City of Rialto - BidNet

249 South Willow Avenue Rialto, California 92376 (909) 820-2539 (909) 820-2600 Fax

City of Rialto Purchasing Division

Addendum Number One Request for Proposal 15-056

February 18, 2015 All prospective proposers are hereby provided the Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Notice of Preparation Initial Study (attached). All other specifications relative to this Request for Proposal shall remain the same. Respectfully,

_tâÜt VtÜwxÇtá Laura Cardenas, CPPB Buyer/Accounting Technician City of Rialto, Purchasing Division 909-820-2539 909-820-2600 fax [email protected]

RENAISSANCE SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT

NOP INITIAL STUDY

Prepared For:

City of Rialto

150 South Palm Avenue

Rialto, CA 92376

Prepared By:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

401 B Street, Suite 600

San Diego, California 92101

October 2014

http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=crKgbJdsQlgG6M&tbnid=tmdu_XFE_3VXqM:&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http://www.pinterest.com/TheTCRgroup/we-love-rialto/&ei=XCU4VOStC9PMggS4m4AY&bvm=bv.77161500,d.cWc&psig=AFQjCNFIrlTLLjD1TdY-NR94tghCr9d-rA&ust=1413052128090279

Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment, Initial Study |i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction & Project Description ............................................................................................... 1

II. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .............................................................................. 20

III. Determination ............................................................................................................................. 20

IV. Environmental Evaluation .......................................................................................................... 22

1. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................................. 22

2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources ........................................................................................ 25

3. Air Quality ................................................................................................................................... 27

4. Biological Resources ................................................................................................................. 29

5. Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 32

6. Geology and Soils ...................................................................................................................... 35

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ..................................................................................................... 38

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................... 40

9. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................................................................................... 43

10. Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................. 46

11. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................... 48

12. Noise .......................................................................................................................................... 49

13. Population and Housing ........................................................................................................... 52

14. Public Services .......................................................................................................................... 53

15. Recreation ................................................................................................................................. 55

16. Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................... 56

17. Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................... 58

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................... 60

V. Preparers .................................................................................................................................... 61

VI. References .................................................................................................................................. 62

Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment, Initial Study |ii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Regional Location Map ................................................................................................................ 3

Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................................... 5

Figure 3: RSP Plan Area ............................................................................................................................... 6

Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area .............................................................................................................. 9

Figure 5: Renaissance Shopping Center Master Site Plan .................................................................... 13

Renaissance Specific Plan Amendment Initial Study |1

I . I n t r o d u c t i o n & P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n

This Initial Study has been prepared to provide an initial assessment of potential environmental

impacts of the proposed project, as described below. The purpose of this Initial Study is to determine

if further environmental analysis is required before the proposed project is able to be considered for

approval by appropriate decision makers. As identified in this Initial Study, a Subsequent EIR is

required to be prepared for the previous 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR in order to adequately

address the proposed project.

P r o j e c t S i t e L o c a t i o n

The proposed project site is located in the western/central portion of the City of Rialto, California

(Figure 1: Regional Location). The proposed project site is bounded by State Route 210 to the north,

Ayala Drive to the east, Base Line Road to the south, and Alder Avenue to the west (Figure 2: Project

Vicinity).

P r o j e c t H i s t o r y

On November 9, 2010, the City of Rialto approved the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (RSP)

consisting of approximately 1,445.3 gross acres located within the City of Rialto. The Specific Plan is

planned as an integrated community of varied housing types located near and linked to places of

employment, retail outlets, services and schools. The Specific Plan at the time approval was planned

to accommodate 16.2 million square feet of business and commercial uses (835,200 square feet of

which were existing and would remain), 1,667 residential units, one school, a community park, and

multiple neighborhood parks all located in proximity to one another and organized in a grid pattern;

refer to Table 1: Adopted Specific Plan Land Use Distribution.

Table 1: Adopted Specific Plan Land Use Distribution

Land Use Total

Acres

Future Uses Existing Uses Expected to

Remain

Acres Target

Density/FAR1

Total Sq.

Ft.

Total

Units Jobs Pop. Acres Sq. Ft. Jobs

Residential Uses

Low Density

Residential

(LDR)

61.9 61.9 8 du.ac - 446 - 1,382 - - -

Medium

Density

Residential

(MDR)

25.8 25.8 12.5 du/ac - 290 - 900 - - -

Medium High

Density

Residential

(MHDR)

56.8 56.8 16 du/ac - 818 - 2,536 - - -

High Density

Residential 5.0 5.0 25 du/ac - 113 - 349 - - -


(HDR)

Business Uses

Town Center 56.5 56.5 0.25 FAR 612,285 - 1,231 - - - -

Corporate

Center 25.5 25.5 0.75 FAR 833,085 - 1,667 - - - -

Land Use Total

Acres


Remain

Acres Target

Density/FAR1

Total Sq.

Ft.

Total


Freeway

Commercial 47.4 47.4 0.25 FAR 516,186 - 1,032 - - - -

Employment 431.4 346.3 0.40 FAR 6,033,931 - 5,853 - 85.1 820,320 820

Freeway

Incubator 92.6 92.6 0.25-0.35 FAR 1,374,754 - 1,334 - - - -

General

Commercial 5.8 2.2 0.25 FAR 23,958 - 48 - 3.6 14,880 30

Other Uses

School 15.0 15.0 - - - 50 - - - -

Public Parks 19.3 16.0 - - - - - 3.3 NA NA

Private

Recreation

Center

2.6 2.6 - - - - - - - -

Private Parks 1.5 1.5 - - - - - - - -

Private

Paseos 1.4 1.4 - - - - - - - -

Buffer 2.1 2.1 - - - - - - - -

Easement 1.1 1.1 - - - - - - - -

Utilities 11.5 - - - - - - - -

ROW2 299.4 299.4 - - - - - - - -

Totals 1,438.5 1,335 - 15,406,301 1,667 13,618 5,167 103.5 835,200 850

1 FAR: Floor Area Ratio

2 ROW: Right-of-Way

Figure 1: Regional Location


This page intentionally left blank.

Figure 2: Project Vicinity

Renaissance Specific Plan Project Area

Bohnert Ave

Base Line Rd

Foothill Blvd

Ayal

a Dr

Ayal

a Dr

Lind

en A

ve

Map

le A

ve

Locu

st A

ve

Alde

r Ave

210


RSP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) & Addendums

To address the potentially significant impacts associated with implementation of the Specific Plan,

the City of Rialto (“City”) prepared the Renaissance Specific Plan Draft and Final EIR in accordance

with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The Renaissance Specific Plan Draft EIR was

released for public review on May 3, 2010; the Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR was certified on

November 9, 2010. Since certification of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR, three

Addendums to the EIR have been prepared and undergone respective CEQA review and approval.

The three addendums are: Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project Addendum (2012),

SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution Center Project

Addendum (2013).

C u r r e n t A p p l i c a t i o n & P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n

The Project Applicant is requesting an amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan (“RSP

Amendment” or proposed “Project”); the proposed “Project” as considered by this Initial Study. The

Project site is within the previously approved RSP planning area. The planning areas of the RSP

considered with the Amendment are located generally south of the I-210 Freeway, north of Base Line

Avenue, west of Ayala Drive, and east of Locust Avenue. The proposed Project considered by this

Initial Study is anticipated to include the following actions:

An update of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan and related texts and figures

throughout the Plan;

Updates to residential development standards to reflect housing trends;

Relocation of all residential land uses to the east of Linden Avenue;

Relocation of Business Center land use to the west of Linden Avenue;

Relocation of school land use to west of Linden Avenue;

Precise Plan of Design for the Renaissance Marketplace retail development;

Change in Land Use in Planning Area 19 from Freeway Commercial to Freeway

Incubator;

Change FAR of Corporate Center Land Use from .75 to .50;

Potential interim storm drain basins;

Maintain Renaissance Parkway in its current alignment;

Revised Sign Standards for freeway pylon signs;

Revised street sections;

Terminate Miro Way east at Linden Avenue;

Increased public park area;

Relocation of public school site to east side of Linden Avenue;

To summarize, the goal of the RSP Amendment is the relocation of business and industrial uses to

the west of Linden Avenue, relocating all residential land uses and the public park to the east of the

Linden Avenue, and implementation of the Renaissance Marketplace retail development. The

existing RSP area land use plan is displayed in Figure 3: RSP Plan Area. The revised land use plan for

the RSP area is displayed in Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area.

Related updates to the RSP text and figures are required based upon the revised land use plan. This

amendment relocates the same type of uses as approved in the 2010 RSP but because the


locations of the uses and amount of land designated for such uses are revised, this environmental

review has been conducted to assure that these land use changes result do not result in new or

previously unidentified environmental impacts. The Subsequent EIR will identify that the proposed

land uses represent a re-distribution of previously-identified land uses in the Renaissance Specific

Plan. Additionally, the Subsequent EIR will review the Urban Decay Analysis prepared for the

proposed Project and reflect the findings of this report in the appropriate Subsequent EIR sections.

As a component of the proposed Project, the Renaissance Marketplace would be up to a 589,200

square foot retail center. The retail center would include a 139,896 square foot free-standing

discount super store, plus additional major retail sites, a health club, a movie theater, restaurants, a

gas station, a day care center, a drug store, and additional in-line retail. Access to the Renaissance

Marketplace would be provided from Renaissance Parkway, Ayala Drive, Linden Avenue and a

proposed street that would provide access to the residential planning areas south of the

Renaissance Marketplace. The Renaissance Marketplace would be constructed in two phases. A

preliminary master site plan of the Renaissance Marketplace is provided below in Figure 5:

Renaissance Shopping Center Master Site Plan.

Michael Brandman Associates

01230027 04/2010 | 3-4_conceptual_landuse.ai•

Source: Renaissance Specific Plan (April 2010).

RENAISSANCE SPECIFIC PLAN EIR • CITY OF RIALTO, CA

Exhibit 3-4Conceptual Land Use MapN

OR

TH

Feet1,000 0 1,000500

3

LEGEND

NOTES:

1. The boundaries of the land use designations are approximate and generally follow streets and property lines. Minor changes in boundary alignment and location are permissible as described in Section 7, Implementation.

2. The transfer of residential units is allowed as described in Section 7, Implementation.

3. If the school is relocated or if the school district chooses not to develop a school within Renaissance, then the underlying land use shall revert to the Medium Density Residential (MDR) land use designation and can accept the transfer of residential units from other areas of the Specific Plan, as described in Section 7, Implementation.

4. Planning Area 55 can either develop as residential or general commercial.

5. Parcels within Planning Area 5 may develop under the uses and standards of the Employment land use category.

6. Planning Area 81 is developed as a parking lot for the Jerry Eaves Park.

Figure 3: RSP Plan Area


This page intentionally left blank

120MDR

12.5 ac12.5 du/ac

156 du

116LDR

9.0 ac8 du/ac72 du

2Employment

51.3 ac.4 FAR

Laur

el A

venu

e

11Freeway Commercial

10.4 ac.25 FAR

22bEmployment

6.0 ac .4 FAR

22aEmployment

4.5 ac .4 FAR

124PublicPark

4.6 ac

113LDR

17.3 ac8 du/ac138 du

Lind

en A

venu

e

123School13.0 ac

104Town Center

53.6 ac

10Freeway Commercial

21.6 ac.25 FAR

106Utilities1.8 ac

126Public Park

20.0 Ac

Ayal

a D

rive

Tam

arin

d A

venu

e

Walnut Street

Easton Steet

Miro Way

SR 210

Ald

er A

venu

e Fitz

gera

ld A

venu

e

Casmalia StP

alm

etto

Ave

nue

Locu

st A

venu

e

Lieske Drive

Map

le A

venu

e

Baseline Road

Renaissance Parkway

13Employment

22.8 ac.4 FAR

4Employment

37.7 ac.4 FAR

22cEmploy.8.6 ac.4 FAR

15Employment

17.3 ac.4 FAR

16Employment

8.2 ac.4 FAR

14Employment

27.5 ac.4 FAR

69 & 70Employment

35.2 ac.4 FAR

64Employment3.1 ac/.4 FAR

65Employment

21.9 ac.4 FAR

20Corporate Center

13.4 ac.75 FAR

71Employment

35.2 ac.4 FAR

21Fwy

Comm4.3 ac

.25 FAR

18Fwy

Comm2.3 ac

.25 FAR

3Freeway Incubator

15.4 ac.35 FAR

17Employment

8.0 ac.4 FAR

68Employment

8.6 ac.4 FAR

24Business Center

34.8 ac.5 FAR

59Bus. Ctr.

0.9 ac.5 FAR

23Business Center

39.8 ac.5 FAR

107Business Center

55.2 ac.5 FAR

100Corporate Center

13.3 ac.75 FAR

108Business Center

173.0 ac.5 FAR

101Town Center

6.9 ac

105Business Center

34.6 ac.5 FAR

119Employment

4.2 ac.4 FAR

109Buffer2.0 ac

117REC

1.5 ac

21Fwy

Comm4.3 ac

.25 FAR

102Employment

18.6 ac.4 FAR

118LDR

21.2 ac8 du/ ac170 du

122REC.5 Ac

SR 210

SR 210

Renaissance Parkway

103Town Center

12.6 ac

19Freeway Incubator

9.2 ac.35 FAR

7Freeway Incubator

10.2 ac.35 FAR

5Freeway Incubator

18.3 ac.35 FAR

29Freeway Incubator

8.2 ac.25 AFR

80Employment

4.8 ac.4 FAR

6Employment

18.3 ac.4 FAR

25Util.

1.7 ac

68Employment

36.2 ac.4 FAR67

Util.1.8 ac

114MDR

16.7 ac12.5 du/ac

209 du

115HDR8.0 ac

25 du/ac200 du

110MHDR19.8 ac

16 du/ac317 du

111Slope/Buffer

2.0 ac

12Utilities4.6 ac

75Employment

10.9 ac.4 FAR

78Comm3.4 ac

.25 FAR

79Employ.4.7 ac.4 FAR

76Comm2.8 ac

.25 FAR

125Employment

3.0 ac.4 FAR

127Employment

17.2 ac.4 FAR

54Employment

5.5 ac.4 FAR

58Utilities2.3 ac

8Freeway Incubator

8.5 ac.35 FAR

9Freeway Incubator

8.4 ac.35 FAR

1Freeway Incubator

23.4 ac.35 FAR

112REC.5 ac

121Util.

1.9 ac

2014-10-081"=400'

Note: This exhibit is conceptual in nature and is not intended to show exact locations and alignments of facilities infrastructure may be relocated, resized , and realigned to follow the final roadway system, plotting and design. Final design and location will be determined through the tract map and grading permit processes.

Land USe PLan

2014-10-14

Legend

Low density Residential - 3-8 du/ac (Target 8)

Medium density Residential - 8-14 du/ac (Target 12.5)

Medium High density Residential - 14-20 du/ac (Target 16 )

High density Residential - 20-35 du/ac (Target 25)

Town Center - .25 FaR

General Commercial - .25 FaR

Freeway Commercial - .25 FaR

Freeway Incubator - .25-.35 FaR

Corporate Center - .75 FaR

Business Center - .5 FaR

employment - .4 FaR

Schools

Utilities/Public Facilities

Slope / Buffer

Public Park

Private Rec. Center

Commercial Overlay

employment Overlay

existing Uses to Remain

Figure 4: Amended RSP Plan Area

Project Area

Figure 5: Renaissance Marketplace Site Plan


The RSP Amendment would also maintain Renaissance Parkway in its current alignment, without

modifying it as proposed by the previous Land Use Plan for the RSP. Existing utilities in Renaissance

Parkway will remain, except those that need to be relocated to within the street right-of-way. The

Project also contemplates revisions to the RSP Sign Standards to allow two (2) additional freeway

pylon signs within the Renaissance Marketplace. Street sections for the project have also been

updated to provide additional width for bike travel lanes, and median widths for turning movements.

The proposed Project is also expected to need interim drainage basins due to downstream facilities

not yet completed by outside agencies. The proposed Project would provide an alternative interim

drainage facility for the Renaissance Marketplace, south of the site Planning Area 110 (as newly-

designed by the RSP Amendment), should downstream facilities be determined to not be eligible for

stormwater flows. In addition, a second alternative interim drainage facility for Business Center

development may be located in specific Planning Areas should downstream facilities be determined

to not be eligible for stormwater flows. Updated exhibits in the RSP Amendment identify these

potential interim basin locations.

The proposed Project may include a Development Agreement that identifies the impact fees to be

paid by the applicant, as well as the timing and funding of improvements that are already identified

as part of the project. The Development Agreement would also identify the legal obligations of both

parties in terms of performance, assignments, liability, etc. A summary of the proposed RSP

Amendment land use changes is provided below in Table 2: Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use

Summary.

Table 2: Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use Summary

Land Use Total

Acres


Remain

Acres Target

Density/FAR Total Sq. Ft.

Total


Residential Uses

Low Density

Residential

(LDR)

47.5 47.5 8 du/ac - 380 - 1,178 - - -

Medium

Density

Residential

(MDR)

29.2 29.2 12.5 du/ac - 365 - 1,131 - - -

Medium High

Density

Residential

(MHDR)

19.8 19.8 16 du/ac - 317 - 983 - - -

High Density

Residential

(HDR)

8.0 8.0 25 du/ac - 200 - 620 - - -

2010

Approved

Subtotal

149.5 149.5 - - 1,667 - 5,167 - - -

RSP

Amendment

Subtotal

104.5 104.5 - - 1,262 - 3,912 - - -


Land Use Total

Acres Future Uses

Existing Uses Expected to

Remain

Acres Target


Total

Units

Job

s Pop. Acres Sq. Ft. Jobs

Net Change -45.0 -45.0 - - -405 - -1,255 - - -

Business Uses

Town Center 73.1 73.1 0.25 FAR 796,059 - 1,592 - - - -

Corporate

Center 26.7 26.7 0.50 FAR 581,526 - 1,163 - - - -

Business

Center 338.3 338.3 0.50 FAR 7,368,174 - 2,947 - - - -

Freeway

Commercial 38.6 38.6 0.25 FAR 420,354 - 841 - - - -

Employment 419.3 339.2 0.40 FAR 5,910,221 - 5,733 - 80.1 803,703 803

Freeway

Incubator 101.6 101.6

0.25-0.35

FAR 1,548,994 - 1,549 - - - -

General

Commercial 6.2 2.6 0.25 FAR 28,314 - 57 - 3.6 14,880 30

2010

Approved

Subtotal

935.1 846.4 - 15,406,301 - 13,569 - 88.7 835,200 850

RSP

Amendment

Subtotal

1,003.8 920.1 - 16,653,642 - 13,882 - 83.7 818,583 833

Net Change +68.7 +73.7 - +1,247,341 - +314 - -5.0 -16,617 -17

Other Uses

School 13 13 - - - 50 - - - -

Public Parks 24.6 20 - - - - - 4.6 N/A N/A

Private Parks

/Recreation

Center

2.5 2.5 - - - - - - - -

Buffer/Slope 4 4 - - - - - - - -

Utilities 14.1 - - - - - 14.1 N/A N/A

ROW 273.0 273.0 - - - - - - - -

2010

Approved

Subtotal

353.9 339.1 - - - - - 14.8 - -

RSP

Amendment

Subtotal

331.2 312.5 - - - 50 - 18.7 - -

Net Change -22.7 -26.6 - - - - - +3.9 - -

2010

Approved

Total

1,438.5 1,335 - 15,406,301 1,667 13,168 5,167 103.5 835,200 850


Land Use Total

Acres Future Uses

Existing Uses Expected to

Remain

Acres Target


Total


RSP

Amendment

Total

1,439.5 1,337.1 - 16,653,642 1,262 13,932 3,912 102.4 818,583 833

Overall Net

Change +1.0 +2.11 - +1,247,341 -405 +314 -1,255 -1.12 -16,617 -17

Project Objectives

The following provides a summary of the Project objectives associated with submittal of the

proposed RSP Amendment:

To implement the approved Renaissance Specific Plan as amended;

To facilitate the redevelopment of the former Rialto Municipal Airport;

To implement and facilitate the development the Renaissance Marketplace retail project;

To facilitate development through efficient land use planning and phased infrastructure

design;

To provide a range of housing options including single-family (detached and attached)

housing and multi-family housing that are financially self-supporting and contribute to the

City’s economic base;

To create public recreational and open spaces;

To create an expanded Business Center capable of accommodating a wide range of land

uses contributing to jobs-housing balance, including commercial, employment, business

center, educational, and corporate center uses;

To create a range of job and economic development opportunities for local individuals and

businesses; and

To develop a master planned community that has a unique character and quality with a

commitment to sustainability, flexible planning, high quality architecture and site design, and

the provision of attractive on-site open space, public spaces, recreational facilities, and

landscape design.

1 The overall project site acreage increased from the acreage identified by the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, because the 2010 land use data was not based on actual survey data of the entire specific plan area. Since completion of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, surveys have been conducted which determined increased actual overall acreage of the project site, as reflected in Table 2, Proposed RSP Amendment Land Use Summary. 2 The proposed amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan identifies fewer existing uses to remain in the project site area as were identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, as the revised land use plan of the amendment proposes the removal of some previously identified uses for the project site.


This document has been prepared as an Initial Study to consider potential environmental impacts of

the proposed amendment to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan as described above. In

accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15051 and 15367, the City of Rialto (City) is identified as

the Lead Agency for the proposed project. The Lead Agency is charged with the responsibility of

deciding whether to approve the proposed Project. As part of its decision-making process, the City is

required to review and consider whether the proposed RSP amendment would create new significant

impacts or impacts that would be substantially more severe than those disclosed in the Renaissance

Specific Plan Final EIR. Additional CEQA review beyond this Initial Study, in the form of a Subsequent

EIR, would be triggered if the proposed Project created new significant impacts or impacts that are

more severe than those disclosed in the EIR used to approve the Renaissance Specific Plan Project

or one of its three Addendums: Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project Addendum

(2012), SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution Center

Project Addendum (2013).

According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15162:

(a) When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no

subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the

basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:

(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the

previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental

effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects:

(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is

undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration

due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in

the severity of previously identified significant effects: or

(3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have

been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was

certified as complete or the negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR

or negative declaration;

(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown

in the previous EIR;

(C) Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact

be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project,

but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or

(D) Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those

analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects


on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure

or alternative.

If none of the above conditions occur, CEQA Guidelines Section 15164 allows the preparation of an EIR

Addendum, rather than a Supplemental EIR or Subsequent EIR. Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines

states, “The Lead Agency or a responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified

EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162

calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.” As described in the Initial Study Checklist

below, the City of Rialto finds that major revisions of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR

and/or one of its three Addendums (Golden Bear Regional Food Distribution Center Project

Addendum (2012), SR-210 Logistics Center II Project Addendum (2013), and Rialto 42 Distribution

Center Project Addendum (2013) are necessary and that some of the conditions described in CEQA

Guidelines Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a Subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore,

this Initial Study concludes a Subsequent EIR is required to be prepared.


I I . E n v i r o n m e n t a l F a c t o r s P o t e n t i a l l y A f f e c t e d

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at

least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the

following pages.

Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry

Resources

Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous

Materials

Hydrology/Water Quality

Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population/Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of

Significance

III. D e t e r m i n a t i o n

On the basis of this evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a

NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be

prepared.

find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially

significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects

that remain to be addressed.


because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or

NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or

mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or

mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.


because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or

NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, (b) none of the conditions described


in Guidelines Section 15162 for a Subsequent EIR or Section 15163 for a Supplemental EIR

have occurred and (c) only minor technical changes or additions to the previous environmental

document are necessary. An Addendum to the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR shall be prepared.

I find that the conditions described in Guidelines Section 15162 for a Subsequent EIR have

occurred and therefore an a Subsequent EIR to the Renaissance Specific Plan evaluating the

proposed Amendment to the Renaissance Specific Plan shall be prepared.

Signature

Date

Gina Gibson, Planning Manager


I V . E n v i r o n m e n t a l E v a l u a t i o n

This section provides an initial evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the proposed

Project using the environmental checklist from the CEQA Guidelines as amended. The definitions of

the response column headings include:

A. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect

may be significant after the implementation of feasible mitigation measures. The impact may

warrant additional analysis within the Subsequent EIR as recommended by this Initial Study.

B. “Less than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of

mitigation measure has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than

Significant Impact.” Mitigation measures from the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR would be

cross-referenced when applicable and/or would be identified as such in the Subsequent EIR as

recommended by this Initial Study.

C. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where the project creates no significant impacts, only

Less than Significant Impacts. These impacts are within the scope of Less Than Significant

Impacts identified and evaluated within the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR and below

thresholds considered significant and/or would be identified as such in the Subsequent EIR as

recommended by this Initial Study.

D. “No Impact” applies where the project does not create an impact in that category.

E. “Impact Identified in the EIR” indicates the impact created by the proposed Project would be

the same as that identified in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR for the corresponding

threshold. Where this finding is made, both are so noted herein and the corresponding boxes

are checked in the Environmental Checklist.

1. Aesthetics

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic

vista?

b. Substantially damage scenic resources,

including, but not limited to trees, rock

outcroppings, and historic building along a

State-designated scenic highway?

c. Substantially degrade the existing visual

character or quality of the site and its

surroundings?

d. Create a new source of substantial light or

glare which would adversely affect day or

nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

a. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse

effect on a scenic vista. The dominant scenic views from the Project site and the surrounding


area include the San Gabriel Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains located

approximately 7 miles to the north. Surrounding land uses that could have this scenic view

affected by project implementation are single-family residences located south of the Project

site. These single and two-story residential structures are separated from the Project site by

the Base Line Road right-of-way, and the landscaped parkway and block wall (approximately

five feet high) located along the south side of the road. The landscaping and block wall have

the effect of almost completely eliminating existing distant views of the mountains, especially

for single-story residential structures south of Base Line Road. The proposed Project would not

be expected to be visible to single-story structures in this area. Two-story residential structures

in this area are likely also affected by mature landscaping trees and the proposed Project

would be expected to be visible upon implementation. However, owing to their vantage point

relative to surrounding structures, existing views from two-story residential structures are not

likely to be significantly impacted. The proposed Project is at a similar elevation as the

surrounding area and would be consistent with surrounding development. For these reasons,

the project’s encroachment into distant views would not be significant. This determination is

consistent with the finding of less than significant impact for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan EIR.

Development of the site would convert predominantly vacant land to mixed-use urban

development, substantially changing the aesthetic nature of the Specific Plan area. However,

much of the Specific Plan area is considered to be in a blighted condition, and would not be

considered scenic in nature. Therefore, the change in views of the Project site from the

surrounding area would not cause a significant impact on a scenic vista. As the proposed

Project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no

further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.

b. No Impact. The Project site and the surrounding area are developed with no natural landforms

or features remaining. The Rialto General Plan does not include any designated scenic

corridors. In addition, there are no designated state or county designated scenic highways in

the vicinity of the Project site.3 There are also no historically significant buildings within the

site that could be affected by the proposed development as discussed in Item 5, Cultural

Resources. No adverse impacts on scenic resources, including resources within a state scenic

highway, would result from the proposed Project’s implementation. The EIR prepared for the

2010 Renaissance Specific Plan also determined that future development that is consistent

with the Specific Plan would not result in any adverse aesthetic impacts.4 As the proposed

Project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no

further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would change the site appearance from an

underdeveloped area with a mix of structures to a variety of land uses. The aesthetic

appearance of the site would be consistent with the overall 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan as

design guidelines are intended to create a uniform and consistent theme within the overall

Specific Plan area. The visual characteristics of the site would change, though changes would

be consistent with existing development regulations. Moreover, much of the Specific Plan area

is considered to be in a blighted condition; therefore, the various changes in visual character

3 California Department of Transportation. Official Designated Scenic Highways. Available at:

www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed October 9, 2014. 4 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,

California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.1-12.


which would result from development of land uses as proposed by the Specific Plan would not

significantly impact the site or the surrounding area. Impacts are expected to be less than

significant; however, an urban decay analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project, the

findings and conclusions of which will be analyzed in the Subsequent EIR.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. Residential land uses are considered to be sensitive to excessive

amounts of light and glare because light trespass can interfere with sleep and other night-time

activities. Poorly designed lighting can also affect the night-time vision of drivers due to glare.

Light sensitive land uses in the Project vicinity include the residential neighborhood located

along the south side of Base Line Road. Existing sources of light and glare include street

lighting and lights from residential and commercial uses in the area.

The proposed Project would incorporate safety and security lighting. Lighting levels would not

exceed 1.0 candle/foot measured at ground level throughout the parking area as required per

the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. New lighting would also be reviewed by the City of Rialto

to ensure conformance with the 2013 California Building Code, Title 24, as well as the 2013

California Green Building Standard Code such that only the minimum amount of lighting is

used and no light trespass occurs. As the proposed Project includes future land use

development that is consistent with the Specific Plan and on-site lighting would be subject to

the 2013 California Building Code and City standards, potential impacts would be less than

significant and no further analysis would be included in the Subsequent EIR.


2. Agricultural and Forestry Resources

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

Discussion

a. No Impact. The Project site is partially developed with former industrial and commercial land

uses, primarily associated with former airport facilities. No agricultural resources exist within or

adjacent to the Project site. The California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and

Monitoring Program has designated the site “Other Land” and “Urban and Built-Up Land”,

which include land which does not meet the criteria of any farmland category. Typical uses of

Other Land include vacant and nonagricultural lands and typical uses of Urban and Built-Up

Land include industrial and commercial facilities such as that found on site No Prime


Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance is mapped in the

Project vicinity. No impacts related to the loss of farmland would occur. No significant impacts

to agricultural resources are identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. As no

impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the

Subsequent EIR.

b. No Impact. A Williamson Act contract is formed between local governments and private

landowners for the purpose of restricting certain parcels of land to agricultural or related open

space use. The Project site does not contain agricultural resources, is not zoned for agricultural

uses, and is not the subject of a Williamson Act contract. No impacts would occur. This

conclusion is supported by the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. As no


Subsequent EIR.

c. No Impact. No forest land occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. The 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan, the City of Rialto General Plan and the Rialto Zoning Ordinance do not provide for

any forest land preservation within the project site. No impacts to forest land would occur. As

no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the

Subsequent EIR.

d. No Impact. No forest land occurs within or adjacent to the Project site. The Project site is

designated for urban development. No loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would

occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included

in the Subsequent EIR.

e. No Impact. No farmland is present in the Project vicinity. No significant impacts to agricultural

and forestry resources are identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. Therefore, no

Project-related changes to the existing environment would result in the conversion of Farmland

to non-agricultural uses or forest land to non-forest uses. As no impact would result from the

proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.


3. Air Qual ity

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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. Violate any air quality standard or contribute

substantially to an existing or projected air quality

violation?

c. 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

(including releasing emissions which exceed

quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial

number of people?

Discussion

The Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan EIR will be reviewed to verify the proposed Project would be consistent with previously prepared

analysis for the 2010 RSP. The findings and conclusions of this evaluation will be incorporated into

the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR. However, general conditions identified in the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan EIR identified below are applicable to the proposed Project.

a. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin

(SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) manages air quality in the

SCAB. The most recently adopted air quality plan is the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan

(AQMP) developed by the SCAQMD. This plan is the SCAB’s portion of the State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The AQMP accommodates population growth and transportation projections based

on the projections made by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).

Projects that are consistent with employment and population forecasts made by SCAG are

consistent with the emissions budgets contained within the AQMP. Also, projects that are

consistent with the SIP rules (i.e., the federally approved rules and regulations adopted by the

SCAQMD) are consistent with the SIP. Thus projects would be required to conform with

measures adopted in the AQMP, including undergoing New Source Review for sources subject

to permitting with the SCAQMD.

b. The construction and operations phase of the proposed Project must be in compliance with the

strategies in the AQMP for attaining and maintaining air quality standards. The Subsequent EIR

will include analysis of construction and operational emissions resulting from the proposed

Project and will verify if the proposed Project would be consistent with previously prepared


analysis and conclusions for the 2010 RSP. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed

Project would generate emissions of ROG and NOx during construction and operation that

would most likely be above the SCAQMD’s regional thresholds of significance. Mitigation from

the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan would be applicable to the proposed

Project as discussed and would reduce the severity of the impact to a less-than-significant

level. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent with the

Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan, cumulative air quality impacts are assessed on the basis of: 1) consistency with

the regional thresholds for nonattainment pollutants; 2) project consistency with existing air

quality plans; 3) assessment of the cumulative health effects of the pollutants; and 4) climate

change impacts to air quality. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan

identified cumulative impacts as significant and unavoidable. Since the proposed Project

would incorporate mitigation and is not expected to result in a new significant impact not

previously disclosed, the severity of potentially significant impacts would be reduced with

mitigation incorporated and the project’s impacts would be within the scope of impacts

disclosed in the EIR. Therefore, no new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in

the severity of a previously identified significant impact evaluated in the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan EIR is expected to occur. However, the Subsequent EIR will verify if the proposed

Project would be consistent with previously prepared analysis and conclusions for the 2010

RSP.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. The CEQA Guidelines indicate that a potentially significant

impact could occur if the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan

determined that exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations was

less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Therefore, air quality impacts related to the

proposed Project are within the limit of impacts identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan Final EIR. No new impact relative to air quality or a substantial increase in the severity of a

previously identified significant impact evaluated in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR is

expected to occur. However, the Subsequent EIR will verify if the proposed Project would be

consistent with previously prepared analysis and conclusions for the 2010 RSP.

e. No Impact. The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SCAQMD 1993) identifies certain land

uses as sources of odors. These land uses include the following: agriculture, wastewater

treatment plant, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills,

diaries, and fiberglass molding. The proposed Project would not be a source of objectionable

odors, no impact would occur. No further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.


4. Biological Resources

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 Game 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 Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally

protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act (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?

Discussion

Potential impacts to biological resources for the proposed Project are based primarily on data

contained within the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan and associated technical

studies. Additionally, specific biological investigations will be prepared for the proposed Project and

findings and conclusions will be incorporated into the Subsequent EIR.

a. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project is not expected to have an effect, either

directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate as sensitive,

or as a special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS). The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan indicated that potential

impacts could occur with Specific Plan implementation particularly to Coastal California

Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica), San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys merriamii), and


Western Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia). Potential impacts to these and other species from

the proposed Project will be considered by the Subsequent EIR.

b. No Impact. No impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community would occur.

There is no riparian habitat present on the Project site.5 According to the EIR prepared for the

Renaissance Specific Plan, plant communities onsite are categorized as disturbed/ruderal,

non-native grassland, eucalyptus trees, and Riversidean Sage Scrub.6 A sensitive plant

community is one defined by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife as rare. The plant

communities found on in the Specific Plan area are not classified as sensitive plant

communities.7 Therefore, associated impacts would not occur. As no impact would result from

the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

c. No Impact. The proposed Project would not impact any jurisdictional waters, including federally

protected wetlands such as marsh, vernal pool, or coastal areas, since no channels or other

features that carry water, including blue line features or drainages with ordinary high water

marks (OHWM) are present onsite.8,9 This finding of no significant impact to wetlands is

supported by the EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan. As no impact would result

from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

d. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the Renaissance Specific

Plan which abuts urban areas and is not located within a known wildlife corridor.10

Implementation of the proposed Project would not impact a wildlife corridor. As no impact

would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent

EIR.

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess or

attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in

wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the

countries of the former Soviet Union. Birds and their nests are protected under the MBTA and

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) codes. The Project site may contain areas

that can be assumed to contain nests. The EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan

identified mitigation to reduce potentially significant impacts to nesting birds. Therefore, the

mitigation measure from the previously certified Renaissance Specific Plan EIR is applicable to

the proposed Project.

e. No Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances

protecting biological resources. While the proposed Project would remove common shrubs and

mature trees found onsite, these biological elements do not have any legal protection and their

removal would not constitute a significant impact under CEQA. The City of Rialto does not have

a tree protection ordinance. Therefore, no associated impacts would occur. As no impact would

result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

5 United State Geological Survey (USGS) National Map Viewer. http://nationalmap.gov/index.html. Accessed October 8,

2014. 6 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,

California. May 3, 2010. Exhibit 4.4-1, Plant Communities Map. 7 Ibid. 8 United State Geological Survey. Rialto 7 ½ Minute Quadrangle. Release Date March 25, 1999. 9 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,

California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.4-10. 10 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,



f. No Impact. The Project site is located within the approved Renaissance Specific Plan. The

Specific Plan area is zoned for urban development and is not included in a Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or

state habitat conservation plan. No impact relative to conservation plans would occur. As no


Subsequent EIR.


5. Cultural Resources

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of a historical resource as defined in §

15064.5?

b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the

significance of an archaeological resource

pursuant to § 15064.5?

c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique

paleontological resource or site or unique geologic

feature?

d. Disturb any human remains, including those

interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Discussion

Cultural resources, which are protected under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA)

and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, include the non-renewable remains of

past human use of an area. Cultural resources can include both archaeological resources and

ethnographic resources. Archaeological resources consist of architectural remains, isolated features

such as rock piles, hearths (fire pits), or scatters of artifacts (pottery or rock fragments).

Ethnographic resources are often less tangible as they define materials, places, or things used by

living communities.

Historic structures and sites are generally defined by local, State, and Federal criteria. A site or

structure may be historically significant if it is protected through a local general plan or historic

preservation ordinance. In addition, a site or structure may be historically significant if it meets

certain State or Federal criteria even if the locality does not recognize such significance. The State of

California, through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), also maintains an inventory of those

sites and structures that are considered to be historically significant. Finally, the U. S. Department of

the Interior has established specific guidelines and criteria that indicate the manner in which a site,

structure, or district is to be identified as having historic significance.

Significance may be determined if the property is associated with events, activities, or developments

that were important in the past, with the lives of people who were important in the past, or

represents significant architectural, landscape, or engineering elements. Ordinarily, properties that

have achieved significance within the past 50 years are not considered eligible for the National

Register. Buildings and properties will qualify for a listing on the National Register if they are integral

parts of districts that meet certain criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

● A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or

historical importance;

● A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for

architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a

historic person or event;


● A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no

appropriate site or building associated with his or her productive life;

● A cemetery that derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent

importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic

events;

● A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented

in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or

structure with the same association has survived;

● A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has

invested it with its own exceptional significance; or,

● A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.11

Information in this section was derived from the EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Plan. As

part of that EIR, a Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Review was performed by

MBA and encompassed the Project site.

a. Less Than Significant Impact. The approved Renaissance Specific Plan EIR determined that

potential impacts to cultural resources would be less than significant. Moreover, the proposed

Project would not affect any site presently listed on a local, state, or National historical register.

For these reasons, impacts to historical resources resulting from the proposed Project would

be less than significant. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is

consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. Cultural resources that were not identified during the field survey

performed as part of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR could be inadvertently unearthed

during excavation activities, which could result in damage to potentially significant resources.

However, the potential for significant impacts to buried resources is considered low based on

consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which indicated that no

sacred sites or Native American resources are located within the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan.12 Construction of the proposed Project would entail excavation for building foundations,

installation of infrastructure, and other related improvements. Therefore, although the

probability is low, the project, during construction, may inadvertently impact buried cultural

resources. To reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant,

mitigation measures from the previously certified 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR will be

applicable to the proposed Project, including Mitigation Measure CR-4, which requires

monitoring of development-related excavation is required during all construction-related

ground disturbances. As the proposed Project would result in no new impacts, no further

analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. A paleontological records check was requested on October 26,

2006 as part of the preparation of the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. A response was

received on November 9, 2006 by Mr. Eric Scott of the San Bernardino County Museum

(SBCM) in Redlands. The paleontological review states that the project area is located

11 U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register of Historic Places.

http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov. 2013.

12 Ibid. p. 4.5-11.


primarily upon Quaternary younger alluvial fan deposits of Holocene or historically recent age.

This Holocene alluvium has low potential for significant fossil deposits and is thereby assigned

low paleontological sensitivity. However, these Holocene sediments may overlie earlier

deposits that are also present in portions of the project area near the eastern boundary, in the

vicinity of the proposed Project. These deposits have been mapped alternatively as either

middle to later Pleistocene fan deposits or middle to later Pleistocene aeolian (wind created)

dune sands. The most recent assessment has interpreted these sediments as aeolian in

nature, and has assigned the deposits an undetermined paleontological sensitivity. Thus, it can

be concluded that the project area has both a low and undetermined probability of containing

significant paleontological resources.

According to the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR, implementation of mitigation is required

on portions of the Specific Plan area located between Linden Avenue and the eastern Specific

Plan boundary, including areas considered by the proposed Project for land use re-designation

and for the specific Renaissance Marketplace component of the Project. The proposed

Renaissance Marketplace is located within a Planning Area that falls within the planning areas

designated for paleontological field surveys; therefore a paleontological field survey will be

required specifically for the Renaissance Marketplace component’s potential impact on

paleontological resources. As the proposed project includes future land use development that

is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further mitigation aside from previously identified in the

2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR or analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan, the Project site is not located within a known or suspected cemetery and there are no

known human remains within the Project site.13 State law relating to the discovery of human

remains, specifically, California Health and Safety Codes 7050.S-7055, provide guidance

should human remains be discovered during construction; however, the likelihood of finding

human remains is low and the resulting impact is considered less than significant. This finding

is consistent with the findings made in the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included


13 Ibid. p. 4.5-13.


6. Geology and Soi ls

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Expose people or structures to 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 on- or

off-site 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 risks to life or property?

e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the

use of septic tanks or alternative waste water

disposal systems where sewers are not available

for the disposal of waste water?

Discussion

The scope of discussion and findings herein are based on the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan and the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared by Southern California

Geotechnical (July, 2013). A design-level geotechnical evaluation will be prepared specifically for the

proposed Renaissance Marketplace component of the proposed Project in accordance with

Mitigation Measure GS-1 in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. The findings and conclusions of

this evaluation will be incorporated into the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR, as well as an

overview of geologic conditions and potential impacts for the Specific Plan area. However, general

conditions identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR identified below are applicable to

the proposed Project.


a.

i. Less Than Significant. The site is not located within a State of California designated Alquist-

Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or a County of San Bernardino designated Earthquake Fault

Zone; and therefore, is unlikely to be subject to surface rupture during an earthquake. The

closest fault zone, the San Jacinto Fault Zone, is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast

of the site. The San Andreas Fault Zone is located approximately 5.5 miles northeast of the

site. and the Cucamonga fault is located approximately 3.5 miles to the northwest.14 While

these faults are capable of producing severe earthquakes, the proposed Project is located

outside mapped fault zones and therefore impacts would be less than significant and will not

be considered further in the Subsequent EIR.

ii. Potentially Significant Impact. The nearby San Andreas, San Jacinto, and Cucamonga faults

are thought to be capable of producing earthquakes ranging from magnitude 6.0 to magnitude

8.0.15 Horizontal accelerations likely to be experienced on the site were analyzed in the EIR

prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan using computer models that considered such

factors as the nature of nearby active faults, their historic seismicity, their distance to the site,

and response characteristics specific to the site. The results of the analysis in the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan EIR indicated that the peak horizontal ground acceleration with a 10

percent probability of being exceeded in 50 years is estimated to be between 0.86g and 0.96g.

This was identified as a potentially significant impact. For that reason, the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan EIR identified a number of mitigation measures that would be effective in

reducing the severity of the impact and would be applicable to the proposed Project. Therefore,

this topic will not be considered further in the Subsequent EIR.

iii. Less Than Significant Impact. Liquefaction is the phenomenon whereby soils lose shear

strength and exhibit fluid-like flow behavior. Sever or extended liquefaction can result in

significant effects to surface and subsurface facilities through the loss of support and/or

foundation integrity. Though liquefaction potential is high in many parts of Southwest San

Bernardino County, the potential for it to occur within the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan

area, is considered low, as previously identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, the site is not in an

area identified by San Bernardino County or the California Geological Survey as being

susceptible to liquefaction. This is largely due to the depth to groundwater in the area and the

dryness of the soils. For these reasons, impacts to the specific Renaissance Marketplace site

related to liquefaction are considered less than significant and will not be considered further in

the Subsequent EIR.

iv. Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The Specific Plan area is generally

relatively flat, thus impacts from naturally occurring landslides are considered negligible.16

Manufactured slopes can also present significant hazards if not engineered and constructed to

standards. Owing to the site’s loose, coarse, and dry soil, slope failure can also occur on

temporary slopes, which are formed during excavations of soil for utility lines, trenches, etc. For

these reasons, slope failure from manufactured and temporary slopes is considered potentially

significant and requires mitigation to reduce the potential effect to a level of less than

14 Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Renaissance Specific Plan, Rialto,

California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.6-4. 15 Ibid. p. 4.6-2. 16 Ibid. p. 4.6-7.


significant. Implementation of mitigation identified in the previously certified EIR would reduce

this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant. As no impact would result


b. Potentially Significant Impact. The site is relatively flat and would be developed such that long-

term effects of erosion would not occur. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan, the nature of onsite soils makes them moderately susceptible to

erosion. Adverse effects from erosion would be especially apparent during site preparation,

when groundcover and vegetation would be removed and exposed to rain, wind, and other

elements. Nevertheless, mitigation identified above (Mitigation Measures Geo-4 through Geo-

6) would reduce this potentially significant impact to a level of less than significant. The finding

is supported by the results of the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. No

new impact relative to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan would occur

as a result of the proposed Project. Therefore, this topic will not be considered further in the

Subsequent EIR.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed in Item 6a.iii, the potential for liquefaction is

negligible. No other effects related to the geologic unit or soils, including the potential for

occurrence of on- or offsite landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse

would occur. This finding is supported by the results of the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan.

Conformance with a NPDES General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit would be

required during construction of the project, including the preparation and implementation of a

SWPPP, which incorporates Best Available Technology (BAT) and/or best conventional pollutant

control technology (BCT) through the use of best management practices (BMPs). Additionally,

the SWPPP must contain a visual monitoring program; and a chemical monitoring program for

“non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs. Implementation of a

General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (and associated SWPPP) would also help to

avoid or reduce potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts to a level of less than

significant. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be

included in the Subsequent EIR.

d. No Impact. Expansive soils are generally high in clays or silts that shrink or swell with variation

in moisture. If present and not properly treated, expansive soils may damage structures, either

through heaving, tilting, and cracking of building foundations. As concluded by the EIR

prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, however, soils in the Specific Plan area

exhibit few of the characteristics typical of expansive soils and have a very low expansive

potential. Onsite soils generally consist of loose to medium-dense with non-plastic silt and

gravel, with occasional cobble and boulder-sized constituents. Portions of the site also contain

artificial fill associated with existing structures and where grading has been performed. Overall,

no impacts relative to expansive soils would occur. As no impact would result from the


e. No Impact. No septic tanks would be used as part of the proposed Project. As a result, no

impacts associated with the use of septic tanks would occur as part of the proposed Project’s

implementation. Therefore, this topic will not be considered further in the Subsequent EIR.


7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

Discussion

Global climate change refers to changes in average climatic conditions on Earth as a whole,

including temperature, wind patterns and precipitation. Global temperatures are moderated by

naturally occurring atmospheric gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),

and nitrous oxide (N2O), as well as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur

hexafluoride (SF6). These “greenhouse” gases allow solar radiation (sunlight) into the Earth’s

atmosphere, but prevent radiative heat from escaping; thus, warming the Earth’s atmosphere.

GHG’s are emitted by both natural processes and human activities. Concentrations of GHG have

increased in the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Human activities that generate GHG

emissions include combustion of fossil fuels (CO2 and N2O); natural gas generated from landfills,

fermentation of manure and cattle farming (CH4); and industrial processes such as nylon and nitric

acid production (N2O).

GHGs have varying global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is the potential of a gas or aerosol to

trap heat in the atmosphere; it is the “cumulative radiative forcing effect of a gas over a specified

time horizon resulting from the emission of a unit of mass of gas relative to a reference gas”. The

reference gas for GWP is CO2; therefore, CO2 has a GWP factor of 1. The other main greenhouse

gases that have been attributed to human activity include CH4, which has a GWP factor of 21, and

N2O, which has a GWP factor of 310. When accounting for GHGs, all types of GHG emissions are

expressed in terms of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) and are typically quantified in metric tons (MT) or

million metric tons (MMT).

Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act, established a state goal of

reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020, which would require a reduction of

approximately 28 percent from “business as usual” or forecasted emission levels. Senate Bill (SB)

97, a companion bill, directed the California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) to certify

and adopt guidelines for the mitigation of GHG or the effects of GHG emissions. SB 97 was the State

Legislature’s directive to the Resources Agency to specifically establish that GHG emissions and their

impacts are appropriate subjects for CEQA analysis.

An Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Report will be prepared specifically for the proposed

Renaissance Marketplace component of the proposed Project. The findings and conclusions of this

evaluation will be incorporated into the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR, as well as an overview of

existing conditions and potential impacts for the Specific Plan area.


a. Potentially Significant Impact. GHG emissions would result from construction and operation of

the proposed Project. The Subsequent EIR will further consider these potential impacts.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Mitigation Measures regarding potential associated greenhouse

gas emissions and air quality impacts would be required and would reduce emissions of GHG

generated by the proposed Project. The proposed Project’s impact on climate change is within

the scope of impact disclosed in the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. The

Subsequent EIR will further consider these potential impacts.


8. Hazards and Hazardous Materia ls

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

for people residing or working in the project area?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,

would the project result in a safety hazard for

people residing or working in the project area?

g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere

with an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?

h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,

including where wildlands are adjacent to

urbanized areas or where residences are

intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion

Information in this section was derived from the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan. The EIR included the preparation of Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments. As

disclosed in the 2010 RSP EIR, Tetra-Tech prepared a Draft Cleanup Plan for the Rialto Municipal

Airport in April 2010. The purpose of this plan was to describe the site assessments for the Airport

and propose a Cleanup Plan to the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The

Plan identified the area and volume of soil to be excavated based on the analytical data obtained

from the field investigations conducted in 2008. The Plan determined that approximately 142,038

square feet of surface area will be excavated. It was determined that approximately 13,485 tons of

soil will be excavated and either relocated onsite or transported off-site for disposal. The RWQCB

approved this Plan in May 2010. The proposed Project is proceeding with the clean-up activities

outlined in the Plan. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent

with the Specific Plan and impacts previously described and analyzed in the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan EIR for hazards, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR. However,


general conditions identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR identified below are

applicable to the proposed Project.

a. Less Than Significant Impact. The environmental assessment prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan identified four areas where known or suspected hazardous

materials were concentrated. The majority of this contamination was related to the historic

operations around the former Rialto Airport through past agricultural activities and illegal

dumping were also potential sources.

The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan Final EIR found hazards and hazardous materials impacts

to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. These impacts are related to the

presence of contaminated soils and disposal of contaminated soils during construction. A

potentially significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,

use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be mitigated to a level of less than significant

with implementation of mitigation measures identified in the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan, which would be applicable to the proposed Project. However, the

Subsequent EIR will further consider these potential impacts, specifically for the Renaissance

Marketplace component. Furthermore, as previously described, an approved clean-up plan has

been initiated after the closure of the former Rialto Airport on the Project site. As the proposed

project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan and

impacts previously described and analyzed in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR for

hazards, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

b. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not 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. The use of hazardous

materials and substances associated with the proposed Project, and specifically the

Renaissance Marketplace component, would be minimal. All materials and substances would

be subject to applicable health and safety requirements. As no impact would result from the


c. No Impact. No schools are presently located within one-quarter mile of the Specific Plan

area;;The closest school site is Locust Elementary School, located 1/3 mile southwest of the

Specific Plan area. However, the proposed Project includes a designated planning area for

future school development within the proposed project site. Any future school developed on

the site and within the surrounding area would be subject to the oversight of the California

Department of Toxic Substances Control, as required by State law. New school sites are

required to be free of contamination or, if the properties were previously contaminated, they

must be cleaned up under DTSC's oversight. As a result, no impacts are anticipated. As no


Subsequent EIR.

d. No Impact. The Project site is not included on a hazardous sites list compiled pursuant to

California Government Code Section 65962.5.17 No significant adverse impacts relative to

17 California, State of, Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List - Site

Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed: October 8,

2014.


hazardous materials sites would result with project implementation. As no impact would result


e. Less Than Significant Impact. The Rialto Municipal Airport formerly occupied a substantial

portion of land within the Specific Plan area. The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan envisioned

that this airport would be closed as development occurs within the area, which did indeed

occur in September 2014. It is anticipated that the operations of this airport will be transferred

to the San Bernardino International Airport (former Norton Air Force Base) located

approximately 11 miles southeast of the site.18 As no impact would result from the proposed

Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. The Rialto Municipal Airport formerly occupied a substantial

portion of land within the Specific Plan area. The 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan envisioned

that this airport would be closed as development occurs within the area, which did indeed

occur in September 2014. Therefore, the proposed Project’s impacts related to airport safety

would be less than significant. This finding is supported by the results of the EIR prepared for

the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no

further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

g. No Impact. The Project site is not located within 2 miles of a private airstrip. The closest private

airstrip is Flabob Airport in Riverside/Rubidoux, California. Flabob Airport is located

approximately 10 miles south of the project area. Due to the distance separation, the proposed

Project would not present a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Specific Plan

area. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included


h. No Impact. The proposed Project would not impair or physically interfere with an adopted

emergency response or evacuation plan. Primary access to all major roads would be

maintained during construction of the proposed Project. Therefore, no associated impacts

would occur. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan supports this

conclusion. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be


i. No Impact. The proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a risk of loss, injury

or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or

where residences are intermixed with wildlands. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan, the County General Plan indicates that the area is categorized as

having a “low” risk from wildland fires.19 Impacts related to wildland fires would not be

significant. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be



California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.7-24. 19 Ibid. p. 4.7-31.


9. Hydrology and Water Quali ty

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Violate any water quality standards or waste

discharge requirements?

b. 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 the local groundwater

table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing

nearby wells would drop to a level which would

not support existing land uses or planned uses for

which permits have been granted)?

c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration

of the course of a stream or river, in a manner

which would result in substantial erosion or

siltation on- or off-site?

d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of

the site or area, including through the alteration

of the course of a stream or river, or substantially

increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a

manner which would result in flooding on- or off-

site?

e. 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?

f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area

as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary

or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood

hazard delineation map?

h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area

structures which would impede or redirect flood

flows?

i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of

loss, injury or death involving flooding, including

flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or

dam?

j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion

A drainage study and water quality management plan will be prepared for the proposed Project. The

findings and conclusions of these evaluations will be incorporated into the proposed Project’s

Subsequent EIR, as well as an overview of existing conditions and potential impacts for the Specific


Plan area. However, general conditions identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR

identified below are applicable to the proposed Project.

a. Potentially Significant Impact. Potential water quality impacts associated with the proposed

Project would include short-term construction-related erosion/sedimentation and long-term

operational stormwater discharge. If not managed properly, grading and construction activities

could cause soils and other pollutants to enter the storm drain system. During heavy rains, this

may degrade stormwater quality at downstream locations. To minimize water quality impacts

associated with the proposed Project, individual lot developers would be required to prepare a

Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) (or alternatively, an Erosion and Sediment

Control Plan (ESCP) would be prepared) for construction activities consistent with the General

Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activity (Construction Activity

General Permit). Individual lot developers would require a Water Quality Management Plan to

manage stormwater quality during operation. As a standard condition of approval, the City of

Rialto and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) would require the project

contractors to prepare and implement each WQMP prepared for individual lots that would

control and reduce polluted urban runoff from the Project site. The 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan EIR identified a number of mitigation measures that would be effective in reducing

potential impacts to a level of less than significant, which would be applicable to the proposed

Project. Potential impacts of the proposed Project will be assessed in the Subsequent EIR.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Potential water supply impacts, including potential groundwater

supply impacts, would be considered in the Utilities & Service Systems section of the

Subsequent EIR.

c. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing

drainage patterns of the site or vicinity. The site does not include any streams or rivers, which

could be altered by the proposed Project. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in

the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR require coordination with the City of Rialto Public

Works Department and RWQCB during design and construction of the proposed Project to

ensure the project is consistent with long range planning efforts. Therefore, impacts would be

less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The results of the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan support this finding. As the proposed project includes future land use

development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the

Subsequent EIR.

d. Less Than Significant Impact. As described in item 9.c. above, the proposed Project would not

substantially alter existing drainage patterns of the site or vicinity. The site does not include

any streams or rivers, which could be altered by the proposed Project. Onsite surface run-off

would be collected in existing and proposed drainage facilities. With implementation of

mitigation measures identified above, the proposed Project would provide detention and

stormwater treatment systems to limit the release of stormwater from the site to pre-

development conditions; thus, minimizing the potential for flooding to occur on- or offsite. The

proposed Project would be consistent with long term planning of flood control and storm drain

infrastructure. Therefore, issues related to flooding would not occur and the impact is

considered less than significant with mitigation. The results of the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan support this finding. As the proposed project includes future land

use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included


e. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water

that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide

additional sources of polluted runoff. As indicated in item 9.a, a WQMP and ESCP will be


prepared specifically for the proposed Renaissance Marketplace component of the Project that

will detail construction and post-construction measures to control surface runoff in a manner

that is consistent with master planning efforts. Therefore, associated impacts are considered

less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The results of the EIR prepared for the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan support this finding. However, potential impacts of the proposed

Project will be assessed in the Subsequent EIR.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. No additional water quality impacts other than those described

earlier in this section are anticipated. As the proposed project includes future land use

development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the

Subsequent EIR.

g. No Impact. The proposed Project does not involve construction of residential units within a

100-year flood hazard area. The proposed Project is outside of any mapped floodplain area

(FEMA FIRM #06071C8657H). No flood hazard would occur with project implementation. As

no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the

Subsequent EIR.

h. No Impact. The proposed Project is outside of any mapped floodplain area (FEMA FIRM

#06071C8657H). Additionally, the proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows.

No impact would occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further


i. No Impact. As discussed above, the proposed improvements would not be located within a

mapped 100-year floodplain. Additionally, the project would construct drainage improvements

to alleviate existing flood conditions at the site and reduce the risk of flood hazards. No

reservoir dam structures are located within the vicinity of the project. The closest dam or levee

is the Lytle Creek Levee located approximately 2.5 miles northeast of the Project site. Given

the distance from the Lytle Creek Levee, resultant flooding from the unlikely failure of the levee

would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. The closest

dams to the Project site are the Wiggins Number 2 Dam and the Little Mountain Dam, both

approximately 6 miles east of the site. The proposed Project is not within the flood inundation

zones of these dams pursuant to dam inundation boundary files provided by the Governor’s

Office of Emergency Services. No associated flood hazard impacts would occur. As no impact

would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent

EIR.

j. No Impact. The proposed Project is located approximately 45 miles inland from the Pacific

Ocean with onsite elevations ranging from 1,395 to 1,415 feet AMSL. The Project site is

located approximately 2.5 miles from the Lytle Creek Floodway (at its closest point). Given the

distance from the coast, the potential for the Project site to be inundated by a large,

catastrophic tsunami is extremely low. Accordingly, no associated flood hazard impacts are

anticipated to occur. Additionally, the project would construct a detention basin to alleviate

drainage issues. No steep slopes are located in the Project vicinity; therefore the risk of

mudflow is insignificant. No associated impacts would occur. As no impact would result from

the proposed Project, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.


10. Land Use and Planning

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Physically divide an established community?

b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,

or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over

the project (including, but not limited to the

general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,

or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of

avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation

plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion

a. No Impact. The proposed Project does not include the construction of public roads, structures,

or other improvements that would physically divide or separate neighborhoods within the

established community. The Project site is located within the limits of the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan and proposed land uses would be consistent with land use designations for the

planned Specific Plan area and would not divide an established community.

The finding of no impact is supported by the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan which found that no potentially significant impacts to physical division of a community

would occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be


b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with applicable land use

plans, policies, or regulations, including the Southern California Association of Governments’

(SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) 2012-2035 Sustainable Communities Strategy

(SCS) (adopted April 2012) and the City of Rialto General Plan (updated December 2010).

The project is located within the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan area, but is not consistent

with land use designations and zoning for specific lots as defined within the Specific Plan area,

which therefore requires the preparation of additional environmental analysis to assure land

use changes would not result in new or previously unidentified environmental impacts.

However, the Subsequent EIR will identify that the proposed land uses represent a re-

distribution of previously-identified land uses in the Renaissance Specific Plan.

According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan would replace a portion of the former Rialto Airport Land Use Plan area. The

2010 Renaissance Specific Plan assumed the eventual closure of the airport and would,

therefore, not conflict with the Rialto Airport Land Use Plan. No impacts to the Rialto Airport

were identified in the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. Since the

proposed Project would be consistent with the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, the proposed

Project would also be consistent with the Rialto Airport Land Use Plan. As no impact would



c. No Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, the Specific

Plan area is not located within a habitat conservation plan or natural community’s

conservation plan. Therefore, it would not conflict with such plans. As no impact would result



11. Mineral Resources

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

Discussion

a. No Impact. According to the State of California Department of Conservation Regional Wildcat

Map the Project site is not located over any oil field. There are no oil wells located in, or

immediately adjacent to, the project area. The project area is also not located within an area

with active mineral extraction activities.20

According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, which reviewed the

Mineral Land Classification Report prepared by the Department of Conservation (1987), the

Project site is located within Aggregate Mineral Resource Classification Zone Category 2 (MRZ-

2). MRZ-2 is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits

are present, or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists. Several large

aggregate mining operations north of the Project site, including operating quarries on the Lytle

Creek alluvial fan, attest to these resources. Although the Project site is likely to contain

aggregate materials, it is essentially surrounded on all sides by urban uses, including

residential development to the immediate south. Adjacent land uses are incompatible with

mineral extraction activities, which entails heavy industrial activity and earth moving operations

that create significant amounts of noise, dust, and heavy-truck traffic. Considering existing and

planned development, it is unlikely that new mining operations on the site would ever be

proposed or considered practical. For these reasons, the impact is not significant. This

conclusion is supported by the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. As no


Subsequent EIR.

b. No Impact. The Project site has not been used for mineral resource recovery and is not

delineated as a mineral resource recovery site on any land use plans. As the Project site is not

currently used (or planned for use) as a mineral resource recovery site, no impacts to mineral

resources would occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further





12. Noise

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise

levels in excess of standards established in the

local general plan or noise ordinance, or

applicable standards of other agencies?

b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive

groundborne vibration or groundborne noise

levels?

c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient

noise levels in the project vicinity above levels

existing without the project?

d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in

ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above

levels existing without the project?

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 expose people residing

or working in the project area to excessive noise

levels?

f. For a project within the vicinity of a private

airstrip, would the project expose people residing

or working in the project area to excessive noise

levels?

Discussion

A noise and vibration analysis will be prepared specifically for the proposed Renaissance

Marketplace component of the proposed Project. The findings and conclusions of this evaluation will

be incorporated into the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR, as well as an overview of existing

conditions and potential impacts for the Specific Plan area. However, general conditions identified in

the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR identified below are applicable to the proposed Project.

Noise sources in the project area consist of vehicular traffic on adjacent and nearby roadways. Noise

sources generated by the proposed Project would include vehicle traffic, emergency generators,

trash compactors, and rooftop mechanical equipment.

a. Potentially Significant Impact. Noise-sensitive land uses potentially affected by development

within the Specific Plan area consist of single-family residential properties and potentially to

recreational users of Jerry Eaves Park, located southeast of the site.

Proposed project construction would result in a temporary increase in noise levels in the

Project vicinity. Construction noise varies depending on the construction process, type of

equipment involved, location of the construction site with respect to sensitive receptors, the

schedule proposed to carry out each task (e.g., hours and days of the week) and the duration


of the construction work. Mitigation measures from the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR

would be applicable to the proposed Project.

Noise impacts are considered significant for residences and other noise sensitive uses if

exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA CNEL and interior noise levels exceed 45 dBA CNEL. Noise

that may impact a noise sensitive use could include traffic noise or noise from a stationary

source. In addition, the generation of noise by a stationary source would be considered

significant if it exceeds 60 dBA CNEL for nearby residences. Because the specific design of the

Renaissance Marketplace is available, the SEIR will include the noise impact analysis called for

in the mitigation measures for in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

Traffic related noise generated by the proposed Project would be considered significant if the

project would:

1) Increase noise by 5 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is less than 60 dBA

CNEL; or

2) Increase noise by 3 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is 60 to 65 dBA CNEL;

or

3) Increase noise by 1.5 dBA CNEL, where the without project noise level is greater than 65

dBA CNEL.

No significant impacts are expected to occur based on previous analyses. Because the specific

design of the Renaissance Marketplace is available, the SEIR will include the noise impact

analysis called for in the mitigation measures for in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project has the potential to produce short-term

construction vibration effects and operational vibration as a result of project traffic and

mechanical equipment operation. The County of San Bernardino General Plan Section

83.01.0990 establishes the following policies related to vibration:

(a) Vibration standard. No ground vibration shall be allowed that can be felt without the aid of

instruments at or beyond the lot line, nor shall any vibration be allowed which produces a

particle velocity greater than or equal to two-tenths (0.2) inches per second measured at or

beyond the lot line.

(b) Vibration measurement. Vibration velocity shall be measured with a seismograph or other

instrument capable of measuring and recording displacement and frequency, particle

velocity, or acceleration. Readings shall be made at points of maximum vibration along any

lot line next to a parcel within a residential, commercial and industrial land use-zoning

district.

(c) Exempt vibrations. The following sources of vibration shall be exempt from the regulations

of this Section.

(1) Motor vehicles not under the control of the subject use.

(2) Temporary construction, maintenance, repair, or demolition activities between 7:00

a.m. and 7:00 p.m., except Sundays and Federal holidays.

Construction of the proposed Project would generate short-term construction vibration during

site preparation and construction of the building, paving and related activities. The County of

San Bernardino vibration standards are applicable to proposed projects within the 2010


Renaissance Specific Plan. However, because proposed Project construction is temporary and

would generally occur during the hours permitted by the Rialto Municipal Code, vibration

generated by construction of the proposed Project is exempt from regulation per Section

83.01.090(c)(2) of the County of San Bernardino General Plan. Because the specific design of

the Renaissance Marketplace is available, the SEIR will include the noise impact analysis

called for in the mitigation measures for in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. Noise levels associated with the proposed Project would

increase over existing noise levels. However, as discussed under Threshold A above, operation

of the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed noise levels established by the City of

Rialto or surrounding jurisdictions for existing or designated uses. Onsite and offsite noise

levels are expected to be within allowable increases in ambient noise levels in the Project

vicinity. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan supports this finding in

terms of overall development of the Specific Plan area. No significant impacts are expected to

occur. Because the specific design of the Renaissance Marketplace is available, the SEIR will

include the noise impact analysis called for in the mitigation measures for in the Renaissance

Specific Plan EIR.

d. Potentially Significant Impact. Construction activities would be compliant with applicable noise

regulations if construction were to occur during specific hours as defined in City of Rialto

Municipal Code Section 9.50.070. As a condition of project approval, the City would require

that construction activities occur consistent with these requirements to avoid temporary

construction noise impacts. To further minimize noise impacts associated with construction

activities, Mitigation Measures N-01 through N0-4 included in the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan EIR would be required. As described in item 12.a, operational related noise levels would

not exceed allowable limits. Therefore, it is not expected that the proposed Project would result

in substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity

beyond levels existing without the proposed Project. Because the specific design of the

Renaissance Marketplace is available, the SEIR will include the noise impact analysis called for

in the mitigation measures for in the Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

e. No Impact. The Rialto Municipal Airport formerly operated within the Specific Plan area;

however, ceased operations and closed in September 2014. The proposed residential land

uses of the Project would not be subject to airport-generated noise. As no impact would result


f. No Impact. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan, the

proposed Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private

airstrip is Flabob Airport in Riverside/Rubidoux, California. Flabob Airport is located

approximately 10 miles south of the project area. Due to the distance separation, the proposed

Project would not expose persons to excessive airport-related noise levels. As no impact would



13. Population and Housing

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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 housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

c. Displace substantial numbers of people,

necessitating the construction of replacement

housing elsewhere?

Discussion

a-c. Less Than Significant Impacts. No potentially significant impacts to population and housing are

identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. Residential land uses proposed by the

Project would not exceed residential land uses as planned by the 2010 Renaissance Specific

Plan EIR. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be



14. Public Services

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. 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:

i. Fire protection?

ii. Police protection?

iii. Schools?

iv. Parks?

v. Other public facilities?

Discussion

a. Less Than Significant Impacts. The Specific Plan area is currently served by existing public

services, including fire and police protection, schools, and parks. The Rialto Fire Department

(RFD) currently provides and would continue to provide fire protection and emergency medical

services at the site. According to the EIR prepared for the Renaissance Specific Pan, the RFD

has four fire stations located throughout the city to provide quick assistance to area residents.

The closest fire station to the Project site is Station 203 located at 1550 North Ayala Avenue

within the area of the Project site. This station’s equipment consists of one engine, one water

tender, and two specialized vehicles. The RFD Headquarters is located at 131 South Willow

Avenue and consists of 10 personnel, one fire truck, one fire engine, and three paramedic

ambulances.

Police protection is provided by the Rialto Police Department (RPD) and would be provided by

the RPD after project implementation. According to the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance

Specific Plan, the RPD has budgeted 115 sworn officers and 49 non-sworn employees and

operates out of the main station located at 128 North Willow Avenue.

Police and fire protection for the proposed Project would be handled by those agencies already

providing these services to the immediate vicinity. As a means to provide adequate funding for

fire protection, police, and other essential public services, the city has established

development impact fees that are charged to all new development within Rialto. The fees are

designed to cover the added expense to public services resulting from new development. The

development impact fees levied on the proposed Project would help the city finance new fire

and police infrastructure, equipment, and staffing. Therefore, implementation of the proposed

Project, with payment of the required development impact fees, would result in a less than

significant impact on emergency services, fire protection, and police protection. This finding is

consistent with the impact determination made in the EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance


Specific Plan. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be


Short term impacts to emergency services, fire and police protection could result during

construction of the proposed Project if any road closures or detours are proposed.

Implementation of a Traffic Control Plan, as determined necessary by the City of Rialto, would

reduce the potential for short term impacts to occur. As a standard measure, a Traffic Control

Plan, as determined applicable by the City, would include provisions for allowing emergency

access or designate alternate routes for emergency response where required. The Traffic

Control Plan would also provide for notification to the police and fire departments of the

construction schedule and any required detours. No short term impacts to fire and police

protection services would occur. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no

further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

Furthermore, no potentially significant impacts to schools, parks or other public facilities, are

identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. As the proposed project includes future

land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be



15. Recreation

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

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?

Discussion

a. Less Than Significant Impact. No potentially significant impacts to neighborhood and regional

parks or other recreational facilities are identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR.

As the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent with the


b. Less Than Significant Impact. No potentially significant impacts to recreational facilities are

identified in the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR. As the proposed project includes future

land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be



16. Transportat ion/Traff ic

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy

establishing measures of effectiveness for the

performance of the circulation system, taking into

account all modes of transportation including mass

transit and non-motorized travel and relevant

components of the circulation system, including but

not limited to intersections, streets, highways and

freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass

transit?

b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management

program, including, but not limited to level of service

standards and travel demand measures, or other

standards established by the county congestion

management agency for designated roads or

highways?

c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including

either an increase in traffic levels or a change in

location that results in substantial safety risks?

d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous

intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm

equipment)?

e. Result in inadequate emergency access?

f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs

regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian

facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or

safety of such facilities?

Discussion

A traffic impact analysis will be prepared for the proposed Project, and specifically for the

Renaissance Marketplace component of the proposed Project. The findings and conclusions of this

evaluation will be incorporated into the proposed Project’s Subsequent EIR, as well as an overview of

existing conditions and potential impacts for the Specific Plan area.

a. Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the findings of the traffic impact analysis to be

prepared for the proposed Project, the Subsequent EIR will address potential impacts from the

proposed Project to the existing circulation system.

b. Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the findings of the traffic impact analysis to be


proposed Project to congestion management programs.

c. No Impact. Based on previous analysis prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR

and the closure of the Rialto Airport, the proposed Project would not result in a change in air

traffic patterns. Therefore, the Subsequent EIR will include no further analysis on this topic.


d. Potentially Significant Impact. Based on the findings of the traffic impact analysis to be


proposed Project to increase traffic-related hazards.

e-f. No Impact. Based on previous analysis prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan EIR

and the closure of the Rialto Airport, the proposed Project would not result in creating

inadequate emergency access or conflict with an alternative transportation policy, plans,

programs, or facilities. Therefore, the Subsequent EIR will include no further analysis on these

topics.


17. Util i t ies and Service Systems

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the

applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b. Require or result in the construction of new water or

wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could

cause significant environmental effects?

c. Require or result in the construction of new storm

water drainage facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause

significant environmental effects?

d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and resources, or

are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e. 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?

f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted

capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste

disposal needs?

g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and

regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

a. Less Than Significant Impact. The City of Rialto provides wastewater services throughout the

city and the Project site. The Public Works Department oversees the treatment of the City’s

wastewater and the maintenance sewer mains. The sanitary sewer system includes gravity

sewer pipes, sewer lift stations and sewage pressure pipes. This system conveys the

wastewater to the Rialto Sewage Treatment Plant located south of Santa Ana Avenue near the

Rialto Channel. The Rialto Sewage Treatment Plant's processing capacity is approximately 11.7

million gallons per day (mgd), and the plant's average throughput from January to August 2008

was 7.18 mgd. Thus, the plant operated on average at 61.4 percent of capacity. The RWQCB

requires treatment plant expansions when a plant reaches 75 percent capacity.21

The available capacity is expected to be sufficient to accommodate the treatment

requirements of the proposed Project, which is consistent with the 2010 Renaissance Specific


California. May 3, 2010. p. 4.16-9


Plan. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent with the


b. Less Than Significant Impact. The city's wastewater treatment facility’s available capacity is

expected to be sufficient to accommodate the treatment requirements of the proposed Project,

which is consistent with the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan. As the proposed project includes

future land use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will

be included in the Subsequent EIR.

c. Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed Project would result in the construction of new

storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities and the Subsequent EIR will

analyze potential impacts associated with these facilities.

d. Potentially Significant Impact. The Project site is located within the service area of the Fontana

Water Company (FWC). The FWC produces water from wells in the Chino Basin, Lytle Basin,

Rialto Basin, the No Man's Land Basin, and from surface water flow diverted from Lytle Creek.

The FWC also purchases untreated State Water Project water from the San Bernardino Valley

Municipal Water District. The FWC also has emergency interconnections with Cucamonga Valley

Water District's water distribution system to purchase water, when available, but only for limited

emergency purposes. Available water supply capacity is expected to be sufficient to

accommodate the requirements of the proposed Project, which is consistent with the 2010

Renaissance Specific Plan. However, an update to the 2008 Water Supply Assessment (WSA)

prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan is to be prepared prior to the preparation of

the Subsequent EIR, as identified by this Initial Study. Therefore, potential water supply

impacts will be further considered in the Subsequent EIR.

e. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not be expected

to result in inadequate capacity at the wastewater treatment facility that would serve the

proposed Project. As the proposed project includes future land use development that is

consistent with the Specific Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

f. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would be expected to

generate additional waste during the temporary, short-term construction phase, as well as the

operational phase, but it would not be expected to result in inadequate landfill capacity. The

City of Rialto’s Waste Management Office (WMO) provides environmental services to City

residents and businesses. The WMO oversees the city's trash and recycling service contract

provided by EDCO Disposal. Solid waste service for the City of Rialto is provided by the Mid-

Valley Sanitary Landfill located in the northern portion of the city. The landfill is expected to

have adequate capacity to accommodate solid waste generated from the proposed Project. As

the proposed project includes future land use development that is consistent with the Specific

Plan, no further analysis will be included in the Subsequent EIR.

g. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project, similar to all other development in Rialto,

would be required to adhere to city ordinances with respect to waste reduction and recycling.

As a result, no impacts related to state and local statutes governing solid waste are

anticipated. As no impact would result from the proposed Project, no further analysis will be



18. Mandatory Findings of Signif icance

Issues

Potentially

Significant

Impact

Less Than

Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated

Less than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

Would the project:

a. Does the project have the potential to 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, 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?

Discussion

Discussion

a. Potentially Significant Impacts. The EIR prepared for the 2010 Renaissance Specific Plan

found biological and cultural resources effects to be less than significant with mitigation

incorporated. The proposed Project’s impacts relative to biological and cultural resources are

within the scope of impacts previously disclosed by the EIR. As outlined in this Initial Study and

determined by previous environmental review studies, the proposed Project, including the

Renaissance Marketplace component, would not result in significant impacts to cultural

resources. Equally, the proposed Project is not expected to result in significant impacts to

biological resources based on previous analyses and existing site conditions; however,

potential impacts to biological resources will be further considered in the Subsequent EIR.

b. Potentially Significant Impacts. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, future development

which would be facilitated by the proposed Project has the potential to result in a variety of

potential environmental impacts. As impacts could result in significant contributions to

cumulative impacts for specific impact areas, the Subsequent EIR will include further analysis

of potential cumulative impacts associate with the proposed Project.

c. Potentially Significant Impacts. The proposed Project is not expected to result in substantial

adverse environmental effects, either directly or indirectly, to human beings, as identified in

this Initial Study and previous environmental review studies. However, potential adverse

environmental effects will be further considered in the Subsequent EIR.


V . P r e p a r e r s

City of Rialto (Lead Agency)

150 South Palm Avenue

Rialto, CA 92376

Gina Gibson, Planning Manager

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

401 B Street, Suite 600

San Diego, California 92101

(619) 234-9411

Jennifer Harry, Project Manager

Karina Fidler, Senior Planner

Alex Jewell, Senior Planner

Bryce Ternet, Environmental Planner

Ashley Brodkin, Environmental Planner


V I . R e f e r e n c e s

California Department of Toxic Substances Control, DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site

List - Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available at: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm.

Accessed: October 8, 2014.

California Department of Transportation. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Available at:

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed: October 8, 2014.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Current FEMA Issued Flood Maps, Rialto, Cty/San

Bernardino County. Available at: https://msc.fema.gov. Accessed: October 8, 2014.

Kimley-Horn & Associates. SR-210 Logistics Center II Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study.

June 2013.

Michael Brandman Associates. Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Renaissance Specific

Plan (State Clearinghouse #2006071021) prepared for the City of Rialto. May 3, 2010.

Rialto, City of. Renaissance Specific Plan. October 2010.

Rialto, City of. Rialto Draft General Plan. March 2010.

Rialto, City of. Zoning Ordinance. 2012.

United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Map Viewer. Available at:

http://nationalmap.gov/index.html. Accessed October 8, 2014.

City of Rialto - BidNet

Documents

Transcript of City of Rialto - BidNet