Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan
Update
City of Rialto
San Bernardino County, California
Initial Study/
Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Foothill Central Specific
Plan Update
Prepared for:
City of Rialto
150 S Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
December 2023
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
i
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 General Information ............................................................................................................ 1-1
1.2 Document Purpose .............................................................................................................. 1-2
1.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .................................................................. 1-3
1.3.1 CEQA Compliance ................................ ................................ ............................ 1-3
1.3.2 CEQA Requirements for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) ................... 1-3
1.3.3 Initial Study Findings ................................ ................................ ........................ 1-4
1.3.4 Format and Content of Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................ .... 1-4
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.1 Project Overview ................................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Vision of the Specific Plan .................................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Purpose of Project ................................................................................................................ 2-1
2.3.1 6th Cycle Housing Element ................................ ................................ ................. 2-1
2.4 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................... 2-2
2.4.1 Project Location ................................ ................................ ................................ 2-2
2.4.2 On-site and Surrounding Land Uses and Development ................................ ...... 2-2
2.5 Planning Background .......................................................................................................... 2-6
2.5.1 Rialto General Plan (2010) ................................ ................................ ............... 2-6
2.5.2 Adopted Zoning Map ................................ ................................ ......................... 2-6
2.5.3 Central Area Specific Plan (1983) ................................ ................................ ..... 2-9
2.5.4 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (2010) ................................ ............................ 2-9
2.5.5 Rialto Market Study Report (April 2023) ................................ .......................... 2-10
2.5.6 Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan ................................ ................................ ........2-10
2.5.7 Rialto Active Transportation Plan ................................ ................................ ....2-10
2.6 Project Components........................................................................................................... 2-11
2.6.1 Project Objectives ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-11
2.6.2 Foothill Central Specific Plan Overview ................................ ........................... 2-12
2.6.3 Proposed Land Use Designations (Proposed Zoning) ................................ .......2-12
2.6.4 Proposed Mobility Network ................................ ................................ .............. 2-15
2.6.5 Proposed Development Standards ................................ ................................ ....2-16
2.6.6 Specific Plan Area Build-Out ................................ ................................ ............2-21
2.7 Proposed Discretionary Approvals .................................................................................... 2-22
2.8 Specific Plan Implementation ............................................................................................ 2-22
3.0 CEQA ANALYSIS ................................................................................................................. 3-1
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ........................................................................ 3-1
3.2 Determination ...................................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ................................................................................. 3-3 I. Aesthetics ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 3-3 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................ ................................ .. 3-7 III. Air Quality ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 3-9 IV. Biological Resources ................................ ................................ ........................ 3-20 V. Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-27 VI. Energy ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3-32 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
ii
VII. Geology and Soils ................................ ................................ ............................. 3-34 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions................................ ................................ ............... 3-40 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................................ ................................ ...3-44 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ................................ ................................ ...........3-50 XI. Land Use and Planning ................................ ................................ .................... 3-55 XII. Mineral Resources ................................ ................................ ............................ 3-56 XIII. Noise ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3-57 XIV. Population and Housing ................................ ................................ ................... 3-63 XV. Public Services ................................ ................................ ................................ .3-65 XVI. Recreation ................................ ................................ ................................ ........3-69 XVII. Transportation................................ ................................ ................................ ..3-70 XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources ................................ ................................ ................ 3-75 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ................................ ................................ ............3-78 XX. Wildfire ................................ ................................ ................................ ............3-82 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................ ................................ .3-85
4.0 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP) ............... 4-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS ......................................................................................................... 5-1
6.0 APPENDICES ........................................................................................................................ 6-1 APPENDIX A.1 – NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
APPENDIX A.2 – AB52/SB18 CONSULTATION
APPENDIX B – TECHNICAL STUDIES
APPENDIX B.1 – BUILT ENVIRONMENT RESOURCE DIRECTORY (BERD) APPENDIX B.2 – GHG STUDY
APPENDIX B.3 – NOISE STUDY
APPENDIX B.4 -TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS MEMO
APPENDIX B.5 – WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT (WSA)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
iii
List of Figures
Figure 2-1: Foothill Central Area Location ................................ ................................ .............. 2-3 Figure 2-2: Foothill Central Specific Area Boundaries (Foothill Central Area) ........................ 2-4 Figure 2-3: Existing On-Site and Surrounding Land Use ................................ ......................... 2-5 Figure 2-4: Adopted Land Use Map ................................ ................................ ........................ 2-7 Figure 2-5: Adopted Zoning Map ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-8 Figure 2-6: Consolidation of Specific Plan Boundaries ................................ .......................... 2-13 Figure 2-7: Proposed Rezonings ................................ ................................ ............................ 2-14 Figure 2-8: Existing and Planned Bikeways and Proposed Streetscape and Infrastructure ...... 2-17 Figure 3-1: California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023) within 0.5-mile of the Foothill Central Area ................................ ................................ .......................... 3-23
List of Tables
Table 2-1: Project Area Proposed Rezonings ................................ ................................ ......... 2-14 Table 2-2: Proposed Development Standards ................................ ................................ ........ 2-18 Table 2-3: Projected 2045 Buildout ................................ ................................ ....................... 2-21 Table 3-1: Proposed Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ................................ ..... 3-11 Table 3-2: California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023) List within 0.5-mile of the Foothill Central Area ................................ ................................ ........................... 3-22 Table 3-3: Project GHG Emissions ................................ ................................ ........................ 3-41 Table 3-4: Proposed Foothill Boulevard and Central Area Specific Plans Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ 3-72 Table 3-5: Proposed Foothill Boulevard and Central Area Specific Plans Roadway Segment Volumes ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 3-73
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
iv
List of Acronyms and Abbreviations
ADT Average Daily Trips
af Acre-feet
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
ATV All-Terrain vehicle
SCAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District
BAU Business-as-Usual
BPS Best Performance Standards
CAA Clean Air Act
CGS California Geological Survey
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model®
CalFire California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CAP Climate Adaptation Plan
CAPCOA California Air Pollution Control Officers Association CARB California Air Resources Board
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFA California Department Food and Agriculture
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e Carbon Dioxide Equivalent
CUP Conditional Use Permit
DOC Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
EIR Environmental Impact Report
FHSZ Flood Hazard Severity Zone
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GSA Groundwater Sustainability Agency
GSP Groundwater Sustainability Plan
HMBP Hazardous Materials Business Plan
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
v
IS Initial Study
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LED Light-emitting diode
LOS Level of Service
LST Localized Significance Threshold
MLC Mineral Land Classification
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
MRP Monitoring and Reporting Program
MT Metric ton
NOA Notice of Availability
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NOx Oxides of Nitrogen
O3 Ozone
PM2.5 Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Microns in Size
PM10 Particulate Matter Less Than 10 Microns in Size
RMP Risk Management Planning
ROG Reactive Organic Gas
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SDGE San Diego Gas and Electric
sf Square Foot
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SIP State Implementation Plan
SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin
SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SOP Standard Operating Procedure
SOx Oxides of Sulfur
SR State Route
SRA State Responsibility Area
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
VMT Vehicle Miles Travelled
WDR Waste Discharge Requirement
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
1-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General Information
Project Title: Foothill Central Specific Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Rialto
Contact Person and Phone Number: Paul Gonzales
Community Development – Planning Division
(909) 421-7240
Objectives: 1. Establish an image and identity for the Plan Area which enhances and preserves the
“Home Town” atmosphere of the City of
Rialto.
2. Create new development and redevelopment
opportunities and incentives to stimulate a
variety and balance of land uses that are
compatible and will result in the improved
economic viability of the Plan Area.
3. Provide incentives to intensify residential and
mixed-use development at significant nodes,
consolidate smaller parcels, and redevelop
older, underutilized building stock.
4. Preserve or rehabilitate existing housing stock
where appropriate and encourage the
development of a variety of housing types
that can accommodate all ages and income
levels.
5. Maximize the inherent potential of residential
uses in proximity to businesses and services,
including housing opportunities along
Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue to
increase activity in commercial areas.
6. Encourage enhanced architecture as well as
better building and site design to promote
quality development within the Plan Area.
7. Recognize the importance of transportation to
the Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue
corridors and encourage designs to increase
traffic flow, with a raised median to limit left-
turn conflicts.
8. Examine vehicular and pedestrian access and
activity to identify where optimal non-
vehicular transportation connections should
occur and create and implement a land use
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
1-2
plan that takes advantage of the Metrolink
Station located within the Plan Area.
9. Enhance the pedestrian experience by
promoting walkability through locating new
buildings near the street to encourage
pedestrian access.
10. Provide a landscape concept, sign control
program and aesthetic design elements which
will enhance the “Home Town” concept and
will serve as a guideline for future
development.
11. Beautify the streetscape by implementing a
plan for street and median landscaping to
soften the urban edge.
12. Work to establish gateways that help to
establish a sense of place.
13. Provide a usable Specific Plan which
maximizes flexibility and effectively guides
and direct growth in Central Rialto and along
Foothill Boulevard.
Project Location: City of Rialto, CA - Foothill Central Area as described: The area along Foothill Boulevard
bounded by Maple Avenue to the east and Pepper
Avenue to west, in addition to central Rialto,
bounded by Merrill Avenue to the south, Foothill
Boulevard to the north, Willow Avenue to the
west, and Sycamore Avenue to the east.
Description of Project: The Proposed Project updates and merges the existing City of Rialto Foothill Boulevard and
Central Area Specific Plans into the Foothill
Central Specific Plan (Proposed Project) and
updates the Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18
Zoning. The Proposed Project increases the
allowable residential and commercial density
within the Foothill Central Area and provides
updates to the development guidelines for this
area.
Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Commercial and residential lined corridors in an urbanized city.
Discretionary approvals (from other public
agencies):
None
1.2 Document Purpose
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15002(a), the basic purposes of CEQA are to inform public agency decision-makers and the general public of the significant environmental effects of a project, identify possible ways to minimize the significant effects th rough the use of mitigation measures Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
1-3
or alternatives to the project, and disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the project if significant environmental effects are involved.
To fulfill the purpose and intent of CEQA, this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to address the potential adverse environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. An IS/MND for a project subject to CEQA is prepared when an environmental analysis of the project shows that there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment [CEQA Guidelines §15070(a)].
This document evaluates the potential environmental impacts that would occur with implementation of the Foothill Central Specific Plan; specifically, the impacts that would occur as a result of the maximum buildout allowed by the Plan.
1.3 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
1.3.1 CEQA Compliance
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) [Public Resources Code §21000 et seq. and Title 14 California Code of Regulations (CCR) §15000 et seq.] requires that the environmental impacts of proposed projects be evaluated and that feasible methods to reduce, avoid, or eliminate significant adverse i mpacts of these projects be identified and implemented. The lead agency is the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project that may have a significant effect up on the environment (Public Resources Code §21067). The Proposed Project requires the adoption of the Specific Plan by the City Council, and therefore, is subject to the requirements of CEQA. The City of Rialto, as the entity with primary responsibility of adopting and implementing the Proposed Project, is lead agency.
1.3.2 CEQA Requirements for a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) Per 2023 CEQA Guidelines Section 15070:
A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when:
a) The initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, or b) The initial study identifies potentially significant effects, but:
1) Revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by the applicant before i) a proposed mitigated negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur, and
2) There is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment.
Per Guidelines Section 15369.5:
“Mitigated negative declaration“ means a negative declaration prepared for a project when the initial study has identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
1-4
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment.
1.3.3 Initial Study Findings
Section 3.0 of this document contains the Initial Study that was prepared for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA and City of Rialto requirements. The Initial Study determined that implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant environment al effects to the following environmental resource areas: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, hydrology/water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation, utilities/ser vice systems, and wildfire. The Initial Study determined that the proposed Project would result in potentially significant effects to the resource areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials and tribal cultural resources, but the Project Applicant has agreed to implement mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur. The Initial Study determined that with the incorporation of mitigation measures there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Lead Agency (City of Rialto) that the Project would have a significant effect on the environment. Based on the Initial Study’s findings, the City of Rialto determined that an MND is appropriate for the proposed Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15070(b).
1.3.4 Format and Content of Mitigated Negative Declaration Per Guidelines Section 15071:
A [Mitigated] Negative Declaration circulated for public review shall include:
a) A brief description of the project, including a commonly used name for the project, if any; b) The location of the project, preferably shown on a map, and the name of the project proponent;
c) A proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment; d) An attached copy of the Initial Study documenting reasons to support the finding; and e) Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects.
The following annotated outline summarizes the contents of this IS/MND:
• Chapter 1 Introduction
• Chapter 2 Environmental Checklist
• Chapter 3 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
• Chapter 4 References
• Chapter 5 List of Preparers
• Chapter 6 Appendices
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 Project Overview
The Proposed Project updates and merge s the existing City of Rialto Foothill Boulevard and Central Area Specific Plans into the Foothill Central Specific Plan (Proposed Project) and amends the Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18 Zoning . The Proposed Project increases the allowable density of residential and commercial uses within the Foothill Central Area (see Table 2-2) and provides updates to the development standards for this area. The Specific Plan identifies permitted land use s within the Foothill Central Area and establishes development standards for implementation of future development within the Specific Plan area.
2.2 Vision of the Specific Plan
The Vision Statement adopted to guide the development of the Specific Plan is as follows:
For the next 30 years, Downtown Rialto will continue to be the heart of the City, defined by its hometown character and functioning as an important job center and transportation hub. The historic Route 66, Foothill Boulevard, will continue to serve as a ga teway corridor through the City and to the downtown core. The Foothill Central Specific Plan area will continue to evolve as a lively mixed -use destination that integrates housing for all incomes and ages with shopping, restaurants, entertainment, and civic and arts uses and preserves existing landmarks.
The Specific Plan will be a tool to implement high -quality development standards along Foothill Boulevard and within Downtown Rialto that complement and enrich a public realm that is safe, green, and beautiful, incorporating landscaping, lighting and publi c art. Streets and sidewalks will be designed for all ages, abilities and modes including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, and cars.
2.3 Purpose of Project
The purpose of the Foothill Central Specific Plan (Proposed Project) is to create new housing opportunities, including those within close proximity to transit; implement goals from the Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element, and reduce citywide greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategies, such as reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and supporting walkable, bikeable, transit -oriented communities.
To complete these goals, the Proposed Project would consolidate the Plan Areas of the Foothill Boulevard and Central Specific Plans and establish consistent development standards between the two. Six districts would be established in the Foothill Central Area that would create areas of complementary land uses that promote the production of housing and encourage investment into street infrastructure that would create a vibrate urban environment. These mixed-use zones would encourage the reduction of GHG emissions and lower VMT by creat ing a more walkable and bikeable community.
The Proposed Project is intended to guide development in the Foothill Central Area. The Foothill Central Specific Plan has a horizon year of 2045.
2.3.1 6th Cycle Housing Element
Rialto’s 6th Cycle Housing Element has identified a significant portion of vacant land as developable for housing, as well as some underutilized commercial land. The clustering of many Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-2
of these vacant sites in commercial areas creates the opportunity for mixed -use development and housing that is within walking distance to key destinations. The Housing Element presents a codified mission to redevelop vacant land with residential use speci fically within the Planning Area; Policy 2.3 states “Encourage the infilling of vacant residential land and the recycling of underutilized residential land, particularly in Downtown Rialto, along Foothill Boulevard, the Pepper Avenue Specific Plan area, the Renaissance Specific Plan area, and the Lytle Creek Ranch Specific Plan.”
The Housing Element designates the two portions of the Planning Area (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and Central Area Specific Plan) as Opportunity Areas and specifically notes the abundant vacant parcels in these areas as having high potential for revit alization with residential development. The Housing Element identifies incentive opportunities for development on identified sites by including streamlining the permitting process and areas to be rezoned to accommodate additional dwelling units, including:
• Opportunity Area 1: Located along Foothill Boulevard, proposes to rezone 108 parcels (159 acres) to 35 dwelling units per acre.
• Opportunity Area 4: Located in the Central Area, proposes to rezone 60 parcels (14 acres) to R-X at 48 dwelling units per acre.
2.4 Environmental Setting
2.4.1 Project Location
The Proposed Project provides the overall vision for the Foothill Central Area of the City of Rialto (see Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2). The Foothill Central Area is defined as the area along Foothill Boulevard bounded by Maple Avenue to the west and Pepper Avenue to east, in addition to central Rialto, bounded by Merrill Avenue to the south, Etiwanda Avenue to the north, Willow Avenue to the west, and Sycamore Avenue to the east.
2.4.2 On-site and Surrounding Land Uses and Development The Planning Area is characterized by a diversity of land uses, with commercial and residential anchors. The land use pattern in the portion of the Planning Area in the Foothill Boulevard corridor is distinct from the portion in Rialto’s Central Area. Foot hill Boulevard is largely a commercial corridor, whereas the Central Area has a greater variety of land uses that surround strong residential pockets. The Central Area portion of the Planning Area contains Rialto’s downtown.
Downtown Rialto and the portion of Foothill Boulevard within the Planning Area are in the geographic center of the city. Foothill Boulevard traverses Rialto for roughly three miles from east to west and is characterized by general commercial uses and vacant lots varying in size with more large vacant lots at the west end of the corridor. In contrast, Downtown Rialto currentl y has a mixture of residential, office, commercial and recreational uses, including the Rialto Civic Center, Adult School, Metrolink Station, and Margaret Todd Park. Both areas contain a number of Rialto’s important destinations.
Land uses surrounding the Plan Area include primarily single-family and multi-family residential uses along with small pockets of commercial uses, public facilities, and educational institutions as seen on Figure 2-3. However, industrial uses can be found immediately west of the former Central Area boundary.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-3
Figure 2-1: Foothill Central Area Location
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-4
Figure 2-2: Foothill Central Specific Area Boundaries (Foothill Central Area)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-5
Figure 2-3: Existing On-Site and Surrounding Land Use
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-6
2.5 Planning Background
The Proposed Project advances the goals and objectives of the 2010 General Plan and preserves attributes of both adopted Specific Plans . Furthermore, the Pro posed Project is supported by a market study report for the Foothill Central Area.
2.5.1 Rialto General Plan (2010)
The Rialto General Plan was adopted in 2010 and was written based on four guiding principles:
Rialto Is a Family First Community, Rialto Shall Attract High -Quality New Development and Improve Its Physical Environment, Rialto’s Economic Environment Is Healt hy and Diverse, and Rialto Is an Active Community. The guiding principles provide direction to policymakers and subsequent plans and projects that aim to improve the quality of life in Rialto.
Foothill Boulevard is identified as one of the major areas for infill and redevelopment due to its extensive vacant land along the western edge of the corridor and redevelopment opportunities on the eastern end. The General Plan’s vision for Foothill Boule vard is to transform it into a lively, pedestrian, and transit-friendly corridor revolving around bus rapid transit (BRT). The main focus of the vision for Foothill Boulevard is to develop pedestrian nodes, pedestrian -oriented commercial, mixed-use, and residential that all complement the BRT.
Another area identified in the Land Use Element with redevelopment potential is in southern Rialto along Riverside Avenue in Downtown Rialto. The Land Use Element’s vision for Riverside Avenue and Downtown Rialto is to create a dynamic village and a pedestrian-friendly environment as a lively “Main Street” with a focus on integrating residential, bus, and Metrolink transit services, and civic uses. The Land Use Element also states that an increase in residential densities on selected vacant and underutilize d lands, as well as a redefinition of some lands previously designated for commercial or industrial to mixed -use is allowed. The adopted General Plan Land Use map is shown in Figure 2-4.
2.5.2 Adopted Zoning Map
The existing zoning map includes zoning for the entire city, and overlays for eight specific plans.
The adopted zoning map is shown in Figure 2-5.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-7
Figure 2-4: Adopted Land Use Map
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-8
Figure 2-5: Adopted Zoning Map
Source: City of Rialto, Zoning Map, July 2013 https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/1513/Zoning-Map---July-2013
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-9
2.5.3 Central Area Specific Plan (1983)
The intent and purpose of the Central Area Specific Plan was to “enhance the design quality and economic vitality of the Central Business District (CBD); maximize circulation patterns and opportunities; to secure safety from fire, seismic hazard, panic and other dangers; to pro mote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to maximize efficient use of the land areas; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewage, schools, and other public requirements”. The CBD area under this plan is the area bounded by railroad right-of-way within the Central Area , the Central Area is defined by the area defined by: Foothill Boulevard, Merrill Avenue, Sycamore Avenue and Willow Avenue.
The Central Area Specific Plan sought to enhance Rialto’s central business district by:
• Establishing zoning and development standards for the Specific Plan Area • Incentivizing higher density residential uses
• Encouraging a mix of uses
• Promoting affordable housing
• Preserving the CBD’s character and historical value
Development standards were provided as part of the Municipal Code.
2.5.4 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (2010)
The vision of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan was to identify the City as a “unique, vibrant, community” and included the following goals:
1. Beautify the streetscape by implementing a plan for street and median landscaping to soften the urban edge.
2. Enhance the pedestrian experience by promoting walkability through locating new buildings near the street to encourage pedestrian access. In addition, taller buildings along Foothill Boulevard frontage will be encouraged in order to improve the street scale.
3. Work to establish gateways that help to establish a sense of place.
4. Create new development and redevelopment opportunities and incentives.
5. Provide incentives to intensify development at significant nodes, consolidate smaller parcels, and redevelop older, underutilized building stock.
6. Encourage enhanced architecture as well as better building and site design to promote quality development along Foothill Boulevard.
7. Provide housing opportunities along Foothill Boulevard in order to increase activity in commercial areas.
8. Recognize the importance of transportation to the Foothill Boulevard corridor and encourage designs to increase traffic flow, with a raised median to limit left-turn conflicts.
Development standards were provided as part of this Plan for architecture, site design, and landscaping to encourage high-quality development. The specific plan area under this plan covered the Foothill Boulevard corridor between Maple Avenue to the west and Pepper Avenue to the east.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-10
2.5.5 Rialto Market Study Report (April 2023)
As part of the City’s efforts to update their specific plan, a Market Study Report was completed to determine the development potential for the Foothill Central Area, including a report on the City’s demographics and existing real estate market conditions. The report estimates supportable demand for new residential, retail, and office space within the Planning Area through 2045. These estimates are intended to help inform the City’s Preferred Land Use Alternative for the Specific Plan Update.
The Market Study Report found that adoption of a new Specific Plan would add significant zoning capacity to the area, freeing up new development opportunities. In addition, new Statewide legislation has helped facilitate increased opportunities for housing development streamlining, particularly for projects with affordable components.
Based on regional growth projections published by SCAG, the City of Rialto can be expected to grow to 37,100 households by 2045 . The Demand Analysis conducted for the Foothill Central Area assumed that the Foothill Central Area would absorb a minimum of 2,736 new housing units through 2045, after accounting for pent-up demand calculated in the larger City.
In addition, the Report found that d emand for new retail space in the Planning Area would be driven primarily by new household growth. Under that assumption of a resident driven demand for retail space, the City of Rialto would potentially absorb up to 276,819 square feet of additional retail space over the next decade. This indicates the Planning Area could support over 110,000 square feet of new retail space through 2045.
Based on regional projections for job growth, the number of jobs in the City of Rialto is expected to grow by approximately 1.15 percent per year which translates into approximately 6,576 new jobs over the next decade. Therefore, approximately 175,438 square feet of new office space would be required to support local job growth estimates which indicates the Planning Area could support nearly 58,000 square feet of new office space through 2045.
2.5.6 Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan
The 2021 Rialto Climate Adaptation Plan (CAP) sets forth a plan to prepare the city for the impacts of climate change. The Plan focuses on four key climate -related hazards facing Rialto: extreme heat, air pollution, flooding, and wildfire. CAP policies are aimed at addressing local impacts of climate change and are mainly broad and apply citywide, though some are specific to certain corridors. For example, the Plan recommends adopting a citywide green streets program, implementing the bikeway improvements identified in the Active Transportation Plan (ATP) along Riverside Avenue, and implementing the Willow Avenue segment of the Safe Routes to School Plan. The CAP does not identify new policies specific to the Foothill Boulevard or Central Area Specific Plan areas and rather serves mainly as a citywide guide to adapting to climate change.
2.5.7 Rialto Active Transportation Plan
The Draft 2020 Rialto Active Transportation Plan (ATP) aims to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, including walking and bicycling. The ATP includes a first- and last-mile assessment of potential barriers within a specified distance from high ridership transit stations and stops within Rialto. The ATP recommends the installation of Class II bicycle lanes on Foothill Boulevard to create a safe cycling corridor along this major east-west arterial that connects central Rialto with the cit ies of San Bernadino and Fontana and the greater region. Bicycle facilities are also proposed for the Central Area, including a Class III bicycle route with sharrows along Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-11
Riverside Avenue that transitions into Class II buffered bicycle lanes south of the railroad tracks, as well as Class III bicycle routes along Willow and Sycamore Avenues creating safer connections to the Pacific Electric Right of Way Trail and surrounding recreational uses. Currently, the Pacific Electric Right of Way trailheads are within walking distance of the Planning Area along Foothill Boulevard. As of August 2023, the ATP has not been adopted by the City.
2.6 Project Components
2.6.1 Project Objectives
Using the Vision Statement as a guide, the Project is intended to accomplish the following objectives:
1. Establish an image and identity for the Plan Area which enhances and preserves the “Home Town” atmosphere of the City of Rialto.
2. Create new development and redevelopment opportunities and incentives to stimulate a variety and balance of land uses that are compatible and will result in the improved economic viability of the Plan Area.
3. Provide incentives to intensify residential and mixed-use development at significant nodes, consolidate smaller parcels, and redevelop older, underutilized building stock.
4. Preserve or rehabilitate existing housing stock where appropriate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types that can accommodate all ages and income levels.
5. Maximize the inherent potential of residential uses in proximity to businesses and services, including housing opportunities along Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue to increase activity in commercial areas.
6. Encourage enhanced architecture as well as better building and site design to promote quality development within the Plan Area.
7. Recognize the importance of transportation to the Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue corridors and encourage designs to increase traffic flow, with a raised median to limit left-turn conflicts.
8. Examine vehicular and pedestrian access and activity to identify where optimal non - vehicular transportation connections should occur and create and implement a land use plan that takes advantage of the Metrolink Station located within the Plan Area.
9. Enhance the pedestrian experience by promoting walkability through locating new buildings near the street to encourage pedestrian access.
10. Provide a landscape concept, sign control program and aesthetic design elements which will enhance the “Home Town” concept and will serve as a guideline for future development.
11. Beautify the streetscape by implementing a plan for street and median landscaping to soften the urban edge.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-12
12. Work to establish gateways that help to establish a sense of place.
13. Provide a usable Specific Plan which maximizes flexibility and effectively guides and direct growth in Central Rialto and along Foothill Boulevard.
2.6.2 Foothill Central Specific Plan Overview
The Foothill Central Specific Plan intends to guide the development of the Foothill Boulevard corridor and the Rialto Central Area , while protecting and enhancing the existing residential neighborhoods in Downtown Rialto. To achieve this , the residential zoning designations established in the Central Area Specific Plan, which include Single Family Residential (SFR), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), and Increased Density Residential (R -X), were preserved and incorporated into the Foothill Central Specific Plan. Additionally, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan’s Streetscape and Infrastructure sections were carried over and incorporated into the Proposed Project to provide clear and concise standards to improve the aesthetics and create a pedestrian - friendly environment within the Foothill Central Area.
The Proposed Project consolidates the boundaries of the Central Area Specific Plan and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to form the new Foothill Central Area as shown in Figure 2-6.
To maintain the core values of the previous plans, it has also adopted parts of the vision of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as part of its own vision and would continue to encourage similar infrastructure development standards and streetscape design. Zones originally proposed in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan w ere integrated into the districts formed under the Proposed Project. In addition, the residential zones originally proposed in the Central Area Specific Plan were merged into the proposed districts.
The Proposed Project seeks to increase the allowable density of commercial, residential, and transit-oriented development by approximately 3.1%, 7.8%, and 3.5% over the Adopted Land Use, respectively, as well as encourages the improvement and integration of pedestrian -friendly infrastructure along the Foothill Boulevard corridor.
2.6.3 Proposed Land Use Designations (Proposed Zoning)
Proposed districts within the Foothill Central Area, as shown in Figure 2-7 and Table 2-1, include:
2.6.3.1 Residential Districts
Single Family Residential (SFR): Provides low -density residential uses in downtown Rialto.
Encourages single family dwellings separated from multi -family and non -residential uses to protect the residential characteristics of these areas and encourage a sui table environment for family life.
Multi-Family Residential (MFR): Provides medium -density residential uses in downtown Rialto to encourage the creation of walkable interconnected residential neighborhoods. Allows a mix of medium-density housing types, such as apartments, townhomes, and duplexes.
Increased Density Residential (R-X): Encourages the development of housing through increase of allowable density and flexibility to lot development standards. Allows a mix of medium -density housing types, such as apartments, townhomes, and duplexes, intend ed to support for adjacent commercial uses.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-13
Figure 2-6: Consolidation of Specific Plan Boundaries
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-14
Figure 2-7: Proposed Rezonings
Table 2-1: Project Area Proposed Rezonings
Adopted Zoning Acres Proposed Zoning Acres
Core Commercial (C-C) 27.23
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) 3.31
Public Facilities (PF) 0.76
Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 23.16
Commercial-Mixed Use (C-MU) 20.92 Foothill Mixed-Use Zone (FMUZ) 20.92 Cottage Commercial (COT-C) 3.86 Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 3.86 Commercial Pedestrian (C-P) 157.37 Foothill Mixed-Use Zone (FMUZ) 157.37 Office Services (O-S) 16.49 Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 16.49 Residential-High Density (R-HD) 45.8 Foothill Mixed-Use Zone (FMUZ) 45.8 Residential-Mixed Use (R-MU) 34.01 Foothill Mixed-Use Zone (FMUZ) 34.01 Increased Density Residential (R-
X) 1.88 Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 1.88
Support Commercial (S-C) 19.3
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) 4.54
Increased Density Residential (R-X) 0.4
Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 14.36
Support Facilities (S-F) 34.32 Multi-Family Residential (MFR) 0.8
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-15
Public Facilities (PF) 30.01
Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 3.51
Single Family Residential (SFR) 1.48 Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 1.48 Urban Services (U-S) 18 Downtown Mixed-Use Zone (DMUZ) 18
2.6.3.2 Mixed-Use Districts
Foothill Mixed-Use (FMUZ): Encourages a combination of ground floor retail, with office and/or residential uses above around the future BRT stops located along Foothill Boulevard. Allows a variety of uses at the ground floor, including restaurants, retail, gyms, and salons . Ground floor activities must be compatible with upper floor residences.
Downtown Mixed-Use (DMUZ): Encourages a walkable interconnected mixed-use urban area by providing a combination of ground-floor retail, higher intensity office, and/or residential near the Rialto Metrolink Station in downtown Rialto. Provides retail and commercial uses, including restaurants, breweries, and entertainment destinations.
2.6.3.3 Other Districts
Public Facilities (PF): Includes facilities serving the public and the larger community, including the Civic Center, fire stations, government buildings, libraries, public utility stations and yards, public schools, and other community-serving centers and recreational facilities.
The regulations of this Proposed Project replace the regulations of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Central Area Specific Plan, and the zoning regulations of the Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18 (Zoning). Where the land use regulations, standards, and guidelines are inconsistent with the Rialto Municipal Code, Chapter 18 (Zoning) the regulations, standards, and guidelines of the Proposed Project shall prevail and supersede the regulations of the Rialto Municipal Code, Chapter 18 (Zoning).
2.6.4 Proposed Mobility Network
The proposed mobility network for the Plan Area is designed to serve all travel modes and would consist of roadways and dedicated facilities that serve pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and private vehicles. The Plan Area’s mobility network has been developed in accordance with the policies in the City’s General Plan, projects identified in the 2018 S BCTA Non-Motorized Transportation Plan, and recommendations from the 2020 Active Transportation Plan, as seen in Figure 2-8.
Relevant mobility strategies from the 2020 SCAG Connect SoCal Plan have also been identified in the Specific Plan to enhance connectivity throughout the Plan Area, with an emphasis on alternate modes of transportation. The purpose of new or enhanced facilities is to improve the existing pedestrian and bicycle experience through increased safety and comfort.
The Specific Plan also includes guidelines to enhance the Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue corridors. The primary purpose of these guidelines is to improve the safety and comfort of all users and establish unique and attractive identities for both corri dors. Streetscape elements have been identified to be constructed at select points along the streets to separate pedestrians from travel lanes, beautify the streets, and identify Rialto as a unique community. Emphasis will be placed on the following st reetscape elements: landscaping, median design, gateways, place identifications, parkway treatments, and wayfinding signage. These elements can help transform Foothill Boulevard and Riverside Avenue into walkable and welcoming spaces for pedestrians, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-16
cyclists, and transit riders. The streetscape design will be based on the Rialto Bridge Concept that the City had selected for Foothill Boulevard in 2008. The concept is centered on the Rialto Bridge and features brick and river rock materials.
2.6.5 Proposed Development Standards
The Foothill Central Area Specific Plan Development Standards, as shown in Table 2-2, would be incorporated into the Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18 Zoning. They would have the following overall objectives:
• Implement the provisions of the Foothill Central Area Specific Plan. • Provide maximum opportunities for innovative, high-quality community design, and site planning consistent with orderly development.
• Improve the aesthetics of Foothill Boulevard and the Rialto Central Area to encourage new development and revitalize existing development.
• Encourage and facilitate pedestrian uses along Foothill Boulevard and the Central Area by providing a pedestrian -friendly environment with shaded walking areas, pedestrian -scale architecture, commercial buildings with pedestrian street entries, and pedestr ian connectivity among uses.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-17
Figure 2-8: Existing and Planned Bikeways and Proposed Streetscape and Infrastructure
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-18
Table 2-2: Proposed Development Standards
Zone SFR MFR R-X FMUZ DMUZ PF
Name Single Family
Residential Multi-Family Residential
Increased
Density
Residential
Foothill Downtown
Mixed-Use
Zone
Public
Facilities Mixed-Use
Zone
Minimum Lot Size 7,700 sf 8,000 sf 8,000 sf
Minimum
Project Size:
1/2 acre
Minimum
Project Size:
1/2 acre No minimum
No minimum
lot size
No minimum
lot size
Maximum Lot Coverage 40% 60% 70% No
requirements
No
requirements 60%
Maximum Building
Height 3 stories or 42 ft 4 stories or 48 ft* 4 stories or 48 ft*
5 stories or 60
ft
5 stories or 60
ft
5 stories or
60 ft
Maximum FAR 4 4 4 4
Lot Width 70 ft 80 ft 80 ft
Lot Depth 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft
Minimum Dwelling Size 1,000 sf
Single: 1,200 sf, Multiple: 600 sf
Single: 1,200
sf, Multiple:
600 sf
Multiple: 600
sf
Multiple: 600
sf
One 425 ft unit for every three 600 sf
units
One 425 ft
unit for every
three 600 sf
units
One 425 ft
unit for every
three 600 sf
units
One 425 ft
unit for every
three 600 sf
units
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-19
475 sf (to
incentivize lot
consolidation)
475 sf (to
incentivize lot
consolidation)
475 sf (to
incentivize lot
consolidation)
Front Yard 25 ft 15 ft 15 ft 5 ft 5 ft None
required
Alley Setback 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft 5 ft None
required
Side Yard Building
Setback (Not Abutting
Residential)
Interior: 5 ft
(min) Interior: 5 ft (min) Interior: 5 ft
(max)
5 ft (min) 5 ft (min) None
required
Corner: 10 ft
(min) Corner: 10 ft (min) Corner: 10 ft
(min)
Rear Yard Setback (Not
Abutting Residential) 20 ft (min)** 10 ft average, 5 ft minimum 10 ft average, 5 ft minimum 5 ft (min) 5 ft (min) None
required
Setbacks (Abutting a
Residential Zone) See residential standards above
7 ft
(landscaped
with trees)
7 ft
(landscaped
with trees)
Side: 5 ft
Rear: 15 ft
Maximum Residential
Density
5 dwelling units
per acre 22 dwelling units per acre
22 dwelling
units per
acre**
35 dwelling
units per acre
48.4 du/ac
dwelling units
per acre
On Site Parking
Requirements
Residential
parking: 2
spaces per
dwelling unit on
site
SFR: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
SFR: 2 spaces
per dwelling
unit
Residential
parking: 2
spaces per
dwelling unit
MFR: 1.5
spaces per
dwelling unit
Commercial
parking: 1
space for
every 200 sf
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-20
MFR: 1.5 spaces per dwelling unit
MFR: 1.5
spaces per
dwelling unit
Guest
residential
parking: 1
space for
every 4
dwelling units
Guest
residential
parking: 1
space for
every 10
dwelling units
of gross floor
area
Guest residential parking: 1 space for
every 10 dwelling units
Guest
residential
parking: 1
space for
every 10
dwelling units
Commercial
parking: 1
space for
every 200 sf
of gross floor
area
Commercial
parking: 1
space for
every 200 sf
of gross floor
area
Notes:
*Add standard for building height within 40 ft or property line abutting SFR - See page V-11 (MFR 3.d.) **Except as provided for accessory buildings in the Rialto Municipal Code ***ADUs – Refer to Rialto Municipal Code
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-21
2.6.6 Specific Plan Area Build-Out
The Specific Plan contains use regulations, development standards, and design criteria to regulate development within its boundaries.
The Proposed Project has the potential to result in a total buildout of approximately 10,056 residential units and 5,138,749 square feet of commercial floor area within the Plan Area . This represents a net increase (above existing conditions) of approximately 2,580 residential units and 3,406,096 square feet of commercial floor area. When compared to development totals currently allowed with the future buildout of the General Plan, the Specific Plan would result in an additional 915 residential units and approximately 370,834 square feet of additional commercial floor area than under the adopted General Plan.
Under the Specific Plan, new base maximum densities are established for the residentially zoned sites, which range from 5 to 48.4 dwelling units per acre on specific sites . However, applicants may still achieve densities above these base maximum densities on some of the residentially zoned sites through the State Density Bonus Law on all residentially zoned sites. The bonus percentage that must be provided under state law is added to the base maximum density. State bonus densities are not included in the b uildout numbers shown on Table 2-3. Table 2-3 shows the additional buildout capacity that would be permitted within the City with adopted of the Specific Plan.
Table 2-3: Projected 2045 Buildout
Existing
Development
Total 2045
Buildout
(Current
Adopted Land
Use) (0.75
Realistic Factor)
Total 2045
Buildout
(Proposed
Specific Plan
Land Use) (0.75
Realistic Factor)
Delta (change
2045 Adopted
to 2045
Preferred) (0.75
RF)
Dwelling Units 7,476 9,141 10,056 915
Retail/Office Space
(SF)
1,732,653 4,767,915 5,138,749 370,834
Population 26,812 35,284 38,817 3,533
Notes:
1 The Land Value Ratio (LVR) was used to determine which parcels are most likely to redevelop. LVR is the assessed building value compared to the land value of each site (building value/land value). If the land value is greater than the building value, it will have a lower LVR and is therefore likely to redevelop. Only parcels with an AVR of less than 1 (for residential uses) and 0.75 (for commercial uses) and vacant parcels were assumed to be redeveloped. 2 Vacant land and redevelopment sites were assumed to build out between 70%-79% of capacity (versus 100 % capacity which would not be realistic) based on the density and intensity assumptions associated with each land use designation. 3 The residential densities for the R12, R21, and R35 land use designations represent the median values within the allowed density ranges provided in the Rialto Land Use Element. 4 The residential density for the DMU zone represents the median value within the allowed density range provided in the Rialto Land Use Element.
5 The residential densities for the C-P, C-MU, R-MU, and R-HD land use districts represent the median values within the allowed density ranges provided in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. 6 The FAR values used for the DMU and O land use designations are provided in the Rialto Land Use Element. 7 The FAR values used for the C-P, C-MU, and R-MU land use districts are provided in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
2-22
2.7 Proposed Discretionary Approvals
Adoption of the Foothill Central Specific Plan would require the following approvals from the City of Rialto:
• Repeal the Central Area Specific Plan
• Adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration • Adopt an Amendment to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to include the Central Area and be renamed the Foothill Central Specific Plan
• General Plan Conforming Amendments
• Municipal Code Chapter 18 Zoning Conforming Amendments
2.8 Specific Plan Implementation
Future implementation of development consistent with the Proposed Project may require the following approvals, as applicable:
• Precise Plan of Design Approval
• Conditional Development Permit Approval
• Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) – NPDES General Construction Permit and Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
• City of Rialto – Grading Permit
• City of Rialto – Building Permit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-1
3.0 CEQA ANALYSIS
3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The following environmental impact areas have been assessed to determine their potential to be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. As indicated by the checklist on the following pages, environmental topics marked with a “✓” may be adversely affected by the Proposed Project. An explanation relative to the determination of impacts can be found following the checklist for each area.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Agriculture/Forestry
Resources
☒ Air Quality
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Energy
☐ Geology/Soils ☒ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☒ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
☐ Hydrology/Water Quality ☐ Land Use/Planning ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Noise ☐ Population/Housing ☐ Public Services
☐ Recreation ☐ Transportation ☒ Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ Utilities/Service Systems ☐ Wildfire ☒ Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-2
3.2 Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and that 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 significant effects 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.
☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required. ☐ I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant 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. ☐ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects: 1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards; and 2) 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.
Signature: Date:
Name
Title
Organization
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-3
3.3 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
No topical areas on the CEQA environmental checklist were found to have unmitigated impacts exceeding applicable thresholds of significance with mitigation incorporated. All topics on the checklist were determined to have Less Than Significant Impacts with Mitigation Incorporated or No Impacts, as discussed below.
I. Aesthetics
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
I. Aesthetics. Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, 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 buildings within a state
scenic highway?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In nonurbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public
views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are
those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If
the project is in an urbanized area,
would the project conflict with
applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
☐ ☒ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact: Less than Significant
The Foothill Central Area includes vacant parcels that would be rezoned under the Proposed Project to allow for increased allowable development intensity, which may encourage development and introduce structures that could block existing views. Per the adopted General Plan Chapter 2, Community Design:
Scenic vistas are the picturesque views that are visible from certain parts of the City. In Rialto, the views of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains and the foothills provide the perfect backdrop for creating scenic vistas Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-4
throughout the City. […] In order to protect scenic vistas, the City should take great care in ensuring that building heights and scale of projects do not hinder or impede scenic view. In addition, building materials in such locations should also be carefully selected as to not produce glare or other distracting occurrences.
No scenic vistas have been designated by the City. Where redevelopment would take place on an existing vacant parcel, potential impacts to existing views could occur.. The Proposed Project would maintain the 4.0 FAR and increase the maximum residential density to 35 dwelling units per acre for those parcels located within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area. A 4.0 FAR and a maximum residential density of 48.4 dwelling units per acre would be established for parcels zoned for mixed -use in the Central A rea Specific Plan area. Additionally, a maximum residential density of 22 dwelling units per acre would be established for the multi -family residential zones, while single family zones will have a maximum residential density of five (5) dwelling units per acre. The Proposed Project would also lower the maximum building height to 60 feet for parcels zoned for mixed-use, while increasing it to 48 feet for multi-family residential zones and 42 feet for single family residential zones. The Proposed Project also update development standards to encourage pedestrian-scale architecture, which would improve some views through a reconsideration of existing frontages and building heights. Therefore, development, either redevelopment or on a vacant parcel, would implement design standards that inherently consider views.
The Proposed Project also integrates policies that would encourage improved streetscape design and a pedestrian friendly environment.
Therefore, there would be no impact on scenic vistas.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project is located along the Foothill Boulevard corridor and would therefore not impact any state scenic highways. No designated or eligible state scenic highways are within the vicinity of the City.1 Therefore, there would be no impact on resources within a state scenic highway.
Mitigation Measures: None
1 Caltrans, State Scenic Highway System Map, Accessed March 3, 2023; https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e8057116f1aacaa Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-5
c) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project is located in an urbanized area and would not conflict with applicable general plan policies or regulations governing scenic quality. The Proposed Project would increase allowable density of residential development along the Foothill Boulevard corridor and would update development standards and zoning for the Foothill Central area.
These updates would supersede existing development regulations and adopted zoning for these areas. Under the current development regulations, the maximum height limit for the Foothill Boulevard corridor area is 75 feet, the maximum allowed residential density is 30 dwellings units per acre, and the maximum FAR for the zones that allow commercial uses is 4.0. The Central Area has a variety of zoning designation s that establish height limits that range from 35 feet for single-family areas to 75 feet for commercial areas. Unlike the Foothill Boulevard corridor, maximum residential densities or FARs have not been established for the Central Area. The Proposed Proje ct lowers the maximum height limit to 48 feet for the Foothill Boulevard corridor and 60 feet for the Central Area. Additionally, it establishes maximum residential densities of 35 to 48.4 dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 4.0 for all the zones that allow commercial development. Future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to consistency reviews with development regulations, as detailed in the adopted General Plan Managing our Land Supply Chapter.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on conflict with regulations governing scenic quality.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would allow for the development of higher density commercial and residential development within the Foothill Central Area and encourage the development of a pedestrian friendly streetscape through design and pedestrian oriented infrastructure.
The buildout of new development would introduce new sources of light from buildings , internally and externally, as well as glare from windows, and other reflective materials.
Streetscape infrastructure may include new street lighting ; the adopted General Plan encourages the use of decorative street lighting to improve the aesthetics of a development and provides safety and visibility for pedestrians during the nighttime. These components would be reviewed for consistency with existing development standards and Municipal Code section 18.61.140 Lighting during individual design review. These standards would ensure that lighting is reviewed for potential impacts on a project specific basis.
Therefore, on a programmatic level, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on adversely affecting day or nighttime views in the area.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-6
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-7
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown
on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to
nonagricultural 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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-8
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? Impact: No Impact
No farmland is present within the Foothill Central Area and therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on farmland.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Impact: No Impact
The adopted 2012 Zoning Map for the City does not include any zoning for agricultural use, nor does any Williamson Act Contracts exist within the Foothill Central Area. There are parcels with a historic agricultural overlay that “provides for the preservation of historic orchards, tree crops, and other similar historical agricultural enterprises” but none of these parcels are located within the Foothill Central Area. The Proposed Project would therefore have no impact on conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural uses or a Williamson Act contract.
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forestland (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))?
Impact: No Impact
The adopted 2012 Zoning Map for the City does not include any zoning for forestland, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on conflict with these categories of existing zoning.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Impact: No Impact
The City does not contain forest land and therefore would have no impact on its conversion to non-forest uses.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: No Impact
As noted above in thresholds (a) through (d), no agricultural land or forest lands are present within the City; therefore, there would be no impact to conversion of these land types.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-9
III. Air Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
III. Air Quality. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or
State ambient air quality
standard?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such
as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Discussion
The City is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin), which is bounded by the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains to the north and east and by the Pacific Ocean to the south and west. The South Coast Air Quality Management Distri ct (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction in the Basin, which has a history of recorded air quality violations and is an area where both state and federal ambient air quality standards are exceeded. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as “attainment areas”, while areas that do not meet these standards are classified as “nonattainment areas.” The air quality in the Basin does not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM)2.5, and lead and is therefore classified as a “nonattainment area” for these pollutants. The air quality in the Basin does not meet the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone (O3), PM10, and PM2.5, and is therefore classified as a “nonattainment area” for these pollutants 2. SCAQMD is required, pursuant to the federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and California Clean Air Act (CCAA), to reduce emissions of the air pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment.
2 SCAQMD: naaqs-caaqs-feb2016.pdf (aqmd.gov); accessed June 30, 2023.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-10
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Impact: Less than Significant.
The CCAA requires air basins that are designated non -attainment of NAAQS or CAAQS to prepare and implement air quality management plans to attain the standards by the earliest practicable date.
CEQA requires a discussion of any inconsistencies between a proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan (AQMP) (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125[d]).
The plan that appl ies to the proposed project is the SCAQMD AQMP. The SCAQMD AQMP was adopted in 2022 and is based on general plans and regional plans within the Basin. Therefore, this section discusses any potential inconsistencies of the proposed project with the AQMP.
The purpose of this discussion is to set forth the issues regarding consistency with the assumptions and objectives of the AQMP and discuss whether the proposed project would interfere with the region’s ability to comply with federal and state air quality standards. If the decision-makers determine that the proposed project is inconsistent, the lead agency may consider project modifications or inclusion of mitigation to eliminate the inconsistency.
The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook states: "New or amended GP Elements (including land use zoning and density amendments), Specific Plans, and significant projects must be analyzed for consistency with the AQMP. "Strict consistency with all aspects of the plan is usually not required. A proposed project should be considered to be consistent with the AQMP if it furthers one (1) or more policies and does not obstruct other policies. The SCAQMD CEQA Handbook identifies two (2) key indicators of consistency:
(1) Whether the project will result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. (2) Whether the project will exceed the assumptions in the AQMP, or increments based on the year of project buildout and phase.
Consistency with the AQMP assumptions is determined by performing an analysis of the proposed project with the assumptions in the AQMP. The emphasis of this criterion is to ensure that the analyses conducted for the proposed project are based on the same forecasts as the AQMP. The AQMP is developed through use of the planning forecasts provided in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) and federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP), prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The RTP/SCS is a major planning document for the regional transportation and land use network within Southern California. The RTP/SCS is a long-range plan that is required by federal and state requirements placed on SCAG and is updated every four years. The FTIP provides long -range planning for future transportation improvement projects that are constructed with state and/or federal funds within Southern California. Local governments are required to use these plans as the basis of their plans for the purpose of consistency with applicable regional plans under CEQA.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-11
For this project, the General Plan’s Land Use Plan defines the assumptions that are represented in AQMP.
Projects that would be consistent with adopted land use designations would not conflict with the AQMP. Projects that would not be consistent with the land uses may be inconsistent with the AQMP and warrant further analysis to determine consistency with the AQMP. If it can be demonstrated that changes in land uses would generate fewer air emissions than land uses that are consistent with adopted land use designations, the changes would not conflict with the AQMP.
The primary difference in buildout under the adopted General Plan compared to the Proposed Project is the increase in development intensity and associated potential for increased vehic ular trips and accordingly, mobile source emissions. The Specific Plan through a more efficient land use pattern would , however, result in few vehicles miles travelled (VMT) than would occur under buildout of the adopted land use plan.
As stated in the Transportation Analysis Memorandum (TAM, Appendix B.4), and in Table 3-1, the Specific Plan would result in 21.6 VMT per service population, which is an 8.5% decrease in service population VMT over buildout of the adopted General Plan land use.
Table 3-1: Proposed Specific Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Existing
Study Area
Specific
Plan
Buildout
Delta
(Specific
Plan
change
minus
existing)
Total 2045
Buildout
(Adopted
Land Use)
Total 2045
Buildout
(Preferred
Alternative)
Delta
(change 2045
Adopted to
2045
Preferred)
Population 24,894 28,427 3,533 30,970 34,503 3,533
Employment 6,276 7,895 1,719 6,218 7,937 1,719
Total VMT 757,999 802,308 44,310 876,958 918,731 41,774 VMT/Service
Population
24.4 22.1 (2.3) 23.6 21.6 (2.0)
This modeled reduction in VMT indicates that the Specific Plan would be a more efficient plan than the adopted General Plan in terms of vehicular trips. Features of the Specific Plan that promote reduced VMT include increased density near mass transit, mixed -use development, and road diets. Buildout of the Specific Plan would reduce communitywide daily per service population vehicle use by approximately 2.0 miles of travel per day. The
8.5% reduction in VMT would correlate directly to a reduction in mobile source emissions.
The Specific Plan would generate fewer air emissions than land uses buildout under the adopted General Plan. Therefore, the Specific Plan would not conflict with the AQMP.
Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-12
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction
The project estimates that total buildout in the City within adoption of the Specific Plan through the year 20 45 would accommodate approximately 30,504 residential units and 5,138,749 square feet of commercial floor area, which would be equivalent to net increases of approximately 2,580 residential units and 3,406,096 square feet of commercial floor area above existing conditions. Emissions commonly associated with construction activities include fugitive dust from soil disturbance, fuel combustion from mobile heavy- duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary equipment, and worker commute trips. During construction, fugitive dust, the dominant source of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, is generated when wheels or blades disturb surface materials. Uncontrolled dust from construction can become a nuisance and potential health hazard to those livi ng and working nearby. Demolition and renovation of buildings can also generate PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. Off -road construction equipment is often diesel -powered and can be a substantial source of NOx emissions, in addition to exhaust PM 10 and PM 2.5 emissions.
Worker commute trips and architectural coatings are dominant sources of ROG emissions.
Quantifying the air quality pollutant emissions from future, short -term, temporary construction activities allowed under the proposed Plan Area is not possible due to project- level variability and uncertainties related to future individual projects in term s of detailed site plans, construction schedules, equipment requirements, etc., which are not currently determined. However, depending on how development proceeds, construction -generated emissions associated with buildout of the Plan Area could potentially exceed SCAQMD thresholds of significance. Therefore, future project -level analyses of air quality impacts may be conducted on a case -by-case basis as individual, future development projects allowed under the Specific Plan proceed. The SCAQMD has promulgated methodology protocols for the preparation of air quality analyses. For instance, the SCAQMD has adopted regional and localized thresholds of significance depicting the approximate level of emissions that would result in a potentially significant impact (i.e., violation of an ambient air quality standard) for each pollutant of concern in the air basin. The significance criteria established by the SCAQMD may be relied upon to make a determination of impact significance level.
Projects estimated to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds are required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce air pollutant emissions as much as feasible. Such measures could include the requirement that all construction equipment employ the use of the most efficient diesel e ngines available, which are able to reduce NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions by 60 to 90 percent (e.g., EPA -classified Tier 3 and/or Tier 4 engines), and/or that construction equipment be equipped with diesel particulate filters. Furthermore, all development projects in the basin are subject to SCAQMD rules and regulations adopted to reduce air pollutant emissions. For example, SCAQMD Rule 403 is intended to reduce the amount of particulate matter entrained in the ambient air as a result of anthropogenic Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-13
(man-made) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce or mitigate fugitive dust emissions.
As previously mentioned, the quantification of air quality emissions from short -term, temporary construction activities associated with the proposed Specific Plan Area is not possible due to project -level variability and uncertainties related to future ind ividual projects in terms of market conditions of development, detailed site plans, construction schedules, equipment requirements, etc. However, all construction projects can produce O3 precursors and nuisance dust emissions. Therefore, future project -level analyses of air quality impacts, in accordance with CEQA requirements, would be required to be conducted on a case -by-case basis as individual, future development projects allowed in the proposed Plan Area proceed.
Future development projects allowed under the Specific Plan that are projected to exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds are required to implement mitigation measures in order to reduce air pollutant emissions as much as feasible . SCAQMD significance thresholds may still be exceeded during project construction. Therefore, future projects allowed under the Specific Plan shall comply with the following mitigation measures (MM-AQ 1 through MM-AQ-2).
Furthermore, it is mandatory for all construction Projects to comply with several SCAQMD Rules, including Rule 403 for controlling fugitive dust, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions from construction activities. Rule 403 requirements include, but are not limited to, applying water in sufficient quantities to prevent the generation of visible dust plumes, applying soil binders to uncovered areas, reestablishing ground cover as quickly as possible, utilizing a wheel washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the Project site, covering all trucks hauling soil with a fabric cover and maintaining a freeboard height of 12-inches, and maintaining effective cover over exposed areas.
Impacts associated with project construction emissions would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
Mitigation Measure AQ -1 would require the project to implement SCAQMD’s basic construction mitigation measures , including the use of CARB Tier 3 or better engine standards for construction projects, which exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds.
MM-AQ-2 would require future discretionary projects within the Specific Plan Area that are not other wise categorically exempt from CEQA to screen construction emissions to determine whether the project could result in potentially significant impacts relative to air quality and have the potential to exceed localized significance thresholds.
Compliance with mitigation, regulatory Air District regulations and Best Practices shall be demonstrated by future projects within the Plan Area.
Operational Emissions
In order to identify whether the proposed Specific Plan would violate any ambient air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, the proposed Specific Plan must demonstrate that any projected VMT increases as a result of Specific Plan buildout are less than or equal to projected population increases over its Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-14
planning period. As demonstrated in (a), above, the proposed Specific Plan a would be consistent with the AQMP. Therefore, the proposed Specific Plan would be considered to have a less than significant impact if projected increases in VMT are less than or equal to projected increases in service population growth.
Buildout of the Specific Plan would result in an estimated additional 5,252 residents and employees (service population) and 41,774 daily VMT over future year conditions under the adopted General Plan . In comparison to existing conditions, VMT per service population attributable to the Specific Plan is anticipated to decrease from 24.4 to 21.6, an
11.5% decrease. Table 3-1 above identifies the VMT and service population for the proposed Plan Area.
As a result, VMT would increase at a lower rate than service population growth in comparison to existing conditions or under the adopted General Plan . Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Construction
MM-AQ-1 Standard Construction Emissions Reduction Measures Construction projects shall comply with SCAQMD rules and best available control measures/technology shall be incorporated to reduce construction emissions to the extent feasible. Best available control measures/technology shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a) Minimizing simultaneous operation of multiple pieces of construction equipment. b) Use of more efficient, or low pollutant emitting equipment, e.g., Tier III or Tier IV rated equipment.
c) Use of alternative fueled construction equipment.
d) Dust control measures for construction sites to minimize fugitive dust such as:
i) Contractor(s) shall implement paving, chip sealing, or chemical stabilization of internal roadways after completion of grading.
ii) Dirt storage piles shall be stabilized by chemical binders, tarps, fencing, or other erosion control.
iii) A 15-mile per hour (mph) speed limit shall be enforced on unpaved surfaces. iv) On dry days, dirt and debris spilled onto paved surfaces shall be swept up immediately to reduce resuspension of particulate matter caused by vehicle movement. Approach routes to construction sites shall be cleaned daily of construction-related dirt in dry weather.
v) Haul trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered, or 2 feet of freeboard shall be maintained.
vi) Disturbed areas shall be hydroseeded, landscaped, or developed as quickly as possible and as directed by the County of San Diego and/or San Diego Air Pollution Control District to reduce dust generation.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-15
vii) Grading shall be terminated if winds exceed 25 mph. viii) Any blasting areas shall be wetted down prior to initiating the blast. e) Minimizing idling time by construction vehicles.
MM-AQ-2 Project-specific Construction Air Quality Impact Analysis Proposed development projects that are subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and not otherwise categorically exempt shall have construction -related air quality impacts analyzed using the latest available CalEEMod model, or other analyt ical method determined in conjunction with the City of Rialto. The results of the construction- related air quality impacts analysis shall be included in the development project’s CEQA documentation. If such analyses identify potentially significant regional or local air quality impacts based on the City’s emissions thresholds, the City shall require the incorporation of appropriate mitigation to reduce such impacts.
Operational Emissions
None
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Impact: Less than Significant.
The Specific Plan allows for new residential development on sites previously used for industrial uses. Light industrial uses are present in some areas abutting the Central Area and may pose a constraint to residential uses in the Plan Area. There is a large light industrial area west of Willow Avenue between the railroad ROW and Bud Bender Park.
There are also light industrial uses between Rialto Avenue and the railroad ROW along Palm Avenue, Orange Avenue, Olive Avenue, and Date Avenue. The presence of light industrial land uses in areas of a city , which are not uniforml y industrial, can lead to an incompatibility of land uses, as it is not best practice to locate residential uses in close proximity to industrial uses. This land use pattern thus also acts as a constraint to residential development.
Construction
Sensitive land uses are defined as facilities or land uses that include members of the population that are particularly sensitive to the effects of air pollutants, such as children, the elderly, and people with illnesses. Examples of these sensitive receptors are residences, schools, hospitals, and daycare centers.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in the development of residential and commercial land uses. Sources of construction related toxic air contaminants ( TACs) potentially affecting the sensitive receptors include off -road diesel-powered equipment.
Construction would result in the generation of diesel PM emissions from the use of off - road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and oth er construction activities. The amount to which the receptors are exposed (a function of concentration and duration of exposure) is the primary factor used to determine health risk.
In the case of most construction projects allowed under the Specific Plan, duration would be short -term. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment during construction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-16
would be temporary and episodic and would occur over several locations isolated from one another. Furthermore, the Proposed Project would be subject to, and would comply with, California regulations limiting idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors exposure to temporary and variable diesel PM emissions.
Many of the individual construction projects would span small areas. Construction projects contained in a site of less than 5 acres are generally considered by CARB to represent less than significant health risk impacts due to (1) limitations on the off-road diesel equipment able to operate and thus a reduced amount of generated diesel PM, (2) the reduced amount of dust-generating ground disturbance possible compared to larger construction sites, and (3) the reduced duration of construction activities compared to the development of larger sites.
For the reasons mentioned above, and because diesel fumes disperse rapidly over relatively short distances, diesel PM generated by most construction activities, in and of itself, would not be expected to create conditions where the probability of contracti ng cancer is greater than 10 in 1 million for nearby receptors. In addition, Mitigation Measure AQ -1 requires that off-road diesel-fueled equipment employed during construction activities be CARB Tier 3 Certified or better Implementation of Mitigation Meas ure AQ-1 would reduce the emissions of toxic pollutants generated by heavy -duty diesel-powered equipment during larger scale construction projects. Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would require a site-specific analysis of large-scale construction projects for the potential of construction-generated air pollutant impacts based on specific project details of future development, and the development of adequate mitigation, in consultation of the SCAQMD, to address any such impacts.
Operational Emissions
Mobile Sources
DPM
CARB has identified DPM from heavy equipment and trucks as a TAC and estimates that DPM is responsible for 70 percent of total known cancer risk related to air toxics in California. Because traffic is responsible for the majority of DPM as well as several other carcinogens, CARB recommends caution when siting sensitive land uses near heavily traveled roadways. Specific recommendations from CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective include maintaining a 500 -foot buffer zone between sensitive receptors and freeways, urban roads with 100,000 or more vehicles per day, or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day whenever possible.
There are no roadways within 500 feet of the Plan Area that meet these criteria. Therefore, future development consistent with the Specific Plan would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial DPM concentrations from mobile sources. Impacts of the relative to DPM exposure would be less than significant.
Carbon Monoxide Hot Spots
The primary mobile-source criteria pollutant of local concern is Carbon Monoxide (CO).
Concentrations of CO are a direct function of the number of vehicles, length of delay, and traffic flow conditions. Transport of this criteria pollutant is extremely limited; CO Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-17
disperses rapidly with distance from the source under normal meteorological conditions.
Under certain meteorological conditions, however, CO concentrations close to congested intersections that experience high levels of traffic and elevated background concentrations may reach unhealthy levels, affecting nearby sensitive receptors. Areas of high CO concentrations, or “hot spots,” are typically associated with intersections that are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service during the peak commute hours.
Carbon monoxide hotspots have the potential to violate state and federal carbon monoxide standards at intersections, even if the broader basin is in attainment for federal and state levels. The California Department of Transportation Project -Level Carbon M onoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) screening procedures have been utilized to determine if the project could potentially result in a CO hotspot 3 . As indicated by the CO Protocol, carbon monoxide hotspots occur nearly exclusively at signalized intersections operating at level of service (LOS) E or F. Accordingly, the CO Protocol recommends detailed air quality dispersion modeling for projects that may worsen traffic flow at any signalized intersections operating at LOS E or F.
This methodology was last updated in 1997, and LOS is not currently used as an indicator of performance in traffic studies; LOS projections were not developed for the Specific Plan.
Considering that the traffic forecasts associated with the Proposed Project resulted in reduced VMT as compared to the adopted General Plan, it is not expected that LOS would degrade at any intersection in the Planning Area and trigger the need for carbon monoxide hot spot modeling. Furthermore, as described in detail in Section XVII, Transportation, the Proposed Project would not decrease LOS on any roadway segment within the Study Area.
Impacts of the Specific Plan relative to the creation of hot spots would be less than significant.
Stationary Sources
The California Air Toxics Program establishes the process for the identification and control of toxic air contaminants and includes provisions to make the public aware of significant toxic exposures and for reducing risk. Additionally, AB 2588 was enacted in 1987 and requires stationary sources to report the types and quantities of certain substances routinely released into the air. The goals of the Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Act are to collect emission data, identify facilities having localized impacts, ascertain health risks, notify nearby residents of significant risks, and reduce those significant risks to acceptable levels.
Within and/or adjacent to the Plan Area, there are common sources of TACs that may include emergency generators, boilers, gas stations, and automotive repair facilities, all of which are common in many cities.
Stationary source emissions associated with all facilities are regulated in accordance with AB 2588. Per AB 2588, any proposed new facility that would have the potential to emit toxic air contaminants would be required to undergo assessment of air toxic problems that would result from its emissions. If air emissions from a specific facility include toxic substances or exceed identified limits, the facility is required by the APCD to provide
3 U.C. Davis Institute of Transportation Studies, California Department of Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol, 1997 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/environmental-analysis/documents/env/co- protocol-searchable-a11y.pdf
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-18
information regarding emission inventories and health risk assessments. If adverse health impacts exceeding public notification levels are identified, the facility would provide public notice, and if the facility poses a potentially significant public health risk, the facility must submit a risk reduction audit and plan to demonstrate how the facility would reduce health risks. Thus, with this regulatory framework, impacts associated with stationary sources within and adjacent to the Plan Area would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Impact: Less than Significant
In the context of land use planning, one of the most important factors influencing the potential for an odor impact to occur is the distance between the odor source and receptors.
The greater the distance between an odor source and a receptor, the less concentrated the odor emission would be when it reaches the receptor. Odors can be generated from a variety of source types, including both construction and operational activities. Al though less common, construction activities that include the operation of a substantial number of diesel-fueled construction equipment and heavy-duty trucks can generate odors from diesel exhaust emissions. A project’s operations, depending on the project type, can generate a large range of odors that can be considered offensive t o receptors. Examples of common land use types that typically generate significant odor impacts include, but are not limited to:
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Sanitary landfills
• Composting/green waste facilities
• Recycling facilities
• Petroleum refineries
• Chemical manufacturing plants
• Painting/coating operations
• Rendering plants
• Food packaging plants
When land uses such as these or other odor -generating land uses are sited near sensitive receptors, odor impacts may occur, warranting further analysis of the nature of the odor source, the prevailing wind patterns, the number of potentially affected receptors, and other considerations.
The Planning Area would accommodate additional residential dwelling units and new mixed-use development. The Proposed Project would not introduce land uses known to generate substantial odor. The use of diesel -powered equipment during construction may generate transient odors. Diesel exhaust may occasionally be noticeable at adjacent properties; however, construction activities w ould be temporary, and the odors would Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-19
dissipate quickly in an outdoor environment. Thus, the Proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Impacts associated with odor would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-20
IV. Biological Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IV. Biological Resources. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or
special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on
any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local
or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on
state or federally protected wetlands
(including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through
direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the
movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Conflict with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,
Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local,
regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-21
Special Status Species
According to the California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023), the species listed in Table 3-2 were recorded with potential historical presence or potential habitat within 0.5 miles of the Foothill Central Area . Figure 3-1 shows where these species fall geographically.
Waters of the US and Wetlands
According to the National Wetlands Inventory4, no wetlands or waters are present within the City.
Discussion
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Proposed Project would increase allowable development densities within the Foothill Central Area and would promote the installation of pedestrian and bicyclist -oriented infrastructure along the streetscape. According to the CNDDB (March 2023) search for the area within half a mile from the Foothill Central Area, there is the presumed presence of the Crotch bumble bee ( Bombus crotchii), Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis ), pocketed free -tailed bat (Nyctinomops femorosaccus ), and Southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi). The CNDDB search also notes the observations of the white cuckoo bee, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and salt marsh bird’s beak. It is noted that all species list with presumed presence in the area have been reported with low locational accuracy or a non -specified area, or only have singular sightings or habitat mapped on undisturbed, undeveloped parcels within the last decade. Infill development on existing disturbed parcels would be unlikely to impact species through future buildout, but it is noted that buildout on an undeveloped parcel within the Foothill Central Area is possible and would be required to be further investigated for suitable habitat and special status species through biological surveys on a project specific basis. As the entirety of the Foothill Central Area is mapped within observations of the white cuckoo bee, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly and salt marsh bird’s beak, the Proposed Project would have the potential to impact these species without adequate mitigation to minimize impacts.
For parcels with potential impacts to Delhi Sands flower -loving fly, implementation of adopted General Plan Policy 2-39.3, which requires implementation of the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan5, would reduce impacts to this species.
4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Wetlands Inventory, https://fwsprimary.wim.usgs.gov/wetlands/apps/wetlands-mapper/, Accessed March 7, 2023 5 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Dehli Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan (1997), Recovery Plan Amendment for Dehli Sands Flower-loving Fly (2019)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-22
Table 3-2: California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023) List within 0.5-mile of the Foothill Central Area Scientific Name Common Name Type Presence
Sensitive
Species Federal List State List
Special
Status
Species
(SSC)
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble
bee
Insect Presumed
Presence
-- None Candidate
Endangered
--
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Delhi Sands
flower-loving
fly
Insect Presumed
Presence
Yes Endangered None --
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort Dicot No longer
present
-- Endangered Endangered --
Horkelia cuneata var.
puberula
mesa horkelia Dicot Possibly no
longer present
-- None None --
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's bush-
mallow
Dicot No longer
present
-- None None --
Lycium parishii Parish's desert-
thorn
Dicot No longer
present
-- None None --
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-
tailed bat
Mammal Presumed
Presence
-- None None Yes
Monardella pringlei Pringle's
monardella
Dicot Possibly no
longer present
-- None None --
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird's-
beak
Dicot Possibly no
longer present
-- Endangered Endangered --
Anniella stebbinsi Southern
California
legless lizard
Reptile Presumed
Presene
-- None None Yes
Neolarra alba white cuckoo
bee
Insect Possibly no
longer present
-- None None --
Source: California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-23
Figure 3-1: California Natural Diversity Database (March 2023) within 0.5-mile of the Foothill Central Area
Source: CNDDB, March 2023
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-24
With implementation of the following mitigation measures by future development projects consistent with the Proposed Project, there would be a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-BIO-1: Applications for future development of vacant properties (and portions thereof) located in the Plan Area, wherein the Community Development Director has determined a potential for impacts to sensitive biological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure:
a. Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth -moving activities, a site- specific general biological resources survey shall be conducted to identify the presence of any sensitive biological resources, including any sensitive plant or wildlife sp ecies. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include:
(1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; and (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible, and the report shall also recommend appropriate mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance.
b. If suitable habitat for sensitive species is identified within the Specific Plan site based on the general biological survey, then focused presence/absence surveys shall be conducted in accordance with applicable resource agency survey protocols.
MM-BIO-2: Applications for future development located in the Plan Area, wherein the Community Development Director has determined a potential for impacts to mature trees and/or native vegetation suitable for nesting birds, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure:
Prior to issuance of any construction permit or any earth -moving activities a pre - construction survey shall be required. The survey shall determine the presence of active bird nests if vegetation clearing is proposed during the typical bird breeding season of February 1–September 1 (as early as January 1 for some raptors). A note shall be added to the grading plans documenting this requirement. If avoidance of the bird breeding season is not feasible, surveys by a qualified biologist with experience in conducting breeding bird surveys to detect protected native birds occurring in suitable nesting habitat that is to be disturbed and (as access to adjacent areas allows) any other such habitat within 300 feet of the disturbance area (within 500 feet for raptor s). Project personnel, including all contractors working on-site, shall be instructed on the sensitivity of the area. Reductions in the nest buffer distance may be appropriate depending on the bird species involved, ambient levels of human activity, screening vegetation, or possibly other factors. No direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds or their eggs, chicks, or nests. If an active nest is Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-25
located, nest avoidance measures would be required in accordance with the MBTA and CDFW code.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW] or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS]?
Impact: Less than Significant
Within a half -mile buffer of the Foothill Central Area , two federal and state listed endangered species of plant (marsh sandwort and salt marsh bird’s beak) have been noted to be historically present. As the presence has been updated to possible no longer present or not present, it is unlikely that these sensitive natural communities would be impacted by the Proposed Project. In addition, no riparian habitat is present within the Foothill Central Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact: No Impact
There are no state or federally protected wetlands within the Foothill Central Area .
Therefore, there are no impacts from the Proposed Project.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: No Impact
No waters or established wildlife corridors are present within the Foothill Central Area .
The Foothill Central Area is an urbanized corridor and does not serve as an established wildlife corridor for any native resident. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have no impact on interfering substantially with the movement with any native resident, migratory fish, or wildlife species. No native wildlife nursey sites Mitigation Measures: None
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-26
There are no tree preservation policies or ordinances. The 2010 Adopted General Plan includes the goal of the City to conserve and enhance Rialto’s biological resources under Goal 2-39. Related policies to protecting biological resources throughout the City include:
Policy 2-39.1: Protect endangered, threatened, rare, and other special status habitat and wildlife species within and along Lytle Creek by working with the United States Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game to establish Natural Community Conservation Plans, Habitat Conservation Plans (HCP), or other established biological resource protection mechanisms within this sensitive area.
Policy 2 -39.2: Pursue open space, wildlife corridors, or conservation easements to protect sensitive species and their habitats.
Policy 2-39.3: Continue to work with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service to adopt a habitat conservation plan to protect viability of the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. Until a habitat conservation plan is established, continue to support the implementation of the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan.
It is noted that the Lytle Creek Wash within the City provides the majority of the habitat for the biological resources associated with the City. As the Proposed Project would only cover the proposed Foothill Central Area , Policy 2-39.1 would not apply . Development with the potential to impact sensitive habitat, especially development on undeveloped parcels, would implement Policies 2-39.2 and 2-39.3 as part of their design as applicable.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The City is not located within an HCP, NCCP, or other approved regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The City is, however, subject to the existing Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan6. Any development consistent with the Proposed Project would consider the actions require by the Plan to protect the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly or its habitat in its design. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
6 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Dehli Sands Flower-loving Fly Recovery Plan (1997), Recovery Plan Amendment for Dehli Sands Flower-loving Fly (2019)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-27
V. Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
V. Cultural Resources. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to
§15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of
an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains,
including those interred outside
of dedicated cemeteries?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
According to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), the First Christian Church of Rialto (Ref. no. 03000037; 201 N. Riverside Ave) is a listed historical resource within the Foothill Central Area.
According to the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD), 167 potential historic properties are within the City, with 102 located within the Foothill Central Area (see Appendix B.1).
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As the Proposed Project encourages infill development to increase density of housing and commercial land uses within the Foothill Central Area, future proposed redevelopment of existing structures could result in direct or indirect impacts to a historical structure.
Impacts to historical resources would be significant if future development would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. As defined in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, “substantial adverse change means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of the historical resource is materially impaired .” CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 .5 further defines a historical resource to include a resource listed on, or formally determined eligible for, the following:
1. The NRHP or the CRHR, including contributors to NRHP Historic Districts or California Register Historic Districts; or
2. That meets the CEQA criteria for historical resources.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-28
These criteria generally include any resource that:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history and cultural heritage of California or the U.S. • Is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past.
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history of the state or nation.
Direct impacts to historical resources could potentially result from the physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of potential historical resources within the Plan Area.
Indirect impacts can result from changes in context of a property. As implementation of the Specific Plan has development potential over the next 20+ years, the Plan Area has the potential to contain buildings or structures that may be 50 years of age or older at the time of future development is proposed and, therefore, may need to be evaluated for historical significance. Historically significant resources would be identified through on -site reconnaissance in conjunction with future projects, and site development would be required to comply with applicable federal and state laws that concern the preservation of historical resources, including the National Historic Preservation Act and CEQA.
The City’s General Plan includes policies to protect historical resources, including Policy 6-1.7, which states “Promote the conservation of physically sound buildings and neighborhoods that have historical or architectural significance ”. In addition, t he Municipal Code provides the following provisions for the protection of historical resources:
• Ord. No. 1545, 2.20.080 Historical building code
o Alternative building regulations may be used for the rehabilitation, preservation, restoration, or relocation of nominated resources. The State Historical Building Code (Part 8 of Title 24 of the California Administrative Code) shall be used for any historic resource through the city' s building permit procedure.
• Ord. No. 1545, 2.20.090 - Conservation easements.
o Conservation easements on the facades of buildings designated as historic resource may be acquired by the city or non -profit group through purchase, donation or condemnation pursuant to California Civil Code 815.
Future development and redevelopment consistent with the Specific Plan could have the potential to impact historical structure s or resources. Case by case p roject review would consider the impacts to historical buildings. In the event that a historic structure would be impacted, the project would be subject to consistency review with the City of Rialto Historic Preservation Design Manual by the Rialto historic preservation commission, per Municipal Code Section 2.20.050.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-29
Mitigation measure MM -CUL-1 is required to reduce potential impacts to historic resources. Therefore, impacts of the Proposed Project would be reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-CUL-1 Historic Properties Application Review
Applications for future development within the Plan Area , wherein the Community Development Director has determined a potential for impacts to historical resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation measure:
a. Prior to the issuance of any permit for a future development project, the age and original structural integrity and context of any buildings/structures occurring on the project areas shall be verified. A staff level evaluation is required in conjunction with the development permit application to verify the age and original structural integrity of all on-site structures.
b. For any building/structures having its original structural integrity intact and potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places or the California Register of Historic Resources, a qualified professional historian may be required to determine whether the affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic architectural resources shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. A historical resource report shall be submitted by the project applicant to the City and shall include the methods used to determine the presence or absence of historical resources, identify poten tial impacts from the proposed project, evaluate the significance of any historical resources, and identify mitigation measures. c. Applications for future development shall be reviewed by the building official or designee for non-discretionary building or demolition permits to determine if they involve any structure identified on the list of local landmark resources or BERD for the City. In the event that a historic structure or local landmark resource is to be impacted, the project will undergo review with the Rialto historic preservation commission in addition to regular project design review. b) Cause substantial adverse change in the significance of a n archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated The adoption of the Specific Plan would not directly result in physical construction that would impact archaeological resources. However, future development consistent with the Specific Plan may result in direct or indirect impacts to both known and unknown archeological resources. While a majority of the Plan Area is largely built-out with limited vacant and undeveloped land, construction activities such as grading and excavation could result in the accidental destruction or disturbance of previously unidentified archaeological sites.
Site specific project development would be required to comply with applicable federal and state statutes that concern the preservation of historical and archaeological resources, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-30
including the National Historic Preservation Act, CEQA and Public Resources Code Section 5097.5, which precludes removal of archaeological resources on public lands without express permission by the applicable public agency.
Furthermore, the General Plan includes policies regarding the protection of archeological resources, including:
Policy 7-3.1, which “Require archaeological surveys during the development review process for all projects in archaeologically sensitive areas where no previous surveys are recorded.”
Policy 7 -3.3: Avoid impacts to potentially significant prehistoric and historical archaeological resources and sites containing Native American human remains consistent with State law.
Policy 7 -3.4: Reduce adverse impacts to significant archaeological resources that cannot be protected in place through data recovery excavations.
Measure 8.127: Archaeological Information Center : Consult the Archaeological Information Center at the San Bernardino County Museum to document the findings from archaeological surveys previously conducted on undeveloped land in Rialto. A list of survey locations and findings shall be maintained by the Ri alto City Planning Department and made available to all applicants for development, grading or mining permits. All recovered specimens from archaeological sites shall be permanently curated at a qualified r epository recommended by the Archaeological Information Center at the San Bernardino County Museum.
Future discretionary development projects would be required to undergo environmental review pursuant to CEQA, which would include an assessment of impacts to archaeological resources. Projects within the Plan Area, due to the characteristics of the site or project components (depth of excavation) could result in impacts to unknown archaeological resources.
Mitigation measures MM-CUL-2 through MM-CUL-4 should be applied to projects within the Plan Area that have the potential to impact archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-CUL-2 Ground Disturbance Monitoring
Applications for future development located on a vacant/undeveloped site or on a site with proposed excavation into native soils, wherein the Planning Department has determined a potential for impacts to subsurface archaeological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
An archaeological and/or Native American monitor shall be present during construction activities that involve subsurface grading and/or excavation involving the disturbance of native soils more than three feet in depth. The monitor(s) would ensure that imp ortant subsurface archaeological sites, which could underlie a redevelopment area, are not damaged or destroyed.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-31
MM-CUL-3 Archaeological Survey and Report
Applications for future development located on a vacant/undeveloped project site, wherein the Planning Department has determined a potential for impacts to archaeological resources, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
As applicable by recommendation by the Planning Department, an archaeological field survey of the project site and a report summarizing the findings of the survey shall be completed by a qualified archaeologist. An archaeological resource report detailing the results of the record search, and the field survey of the project area shall be submitted by the project applicant to the City.
The archaeological resources report would be required prior to issuance of a permit to ensure that any resources are identified and mitigated prior to grading and construction.
MM-CUL-4 Unanticipated Discovery of Archaeological Resources In the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological resources during construction, construction should stop on the site until a qualified archaeologist can survey the resource and determine potential impacts and necessary preservation measures. Any archaeological resources that are found on an undeveloped project would be identified, adequately documented in the field, and/or preserved, as recommended by a qualified archaeologist. c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Impact: Less than Significant
Future development consistent with the Specific Plan may result in direct or indirect impacts to unknown human remains during ground disturbing activities. It is noted that the Plan Area is urbanized and is largely developed, and so the likelihood of discovery of human remains is low. No tribal cultural burial sites are known to be within the City , and none were identified by tribes in response to the AB52/SB18 consultation letter.
In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, then the provisions set forth in California Public Resources Code section 5097.98 and state Health and Safety Code section 7050.5 would be implemented in consultation with the assigned Most Likely Descendant as identified by the NAHC. No further construction activities would be permitted until the coroner is contacted, as well as any applicable Native American tribes.
The City shall be required to comply with the California Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (2001), the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), as well as AB 52 early consultation requirements. As regulations are in place to treat any inadvertent uncovering of human remains during grading, impacts to human remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-32
VI. Energy
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VI. Energy. Would the project:
a) Result in potentially
significant environmental
impact due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or operation?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy
efficiency?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would not result in physical construction and therefore , would not directly require energy consumption. Impacts to energy resources are therefore, analyzed based on the projected buildout of the proposed land use changes included in the Specific Plan.
Generally, an increase in buildout capacity would increase demand on energy resources; however, individual development projects would comply with local and State regulations regarding energy efficiency. These would include the City’s General Design and Development Regulations (Municipal Code Title 18 Division 4) and mandatory energy requirements such as CALGreen and the California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6 of the CCR), along with applicable GHG reduction measures in the City’s General Plan, which collectively contain energy efficiency requirements for all new developments.
Construction of future development would be subject to standard local , SCAQMD, and State requirements related to idling, equipment type, and efficiency.
The Specific Plan encourages the development of a multimodal, high -density series of corridors that would introduce greater energy efficiency in its structures and in the way the community travels by mode. Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VTM), as described in Section XVII.
Buildout under the Specific Plan is not anticipated to require fuel or energy consumption above the typical rates utilized for construction, as it proposes relatively small incremental increases in allowed residential and commercial development within the Plan Area over the next 30 years. Required compliance with standards would ensure no wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy would occur. The Proposed Project does Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-33
not propose development types that are out of the norm which would result in a unique circumstance in which excessive energy use is anticipated. All proposed development would be required to undergo development review for compliance with standards and therefore would have a less than significant impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project provides opportunities for increased development density in the Foothill Central area and would not directly conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency. The adopted General Plan offers an increased density bonus to encourage energy conservation and includes a measure to review proposed developments for compliance with the latest energy efficiency standards as regulated by Title 24 and local development standards. Measure 8.18 in the adopted General Plan required review and inspection of new construction for compliance with the latest energy efficiency standards as regulated through the State’s Title 24 building standards. Measure
8.19 includes the promotion of sustainable building practices that go beyond Title 24 , including LEED. Each proposed future development would undergo their own review which would ensure compliance with federal, state, and local regulations aimed at reducing energy consumption. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts in-regards to conflicts with or obstruction of state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-34
VII. Geology and Soils
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VII. Geology and Soils. Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map, issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? Refer to Division
of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
iv) Landslides? ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or
soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in 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 direct or indirect
risks to life or property?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not
available for the disposal of
wastewater?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-35
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Existing Conditions
According to Chapter 5 of the adopted General Plan (Exhibit 5.1), the Foothill Central Area is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone but is located near fault lineaments. The most significant faulting occurs along the Lytle Creek Wash. The San Andreas fault crosses just to the northeast, through the city of San Bernardino. Rialto sits atop the Pacific Plate, which is moving north relative to San Bernardino. a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides?
Impact: Less than Significant
(i) The Foothill Central Area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone and therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse effects involving the rupture of a mapped fault within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone. (ii) The Proposed Project would increase development density in the Foothill Central Area. This future development would be exposed to strong ground shaking in the event of geologic movement along the San Jacinto, San Andreas, and Cucamonga faults, which have the potential of generating earthquakes within the range of 6.7 to 8.0 magnitude. Per the adopted General Plan, “Shakin g at these levels would cause even moderate damage to buildings constructed with the latest building codes.” Future development consistent with the Proposed Project would be built to current building code requirements , including the Uniform Building Code, California Building Code, and relevant Municipal Code design requirements related to geologic hazards (Policy 5-1.2). Furthermore, General Plan Policy 5-1.1 requires that “…geotechnical investigations by certified engineering geologist or other qualified professionals [be prepared] for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe ground s haking, liquefaction, landslides, and collapsible or expansive soils …” With these investigations, design of project s can minimize potential risks associated with Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-36
geologic and seismic hazards. The Foothill Central area already contains similar land uses, the Proposed Project would not substantially increase the risk of exposure by persons to seismic-related ground shaking.
(iii) The Foothill Central area is not located in the mapped (per adopted General Plan Exhibit 5.1) area for moderate liquefaction susceptibility , nor is it located in a liquefaction zone as mapped by the Department of Conservation. 7 A goal of the adopted General Plan (Goal 5-1) is to “Minimize hazards to public health, safety, and welfare associated with geotechnical hazards”. Under this goal is Policy 5-1.1, which states “Require geotechnical investigations by certified engineering geologist or other qualified professionals for all grading and construction projects subject to geologic hazards, including fault rupture, severe ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and col lapsible or expansive soils. With these investigations, design of project s can minimize potentia l risks associated with geologic hazards.
(iv) There is no mention of a risk of landslides in the adopted General Plan for the Foothill Central Area. The Foothill Central Area is not in proximity to any visible sizable slopes, nor is it located in a landslide zone as mapped by the Department of Conservation.8 The Foothill Central area is located in a relatively flat, urbanized area.
The City would implement adopted General Plan Policy 5.1 -1/Measure 8.77, which “Require[s] applicants to prepare site -specific geologic and/or geotechnical studies and soils investigations for proposed new development projects located in areas with expansive soils, or areas identified as susceptible to landslides and liquefaction. Measures from the studies shall be incorporated into the site development for subsequent projects to mitigate potential damage to foundations and structures to the satisfaction of the city engineer and building official. In addition, applicants may be required to incorporate measures, as appropriate, to stabilize and maintain slopes on a site-by-site basis. Such measures include, but are not limited to, proper planting, irrigation, retaining walls, and benching”.
Therefore, with implementation of these policies and measures for all future development proposed under the Specific Plan, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts from risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic hazards.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project does not involve physical construction and would therefore not impact soils in a way that would result in erosion of the loss of topsoil. However, future development under the Proposed Project would involve ground disturbance, which would have the potential to result in soil erosion or topsoil revisions. Although future development
7 Google Earth Pro, Accessed March 14, 2023; Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed March 14, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ 8 Google Earth Pro, Accessed March 14, 2023; Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones of Required Investigation, Accessed March 14, 2023, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/EQZApp/app/ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-37
occurring on vacant lots within the Foothill Central area has the potential to involve substantial ground disturbance, the Proposed Project would be subject to best management practices to minimize erosion during construction , as identified in the project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Future development would be subject to the City’s development review process and comply with adopted General Plan policies and relevant Municipal Code standards, and adhere to all federal, State and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts concerning soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would not involve physical construction and therefore would not result in instability of soils and geologic units. The Foothill Central area is not located on a known unstable geologic unit or soil s that could become unstable . Future development would be required to undergo site -specific geologic and/or geotechnical studies and soils investigations for proposed new development projects located in areas with expansive soils, or areas identified as susceptible to landslides and liquefaction, per adopted General Plan Measure 8.77. With review of these site-specific geotechnical studies, applicants may be required to incorporate measures, as appropriate, to stabilize and maintain slopes on a site-by-site basis. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Impact: Less than Significant
As noted above in (c), the Foothill Central area is not located on expansive soils. Future development would be subject to site -specific geotechnical studies and would assess this risk further. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Impact: No Impact
Future development consistent with the Proposed Project would not necessitate the installation of septic tanks as connections to existing wastewater infrastructure are available. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-38
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As detailed in the General Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR, 2010), previous geologic mapping of Rialto indicates that the City contains surface exposures of several sedimentary rock units including (from oldest to youngest): older fan deposits of middle to late Pleistocene age (unit Qof); old eolian deposits (Qoed, Qoes); young eolian deposits (Qyes); young alluvial fan deposits (Qyf); young axial channel deposits (Qya); and recent wash deposits (Qw, Qyw). Of these sedimentary units, the Pleistocene sediments mapped at the surface have high potential to contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources, and so are assigned high paleontological sensitivity. Pleistocene alluvial sediments elsewhere throughout Riverside and San Bernardino Counties and the Inland Empire have been reported to yield significant fossils of extinct animals from the Ice Age.
Fossils recovered from these Pleistocene sed iments represent extinct taxa including mammoths, mastodons, ground sloths, dire wolves, saber -toothed cats, large and small horses, large and small camels, and bison, as well as plant macro- and microfossils9.
Pleistocene age (unit Qof) , sensitive formations, are mapped within the Plan area. The Proposed Project would not result in physical construction. However, potential impacts to paleontological resources from buildout of the Proposed Project could result from ground disturbance related to site preparation for future development and/or installation of street infrastructure. Failure to properly monitor such activities to ensure proper identification and recovery of potentially unique resources could, therefore, result in a significant impact to fossil resources.
Future development applications implemented under the Proposed Project would be reviewed by the Community Development Director on a case-by-case basis for potential impacts to sensitive geologic formations. Should a project be found to result in potentially significant impacts to paleontological resources, the Applicant would be required to implement mitigation measures as detailed in the General Plan EIR and included below.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-PAL-1 Paleontological Surveys
Paleontological Field Surveys: In areas containing middle to late Pleistocene era sediments (Qof) where it is unknown if paleontological resources exist, field surveys prepared by a qualified paleontological professional before grading shall be conducted t o establish the need for paleontological monitoring. Should paleontological monitoring be required after recommendation by the professional paleontologist and approval by the Development Services Director, Mitigation Measure PAL-1 shall be implemented.
MM-PAL-2 Paleontological Monitoring
A project that requires grading plans and is located in an area of known fossil occurrence or that has been demonstrated to have fossils present in a field survey as described in Mitigation Measures PAL-1 shall have all grading monitored by trained paleontological
9 City of Rialto. General Plan EIR March 2010
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-39
crews working under the direction of a qualified professional, so that fossils exposed during grading can be recovered and preserved. Paleontological monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring is not necessary if the potentially fossiliferous units described for the property in question are not present or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Should paleontological resources require recovery, Mitigation Measure PAL-3 shall be implemented.
MM-PAL-3 Paleontological Recovery, Identification, and Curation:
Qualified paleontological personnel shall prepare recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Qualified paleontological personnel shall identify and curate specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontological storage. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. This measure is not considered complete until curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.
MM-PAL-4 Paleontological Findings
Qualified paleontological personnel shall prepare a report of findings with an appendix itemized of specimens subsequent to implementation of Mitigation Measure PAL-2. A preliminary report shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before granting of building permits and a final report shall be submitted to and approved by the Development Services Director before granting of occupancy permits.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-40
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions
of greenhouse gases?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
A Greenhouse Gas Analysis Report was prepared for the Specific Plan Project (RECON, 2023) and is included as Appendix B.2.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction and Operation GHGs – primarily carbon dioxide (CO 2), methane (CH 4), and nitrous oxide (N 2O), collectively reported as carbon dioxide equivalents (CO 2e) – are directly emitted from stationary source combustion of natural gas in equipment such as water heaters, boilers, process heaters, and furnaces . Operational GHGs are also emitted from mobile sources such as on -road vehicles and off -road equipment burning fuels such as gasoline, diesel, biodiesel, propane, or natural gas (compressed or liquefied). Indirect GHG emissions result from electric power generated elsewhere (i.e., power plants) used to operate process equipment, lighting, and utilities at a facility . Also included in GHG quantification is electric power used to pump the water supply (e.g., aqueducts, wells, pipelines) and disposal and decomposition of municipal waste in landfills10.
Results of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Analysis
The project’s GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod Version 2022.1 (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association [CAPCOA] 2022) and CARB’s 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC2021). Emissions were calculated for the existing condition (year 2023), buildout of the adopted land use plan (year 2045), and buildout of the Proposed Project (year 2045). Table 3-3 shows GHG emissions from buildout of the Specific Plan.
10 California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. Website (https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scopingplan.htm) accessed October 14, 2020.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-41
Table 3-3: Project GHG Emissions
Source
Existing
(year
2023)
Land
Uses
Buildout
(year 2045)
of Adopted Land
Uses
Buildout
(year 2045)
of Proposed Land
Uses
Mobile 120,053 104,849 109,844
Energy 13,945 18,440 20,130
Area 164 255 278
Water/Wastewater 1,252 1,754 1,909
Solid Waste 2,566 4,099 4,475
Refrigerants 11 16 18
Construction -- 2,847 3,006
Total 137,991 132,260 139,660
Service Population (Residents +
Employees)
34,066 41,502 46,753
GHG Emissions per Service
Population
4.05 3.19 2.99
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated As shown in Table 3-5 above, GHG emissions associated with buildout of the Proposed Project would total 139,660 MT CO2E per year, or 2.99 MT CO2E per service population.
When compared to the existing condition, overall mobile -source GHG emissions due to buildout of both the adopted land use plan and the Proposed Project would decrease. This is due to vehicle emission regulations and improved technologies that result in cleaner and more efficient vehicles. Other sources of emissions would increase over the ex isting condition due to the increased amount of development. Although total GHG emissions would be greater than under buildout of the adopted land uses, the Proposed Project would result in a decrease in emissions per service population compared to both th e existing condition and buildout of the adopted land uses. The modeled reduction in VMT per service population indicates that the Specific Plan would be a more efficient plan than the adopted General Plan in terms of vehicular trips. Features of the Specific Plan that promote reduced mobile source emissions and reduced VMT per service population include increased density near mass transit, mixed-use development, and road diets. Buildout of the Specific Plan would reduce communitywide daily per service popu lation vehicle use by approximately 2.0 miles of travel per day. The 8.5 percent reduction in VMT would correlate directly to a reduction in mobile source GHG emissions in the region. The Specific Plan would reduce VMT per service population and GHG impact s by creating housing opportunities in areas with pedestrian connectivity between residential and commercial uses and near public transportation along established transportation corridors.
Future housing development facilitated by the project would also be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-42
in effect at the time of development. These regulations require that new development incorporate design features to capture energy efficiencies associated with building heating, ventilating, and air conditioning mechanical systems, water heating systems, and lighting.
Additionally, future development proposed under the Specific Plan would undergo discretionary review. At the time of their initiation, new developments facilitated by the Proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable federal, state, and loca l regulations regarding GHG emissions. This includes policies instituted by SCAQMD in which developers would be required to comply with one of five exclusion tiers in order to avoid significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures:
GHG-1:
Applications for future development shall prepare and submit a technical assessment evaluating potential project GHG impacts to the City for review and approval. The significance of project -level GHG impacts shall be evaluated using one of the following criteria:
1. The evaluation shall demonstrate consistency with a locally adopted qualified Climate Action Plan (CAP); or
2. In the absence of a qualified CAP, the evaluation shall be prepared in conformance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) methodology for assessing GHG impacts, which consists of the following tiered approach:
a. Tier 1 – The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
b. Tier 2 – The project is consistent with an applicable regional GHG emissions reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local GHG reduction plan, it does not have significant GHG emissions.
c. Tier 3 – Project GHG emissions represent an incremental increase below or mitigated to less than a 3,000 MT CO2E screening level. d. Tier 4 – The project achieves performance standards, where performance standards may include a percent emission reduction target or an efficiency target per service population.
e. Tier 5 – Offsets along or in combination with the above target Significance Screening Level. Offsets must be provided for a 30-year project life, unless the project life is limited by permit, lease, or other legally binding condition.
If GHG emissions are determined to have the potential to exceed the SCAQMD’s recommended thresholds, the City shall require that applicants for new development projects incorporate mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions. These identified measures shall be incorporated into all appropriate documents submitted to the City and shall be verified by the City.
Because the Proposed Project would result in a decrease in GHG emissions per service population and because future development would be required to comply with applicable Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-43
federal, state, and local regulations regarding GHG emission and Mitigation Measure GHG-1, the Proposed Project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Impact: Less than significant
Applicable plans, policies, and regulations include statewide GHG emission targets established by AB 32 and SB 32; a longer -term statewide policy goals established by EO S-3-05; the 2017 Scoping Plan (which establishes a specific statewide plan to achieve the 2030 target); the 2020 Scoping Plan (which establishes targets for carbon neutrality by 2045); SCAG’s RTP/SCS; regulations regarding increased use renewables for electricity production (RPS); the California Energy Code; and General Plan policies.
State Plans:
As shown in Table 8 of Appendix B.2, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any of the 2017 Scoping Plan elements as any regulations adopted would apply directly or indirectly to the Proposed Project. Further, recent studies show that the state’s existing and proposed regulatory framework will allow the state to reduce its GHG emissions level to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. Further, the Proposed Project would be consistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan strategies for reducing VMT. Specifically, it would allow for the redevelopment of infill sites surrounded by existing urban uses, it consists of transit - supportive densities, is in proximity to existing transit stops, and is consistent with the region’s SCS. The Proposed Project would result in a reduction in GHG emissions per service population. Future development would be required to meet the mandatory energy requirements of CALGreen and the Energy Code (CCR Title 24, Part 6). Energy -related emissions would a lso be reduced as SCE increases its re newable sources of energy in accordance with RPS goals. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable state plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
Regional Plans:
The project was evaluated for consistency with the SCS strategies contained in Connect SoCal. As discussed in Table 9 of Appendix B. 2, t he project would be consistent with applicable Connect SoCal strategies, particularly by constructing a high-density residential use adjacent to existing transit. Therefore, the project would not conflict with an applicable regional plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
Local Plans:
Table 10 of Appendix B. 2 summarizes the Proposed Project’s consistency with the GHG related policies in the City’s General Plan. The Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable local plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-44
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Create a significant hazard to the
public or the environment through
reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into
the environment?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an
existing or proposed school?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on a site which is
included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code §65962.5
and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an
airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport
or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing
or working in the project area?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures,
either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-45
a) Create significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The Proposed Project is a framework for future development in the Foothill Central area and therefore would not involve the transport of hazardous materials. Future development consistent with the Proposed Project would be likely to involve the transport, use, or disposal of only small amounts of hazardous materials, including those used for common residential and commercial activities. These include chemicals used for cleaning, fertilizer, pesticides, and other materials used in maintenance.
According to the adopted General Plan, “ Hazardous materials are transported through or near Rialto along I -15 and I10, SR -210, and local roads and railroad lines. Releases of hazardous materials from trucks or trains can occur during an accident. The California Highway Patrol is the responding agency in the event of a spill on the freeways, but local emergency response agencies, such as police and fire departments, are responsible for additional enforcement and routing assistance. Per federal and State laws, all transportation of hazardous materials is conducted under strict protocol”. In addition, the City’s General Plan includes Measure 8.81, which would minimize significant environmental impacts from the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials:
Minimize public health and environmental risks from the use, transport, storage and disposal of hazardous materials with the following approaches:
• Cooperate with federal, State and local agencies to effectively regulate the management of hazardous materials and hazardous waste.
• Continue to identify roadway transportation routes for conveyance of hazardous materials.
• Implement the emergency response plan for accidents involving hazardous materials through the Hazardous Incident Response Team (Rialto Fire Department).
• Cooperate with the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) with Hazardous Materials Division of the San Bernardino County Fire Department to administer risk management plans for businesses within the City.
Therefore, as all transport, use, and disposal of hazardous waste would comply with local, state, and federal regulations, such as those imposed by the Department of Toxic Services, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As noted above in threshold (a), the Proposed Project is a framework for future development in the Foothill Central area and therefore would not involve physical Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-46
construction that would have the potential to expose construction workers or the public to hazardous materials in soil or groundwater. Light industrial uses are present in some areas abutting the Central Area and may pose a constraint to residential uses in the Plan Area.
There is a large light industrial area west of Willow Avenue between the railroad ROW and Bud Bender Park. There are also light industrial uses between Rialto Avenue and the railroad ROW along Palm Avenue, Orange Avenue, Olive Avenue, and Date Avenue.
Future housing could be located on , or adjacent to, sites of potential concern with respect to accidental releases of hazardous materials during excavation and construction associated with future development. Additional properties, undocument ed at this time, could also contain on-site contaminants from building materials, release of hazardous substances into soils associated with industrial land uses or historic agriculture, and hazardous substance release from underground storage tanks.
Ground disturbing activities associated with future development could expose construction workers and the public to unknown hazardous materials present in soil or groundwater. All future development in the Foothill Central area would be reviewed to confirm compliance with all applicable requirements, including the City’s development review process, and would be subject to compliance with the established regulatory framework for minimizing upset associated with hazardous materials. Mitigation MM -HAZ-1 would require applicants of future development to prepare a formal Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for any vacant, commercial, and industrial properties potentially involving hazardous materials or waste.
Therefore, there would be less than significant impact with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-HAZ-1 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment
Applications for future development in the Specific Plan area, wherein the Community Development Director has determined a potential for impacts to known and unknown hazardous materials sites, shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
Prior to any renovation, or demolition, grading or building permit approval, the applicant shall retain a qualified hazardous materials Environmental Professional to prepare a formal Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for any vacant, commercial, a nd industrial properties involving hazardous materials or waste. The Phase I ESA shall be prepared in accordance with ASTM Standard Practice E 1527-13 or the Standards and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI), prior to any land acquisition, demoliti on, or construction activities. The Phase I ESA would identify specific Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs), which may require further sampling/remedial activities by a qualified hazardous materials Environmental Professional with Phase II/site char acterization experience prior to land acquisition, demolition, and/or construction. The Environmental Professional shall identify proper remedial activities to be implemented by the applicant, if necessary.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-47
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project is a development framework and therefore would not emit hazardous emissions, materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing school.
Future development as the potential to be located within 0.25 -mile of an existing or proposed school within the Foothill Central Area . Future residential development would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste and therefore would have a less than significant impact on a school.
In contrast, c ommercial uses would have the potential to handle hazardous materials, substances, or waste, as relevant to its corresponding business. However, all businesses would be subject to regulations regarding hazardous waste transport and handling under the DTSC’s regulations, California Health and Safe ty Code, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) which would reduce potential impacts associated with the accidental release of hazardous materials. In addition, per Municipal Code section
18.47.040, hazardous waste facilities are prohibited in certain zoning districts and specific plan areas, including the Central Area and residential zones. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code 65962.5 and as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Impact: No Impact
According to Geotracker11, only closed LUST sites are within the Foothill Central area. No Government Code 65962.5 sites (i.e., Cortese List) are located within the Foothill Central area12. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact: No Impact
No portion of the City is within an airport land use plan. Additionally, there are no public airports or public use airports within two miles of the City. Therefore, there are no impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
11 State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker, Accessed March 16, 2023 12 Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor, Accessed March 16, 2023 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-48
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Less than Significant
The City’s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) is the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS)/National Incident Management System ( NIMS) Multi- hazard Functional Plan (MHFP). The SEMS/NIMS MHFP addresses the City of Rialto's planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies and incorporates an d coordinates all the facilities and personnel of the City into an efficient organization capable of responding to a ny emergency. This involves a high level of multi -jurisdictional cooperation and communication for emergency planning and response management through activation of SEMS. The adopted General Plan also includes policies 5-7.1 through 5-8.4, which outline emergency response and preparation guidelines. Measure 8.86 , Emergency Operations Plan , also includes the following directive: “At the time of an emergency, community evacuation routes and emergency shelter facilities shall be identified based on available safe routes and undamaged buildings”.
The Proposed Project would maintain development standards for roads and access that would be applicable to future development and roadway infrastructure . This includes Municipal Code Section 18.61.190 (D) , “Site access and internal circulation shall be designed in a straightforward manner which emphasizes safety and efficiency. The circulation pattern shall be designed to reduce conflicts between vehicular and pedestrian traffic, provide adequate maneuvering and stacking areas, and consideration for emergency vehicle access”. Future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to plan review and would be required to be consistent with these development guidelines, therefore not interfering with emergency response or emergency evacuation plans.
Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Impact: Less than Significant
According to CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map, the Foothill Central area is not within a State responsibility area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHZ)13. Exhibit 5.3 Fire Hazards in the adopted General Plan also displays moderate to very high local responsibility areas (LRA) and state responsibility areas (SRA) only within the Lytle Creek Ranch area. It is noted that urban fires are an ongoing risk, but structures are required to be designed with applicable fire-hazard mitigation and according to the Fire Code (Chapter 15.28) , as detailed in the Municipal Code. This would reduce risk associated with urban fires spreading to nearby vacant lots and nearby vegetation.
13 Office of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community- wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/, Accessed March 17, 2023 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-49
Therefore, impacts related to exposing people or structures to risk involving wildland fires is less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-50
X. Hydrology and Water Quality
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
X. Hydrology and Water Quality. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards
or waste discharge requirements or
otherwise substantially degrade
surface or ground water quality?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater
supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the
basin?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the
course of a stream or river or through
the addition of impervious surfaces, in
a manner which would:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
i) result in a substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site; ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii) substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite;
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii) create or contribute runoff water
which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv) impede or redirect flood flows? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of pollutants due to
project inundation?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-51
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project does not propose physical construction that would violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Proposed developments consistent with the Proposed Project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review pursuant to CEQA, and be required to comply with adopted General Plan policies related to protecting water quality.
These include:
Measures 8.17 National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) Compliance
Continue to comply with all provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permit, and support regional efforts by SARWQCB to improve and protect water quality. Estimate increases in pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development projects utilizing available methods prior to making land use decisions on such projects. In addition, require applicants for new development and redevelopment projects to demonstrate accomplishment of the following NPDES objectives:
• Use of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate projected increases in pollutant loads and flows.
• Minimize pollutant loading flow velocity during and after construction. • Minimize amounts of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious surfaces.
• Maximize on-site infiltration and runoff, and temporary on-site retention areas. • Limit disturbance of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems. • Employ pollution prevention methods, source controls, and treatment using small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the source.
In addition, Municipal Code Section 12.60 requires developments to install, implement, and maintain the BMPs, including but not limited to, erosion management; materials storage; inspection, maintenance, repair, upgrade of BMPs; and prepar e a SWPPP.
Additionally, future developments would be required to comply with Municipal Code Section 12.60 pertaining to Residential BMP requirements including minimum BMPs specified for landscaping, home care and maintenance, and motor vehicle maintenance.
Therefore, consistency with these requirements during construction and operations of the future developments would result in a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-52
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Impact: Less than Significant Impact
The City’s potable water supply is served by three water agencies: the City of Rialto Department of Public Works Water Division, the West Valley Water District (WVWD), and the Fontana Water Company (FWC), as shown in Exhibit 3 -2 of the adopted General Plan. The Foothill Central Area is served by the Rialto Water District, West Valley Water District, and Fontana Water District. Each agency has an adjudicated supply of water from several sources, including groundwater basins in the area.
The City produces water from four different adjudicated groundwater basins: the Rialto Basin, Lytle Creek Basin, Riverside North Basin and the Bunker Hill Basin. Rialto participates in several ongoing water conservation measures and contributes to regional recharge projects through the San Bernardino Basin (SBB) Groundwater Council and Rialto Basin Groundwater Council to optimize and enhance the use and reliability of local groundwater water resources.14
The 2015 UWMP15 notes that the adjoining Lytle Creek sub basin and Rialto-Colton sub basin are limited in their extraction for the year based on water levels. If water levels fall below those thresholds, the Districts are obligated to recharge the basin with imported water or reduce extractions. The Rialto Basin Groundwater Council (GC) would develop a groundwater management plan that w ould identify recharge goals and projects to restore groundwater levels. Therefore, as protections are in place for groundwater supplies, the Proposed Project and its future development would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies. Future demand would be offset by imported water.
According to the adopted General Plan, the open space areas along Cajon Wash, Lytle Creek Wash, and the Santa Ana River are the primary areas in the City that allow for groundwater recharge. The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge in these areas since it proposes infill in the urbanized Foothill Central area. Future buildout of the Proposed Project is anticipated to increase the cumulative impervious surfaces in this area, especially as vacant lots are present throughout this area.
The development of these parcels at full buildout would not significantly reduce local groundwater recharge due to discontinuous surrounding development conditions.
Application of project specific conditions , such as the requirement for biofiltration areas, has the potential to reduce impacts of impervious surfaces. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
14 City of Rialto, 2020 Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan, June 2021 15 Water Systems Consulting, Inc., 2015 San Bernardino Valley Regional Urban Water Management Plan, June 2016
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-53
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. result in a substantial erosion or situation on- or off-site; ii. substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii. create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would not involve physical construction and therefore would not alter the existing drainage pattern of the area. However, f uture development under the Proposed Project would result in a dditional impervious areas which would have the potential to alter the drainage of the site both temporarily and permanently . Temporary changes in drainage would occur for projects involving ground disturbance. Best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented during construction to reduce erosion, runoff, and the creation of runoff water that would provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
This change in permanent drainage changes would be most noticeable for site specific projects proposed on vacant sites. Site specific projects would be reviewed for compliance with development standards.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) In flood hazard, tsunami or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact: No Impact
The Foothill Central area is outside of the 500-year floodplain and is not near the coast or a large body of water. Therefore, there would be no impact from risk of pollutant exposure from project inundation.
Mitigation Measures: None
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Impact: Less than Significant
As noted in (b) above, the City’s 2015 UWMP includes protections for groundwater management. Future development proposed under the Proposed Project would be subject to review by the City prior to entitlement. If the site -specific project would propose significant water demand, further coordination with water supply purveyors would be completed, or a Water Supply Assessment would be required to assess potential impacts to Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-54
groundwater management. Therefore, at the programmatic level, there would be a less than significant impact on conflicts with the groundwater management plan.
As detailed under (c) above, each site-specific project consistent with the Proposed Project would be subject to required BMPs and site design standards that would reduce potential impacts to water quality. At the programmatic level, there would be less than significant impacts to obstruction of a water quality control plan as developments are proposed as infill within the existing downtown corridor with adequate infrastructure designed to reduce off- site water quality impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-55
XI. Land Use and Planning
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XI. Land Use and Planning. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established
community? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a significant environmental
impact due to a conflict with any land
use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Physically divide an established community?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project consolidates the Foothill Specific Plan area and the Rialto Central Specific Plan area into the Foothill Central area . It presents guidelines for infill development within this existing corridor and therefore would not result in any major infrastructure or changes that would physically divide the existing community. Therefore, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Impact: Less than Significant
This Specific Plan has been reviewed for consistency with the city’s General Plan and has been deliberately crafted to help advance its goals, policies, standards, networks, and implementation measures. As the General Plan is amended in the future, this Pl an may be revised to ensure continued consistency. Therefore, impacts related to General Plan inconsistency would be less than significant. Consistency with other plans including HCPs and greenhouse gas reduction plans are discussed in their respective sections (IV and VIII).
Mitigation Measures: None.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-56
XII. Mineral Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XII. Mineral Resources. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be
a 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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be a 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? Impact: Less than Significant
The areas within the City that have been designated by the State Mining and Geology Board as containing regionally significant PCC-grade aggregated resources (per adopted General Plan Exhibit 2.6 Aggregate Resources) do not include the Foothill Central Area. However, per Exhibit 2.7 Mineral Resource Zones, a band of designated MRZ -2 zone does cross through the Foothill Central area while the remaining Foothill Central Area is designated by MRZ -3, i.e., areas of unknown mineral deposits . A MRZ -2 zone indicat es that significant mineral deposits are present or there is a high likelihood for their presence. Per the adopted General Plan, “These mineral resource designations are intended to prevent incompatible land use development in areas determined to have significant mineral resource deposits. Permitted uses within a designated area of regional significance include mining, uses that support mining such as smelting and storage of materials, or uses that will not hinder future mining, such as grazing, agriculture, and low-intensity recreation”.
As the Proposed Project would not introduce new zoning that would interfere with these areas designations, it would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or a recovery site. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-57
XIII. Noise
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIII. Noise. Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of
the project in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an
airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Generation of substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? Impact: Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated.
Construction Noise
Future development implemented under the Proposed Project could result in a temporary ambient noise increase due to construction activities. Due to the developed nature of the Specific Plan area, construction activities would take place adjacent to existing structures and sensitive receptors would be located in proximity to construction activities.
Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending upon the nature or phase of construction (e.g., demolition; land clearing, grading, and excavation; erection).
Construction noise would be short term and would include noise from activ ities such as site preparation, truck hauling of material, pouring of concrete, and the use of power tools.
Noise would also be generated by construction equipment use, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, and could reach high noise levels for brief periods.
As discussed in Section 4.3 of Appendix B.3 (Noise Study), hourly average noise levels would be approximately 83 dB(A) Leq at 50 feet from the center of construction activity when assessing three pieces of common construction equipment working simultaneously.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-58
Noise levels would vary depending on the nature of the construction activities including the duration of specific activities, the equipment involved, the location of the sensitive receivers, and the presence of intervening barriers.
The City regulates construction noise through Section 9.50.070 of the Municipal Code by limiting construction activities to 7:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays between October 1 and April 30, and 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Monday through Friday and 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays between May 1 and September 30. Additionally, General Plan Policy 5 -10.5 requires that construction equipment use available noise suppression devices and techniques to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels that are compatible with adjacent land uses. Enforcement of Section
9.50.070 of the Municipal Code and General Plan Policy 5 -10.1 would ensure that temporary construction noise associated with development implemented under the Proposed project would be less than significant.
Operational/Stationary Noise
A significant impact would occur if implementation of the Proposed Project resulted in the exposure of people to noise levels that exceed the requirements of Chapter 9.50 of the City’s Municipal Code. Stationary sources of noise include activities associated with a given land use. For example, noise from residential uses would include landscaping equipment, HVAC equipment, and pedestrians, while noise sources from commercial land uses could include car washes, fast food restaurants, parking lots, and a variety of other uses. Noise generated by residential or commercial uses is generally short -lived and intermittent. No substantial industrial sources of noise are located within the Plan area; however, industrial land uses are located adjacent to the Plan area generally bounded by Willow Avenue on the east, Merrill Avenue on the south, Linden Avenue on the West, and the Pacific Electric Trail on the north. Noise sources associated with indu strial land uses include trucks, loading dock activities, and mechanical equipment. Potential noise conflicts could occur in mixed -use areas where residential uses are located in close proxim ity to commercial and retail uses and where residential uses are located near the industrial uses.
The type of land uses proposed under the Proposed Project would be similar to the land uses that currently exist within the Plan area. Although the Proposed Project would increase density and provide for more mixed -use areas, the allowed uses would be similar to what currently exists within the Specific Plan area.
Noise levels within the Specific Plan area are currently dominated by vehicle traffic on area roadways and would continue to be the primary source of noise under buildout of the Proposed Project. Therefore, future noise levels from stationary sources throu ghout the Plan area would not be expected to increase the hourly or daily average sound level with respect to current conditions. While noise-sensitive residential land uses would be exposed to noise associated with the operation of commercial and industri al uses, future development would be required to show compliance with Chapter 9.50 of the Municipal Code. As detailed in Appendix B.3 (Noise Study) in Section 2.3.2, the City regulates noise conflicts between land uses by prohibiting or restricting horns and signaling devices, excessive motor vehicle noise, music and sound amplification equipment, alarms, and any other “unnecessary or unusual noise that disturbs the comfort, repose, health, peace and quiet or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reas onable person of normal Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-59
sensitivity.” The City also regulates noise conflicts between land uses by restricting the allowable hours of operation of loading docks, power tools, landscaping equipment, and other heavy equipment. The City enforces these requirements through the issuan ce of citations. General Plan Policies 5-10.1 through 5-10.5 (see Section 2.3.1of Appendix B.3) also ensure that acceptable noise levels are maintained in noise sensitive areas and the hours of operation of noise generation sources are limited.
Noise impacts could result if future noise-sensitive land uses are located adjacent to the industrial uses to the west . MM-NOI-1 shall require that future development adjacent to industrial uses incorporate site design measures, such as blocking the line of sight between exterior use areas and the industrial use with buildings or other barriers and increasing the sound transmission class ( STC) ratings of window and door components be incorporated into future project design. Enforcement of Chapter 9.50 of the Municipal Code and General Plan Policies 5 10.1 through 5 -10.5, along with MM -NOI-1 would ensure that future development under the Proposed Project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operational/Traffic Noise
For the purposes of this analysis, a significant impact would occur if the Proposed Project’s off-site mobile sources (i.e., vehicle traffic) would generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels surrounding the Proposed Project and any n earby roadways. The City has not adopted mobile operational -related noise thresholds of significance for CEQA consideration, but Rialto General Plan Policy 5 -10.3 establishes that acceptable noise levels should be maintained near noise sensitive uses in ac cordance with the noise standards shown in Table 4 of Appendix B.3. The Municipal Code does not contain quantitative standards that would apply to the Proposed Project’s off -site mobile sources. As such, the following criteria to determine significance are informed by Rialto General Plan Policy 5-10.3 and the acceptable noise levels outlined in Table 4 of Appendix B.3.
For this analysis, a readily perceptible 5 dB or greater project -related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the Without Project noise levels are below 60 CNEL, a barely perceptible 3 dB or greater project -related noise level incre ase is considered a significant impact when the Without Project noise levels are between 60 and 65 CNEL, and a 1.5 dB or greater project related noise level increase is considered a significant impact when the Without Project noise levels are above 65 CNEL.
The calculated noise levels at 50 feet from the centerline of the study area roadways were calculated using FHWA algorithms and are summarized in Table 9 of Appendix B. 3.
Calculations are provided in Attachment 2 of Appendix B.3.
As shown in Table 9 of Appendix B.3, cumulative noise level increases due to buildout of the Proposed Project would be less than the applicable significance thresholds. Noise level increases due to project -related traffic on other area roadways further away from the Specific Plan area would be less than the increases on study area roadways since noise level increases are assumed to be greatest nearest the Plan area, as this location would represent the greatest concentration of project -related traffic. Ther efore, operational Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-60
roadway noise would not generate a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels for off-site noise sensitive land uses, and impacts would be less than significant.
Land Use Compatibility
The Specific Plan area is exposed to noise from traffic on area roadways and the Metrolink.
Future vehicle and Metrolink noise contours are shown in Figure 5a of Appendix B. 3.
SoundPLAN data is provided in Attachment 3 of Appendix B. 3. The following is a discussion of the noise levels and noise compatibility standards at each of the proposed zones.
Single Family Residential (SFR) zoned parcels are located in the southeast portion of the Specific Plan area. This area is developed with existing single family residential uses.
These uses are normally acceptable with noise levels up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise le vels up to 65 CNEL. These single -family residential uses are exposed to vehicle traffic noise from Sycamore Avenue and Merrill Avenue. Future noise levels are not anticipated to exceed 65 CNEL at these uses. Noise levels range from 60 to 65 CNEL only at the residential uses located immediately adjacent to Sycamore Avenue and Merrill Avenue. All other parcels are exposed to noise levels less than 60 CNEL.
Multi-Family Residential (MFR) zoned parcels are located throughout the central portion of the Specific Plan area. These residential uses are normally acceptable with noise levels up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels up to 70 CNEL. Future exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL only at those parcels immediately adjacent to Sycamore Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Willow Avenue. Noise levels would not exceed 70 CNEL at any MFR parcels.
Increased Density Residential (R-X) zoned parcels are located in the southwest portion of the Plan area between Riverside Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Willow Avenue; in the southeast portion of the Specific Plan area adjacent to Sycamore Avenue and Rialto Avenue; and in the central Specific Plan area between Orange Avenue, Palm Avenue, and 2nd Street. These higher density residential uses are normally acceptable with noise levels up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels up to 70 CNEL. Future exterior noise levels are projected to exceed 60 CNEL only at the parcels located immediately adjacent to Rialto Avenue, Merrill Avenue, and Willow Avenue. Noise levels would not exceed 70 CNEL at any R-X parcels.
Foothill Mixed-Use (FMUZ) zoned parcels are located adjacent to Foothill Boulevard. This zone encourages a combination of ground floor retail, with office and/or residential uses above around the future BRT stops located along Foothill Boulevard. The F MUZ zoned parcels are designated as General Commercial in the City’s General Plan. General Commercial land uses are normally acceptable with noise levels up to 65 CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels up to 75 CNEL. Portions of the F MUZ zoned parcels may exceed 65 CNEL only immediately adjacent to Foothill Boulevard, but no roadway in the Specific Plan area would generate noise levels greater than 75 CNEL.
Downtown Mixed-Use (DMUZ) zoned parcels are located throughout the central portion of the Specific Plan area primarily adjacent to Riverside Avenue, Rialto Avenue, and the Metrolink. This zone encourages a walkable interconnected mixed -use urban area by providing a combination of g round-floor retail, higher intensity office, and/or residential Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-61
near the Rialto Metrolink Station in downtown Rialto. It provides retail and commercial uses, including restaurants, breweries, and entertainment destinations. Mixed use land uses are normally acceptable with noise levels up to 60 CNEL and conditionally acceptable with noise levels up to 75 CNEL. Noise levels would exceed 60 CNEL only at those portions of the parcels located immediately adjacent to Riverside Avenue, Willow Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Rialto Avenue, and the Metrolink. No roadway in the Specific Plan area would generate noise levels greater than 75 CNEL.
As demonstrated above, and in figures 5b-5e of Appendix B.3, the possible noise levels at each of the proposed zones are compatible with the noise standards for these zones.
Mitigation Measures:
MM-NOI-1: Future development consistent with the Specific Plan that includes the placement of new sensitive receptors adjacent to industrial uses, shall include the following design measures:
a. Site plans for development applications shall incorporate site design measures, such as blocking the line of sight between exterior use areas and the industrial use with buildings or other barriers;
b. Sound transmission class ratings of windows and doors shall be adequate to demonstrate interior noise levels can be achieved consistent with building code requirements. Interior noise studies shall be required at the discretion of planning department.
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Impact: Less than Significant
Human reaction to vibration is dependent on the environment the receiver is in, as well as individual sensitivity. For example, outdoor vibration is rarely noticeable and generally not considered annoying. Typically, humans must be inside a structure for v ibrations to become noticeable and/or annoying (FTA 2018).
Construction activities may include demolition of existing structures, site preparation work, excavation of parking and subfloors, foundation work, and building construction.
Construction activities produce varying degrees of ground vibration depending on the equipment and methods employed. While ground vibrations from typical construction activities rarely reach levels high enough to cause damage to structures, special consideration must be made when sensitive or historic land uses are near the constructio n site. Generally, the buildings located in the Specific Plan area consist of commercial buildings and a mix of newer and older residential structures. To provide a conservative analysis this analysis uses FTA guidance for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings which states that they could be damaged if exposed to vibration levels that exceed 0.2 PPV.
Assuming normal propagation conditions, vibration generated by a bulldozer could exceed the threshold for structural damage within approximately 12 feet of bulldozer activity. It is unlikely that a bulldozer would operate within 12 feet of any existing building.
Additionally, construction of future projects would not include vibration -intensive activities such as blasting or impact pile driving. Therefore, construction activities from Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-62
development implemented under the Proposed Project would not result in structural damage to nearby structures from vibration-generating construction activities.
Regarding human disturbance from construction activities, the FTA considers a vibration level of 65 VdB to be the threshold of perceptibility for humans. Based on the FTA’s vibration criteria, a significant impact would occur if vibration levels exceeded 8 0 VdB within places where people normally sleep (FTA 2018). However, as detailed above, construction activity would occur during the daytime hours as required by Section 9.50.070 of the Municipal Code; and thus, would generally not take place when people are sleeping.
By use of administrative controls, such as scheduling construction activities with the highest potential to produce perceptible vibration to hours with least potential to affect nearby properties, perceptible vibration can be kept to a minimum and as such would result in a less than significant impact with respect to perception. Therefore, construction vibration impacts would be considered less than significant.
Metrolink
Railroads generate ground -borne vibration that may be perceptible at on -site uses.
Construction of residential units in close proximity to railroad tracks can cause rattling windows and vibration of floors. Train vibration depends upon a variety of factors . The weight of the train, the travel speed, the condition of the track and the character of the subsoil all affect the observed vibration level. As discussed, the Metrolink commuter rail San Bernardino Line operates through the southern portion of the Spe cific Plan area. As shown in Table 6 in Appendix B. 3, there are 34 Metrolink trains that travel through the Specific Plan area per day. Based on the criteria shown in Table 3 in Appendix B. 3, a significant vibration impact may occur if vibration levels at residential uses exceed 80 VdB for infrequent events (less than 70 per day). Figure 6 in Appendix B. 3 shows the generalized ground surface vibration curves that are based on measurements of ground - borne vibration at representative North American transit sy stems (FTA 2018). These curves can be used to represent vibration characteristics for standard transportation systems. As shown, the Metrolink would generate a vibration level of 80 VdB at approximately 15 to 20 feet from the track centerline. Due to railr oad right-of-way and setback requirements, no residential structures would be constructed within 20 feet of the track. Vibration impacts due to the Metrolink would be less than significant. c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise level?
Impact: No Impact
As noted above in IX . Hazards and Hazardous Materials, there are no public airports or public use airports within two miles of the City. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-63
XIV. Population and Housing
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIV. Population and Housing. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned
population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project directly supports the implementation of the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021 -2029)16, which proposes a plan to accommodate the State’s share of its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) and its own local housing goals. In addition, the Proposed Project would provide a framework of higher density development and improved transportation facilities in a way that is consistent with the goals of the 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) 17. As the Proposed Project would guide the development of housing per state and regional housing need projections, it would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project proposes a framework for infill development within the Foothill Central area of the City. There is the potential for future development under the Proposed Plan has the potential to replace existing housing or businesses, which may or may not
16 City of Rialto, Draft 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029), February 2023, https://www.yourrialto.com/DocumentCenter/View/3720/Rialto-6th-Cycle-Housing-Element-Update---February- 2023
17 SCAG, Adopted Final Connect SoCal 2020, May 2020
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-64
result in displacement. However, future development would be subject to individual project-level review once proposed, to mitigate and avoid displacement of people and housing. It is noted that within the Foothill Central area are vacant lots on which future development would feasibly occur that would not result in displacement of existing people or housing. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-65
XV. Public Services
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XV. Public Services. Would the project:
a) 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:
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) 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:
Fire Protection?
Police Protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other Public Facilities?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project does not involve physical construction and would not result in the need for additional provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities .
However, future buildout of the Proposed Project would result in increased demand for these services and may impact the acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services . The impacts of this cannot be determined at this level of assessment, as the location and timing of this development is unknown at this time. At the time of site-specific project review, impacts to each of these Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-66
services would be assessed according to acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services as defined by their responsible agency.
The Municipal Code provides requirements for impact fees on development projects which would be used to support the provision acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance measures for the following public services.
Fire Protection
All future development applications would be subject to a development fee to support the provision of fire protection services and facilities according to Municipal Code Section
3.33.220 Fire Protection facilities development fee:
A. Fund Established. A fire protection services development fund is established for the costs of fire protection facilities and equipment necessary or desirable to accommodate development projects.
B. Imposition of Fire Protection Services Development Fee. A fire protection services development fee shall be imposed on all development projects.
C. Use of Funds. Funds collected from fire protection services development impact fee shall be used for the following purposes.
1. Acquisition of additional property for fire protection facilities;
2. Design and construction of buildings for fire protection services and master plans;
3. Furnishing of buildings or facilities for fire protection services;
4. Purchasing of equipment and vehicles for fire protection services;
5. Costs of six months of training for fire protection trainees either at an academy or assigned to a department training officer.
All future developments would be assessed at time of site -specific project development review to determine impacts to fire services.
Police Protection
All future development applications would be subject to a development fee to support the provision of law enforcement services and facilities according to Municipal Code Section
3.33.210 Law enforcement facilities development impact fee:
A. Fund Established. A law enforcement services development fund is established for the costs of law enforcement facilities, equipment and training necessary or desirable to accommodate development projects.
B. Imposition of Law Enforcement Services Development Impact Fee. A law enforcement services development impact fee shall be imposed on all development projects.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-67
C. Use of Funds. A law enforcement services development impact fees shall be used for the following purposes:
1. Acquisition of additional property for law enforcement facilities;
2. Design and construction of buildings for law enforcement services and master plans;
3. Furnishing of buildings or facilities for law enforcement services;
4. Purchasing of equipment and vehicles for law enforcement services;
5. Costs of six months of training for police officer trainees either at an academy or assigned to a department training officer.
The adopted General Plan includes the following goal related to providing adequate law enforcement services:
Goal 5-8: Provide effective and comprehensive policing services that meet the safety needs of Rialto.
Policy 5 -8.1: Provide timely responses to emergency and non -emergency call for service 24 hours a day, per the City standards.
All future developments would be assessed at time of site-specific project development review to determine impacts to law enforcement services.
Parks
All future development applications would be subject to a development fee to support the provision of open space facilities according to Municipal Code Section 3.33.150 Parks and recreation development impact fees:
A. Fund Established. A parks and recreation development impact fund is established for the costs of providing park and recreation facilities necessary to accommodate new residential development projects, including any required acquisition of land.
B. Imposition of Park and Recreation Development Impact Fee. A parks and recreation development impact fee shall be imposed on all residential development projects, new manufactured or mobile homes located in the city and any other substantial expansion of an existing residential development in the city, as a condition of city approval, in order to fund the provision of park land and recreation facilities necessary to serve such development project and mobile homes at established city service level standards within a reasonable period of time.
C. Use of Funds. Funds collected from parks and recreation development impact fee shall be used for the following purposes:
1. Acquisition of additional property for park and recreation facilities;
2. Design and construction of recreational facilities, including turf, landscaping, buildings, structures and other amenities for park and recreation purposes and master plans;
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-68
3. Furnishing of buildings or public facilities for park and recreational purposes;
4. Purchasing of equipment and vehicles for park and recreational purposes.
All future developments would be assessed at time of site -specific project development review to determine impacts to parks and recreational facilities.
Other Public Facilities
In addition, the Municipal Code contains development impact fee provisions for sewage collection facilities, sewage treatment facilities, domestic and recycled water facilities, and storm drains under Section 3.33.240 through 3.33.270. In addition, general municipal facilities and library facilities are covered under Section 3.33.190 and 3.33.200.
Therefore, at a programmatic level, the Proposed Project would have less than significant impacts on the need for expanded or new public services and therefore would not result in environmental impacts.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-69
XVI. Recreation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVI. Recreation.
a) Would the project increase the use
of existing neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational facilities
such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would
occur or be accelerated?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Does the project include
recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would not result in physical construction that would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or recreational facilities. However, f uture development would result in the reallocation of regional population growth into the Foothill Central Area, which has the potential to increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities. As noted above in XV. Public Services threshold (a), future buildout of the Proposed Project may result in increased use of these facilities and therefore, may result in the physical deterioration of the facility. However, as the timing of actual buildout of site-specific projects cannot be anticipated at this time, at a programmatic level, there would be less than significant impacts. At the time of site - specific proposal, the project would be reviewed for potential impacts to these facilities.
Mitigation Measures: None
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?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project does not propose new recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-70
XVII. Transportation
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVII. Transportation. Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan,
ordinance or policy addressing the
circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian
facilities?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines §15064.3,
subdivision (b)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due
to a geometric design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency
access? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The planned mobility network for the Plan Area is designed to serve all travel modes and will consist of roadways and dedicated facilities that serve pedestrians, cyclists, transit, and private vehicles. The Plan Area’s mobility network has been developed in accordance with the policies in the City’s General Plan, projects identified in the 2018 SBCTA Non - Motorized Transportation Plan, and recommendations from the draft 2020 Active Transportation Plan. Relevant mobility strategies from the 2020 SCAG Connect SoCal Plan have also been identified to enhance connectivity throughout the Plan Area, with an emphasis on alternate modes of transportation. The purpose of new or enhanced facilities is to improve the existing pedestrian and bicycle experience through in creased safety and comfort.
In addition to strategies provided in the Specific Plan, the City has identified a number of projects to improve local roadways, walkability, pedestrian safety, and streetscapes within the Plan Area. Some projects are part of the City’s Capital Improvement Projects and Pavement Management Plan, while others ha ve been identified in the SBCTA Non - Motorized Transportation Plan and the 2010 General Plan.
Impact: Less than Significant.
The Specific Plan would be in alignment with the City’s General Plan Circulation Element and would further advance the 2020 SCAG Connect SoCal Plan and intend to make travel safe, convenient, and accessible to all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-71
and motorists of all ages and abilities. Therefore, impacts associated with plan inconsistencies would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? The Transportation Analysis Memorandum discloses impacts of the Proposed Project based on VMT in conformance with the CEQA guidelines Section 15064.3 and SB 743.
Public Resources Code section 20199, enacted pursuant to SB 743, identifies VMT as an appropriate metric for measuring transportation impacts along with the elimination of auto delay/Level of Service (LOS) for CEQA purposes statewide. VMT is defined as the “amount and distance of automobile travel attributable to a project” per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3. VMT is a measure of the use and efficiency of the transportation network as well as land uses in a region. VMT is calculated based on individual vehicle trips generated and their associated trip lengths. VMT measures the roundtrip travel for a typical weekday.
To ensure conformance with the Rialto General Plan, Rialto Municipal Code, federal and State environmental legislation, SB 743 and the Congestion Management Plan, the City of Rialto requires development projects to analyze and report on traffic and circulation impacts caused by new development or re -development. This analysis was prepared in conformance with requirements established by the City of Rialto in its Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) (October 2021, adopted by Council July 26, 2022).
A technical analysis was performed using the San Bernardino Transportation Analysis Model (SBTAM). SBTAM is a tool to estimate VMT as it models transportation system usage among land uses based on socio-economic data such as population, households, and employment. The calculation of VMT for land use projects is based on the number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle. For the purposes of the analysis, the SBTAM 2040 scenario is used to represent the General Plan buildout year of 2045.
In order to determine the Specific Plan’s potential level of impact, new SBTAM scenarios were prepared, incorporating the 2045 land use buildout projections due to Specific Plan implementation. For land use plans, which include both residential and employment uses, the appropriate analysis metric is VMT per service population, where service population is defined as the number of residents plus the number of jobs. Table 2-2 summarizes the Specific Plan’s proposed net changes in land use, which were incorporated into the traffic analysis zones (TAZs) based on the location of change areas.
Impact Analysis
In accordance with City Guidelines, the Project -generated VMT was generated from the origin-destination (OD) trip matrix from the SBTAM travel demand model and include s total VMT for all vehicle trips (i.e., passenger cars and trucks) and trip purposes, and includes the calculation of total VMT per service population (population plus employment).
As shown in Table 3-4, VMT per service population is 24.4 under existing conditions in the Plan Area and 22.1 with the addition of the Proposed Project land use changes. Under 2045 Buildout conditions, the future baseline of the adopted land use was analyzed as 23.6 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-72
VMT per service population with the proposed Project changes reducing the VMT per service population to 21.6.
Table 3-4: Proposed Foothill Boulevard and Central Area Specific Plans Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis
Existing
Study Area
Specific
Plan
Buildout
Delta
(Specific
Plan
change
minus
existing)
Total 2045
Buildout
(Adopted
Land Use)
Total 2045
Buildout
(Preferred
Alternative)
Delta
(change 2045
Adopted to
2045
Preferred)
Population 24,894 28,427 3,533 30,970 34,503 3,533
Employment 6,276 7,895 1,719 6,218 7,937 1,719
Total VMT 757,999 802,308 44,310 876,958 918,731 41,774 VMT/Service
Population
24.4 22.1 (2.3) 23.6 21.6 (2.0)
City guidelines state a project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if either of the following conditions are satisfied:
1. The baseline project generated VMT per service population exceeds the San Bernardino County regional average baseline of 32.7VMT per service population, or
2. The cumulative project generated VMT per service population exceeds the San Bernardino County regional average baseline of 32.7 VMT per service population As shown in Table 3-4 above, the proposed Specific Plan would not exceed the City’s threshold of significance for VMT. Based on the results, it is determined that the FGPU would have less than significant transportation impacts related to VMT, and no mitigation would be required.
Impact: Less than Significant
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Impact: Less than Significant.
The Proposed Project would accommodate all modes of transportation through the network included in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan does not propose any changes to the City’s network within the Plan Area ; only consolidate s other plans and planned improvements already contemplated. As the Specific Plan is implemented through development project and capital improvements, the design of roadways in the Planning Area would be required to conform with applicable state and City design criteria which contain p rovisions to minimize roadway hazards. Compliance with these standards and design to the satisfaction of the City Engineer would avoid impacts related to roadway hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, impacts related to hazardous design features would be less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-73
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Impact: Less than Significant.
The City has adopted access standards in its Zoning Ordinance to address potential emergency access issues. Future development proposed in conformance with the Specific Plan would be required to comply with these regulations when designing emergency access to the future residential, commercial, and industrial sites. Thus, compliance with the City Municipal Code would preclude inadequate emergency access issues.
Implementation of the Specific Plan would maintain the existing circulation patterns within the Plan A rea. The roadway configurations would maintain access and connectivity throughout the Planning Area, allowing for multiple routes for emergency travel. Buildout within the Planning Area would result in a greater number of trips on local roadways than in the existing condition, as shown in Table 3-5; however, no change in LOS would result from implementation of the Specific Plan.
Table 3-5: Proposed Foothill Boulevard and Central Area Specific Plans Roadway Segment Volumes
Segment
Existing ADT
Volumes
Future Year with SP
Project ADT Volumes
ADT
Volume
Service
Level
ADT
Volume
Service
Level
1 Foothill Blvd between Willow Ave & Riverside Ave 24,195 <C 30,980 C 2 Foothill Blvd between Riverside Ave & Sycamore Ave 24,745 <C 31,130 C 3 Rialto Ave west of Riverside Ave 4,756 <C 7,820 <C
4 Rialto Ave east of Riverside Ave 4,008 <C 7,670 <C
5 Merrill Ave west of Riverside Ave 8,989 <C 12,420 <C
6 Merrill Ave east of Riverside Ave 9,968 <C 12,080 <C
7 Cedar Ave north of Foothill Blvd 19,344 <C 26,180 <C
8 Cedar Ave south of Foothill Blvd 23,330 <C 31,570 <C
9 Cactus Ave north of Foothill Blvd 12,173 <C 16,400 <C 10 Cactus Ave south of Foothill Blvd 12,824 <C 17,380 <C 11 Willow Ave north of Foothill Blvd 6,473 <C 9,280 <C
12 Willow Ave south of Foothill Blvd 6,729 <C 10,173 <C 13 Riverside Ave between Etiwanda Ave & Foothill Blvd 18,508 <C 24,940 <C 14 Riverside Ave between Foothill Blvd & Rialto Ave 18,391 <C 24,190 <C 15 Riverside Ave between Rialto Ave & Merrill Ave 20,001 <C 25,560 <C 16 Sycamore Ave north of Foothill Blvd 5,279 <C 6,160 <C 17 Sycamore Ave south of Foothill Blvd 7,188 <C 10,910 C 18 Acacia Ave north of Foothill Blvd 3,473 <C 3,140 <C
19 Acacia Ave south of Foothill Blvd 4,907 <C 4,830 <C
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-74
Segment
Existing ADT
Volumes
Future Year with SP
Project ADT Volumes
ADT
Volume
Service
Level
ADT
Volume
Service
Level
20 Eucalyptus Ave north of Foothill Blvd 2,947 <C 3,790 <C 21 Eucalyptus Ave south of Foothill Blvd 4,559 <C 5,860 <C 22 Pepper Ave north of Foothill Blvd 16,602 <C 19,430 <C 23 Pepper Ave south of Foothill Blvd 17,757 <C 19,080 <C
Adherence to the City’s access requirements would avoid potentially significant traffic hazard or emergency access issues. Impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-75
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XVIII. Tribal Cultural Resources.
a) Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources
Code §21074 as either a site, feature,
place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the
size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American
tribe, and that is:
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k), or
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
ii) A resource determined by the
lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant to criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code §5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resource
Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the
resource to a California Native
American tribe.
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i. Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
ii. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-76
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated In accordance with AB52 and SB18, tribal consultation letters were drafted by the City of Rialto and distributed to the identified 29 tribal representatives by email on July 13, 2023, and revised on July 26, 2023. This letter formally invited tribal representatives to consult on the proposed Rialto Specific Plan Project.
Lorrie Gregory of the Cahuilla Band of Indians, responded by email on July 26, 2023, and requested that the Tribe be notified of any discovery of ancestral cultural resources as well as any cultural materials associated with the pro ject. Jamie Nord of the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation , responded by email on August 3, 2022, and requested that the Mitigation Measures listed below be included. Xitlaly Madrigal of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, responded by email on August 15 , 2023, and deferred to other tribes in the area as the Project is not located withing the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area.
Documentation of correspondence with the identified tribal representatives is provided in Appendix A.2. As of the drafting of this document, no tribal cultural resources have been identified during consultation.
Mitigation Measures:
Applications for future development shall be required to comply with the following mitigation framework:
MM-CUL-1: In the event that cultural resources are discovered during project activities, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards shall be hired to asse ss the find. Work on the other portions of the project outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. Additionally, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detaile d within TCR -1, regarding any pre -contact and/or historic -era finds and be provided information after the archaeologist makes his/her initial assessment of the nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
MM-CUL-2: If significant pre-contact and/or historic-era cultural resources, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), are discovered and avoidance cannot be ensured, the archaeologist shall develop a Monitoring and Treatment Plan, the drafts of which shall be provided to YSMN for review and comment, as detailed within TCR-1. The archaeologist shall monitor the remainder of the project and implement the Plan accordingly.
MM-CUL-3: If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any activities associated with the project, work in the immediate vicinity (within a 100-foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to State Health an d Safety Code §7050.5 and that code enforced for the duration of the project.
MM-TCR-1: The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, as detailed in CUL -1, of any pre -contact cultural resources discovered during project implementation, and be provided information regarding the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-77
nature of the find, so as to provide Tribal input with regards to significance and treatment.
Should the find be deemed significant, as defined by CEQA (as amended, 2015), a cultural resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be created by the archaeolo gist, in coordination with YSMN, and all subsequent finds shall be subject to this Plan. This Plan shall allow for a monitor to be present that represents YSMN for the remainder of the project, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.
MM-TCR-2: Any and all archaeological/cultural documents created as a part of the project (isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, etc.) shall be supplied to the applicant and Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency and/or applicant shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the life of the project.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-78
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XIX. Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation
or construction of new or expanded
water, wastewater treatment or storm
water drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications facilities,
the construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry and
multiple dry years?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider, which
serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition
to the provider’s existing
commitments?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of
state or local standards, or in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and
local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Impact: Less than Significant
As noted, the Proposed Project would not result in physical construction that would result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities. However, future development would be reviewed by the City on a site-specific basis to assess impacts to utilities.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-79
Domestic Water
As noted in X. Hydrology and Water Quality, the City’s potable water supply is served by three water agencies: the City of Rialto Department of Public Works Water Division, the West Valley Water District (WVWD), and the Fontana Water Company (FWC), as shown in Exhibit 3-2 of the adopted General Plan. Per the 2020 IRUWMP, the City is conducting a Water Master Plan to identify necessary upgrades to its water distribution system. These projects are intended to increase the reliability of the City’s system and are not intended to create new sources of supply. Development under the Proposed Project would connect to existing water infrastructure within the Foothill Central Area and not require relocation or construction of new or expanded water infrastructure. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact from relocation or construction of domestic water infrastructure at a programmatic level.
Other Utilities
Development under the Proposed Project can be anticipated to connect to existing wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunications facilities infrastructure within the Foothill Central Area and not require relocation or construction of new or expanded infrastructure. However, each proposed development would be reviewed by the City and undergo its project specific assessment of the need for relocation or construction of new or expanded utilities.
Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact from relocation or construction of infrastructure at a programmatic level.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? Impact: Less than Significant
A Water Supply Assessment (WSA) was prepared for the Proposed Project (Appendix B.5). The WSA was developed to assist in determining if water supplies will be sufficient to meet the Proposed Project’s water demands, in addition to the City’s existing and other planned and anticipated future water uses. The WSA calculated water demands for the Proposed Project by using the updated land uses and dwelling densities. This assessment found that the City’s water supplies are sufficient to meet the projected water demand of the Proposed Project, in addition to the City’s existing and other planned and anticipated future water uses. Refer to Tables 8.1-8.3 in Appendix B.5 for a detailed assessment.
Therefore, impacts to water supply would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Rialto Water Service provides wastewater service to the City. The Proposed Project would not result in physical construction, and therefore, would have a less than significant Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-80
impact. According to the 2021 IRUWMP, all wastewater flows from the City are collected by the City's local sewer mains and delivered to the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWTP). The RWTP is permitted for 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd) of treatment capacity and treats an average of seven mgd as of 2020. It is estimated that approximately 43% or three mgd of the wastewater collected at the RWTP was generated within Rialto’s water service area in 2020. As there is adequate capacity above current demand , there would be adequate capacity to serve future projects under the Proposed Project during this programmatic level of analysis and there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project would not result in physical construction. Proposed residential and commercial uses would not generate waste in excess of state or local standards or in excess of local landfill capacity. The City of Rialto is served by Mid -Valley Sanitary Landfill located within the City limits, which has a remaining capacity of 61.2 million tons through 2045.
Goal 2-34 of the adopted General Plan would require that maximum waste recycling is achieved in all sectors of the community including residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and construction. Waste generated by f uture residential and commercial construction and operation would be subject to local regulations for waste recycling and disposal at a local landfill. In addition, development under the Proposed Project would be subject to consistency with Goal 3 -10 “Minimize the volume of solid waste that enters local and regional landfills” and its associated policies under the adopted General Plan to reduce waste generation.
The City of Rialto’s solid waste management is provided by Burrtec Waste Industries.
Burrtec has a Construction and Demolition (C&D) program that assists in diverting C&D materials from local landfills. This helps the City of Rialto in meeting the State requirement of diverting 65% of C&D materials from local landfills.
Compliance with t he goals, programs, and policies listed above would ensure that additional proposed residential and commercial capacity in the Plan Area would not impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Impact: Less than Significant
The Proposed Project is a development framework; however, future development under the Proposed Project would be subject to federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-81
The California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) established a solid waste management process that requires cities and other local jurisdictions to adopt and implement plans to reduce the amount of solid waste generated within their jurisdiction and to maximize reuse and recycling.
The Short-lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act of 2016 (SB 1383) places requirements on such entities as cities, residential households, commercial businesses , and business owners to support achievement of statewide organic waste disposal reduction targets.
As noted above in threshold (d), new residential and commercial development under the Proposed Project would be subject to local regulations for waste recycling and disposal. In addition to the goals and policies referenced in (d), Goal 2-34 and its associated policies of the adopted General Plan relates to recycling: “Achieve waste recycling levels that meet or exceed State mandates. Achieve maximum waste recycling in all sectors of the community:
residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and con struction.” Future development under the Proposed Project would be reviewed for consistency with adopted General Plan goals and policies.
Therefore, future development under the Proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on compliance with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-82
XX. Wildfire
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XX. Wildfire. If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from
a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Require the installation or
maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel
breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Expose people or structures to
significant risks, including
downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Impact: Less than Significant
As detailed under IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials threshold (f), the Proposed Project would not substantially impair a n adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As noted in IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials threshold (g), the Foothill Central area is not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHZ) 18. Exhibit 5.3 Fire Hazards in the adopted General Plan also displays moderate to very high local responsibility areas (LRA s) and state
18 Office of the State Fire Marshal, Fire Hazard Severity Zones, https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/divisions/community- wildfire-preparedness-and-mitigation/wildfire-preparedness/fire-hazard-severity-zones/, Accessed March 17, 2023 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-83
responsibility areas (SRA s) only within the Lytle Creek Ranch area. Transportation corridors within the Foothill Central area would not be substantially impaired by a potential wildfire in the Lytle Creek Ranch area. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Impact: No Impact
Buildout of the Specific Plan would not exacerbate wildfire risks within the Plan area. All future development consistent with the Proposed Project would be subject to requirements that would minimize wildfire risks, including State Fire Code and local building code. The Proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Impact: No Impact
The Proposed Project provides a framework for future residential and commercial development within the Foothill Central area. It would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure. These needs would be assessed during project specific review but is not anticipated to be needed as this is an urbanized area. Connections to existing infrastructure or utilities would be the most likely scenario for future development. Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Impact: No Impact
As noted under VII. Geology and Soils threshold (a), there is no mention of a risk of landslides in the adopted General Plan for the Foothill Central Area. The Foothill Central Area is not in proximity to any visible sizable slopes nor is it located in a landslide zone as mapped by the Department of Conservation. The Foothill Central area is located in a relatively flat, urbanized area and is far enough away from the slopes of the Lytle Creek Ranch area that the Proposed Project would not expose people or structures to post -fire slope risks. Future development would be subject to design requirements for drainage and grading and would not expose people or structures to the risks of downstream flooding or landslides for the reasons stated.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-84
Therefore, there is no impact.
Mitigation Measures: None
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-85
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
a) Does the project have the potential
to substantially degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or
prehistory?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed
in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.)
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Does the project have
environmental effects which would
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
As described in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, the proposed Specific Plan would have no direct impact on biological resources, and future improvements envisioned in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-86
Specific Plan would be subject to applicable federal, state, and local regulations that protect such resources, as well as to further CEQA review of project -level impacts. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure the future development on vacant properties where sensitive resources could be present, c onduct a site-specific general biological reconnaissance survey to identify the presence of resources and any potential impacts and mitigation that would be required. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would also ensure that any trees removed during implementation of future projects would have a less than significant impact on nesting birds.
Similarly, as described in subsection 3.5, Cultural Resources, the proposed Specific Plan would have no direct impact on prehistoric or historic resources and future improvements envisioned in the Specific Plan would be subject to mitigation measures CUL -1 through CUL-4 as well as further CEQA review of project -level impacts, which would ensure proper treatment of any resources unearthed during construction. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measure CUL-1, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: MM-BIO-1, BIO-2, CUL-1, CUL-2, AND CUL-3. 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.) Impact: Less than Significant.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(a) states that a Lead Agency shall consider whether the cumulative impact of a project is significant and whether the effects of the project are cumulatively considerable. The assessment of the significance of the cumulative effects of a project must, therefore, be conducted in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects.
As described in the impact analyses in Sections I through XX above, a majority of potential impacts to resources are less than significant and would not require mitigation measures to reduce impacts. To biological and cultural resources, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Due to the nature of the Proposed Project and consistency with environmental policies, incremental contributions to impacts are considered less than cumulatively considerable. The Proposed Project would no t contribute substantially to adverse cumulative conditions, or create any substantial indirect impacts (i.e., increase in population could lead to an increased need for housing, increase in traffic, air pollutants, etc.).
All other pending, approved, and completed projects in the vicinity of the Proposed Project would be subject to review in separate environmental documents and required to conform to the X City Development Code, mitigate for project -specific impacts, and provide appropriate engineering to ensure the development meets all applicable federal, State, and local regulations and codes . As currently designed, and by complying with applicable codes and regulations, the Proposed Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact.
Thus, the cumulative impacts of pending, approved, and completed projects would be less than cumulatively considerable and therefore less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
3-87
Mitigation Measures: None
c) Does the project have environmental effects which would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Impact: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Construction of future development consistent with the proposed Specific Plan would have the potential to cause adverse environmental impacts related to air quality and hazardous materials. Although the Plan itself does not include development and construction, it would provide a guide to future development of the Foothill Central area. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mandates compliance with all required regulations and laws that would reduce potential impacts to air quality and hazardous materials.
Mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ -2 would minimize potential construction emissions impacts to nearby sensitive receptors within the Plan Area. Further, the Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 included in this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration requires the preparation of a Phase I Initial Site Assessment for sites that may encounter hazardous materials during construction. Additionally, future developments and improvements would be required to complete project -specific CEQA review that would analy ze project-level impacts and would likely include mitigation measures that would address site -specific impacts. This would ensure minimization of substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Therefore, with the incorporation of the proposed and future miti gation measures, the proposed Specific Plan would not result in environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects on human beings.
Mitigation Measures: MM-AQ-1, AQ-2, and HAZ-1.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
4-1
4.0 MITIGATION, MONITORING, AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
Environmental Issue
Responsible
Party Deliverable Complete by
Date
Completed
Resource Topic
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
5-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
WSP USA
Stephanie Whitmore
Annie Lee
RECON Environmental
Jesse Fleming
Iteris
Deepak K
Sean Daly
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-1
6.0 APPENDICES
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-2
Appendix A.1 – Notice of Availability
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-3
Appendix A.2 – AB52/SB18 Consultation
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-4
Appendix B – Technical Studies
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-5
Appendix B.1 – Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-6
Appendix B.2 – GHG Study
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-7
Appendix B.3 – Noise Study
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-8
Appendix B.4 -Transportation Analysis Memo
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Foothill Central Specific Plan Update
6-9
Appendix B.5 – Water Supply Assessment (WSA)