Rialto Council Approves 120,000-Square-Foot Willow and Valley Warehouse After Call for Deeper Environmental Review

Rialto City Council unanimously approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a series of land-use entitlements on Tuesday, June 9, for a proposed warehouse development at the northeast corner of Valley Boulevard and Willow Avenue. 

Required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an MND is a document used to signal that a proposed project carries the potential for substantial environmental impacts, whereby an applicant agrees to reduce the impacts to a less-than-significant level, negating the need for a full Environmental Impact Review (EIR). In the Inland Empire, MND’s are often disputed by community advocates due to issues of environmental justice and stewardship, land-use and warehouse saturation. 

The project, proposed by Investment Building Group, calls for the demolition of an existing building and construction of two warehouse buildings totaling nearly 120,000 square feet on roughly six acres. The development includes one 73,210-square-foot warehouse and a second 46,758-square-foot warehouse, along with parking, landscaping and site improvements. 

Before council members issued a vote, a public hearing was held and a representative of the Supporters Alliance for Environmental Responsibility (SAFER) urged the council to require a full EIR rather than adopt the MND.  

Speaking on behalf of SAFER, Chase Preciado, a paralegal with the environmental law firm Lozeau Drury LLP, said there was substantial evidence supporting a “fair argument” that the project could result in significant biological impacts. Citing a review by wildlife ecologist Dr. Shawn Smallwood, Preciado argued that the city failed to adequately characterize the wildlife habitat at the site and that the project could result in habitat loss, interfere with wildlife movement and increase traffic-related wildlife mortality.

“The city also omitted any comparative context to interpret its wildlife survey results and relied on a flawed literature review,” Preciado said. “Thus, the city’s description of the project’s environmental setting is inadequate.”

However, the project applicants disputed those concerns. 

Brian Bargemann of Investment Building Group told the council that the company has owned the property for nearly five years and has pursued the project transparently and in accordance with the applicable requirements. 

Chelsea Ohanesian of the environmental consulting firm Dudek, which prepared the initial study and the MND, said the site is heavily disturbed and surrounded by the 10 freeway and nearby railroad tracks. Responding to issues raised by Preciado, Ohanesian said one of the species identified in SAFER’s letter, the Double-crested Cormorant, is considered sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife only when nesting colonies are present, and that none existed at the project site. She added that the Cooper’s hawk, also identified in SAFER’s letter, is no longer listed as a California species of special concern. 

Following the meeting, Inland Empire Community News (IECN) spoke with Mayor Pro Tem Ed Scott. He said he reviewed SAFER’s letter after receiving it the day before the hearing, adding that he was unaware of any endangered species occupying the project area. He noted that environmental studies conducted for nearby developments did not identify endangered species on adjacent properties. 

Scott also described the site as a long-vacant property that has experienced homelessness, fires and break-ins, although the area was once heavily industrialized.

“It is an area that needs to be developed,” Scott said, adding that the area is not well suited for residential or retail plaza projects and is better equipped to produce sales tax through textiles or auto parts distribution or some equivalent. “It definitely is not going to be a big truck facility with a lot of trucks, because it’s just not big enough.”

According to the city’s environmental review, mitigation measures will reduce potential impacts — including noise pollution and emissions, as well as biological, cultural and tribal resources — to less-than-significant levels. 

In addition to approving the MND, the council also approved the General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, a Conditional Development Permit and a Precise Plan of Design for the project. 

IECN approached Bargemann and Ohanesian for comment. However, they declined. IECN also approached Preciado for comment, but he also declined. Finally, IECN reached out to Lozeau Drury LLP, as advised by Preciado, in an attempt to speak with Rebecca Davis or Dr. Smallwood. At the time of publication, IECN has been unable to reach them.