capture and hold eroded material on the project site for future cleanup. Implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices identified in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

A copy of the construction contract including
this geology/soils mitigation measure shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the geology/soils measures have been implemented as required in these measures. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / MMRP City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and SoilsGEO-2 Excavated areas shall be properly backfilled and compacted such that erosion does not occur. Paved areas disturbed by this Project will be repaved in such a manner that roadways and other disturbed areas are returned to as near the pre-Project conditions or better.

Implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices identified in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / MMRP City of Rialto
279 605

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 9
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and SoilsGEO-3 All exposed, disturbed soil (trenches, stored backfill, etc.) will be sprayed with water or soil binders twice a day or more frequently if fugitive dust is observed migrating from the site within which the water facilities are being installed. Implementation of erosion control Best Management Practices identified in the project Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.

This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / MMRP City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and SoilsGEO-4 The length of trench which can be left open at any given time will be limited to that needed to reasonably perform construction activities, as dictated by the contractor. This will serve to reduce the amount of backfill stored onsite at any given time.

This measure shall be included in the construction contract as a contract specification and implemented by the contractor during construction.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Responses to
Comments City of Rialto
280 606

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 10
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Geology and SoilsGEO-5 Should any paleontological resources be encountered during construction of these facilities, earthmoving or grading activities in the immediate area of the finds shall be halted and an onsite inspection should be performed immediately by a qualified paleontologist. Responsibility for making this determination shall be with the City onsite inspector. The paleontological professional shall assess the find, determine its significance, and make recommendations for determine appropriate mitigation measures within the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act that shall be implemented to minimize any impacts to a paleontological resource.

The City shall be notified within 24-hours of accidental exposure of any paleontological resources. A copy of initial findings shall be provided to the City and retained in the project file. A copy of the final report shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Responses to
Comments City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hazards and Hazardous MaterialsHAZ-1 All spills or leakage of petroleum products during construction activities will be remediated in compliance with applicable state and local regulations regarding cleanup and disposal of the contaminant released. The contaminated waste will be collected and disposed of at an appropriately licensed disposal or treatment facility. This measure will be incorporated into the SWPPP prepared for the Project development.

These measures shall be identified in the project Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implemented during construction.

A copy of the SWPPP shall be retained in the
project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP BMPs have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
281 607

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 11
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Hydrology and Water QualityHYD-1 The City shall require that the construction contractor prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which specifies Best Management Practices (BMPs) that will prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters. The SWPPP shall include a Spill Prevention and Cleanup Plan that identifies the methods of containing, cleanup, transport and proper disposal of hazardous chemicals or materials released during construction activities that are compatible with applicable laws and regulations. BMPs to be implemented in the SWPPP may include but not be limited to: • The use of silt fences; • The use of temporary stormwater desilting or retention basins; • The use of water bars to reduce the velocity of stormwater runoff; • The use of wheel washers on construction equipment leaving the site;
• The washing of silt from public roads at the access point to the site to prevent the tracking of silt and other pollutants from the site onto public roads; • The storage of excavated material shall be kept to the minimum necessary to efficiently perform the construction activities required. Excavated or stockpiled material shall not be stored in water courses or other areas subject to the flow of surface water; and • Where feasible, stockpiled material shall be covered with waterproof material during rain events to control erosion of soil from the stockpiles.

This measure shall be incorporated into the SWPPP and construction contract and implemented during construction.

A copy of the SWPPP and construction
contract shall be retained in the project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the SWPPP BMPs have been implemented as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-1 No construction activities shall occur during the hours of 5:30 PM and 7 AM Monday – Friday, and between 5 PM and 8 AM on Saturdays from October to April, and between 7 PM and 6 AM Monday – Friday and 5 PM to 8 AM on Saturdays from May to September; at no time shall construction activities occur on Sundays or holidays, unless a declared emergency exists.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
282 608

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 12
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-2 The City shall establish a noise complaint response program and shall respond to any noise complaints received for this Project by measuring noise levels at the affected receptor site. If the noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dBA exterior or an Ldn of 45 dBA interior at the receptor, the City will implement adequate measures (which may include portable sound attenuation walls, use of quieter equipment, shift of construction schedule to avoid the presence of sensitive receptors, etc.) to reduce noise levels to the greatest extent feasible.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
\Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-3 The City will require that all construction equipment be operated with mandated noise control equipment (mufflers or silencers). Enforcement will be accomplished by random field inspections by City personnel during construction activities.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-4 Equipment not in use for five minutes shall be shut off. This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
\Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-5 Equipment shall be maintained and operated such that loads are secured from rattling or banging.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
283 609

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 13
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-6 Construction employees shall be trained in the proper operation and use of equipment consistent with these mitigation measures, including no unnecessary revving of equipment.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-7 No radios or other sound equipment shall be used at this site unless required for emergency response by the contractor.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Noise NOI-8 The construction contractor shall provide signs (2) along the roadway identifying a phone number for adjacent property owners to contact regarding excessive vibration. The contractor shall respond within 24 hours to any complaint at this phone number; assess the complaint; and, if reasonable, adjust construction activities (use different construction methods, slow down construction activity, or other measures) to reduce vibration at the property from where the complaint was received.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

City personnel shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
284 610

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 14
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Transportation / TrafficTRAF-1 The construction contractor will provide adequate traffic management resources that meet the County of San Bernardino, the City of Fontana, and the City of Rialto standards. The City shall require a construction traffic management plan for work in public roads that complies with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook, or other applicable standard, to provide adequate traffic control and safety during excavation activities. The traffic management plan shall be prepared and approved by the City(s) and County prior to initiation of excavation or pipeline construction. At a minimum this plan shall include how to minimize the amount of time spent on construction activities; how to minimize disruption of vehicle and alternative modes of transport traffic at all times, but particularly during periods of high traffic volumes; how to maintain safe traffic flow on local streets affected by construction at all times, including through the use of adequate signage, protective devices, flag persons or police assistance to ensure that traffic can flow adequately during construction; the identification of alternative routes that can meet the traffic flow requirements of a specific area, including communication (signs, webpages, etc.) with drivers and neighborhoods where construction activities will occur; and at the end of each construction day roadways shall be prepared for continued utilization without any significant roadway hazards remaining.

The Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be compiled and approved prior to the initiation of construction.

A copy of the Plan shall be retained in the
project file. Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify the construction traffic management plan is being implemented by the contractor as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / Response to
Comments / MMRP City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Transportation / TrafficTRAF-2 The City shall require that all disturbances to public roadways be repaired in a manner that complies with the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction (green book) or other applicable County of San Bernardino, the City of Fontana, and the City of Rialto standard design requirements.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and included in the contract with the construction contractor.

These measures shall be included in the construction contract, and City staff shall verify that construction activities comply with this requirement. The verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study / MMRP City of Rialto
285 611

CITY OF RIALTO

RIALTO BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MMRP Table, Page 15
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Tribal Cultural ResourcesTRC-1 The Contractor shall be required to notify the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation (Tribe) at least 2 weeks prior to the commencement of any construction activities requiring excavation related to the proposed Project at (844) 390-0787. The Contractor shall document the date that the Tribe was notified, and give the Tribe two weeks to respond prior to commencement of any excavation required to develop the proposed Project. If the Tribe responds, the City shall negotiate with the Tribe to arrange any requests of the Tribe related to the handling of and potential for Tribal Cultural Resources with the understanding that the City has no responsibility to fund any requests of the City from the Tribe.

If the Tribe does not respond with any formal requests of the City within the two week period, the Contractor shall proceed with construction with the understanding that the Tribe does not wish to provide further input on the proposed Project. This shall conclude the City’s effort to enable to the Tribe to provide input on this Project.

This measure shall be implemented during construction and followed through until final disposition of such resources has been achieved.

The City shall document that the Tribe was contacted in the Project File and any response thereof. Any requests and actions take to satisfy the Tribe’s interest in this Project shall be documented and retained in the Project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
Mitigation Measure Implementation Schedule Verification Utilities and Service SystemsUTIL-1 The contract with demolition and construction contractors shall include the requirement that all materials that can feasibly be recycled shall be salvaged and recycled. This includes, but is not limited to, wood, metals, concrete, road base, and asphalt. The contractor shall submit a recycling plan to the City for review and approval prior to the start of demolition/construction activities to accomplish this objective.

This measure shall be included in the construction contract and implemented during construction.

Verification of implementation shall be based on field inspections by City inspection personnel that verify adequate traffic management resources are being used by the contractor as required in this measure. Field notes documenting verification shall be retained in the project file.

Source Responsible Party Status / Date / Initials
Initial Study City of Rialto
286 612
-1-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
RESOLUTION NO._____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RIALTO, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ITS 2025-2026 FISCAL

BUDGET AND APPROPRIATING STORM DRAIN DIF FUND

BALANCE AND CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BALANCE FOR
BASELINE STORM DRAIN PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO.
170700.

WHEREAS, the budget for fiscal year 2025-2026 of the City of Rialto has been adopted by this Council in its original form, and said budget will need to be amended at times to fulfill the goals of the City; and
WHEREAS, the City departments may not exceed their appropriations by character of expense, with character of expense being defined as personnel services, services and supplies, capital outlay, debt service and transfers, without the consent of the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the City Manager may transfer appropriations between departments and within their respective funds, as long as those appropriations do not exceed their fund total unless approved by Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RIALTO DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1: Authorize an appropriation of $21,656,964.20 for the Baseline Storm Drain project, City Project No. 170700. This amount includes $21,156,964.20 from the Storm Drain Development Impact Fee Fund balance, Account No. 22304720-53001 and $500,000 from the Capital Projects Fund Account No. 33004720-53001.
287 613
-2-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PASSED APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2025. _______________________________
JOE BACA, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
BARBARA McGEE, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
______________________________
ERIC VAIL, City Attorney
288 614
-3-
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss

CITY OF RIALTO )
I, Barbara McGee, City Clerk of the City of Rialto, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.____ was duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rialto held on the ____ day of ______________, 2025.

Upon motion of Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ____________, the foregoing Resolution No. ____ was duly passed and adopted.

Vote on the motion:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and the Official Seal of the City of Rialto this _____ day of _________________, 2025.
____________________________________
BARBARA McGEE, CITY CLERK
289 615
Baseline Storm Drain Project
City Project
No. 170700
Baseline Road at Cedar
Avenue
290 616
Tamarind
Avenue
C
a
c
t
u
s

BASELINE STORM
DRAIN
291 617
Project
Timeline
Contract Award:

September 9, 2025
Estimated Construction
Start:

November 2025
Construction Contract
Duration:
2-years
292 618
Baseline Storm Drain
Project
Financial Impact
Current Project Budget
Original Appropriation $ 12,500,000
Current Balance $ 11,774,113
Items Recommended for Approval
Construction contract to C.P. Construction $ 29,107,522 Construction management & inspection services from Fountainhead Corporation $ 2,993,555
Construction engineering services from Huitt-Zollars $ 330,000 Total $ 32,431,077
Contingency
Storm Drain DIF Fund $ 500,000
Capital Project Fund $ 500,000
Total $ 1,000,000
DIF Fund Analysis
Estimated Balance $ 33,069,784
Items Recommended for Approval & Contingency DIF ONLY $ 32,931,077 Estimated DIF Fund Balance after proposed awards $ 138,707 293 619
City of Rialto
Legislation Text
File #: 26-0297, Version: 1, Agenda #: TAB2
For City Council Meeting May 12, 2026
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
APPROVAL: Tanya Williams, City Manager
FROM: Yazdan Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works
Request City Council to: (1) Approve a First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Fountainhead Consulting Corporation for the Provision of Interim Capital Improvement Project Engineering Manager Services in the Amount of $200,000, Bringing the Total Contract Cost to a Notto-Exceed Amount of $295,000; and (2) Authorize the City Manager or Their Designee to Execute All Related Documents.
(ACTION)

RECOMMENDED
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Approve a first amendment to the professional services agreement with Fountainhead Consulting Corporation (Fountainhead) for the provision of interim Capital Improvement Project (CIP) engineering manager services in the amount of $200,000, bringing the total contract cost to a not-to-exceed amount of $295,000; and 2) Authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute all related documents.

BACKGROUND
The Public Works Department has the responsibility for managing and delivering the CIP projects in the City, and the CIP Engineering Manager plays an integral role in ensuring that projects keep moving forward in an efficient manner. In early November 2025, the City’s full-time CIP Engineering Manager left the City of Rialto, necessitating the engagement of a consultant to provide these services until a new full-time staff member could be hired. Due to the urgent need to maintain progress on CIP project management and delivery, the initial agreement was executed in the amount of $95,000 under the authority of the City Manager. City Council approval is now required to execute a First Amendment to the agreement. The current agreement term is set to expire on December 16, 2026.

ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION
In November 2025, the City’s CIP Engineering Manager resigned. To maintain continuity in the delivery of CIP projects, the City engaged a consultant to serve as Interim CIP Engineering Manager while initiating a recruitment process to fill the position.

The Public Works Department solicited proposals from its on-call consultant list for these services.

Fountainhead and TKE Engineering submitted proposals. After evaluation, Fountainhead was determined to provide the most qualified candidate, who was already supporting several City CIP City of Rialto Page 1 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2026
powered by Legistar™6201
File #: 26-0297, Version: 1, Agenda #: TAB2
determined to provide the most qualified candidate, who was already supporting several City CIP projects and possessed a strong familiarity with the City’s processes and protocols. Based on this experience and the candidate’s background in both contract and construction management, staff determined that a sole-source agreement with Fountainhead was in the City’s best interest.

The current Public Works labor market remains highly competitive, particularly for recruiting technical staff, such as civil engineers and project managers with CIP experience. The City has conducted recruitment efforts, and applications are currently under review for preliminary interviews. Due to the foregoing, as well as the extended timeframe required to recruit and onboard a qualified CIP Manager, staff recommends the proposed course of action. These market conditions have made it increasingly challenging to attract candidates with the necessary experience and expertise in a timely manner, and the recommendation reflects a practical approach to maintaining continuity and progress on critical projects. Recruitment will remain open on a continuous basis until a qualified candidate is selected.

Accordingly, staff recommends that the City Council authorize the First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Fountainhead in an additional amount of $200,000, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $295,000. The proposed First Amendment is provided as Attachment 1, and Fountainhead’s updated Disclosure Statement is included as Attachment 2.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
This request is not a Project as defined by Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. A “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Pursuant to Section 15378(b)(5), a project does not include organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
This action is consistent with Guiding Principle 2 of the General Plan:
“First impressions matter. The quality and standards of our streetscapes and public spaces will reflect the high quality of development we require.”
This action is also consistent with Guiding Principle 3 of the General Plan:
“Our City Government will lead by example, and will operate in an open, transparent, and responsive manner that meets the needs of the citizens and is a good place to do business.” LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed the First Amendment and approved it as to form.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Operating Budget Impact
The additional cost of services provided by Fountainhead Consulting Corporation is a not-to-exceed amount of $200,000, for a total contract amount of $295,000. Sufficient funding is available in the General Fund, Account 10107265-52011, for the remainder of the fiscal year and in the proposed City of Rialto Page 2 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2026
powered by Legistar™6212
File #: 26-0297, Version: 1, Agenda #: TAB2
budget for the next fiscal year.

Capital Budget Impact:

This action has no impact on the Capital Budget.

Licensing
Prior to the execution of the First Amendment, the vendor shall pay an updated Business License tax as well as Administration and State Fees.

City of Rialto Page 3 of 3 Printed on 5/7/2026
powered by Legistar™6223

Page 1 of 3 ends

Rialto City CouncilSeptember 22, 2026

Rialto City Council
September 22, 2026