Exhibit F - 6th Cycle Housing Element — Rialto City Council, February 24, 2026 (part 4 of 4)

income and special needs households, by making information regularly available and considering and incorporating comments where appropriate.

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City will meet housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the County to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/OPR_Appendix_C_final.pdf and
http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Final_6.26.15.pdf.

We are committed to assisting the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Sohab Mehmood, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager
Enclosure
City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 1 December 13, 2021

APPENDIX

CITY OF RIALTO
The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml.

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Review and Revision
Review the previous element to evaluate the appropriateness, effectiveness, and progress in implementation, and reflect the results of this review in the revised element. (Gov. Code, § 65588 (a) and (b).)
The element must provide a cumulative evaluation of the effectiveness of past goals, policies, and related actions in meeting the housing needs of special needs populations (e.g., elderly, persons with disabilities, large households, female-headed households, farmworkers, and persons experiencing homelessness).

B. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A).) Enforcement: While the element briefly describes fair housing services with Inland Fair Housing and Mediation Board (IFHMB), it generally does not address this requirement. The element must include information on past or current fair housing complaints, findings, lawsuits, or judgements related to enforcement actions regarding fair housing. In addition, the element must discuss compliance with existing fair housing laws and regulations. For more information and guidance on this analysis, please visit pg. 28-30 of the HCD’s AFFH guidance memo:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4- 27-2021.pdf
Local Knowledge and Data: The element should complement federal, state, and regional data with local data and knowledge where appropriate to capture emerging trends and issues, including utilizing knowledge from local and regional advocates, public comments, and service providers.

City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 2 December 13, 2021
Other Relevant Factors: The element must include other relevant factors that contribute to fair housing issues in the jurisdiction. For instance, the element can analyze historical land use and investment practices or other information and demographic trends.

Integration and Segregation: The element provided some data on integration and segregation across racial groups and one map displaying income by census tracts.

The element must discuss and analyze this data for trends over time and patterns across census tracts. Additionally, it must evaluate patterns at a regional basis, comparing the City to the region.

High Segregation and Poverty: TCAC/HCD opportunity maps indicate that the City has two areas considered high segregation and poverty in the center of the City. The element must analyze all of these census tracts for trends and patterns and consider other relevant factors, local data and knowledge and evaluate factors that contributed to the conditions of these areas.

Access to Opportunity: While the element provided a general analysis of opportunity areas, and high-level conclusions about the City’s disparities in access to opportunity, it must independently analyze trends and patterns related to access to educational and economic opportunities. Additionally, the element must evaluate patterns at a regional basis and compare those to conditions at the local level.

Disproportionate Housing Needs and Displacement: The element must provide an analysis of trends and patterns related to people experiencing homelessness at a local and regional level. The element deferred to an at-risk analysis of affordable housing as a way to analyze displacement risk. The element should consider and analyze additional data. For example, UC Berkeley’s Urban Displacement Project indicates that there are several census tracts in the middle of the City with people vulnerable to displacement.

Sites Inventory: The element concludes that the sites inventory does not exacerbate existing fair housing conditions, however the analysis clearly demonstrates that the sites will either maintain the status quo of fair housing conditions or further worsen areas already experiencing several fair housing issues including income and racial segregation and limited access to opportunities. For example:
• Race – Figure 3-16 of the element illustrates that all of the City’s lowerincome RHNA has been identified in areas with the highest percentages of Hispanic population, while no lower-income sites and majority moderate and above moderate sites have been identified in census tracts with the lowest Hispanic population.
• Income – Figure 3-18 illustrates that majority of the above and moderate RHNA sites are identified in areas with the least percentage of low to moderate income households while no lower-income sites are identified in these census tracts.
• Access to Opportunity – Figure 3-21 displays that no lower-income units were identified in the City’s high resourced census tracts while all lower-income City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 3 December 13, 2021
sites were identified in most of the City’s low resourced areas and areas of high segregation and poverty.

The element must include further analysis, strong reasoning, and accurate conclusions about the location of sites and its impact on current fair housing conditions (e.g., isolating lower-income sites in low resourced areas and moderate to above moderate in high resourced, high income areas). Further, if the inventory continues to isolate the RHNA for lower income households in central areas, the element must have commensurate programs with strong place-based strategies for community revitalization and new opportunities in higher opportunity areas (beyond RHNA) to result in an equitable quality of life and affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) throughout the City.

Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors: The element did not provide a conclusion of fair housing issues. The element should list and identify fair housing issues as a result of the analysis. Additionally, the element did not sufficiently identify, describe, and prioritize contributing factors. For example, the element listed R/ECAP, low resourced census tracts, and the City’s availability to meet their RHNA as contributing factors, however, these are not contributing factors. For more information and guidance, please visit pages 49-56 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf Goals, Actions, Metrics and Milestones: The element identified few actions to address AFFH including continuing to work with the Inland Fair Housing Board and reviewing historic policies. These actions do not include specific commitments, address fair housing issues, and meaningfully overcome contributing factors. At minimum, programs must enhance housing mobility, provide new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, and place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization. Additionally, programs and actions must create meaningful impact in addressing a jurisdiction’s fair housing issues. Furthermore, the element must include metrics and milestones for targeting meaningful change and evaluating progress on programs, actions, and fair housing results. For more information and guidance, please visit pages 72-74 of HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo:
https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27- 2021.pdf

2. Include an analysis and documentation of household characteristics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(2).) Housing Stock Conditions: While the element identifies the age of the housing stock (p. 2-28), it must quantify the number of units in need of major rehabilitation and replacement. For example, the analysis could include estimates from a recent windshield survey or sampling, estimates from the code enforcement agency, or information from knowledgeable builders/developers, including non-profit housing developers or organizations.

City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 4 December 13, 2021

3. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).) The City has a RHNA of 8,272 housing units, of which, 3,424 are for lower-income households. To address this need, the element relies on vacant and nonvacant sites, including sites in Specific Plan Areas and within the Mixed-Use Overlay area, ADUs, and pipeline projects. To demonstrate the adequacy of these sites and strategies to accommodate the City’s RHNA, the element must include complete analyses:

Realistic Capacity: The element states that the City is assuming 50-80 percent of the maximum allowable density, however the inventory indicates that for sites where the buildable and gross acreage is the same (e.g., no deductions on site acreage for constraints), the element assumed that units will be developed at the maximum allowable density. The element must demonstrate specific trends, factors, and other evidence led to the assumptions or adjust assumptions as appropriate. Additionally, the estimate of the number of units for each site must be adjusted as necessary, based on the land use controls and site improvements, typical densities of existing or approved residential developments at a similar affordability level. Lastly, the element identifies sites within commercial and mixed-use zones where the current zoning allows for 100 percent nonresidential uses (commercial, industrial, etc.,). To demonstrate realistic capacity on these sites, the element must analyze and account for the likelihood of residential development in the zones that allow 100 percent nonresidential uses. The analysis should be based on factors such as development trends, performance standards or other relevant factors.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: The element identifies nonvacant sites to accommodate a portion of the regional housing need for households of all incomes.

While the element includes general statements such as “developer interest” and sites are “underutilized,” this alone is not adequate to demonstrate the suitability of these sites. A complete analysis should describe the methodology used to determine the additional development potential within the planning period. The methodology must consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may impede additional residential development, development trends, market conditions, and regulatory or other incentives or standards to encourage additional residential development on these sites. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g).) For nonresidential sites, the inventory could also describe whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, and the condition of the structure or could describe any expressed interest in redevelopment.

In addition, if the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the housing element must demonstrate that the existing use is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period. This can be demonstrated by City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 5 December 13, 2021
providing substantial evidence that the existing use is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).) Specific Plans: The element identifies several specific plan areas to accommodate the City’s RHNA and that some of these plans have been entitled for a certain number of units. To utilize residential capacity in Specific Plans, the element must:
• Indicate whether suitable sites have approved or pending projects or are suitable for development in the planning period.
• If projects are approved or pending, describe the status of the project, including any necessary approvals or steps prior to development, development agreements, conditions, or requirements such as phasing or timing requirements that impact development in the planning period, and the affordability of the project’s units based on anticipated rents, sales prices, or other mechanisms (e.g., financing, affordability restrictions) ensuring their affordability.
• For suitable sites without pending or approved projects, the element must list sites by parcel number or unique reference, size, general plan designation, zoning and include a calculation of the realistic capacity of each site. The element must also include an analysis of any requirements such as phasing or timing requirements that impact development in the planning period and large sites, if applicable, with policies and programs.

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): The element is projecting 128 ADUs for an average of 16 ADUs per year during the planning period to accommodate a portion of its RHNA. The City’s Annual Progress Reports (APR) shows no records of ADU permits in 2018 and 2020 and one ADU permitted in 2019. The City’s past performance on permitting ADUs do not support a sixteen-fold increase. The element should reconcile these figures and adjust assumptions based on a realistic estimate of the potential for ADUs and include strong policies and programs that commit to incentivizing ADUs. Additionally, while the element can use ADU applications to support projecting ADU production beyond what was actually permitted, it cannot solely rely on ADU applications to make projection assumptions.

Depending on the analysis, the element must commit to monitor ADU production and affordability throughout the course of the planning period and implement additional actions if not meeting target numbers anticipated in the housing element.

If necessary, additional actions should be taken in a timely manner (e.g., within six months). The degree of additional actions should be in stride with the degree of the gap in production and affordability. For example, if actual production and affordability of ADUs is far from anticipated trends, then rezoning or something similar would be an appropriate action. If actual production and affordability is near anticipated trends, then measures like outreach and marketing might be more appropriate.

Electronic Sites Inventory: Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.3, subdivision (b), the City must utilize standards, forms, and definitions adopted by HCD when preparing the sites inventory. Please see HCD’s housing element webpage at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housingelement/index.shtml for a copy of the form and instructions. The City can reach out City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 6 December 13, 2021
to HCD at [email protected] for technical assistance. Please note, upon adoption of the housing element, the City must submit an electronic version of the sites inventory with its adopted housing element to [email protected].

Environmental Constraints: While the element includes a general description of various environmental constraints related to earthquakes, fires, and flood, it must describe how these conditions relate to identified sites including any known environmental constraints within the City that could impact housing development in the planning period. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (b).) For additional information and sample analysis, see the Building Blocks at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/building-blocks/site-inventory-analysis/analysis-of-sites-andzoning.shtml#environmental.

Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types (Emergency Shelters): While the element identifies the I-P zone for emergency shelters, it should also analyze the suitability and capacity of the I-P zone to meet the need for emergency shelters. For example, the element should identify the number of parcels, typical parcel sizes, available acreage, whether sites are underutilized, and any potential for reusing existing buildings to emergency shelters. The element should also discuss proximity to transit and services and any known hazardous conditions unfit for human habitation.

4. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures... (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)
Land-Use Controls: The element must identify and analyze all relevant land use controls impacts as potential constraints on a variety of housing types. The analysis should analyze land use controls independently and cumulatively with other land use controls. The analysis should specifically address requirements related to parking, minimum lot sizes, and open space requirements. Specifically, the element indicates that a minimum of two parking spaces is required and concluded that while parking requirements may be a constraint, developers can receive reductions per density bonus law. However, the element should include programs to address constraints on development regardless of the availability of reductions under density bonus law.

Secondly, the R-3 and PRD-A zone requires a minimum lot size of 1 acre, and Foothill Specific Plan and PRD-D requires a minimum lot size of 3-5 acres. The element also states that the PRD-D zone minimum unit size is determined by planning commission. Both provisions appear to be a constraint. The analysis should address any impacts on cost, supply, housing choice, affordability, timing, approval certainty and ability to achieve maximum densities and include programs to address identified constraints.

Population Density: The element lists densities based on population density per acre as well as dwelling units per acre (p. 3-6). The element must analyze how the City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 7 December 13, 2021
population density requirement is determined for a project, how it interacts with the dwelling unit per acre standard, and weather it acts as a development cap for proposed projects.

Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element included information on the type of permit application and whether a public hearing is required, it should also describe the procedures for a typical single-family and multifamily development. The analysis should address the approval body, the number of public hearings, if any, approval findings, design review requirements and any other relevant information.

The analysis should address impacts on housing cost, supply, timing, and approval certainty. Additionally, the element states that a conditional use permit (CUP) is required for multifamily housing of five or more units in multifamily zones (e.g., R-3 zone). The element must specifically analyze the CUP process as a potential constraint on housing supply and affordability. The analysis should identify findings of approval for the CUP and their impact on development approval certainty, timing, and cost. The element must include a program to address and remove or mitigate the CUP requirement.

On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element states that on/off site improvements include curb, gutters, sidewalks, etc., the element should include information on actual standards and typical improvements required. Additionally, it should further identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths (e.g., 40-foot minimum street width) and analyze their impact as potential constraints on housing supply and affordability.

Local Ordinances: The element must specifically analyze any locally adopted ordinances such as inclusionary ordinances or short-term rental ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities:
• Reasonable Accommodation: The element states that the City’s reasonable accommodation approval findings include “impact on surrounding uses.” The element should analyze this reasonable accommodation finding for constraints on housing for persons with disabilities and revise programs to address identified constraints.
• Family Definition: The element should also describe and analyze any definition of family used in zoning and land use.
• Residential Care Facilities for Six or fewer and Seven or More Persons: The element must describe how the City defines and permits group homes of six of fewer and seven or more persons. For your information, group homes with six or fewer should be treated no differently than other by-right single-family housing uses and must be allowed in all residential zones. Additionally, group homes of 7 or more should not be excluded from residential zones or treated differently than other similar uses.

5. An analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 8 December 13, 2021
including the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, the requests to develop housing at densities below those anticipated in the analysis required by subdivision (c) of Government Code section 65583.2, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits for that housing development that hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove nongovernmental constraints that create a gap between the locality’s planning for the development of housing for all income levels and the construction of that housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(6).)
Requests for Lower Density, Permit Times, and Efforts to Address Nongovernmental Constraints: The element must analyze (1) requests to develop housing at densities below those identified in the inventory, (2) the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits, and (3) any local efforts to address or mitigate nongovernmental constraints such as reduced fees, financing for affordable housing or expedited processes. The analysis should address any hinderances on the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need and programs should be added or modified as appropriate.

6. Analyze any special housing needs such as elderly; persons with disabilities, including a developmental disability; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergency shelter. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(7).)
Special Needs Households: While the element includes data and a general discussion of housing challenges faced by special needs households, it still must provide an analysis of the existing needs and resources for each special need group including seniors, female headed households, large householders, extremely lowincome households (ELI), and persons experiencing homelessness. For example, the element should discuss the existing resources to meet housing needs (availability of shelter beds, number of large units, number of deed restricted units, etc.,), an assessment of any gaps in resources, and proposed policies, programs, and funding to help address those gaps

7. Analyze existing assisted housing developments that are eligible to change to nonlow-income housing uses during the next 10 years due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of use restrictions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(9) through 65583(a)(9)(D).)
While the element includes an inventory of deed-restricted projects and analysis of at-risk units, California Housing Partnership Cooperation lists three affordable projects that were not included in the inventory. The element should include the following projects in the inventory:
• TELACU Rialto III – 74 assisted units located on 545 Bloomington Avenue • Greentree Senior Apartments – 270 assisted units on 245 East First Street City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 9 December 13, 2021
• Park Place – 30 assisted units on 310 West Jackson Street C. Housing Programs

1. Include a program which sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, which may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the Housing Element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives, and the utilization of appropriate federal and state financing and subsidy programs when available. The program shall include an identification of the agencies and officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c).)
To have a beneficial impact in the planning period and address the goals of the housing element, programs must be revised with discrete timelines. For example, several programs list specific implementation actions such as developing marketing materials and revising the zoning code but should also provide a timeline for when that action will end or the frequency of the action (where applicable). The following programs should be revised:
• Program 2C – Accessory Dwelling Unit Construction
• Program 2D – Accessory Dwelling Unit Monitoring Program • Program 2N – Small Lot Consolidation
• Program 3C – Preserve and Monitor At-Risk Units
• Program 4B - Remove Development Constraints
• Program 4C – Water and Sewer Service Providers
• Program 4D – Availability of Zoning, Development Standards, and Fees Online

2. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)
As noted in Finding B3, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 10 December 13, 2021
revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Housing Program 2B – Rezone to Provide Adequate Sites to Accommodate RHNA:

While the element includes a program committing the City to rezone sites to address a 6th cycle shortfall, the program must specifically commit to rezoning pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). Specifically, the program must commit to:
• permit owner-occupied and rental multifamily uses by-right for developments in which 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower-income households. By-right means local government review must not require a CUP, planned unit development permit, or other discretionary review or approval; • accommodate a minimum of 16 units per site;
• require a minimum density of 16/20 units per acre; and • at least 50 percent of the lower-income need must be accommodated on sites designated for residential use only or on sites zoned for mixed uses that accommodate all of the very low and low-income housing need, if those sites:
o allow 100 percent residential use, and
o require residential use occupy 50 percent of the total floor area of a mixed-use project.

City-owned Sites: The element identified several city-owned sites to accommodate a portion of the RHNA including parking lot lots for Metrolink stations. The City should consider including a program that ensures compliance with the Surplus Land Act, provides incentives and actions along with a schedule to facilitate development of City-owned sites. Actions could include outreach with developers, issuing requests for proposals, incentives, fee waivers, priority processing and financial assistance.

Proposed Housing Overlay: The element states that the City is considering implementing an overlay to increase densities and/or allow for residential uses. If the element is proposing an overlay where the underlying zoning allows for nonresidential uses, the element should include a program that commits to sufficient incentives (beyond State Density Bonus Law) to assure the intended residential uses and affordability.

4. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities. The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).) As noted in Findings B4 and B5, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Draft Housing Element Page 11 December 13, 2021

6. Promote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)
As noted in Finding A1, the element does not include a complete Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH). Depending on a complete analysis, the element will need to add and revise programs as appropriate.

E. Public Participation
Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(8).) While the element described various efforts to achieve public participation in the preparation of the housing element update, the element should also describe how comments were considered and incorporated into the element.

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Darrell K. Moore, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Powell Jr., President
Erica Alfaro, Esq., Vice
President
Goushia Farook, Esq.,
Secretary
Christina Perez, Treasurer
Daniel Aguilar
David P. Colella, Esq.

Rebecca Eckley, Esq.

Bob Garcia
Andrew R. Morand, Esq.

Julie D. Neal, Esq.

Elaine S. Rosen, Esq.

Steven R. Weber, Esq.

ICLS is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation
IRS Tax ID 95-6124556
Donations are welcome.

Senior Line: 800.977.4257
Toll Free: 888.245.4257
InlandLegal.org

SENT VIA EMAIL
May 27, 2022
Siri Champion ([email protected])
Paul Gonzalez ([email protected])
City of Rialto, Community Development Planning Division 150 S. Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Re: City of Rialto’s Adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element Dear Ms. Champion and Mr. Gonzalez,
Inland Counties Legal Services (ICLS) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP) write to provide comments on the City of Rialto’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element adopted on March 8, 2022 (Adopted Element). PILP and ICLS raised many deficiencies in our earlier comments by letter of March 8, 2022, attached for ease of reference. The City submitted its adopted Sixth Cycle Housing Element to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review on April 5, 2022, without making further revisions. We now provide supplemental comments to our March 8 letter.

1. The adopted element does not provide an adequate fair housing analysis.

The City’s Adopted Element demonstrates ongoing segregation based on its reliance of 3,045 out of 4,585 lower income units within Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (adopted August 2010), which makes up 66% of the site identified to accommodate the lower-income RHNA. Adopted Element, p. 3-107. Figure 3-23 illustrates that these sites on or near Foothill Boulevard are near the lowest income and most racially concentrated areas of the city. Adopted Element, p. 3-83. Foothill Boulevard has heavy traffic, including truck traffic that causes respiratory problems, noise and more dangerous pedestrian situations for people living near the corridor. More importantly, Foothill Boulevard has areas with the highest percentage of Latinx and low resource neighborhoods in the City of Rialto. Figure 3-24, Adopted Element, p. 3-84. The Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC)/HCD opportunity map identifies two high segregation and poverty census tracts in the center of the City, as indicated in HCD’s 12/13/21 review letter. Both segregation and poverty census tracts border Foothill Boulevard. Census tract 06071003510 runs from Linden Avenue to Cactus 2 Avenue and census tract 06071003700 runs from Willow Avenue to Sycamore Avenue. The Adopted Element also explains that Census tract 06071003510 is largely made up of industrial and commercial uses with about a quarter of the area made up of a mixture of single‐family and multi‐family residential. Adopted Element, p. 3-64. Census tract 06071003700, in Downtown Rialto, includes the City Hall, downtown commercial uses, schools, a community center, industrial uses adjacent to the railroad, and some multi‐family residences and older single‐family residences developed in the mid‐1900s. It is also one of the oldest tracts in the City. Adopted Element, p. 3-64. The analysis in the Adopted Element should reflect the fact that the conditions within these two tracts contribute to segregation and poverty and include specific actions on how to transform them into areas of opportunity.

Program 5A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing further demonstrate the lack of analysis required to meet the fair housing analysis because identifies actions that the City will complete until December 2023, including “update, analyze and identify regulations that may have historically contributed to the disparities in access to housing” and “engage community health workers to conduct ground level site visits and meetings within R/ECAP census tracts to better understand resident and business barriers, resources, and needs. Adopted Element, pgs. 4-21 to 4-22.

2. The adopted element does not identify adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA.

In addition to assuming that sites will be developed at a maximum allowable density, without adequate justification, a lot of the identified sites within Foothill Boulevard are unrealistic for other reasons. For example, the element identifies non-vacant site numbers 21-25, 27, 28, 34, 51, 56, 64, 65, 67, 76, 77 where the current use is a restaurant, grocery store, or a shopping center, without an explanation of the parking requirements or whether the use will be discontinued.

Other nonvacant sites, including site numbers 11, 26, 55, and 95 contain County buildings and parking lots. Moreover, the Adopted Element identifies at least nine sites within one of the two high segregation and poverty census tracts, including site numbers 4, 5, 14, 16, 26, 30, 42, 68, and 70.

The Adopted Element’s fails to provide adequate justification and analysis for relying on more than 50 percent of its lower income RHNA on non-vacant sites, especially considering that site numbers 7, 12, 50, and 71 are all non-vacant parcels that are adjacent to vacant lots that are not included in the housing inventory at all. See below stie numbers 7, 12, 50, and 71 respectively.

The City has easy options to designate such non-vacant sites for lower-income housing, yet chooses to designate sites with existing uses that are not likely to be available during the planning period.
3 4
In addition to vacant sites adjacent to non-vacant sites, as described above, other opportunity areas can be found in the Pepper Specific Plan and Lytle Creek Specific Plan. Lytle Creek Specific Plan, north of Foothill Boulevard and the 210 freeway, is a higher resource area. The City can restore better transit options near Lytle Creek to create more opportunities. Also north of Foothill Boulevard, is the Pepper Specific Plan, where it appears there is vacant land to accommodate lower income RHNA. Moreover, adjacent to the Pepper Specific Plan area, the City can look for opportunity areas around Frisbie Park. For example, the City owns a 3-acre parcel (013336101) in the Frisbie Park area, currently used as a parking lot. This site would be a good candidate site to rezone and accommodate lower income RHNA. See site below.

The Adopted Element does not inventory this and other City owned sites, despite the directive of Section 65583.2(a) to include such sites in the inventory, and the suitability of such sites for residential development during the planning period. See our March 8, 2022 letter, p. 6 regarding 5 the failure to describe the City’s intentions to dispose of sites that it owns. Furthermore, Program 2S in the Adopted Element promises to inventory City owned sites does not substitute for the requirement to include such sites in the inventory.

3. The City should complete its program to annex remaining unincorporated islands within Rialto.

Without explanation, the City discontinued their commitment from the Fifth Cycle Housing Element Four Year Revision in 2019 (Program 5.2D) to pursue annexation of five out of nine unincorporated islands within the city. See Adopted Element, p. A-12. In the fifth cycle, the City had committed to Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) that it would annex the remaining unincorporated islands from San Bernardino County. LAFCO had conditioned the approval of two neighborhoods within the Lytle Creek Specific Plan on City’s annexation of these remaining unincorporated islands. Having committed to annex unincorporated islands from San Bernardino County, the City should complete these actions, which can also provide opportunities to accommodate the lower income RHNA. For example, Island number 4 on the LAFCO map below includes vacant sites that the City could explore further for opportunities.

4. Public Participation at the City Council Public Hearing.

The City Council held a public hearing on March 8, 2022 to approve the adoption of the Sixth Cycle Housing Element. The public notice of the March 8 hearing included the option of making public comments via Zoom and provided a Zoom link. ICLS intended to make public oral comments via the zoom link provided. However, city staff informed ICLS the afternoon of the hearing that the zoom link would not be available, and the zoom link in fact did not work during the hearing. Public comments were available in person only, without adequate notice, such that ICLS was unable to provide oral comments in addition to written comments.
6 Accordingly, we urge the City to correct the deficiencies as described above and in our March 8 letter to come into compliance with Housing Element Law.

Sincerely,
Maria Delgado Craig Castellanet
Inland Counties Legal Services Public Interest Law Project CC: Jose Jauregui; Sohab Mehmood; Paul McDougall
Riverside, CA
Riverside, CA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Tessie Solorzano, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Powell Jr., President
Erica Alfaro, Esq., Vice
President
Goushia Farook, Esq.,
Secretary
Christina Perez, Treasurer
Daniel Aguilar
Rebecca Eckley, Esq.

Bob Garcia
Xingshuo Liu, Esq.

Andrew R. Morand, Esq.

Julie D. Neal, Esq.

Nithin B. Reddy, Esq.

Elaine S. Rosen, Esq.

Steven R. Weber, Esq.

ICLS is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation
IRS Tax ID 95-6124556
Donations are welcome.

Senior Line: 800.977.4257
Toll Free: 888.245.4257
InlandLegal.org
Indio
P.O. Box 10650
Indio, CA
92202-2563
Executive Office
1040 Iowa Ave., #106
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Ontario
3500 Porsche Way, #200
Ontario, CA
91764-4941
Riverside
1040 Iowa Ave., #109
Riverside, CA
92507-2106
Victorville
15428 Civic Center Drive, Ste 175
Victorville, CA
92392

SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY
February 24, 2023
Siri Champion ([email protected])
City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 92376
Re: City of Rialto’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element dated February 17, 2023
Dear Ms. Champion,
Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc. (ICLS) and the Public Interest Law Project (PILP) write to provide comments on the City of Rialto’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element dated February 17, 2023 (February Draft), proposed for adoption on February 28, 2023. PILP and ICLS raised many deficiencies on the Sixth Cycle Housing Element adopted on March 8, 2022 and its substantial revisions in our prior comments by letters of March 8, 2022, May 27, 2022, September 22, 2022, and February 13, 2023.

We provide the following supplemental comments based upon our review of the February Draft.

Public Participation
The City made the February Draft available for public review on February 10, 2023, for a period of seven days. The first day of this public review period was on a Friday before a three-day holiday weekend, effectively cutting the public review period to four days. However, pursuant to Government Code Section 65585(b)(1), the City should make this Draft available for 30 days because it is a new Draft with substantial amendments since the adoption of the Housing Element on March 8, 2022.

Moreover, as we wrote in our February 13, 2023 letter, state law requires that the substantial revisions in the February Draft must be heard by the Planning Commission for a recommendation on the adoption of the Housing Element revision, prior to City Council action to adopt it.

Gov. Code Sections 65353, 65354, 65356. The Planning Commission did hold a hearing in February 2022 prior to the last adoption of the City’s Housing Element on March 8, 2022, but it has not reviewed or recommended the adoption of this Draft. The February Draft is also incomplete throughout, numerous Tables and Figures added with the label “XX”, hindering the ability to review and provide comment. While there 2 are substantial improvements in this Draft, including new programs to affirmatively further fair housing, these programs were developed completely without stakeholder input. Contrary to the recommendation by staff’s report for the February 28, 2023 City Council agenda for file #23- 197, it is premature to adopt the February Draft.

Duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing
The City’s duty to affirmatively further fair housing requires an adequate assessment of fair housing, which must include an assessment of “ . . . local data and knowledge to identify integration and segregation patterns and trends, racially or ethnically concentrated areas of poverty and affluence, disparities in access to opportunity, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.” Gov. Code § 65583(c)(10)(A)(ii). The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has found repeatedly that the City’s fair housing assessment is incomplete. HCD’s review has found that the assessment of local data and knowledge, and disproportionate housing needs, including displacement has not been addressed.

See June 3, 2022 HCD letter re City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, (6/3/22 HCD letter) and October 3, 2022 HCD Letter re City of Rialto’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element, (10/3/22 HCD letter). Moreover, as noted by HCD and in our prior letters, the location of the identified sites to accommodate the lower-income Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) demonstrate that fair housing issues will continue or worsen in those areas. 6/3/22 HCD letter, p. 1. The February Draft includes new analysis of the City’s proposed actions, but does not change the City’s proposed actions to exclusively zone higher density residential developments in areas with higher concentrations of poverty, higher areas of racial and ethnic concentrations, and lower economic opportunity. (See below, pp. 4-6 of these comments.) The proposal in the February Draft will not further fair housing goals, to the contrary, it will continue and reinforce patterns of segregation in the City.

Local Data and Knowledge and Other Relevant Factors
The assessment of fair housing includes local data and knowledge and other relevant factors, and it should provide actions or programs that not only address, but overcome and undo, the identified fair housing issues. See California Department of Housing and Community Development, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Guidance (AFFH Guidance), p. 25 (available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/communitydevelopment/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27-2021.pdf).

The February Draft now includes information about the City’s growing development of major distribution centers in recent years, which aside from providing employment opportunities, increases pollution due to increased trucking routes. February Draft, 3-107. Additionally, the Draft now acknowledges that past zoning and land use practices have resulted in a large industrial footprint. Id. According to the February Draft, there are “virtually no residential uses south of the I-10 freeway and a significant portion of land to the north” and “south of the 210 freeway is comprised of industrial uses”, which contribute to fragmented residential areas. Id.

Yet, the only related commitment the City makes related to this issue is to establish a risk assessment toolkit to “[a]ddress negative environmental, neighborhood, housing and health 3 impacts associated with siting and operation of land uses such as industrial, agricultural, waste storage, freeways, energy production, etc. in disadvantaged communities” by June 2025.

February Draft, 4-37. After completing the required analysis, the February Draft does not include a program to specifically address the high pollution caused by the truck traffic and the fragmented residential areas, but instead proposes to concentrate opportunities for lower income housing development along the Foothill corridor and other areas that are exposed to the high pollution. Accordingly, the February Draft does not provide meaningful steps to address these issues.

Disproportionate Housing Needs, including Displacement Risk The February Draft provides additional analysis regarding housing needs of persons experiencing homelessness. At p. 3-29, the February Draft claims that the City’s homeless population decreased 60% since 2020, but it does not provide any authority to test the reliability of this assertion or the methodology of the data collection, and does not reconcile with the American Community Survey data on homeless counts cited at p. 2-29. It notoriously difficult to accurately conduct counts of unsheltered people, and regardless, the problems of unsheltered people continues to be a serious issue in the City. February Draft, 3-92. The February Draft acknowledges “potential gaps in support and services,” including the need for “low cost, emergency or transitional housing.” February Draft, 3-94. The Draft claims to make meaningful changes to Program 2I: Emergency Shelters and Program 2J: Transitional and Supportive Housing, but the only amendments made are to make objectives “to continue to monitor the inventory of sites” and work with the appropriate organizations to meet the needs of the homeless. These planned actions will not make a real world difference to address the identified needs, even the timeframes are supposed annual reviews. Because both the objectives and the timeframes are too vague, the programs do not make a meaningful commitment to address homelessness.

The City identifies I-P zoned sites as the parcels where it permits the siting of emergency shelters as of right. However, the City acknowledges that some of the parcels in the I-P zone region are at or near areas with hazardous waste exposure, see February Draft, p. 3-23 to 3-24: “[t]he census tracts that the I-P zones are located scored between 60 and 80 percentiles for hazardous waste.” The City estimates that it saw a 38.3 percent increase in the unhoused population living in the City between 2018 and 2020, see February Draft, p. 2-29, Table 2-29. However, the programs do not address this constraint or identify other areas in the City if the areas in the I-P zone are undevelopable due to hazardous waste exposure, nor does the Draft identify alternate regions in the City where the City would permit emergency shelters by right if the I-P zone ends up being an unsuitable location to site its emergency shelters as required by Government Code sections 65583(c) and 65583.2.

The February Draft also acknowledges that the City is experiencing an issue of overcrowding and severely overcrowding for owners and renters. According to the February Draft, owners experience overcrowding of 8.5%, and severe overcrowding of 1.9%, compared to the County

4.1% and 1.3%, respectively. February Draft, 3-87. Renters experience overcrowding of 17.3% and severely overcrowding of 5.9%, compared to 9.9% and 4% in the County, respectively. Id. 4 However, the February Draft does not amend the existing Policy 3.4, to support rental projects with 3 or more bedrooms, or otherwise include a program to take meaningful steps to address overcrowding.

Regarding displacement risk, the February Draft concludes, without providing analysis or citation to available information from the UC Berkeley Urban Displacement Project, that displacement is not correlated with people with disabilities or with racial or ethnic population patterns or trends. February Draft, 3-99. The February Draft acknowledges that “female-headed households coincide with areas with higher susceptibility to displacement”. Id. The February Draft refers to Program 5A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which the Draft asserts provides opportunities for residents. However, none of the AFFH actions in Program 5A specifically address opportunities for female-headed households. February Draft, Table 4-1, 4-26 to 4-38.

Furthermore, we appreciate that the February Draft modifies Table 4-1: AFFH Actions in Program 5A: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing to include more actions. However, because the timelines for most of the actions continue to be too vague or remote in time, it shows that the City’s commitments are not significant and meaningful enough to overcome and undo patterns and trends to identified fair housing issues. For example, the February Draft commits to “[e]ncourage expansion of opportunity in low resource areas by annual participation by developers” focusing on areas along Riverside Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. However, the timeframe for this action is “[a]nnually market infill, mixed used and affordable residential development to affordable housing developers.” February Draft, 4-27. See also actions related to sites below.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) and Identified Sites The City’s sites inventory “should incorporate the projected housing development and assess the extent to which that development will either further entrench or help to ameliorate existing patterns of segregation and/or exclusion of members of protected categories.” See California Department of Housing and Community Development, AFFH Guidance, p. 45 (available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/affh/docs/affh_document_final_4-27- 2021.pdf), Gov. Code §§ 65583(c)(10)(A), 65583.2(a).

The February Draft now provides an analysis by breaking up the City into “Planning Areas” to show that the current location of the identified sites are “not intentionally worsening existing fair housing challenges.” February Draft, 3-113. The Planning Areas are broken down into four areas: East Central, North, South, and West Central. February Draft, 3-116. Table “3-XX”1 shows that majority of the lower-income units are within Planning Area 1: East Central and Planning Area 4: West Central. Planning Area 1 accommodates 1,524 lower-income units, and Planning Area 4 accommodates 2,080 lower-income units. According to the February Draft, the breakdown shows that Planning Area 1 and 4 are 91.3% and 92.6% non-white, but because all 1 This is one of several titles for tables and figures that are incomplete, making this version of the Draft inappropriate for adoption.
5 four Planning Areas are predominately non-white, there are no R/ECAPs. Id. It further asserts that lower-income units are in low resource units because majority of the City is identified as low resource and there are limited development or redevelopment opportunities within “moderate resource”. Id. However, this analysis further supports the finding that the lower-income RHNA should not be concentrated in the City’s central areas. More importantly, it fails to indicate how these lower-income sites are identified in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Instead, the February Draft asserts inconsistently, and without support, that sites identified in the inventory are selected because they exhibit the highest level of propensity to transition to residential use. February Draft, 3-112. Moreover, according to the February Draft, Census tract 06071003510 within Planning Area 4 shows “probable displacement risk” without addressing it under the displacement risk analysis.

Program 5A, Table 4-1 now includes actions related to the site development, however, the actions do not meet the required analysis about the location of sites currently identified to accommodate the RHNA and the impact on current fair housing conditions, as required by state law and directed by HCD. See 6/3/22 HCD letter, 10/3/22 HCD letter. For example, Table 4-1 includes an action to annually reviewing the sites inventory and meet with developers at least once every two years, but such infrequent meetings are an inadequate commitment to foster affordable housing development, given the challenges and complexities to completing such a project which is much more difficult than market-rate development.. February Draft p. 4-27.

Another action states that “at the mid-point of the 6th Cycle planning period, evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in promoting housing opportunities throughout the City outside of Focus areas and in the north and southern portions of the City”, but it does not specify what actions will result from this evaluation.

The City’s obligation to rezone sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA fails to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. See Gov. Code §65583(c)(10)(A).

The City does not identify sites that are dispersed throughout the community, pursuant to Gov.

Code § 65583.2(a). Instead, the City continues to rely heavily on sites within Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan to accommodate its lower-income RHNA, making no amendments to the rezone program. See Summary Table 3-42 at February Draft, p. 3-143. On February 14, 2023, the City held a hearing to adopt a zoning overlay for sites in limited areas of the City, with the largest area (159 acres) to be included in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area. While the City continued this hearing, it is already taking actions to continue to concentrate sites in the Foothill area, when the AFFH analysis is incomplete, and HCD has already found that As mentioned in our February 13, 2023 letter, the City’s rezoning program to would add sites to accommodate 1,603 lower income units, in addition to the 1,442 already identified, within Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan area. Id. These actions will create sites to accommodate a total of 3,045 out of 4,618 lower-income units concentrated along Foothill Boulevard for which the February Draft does not provide an adequate explanation on how development will transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity. 6 Realistic Capacity
The February Draft now includes changes in the “Potential Net Unit Yield” column in the inventory, finally responding to long standing comments from ICLS and HCD. See 10/3/22 HCD letter, p. 2-3. However, these amendments are not reflected in the total number of units described in the rezone program at Table 3-42. Instead, it appears that this reduction is only reflected in the revised Table B-1, at p. B3. This demonstrates again that the February Draft is incomplete, not ready for adoption, and has not been sufficiently subject to public review.

The February Draft includes a new narrative that discusses the capacity of sites to claim that the inventory is adequate, by pointing to a “34% buffer in excess of the lower income RHNA” to account for individual variations in built out densities. February Draft, p. B-39. It is unclear whether this references the 34% buffer described in Table 3-42, again which has not been updated to reflect the revised 80% net yield estimate for realistic capacity. The figure appears to be reduced to a 17% buffer in the revisions to Table B-1. The revisions also does not take into account sites relied upon in the inventory already accommodate parking that is required for existing uses, as described in earlier comments by ICLS. See 5/27/22 ICLS letter.

Furthermore, the amendments in the February Draft at p. B-38 reveal that there is not a defined “minimum density” on residential sites in Rialto, triggering further problems with the rezone program in the inventory, since such standards must be established where there is a shortfall of sites, as here. See Gov. Code sec 65583(c)(1)(A). The inventory cannot comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65583.2(h) to have a minimum density of 20 units per acre and a minimum capacity of 16 units per site. In the R-3 Zone, the City’s expression of a “maximum density” of 1 dwelling unit per 2,000 square feet translates into a density of 21.78 units per acre, also insufficient to allow 30 units per acre as required for rezoning to accommodate lower income RHNA in the City of Rialto in a metropolitan county. Gov. Code section 65583.2 (c)(3)(B)(iv). While the City has added language to the Rezone Program 2B to specify a minimum density of 20 units per acre to comply with section 65583.2(h), this program language must be reconciled with the asserted lack of a minimum density in the new narrative in Appendix B.

Parking Constraints
HCD makes findings in its review letters that the City must “go beyond reviewing parking standards and make a make specific commitment to reduce or revise parking requirements and ensure parking requirements do not constrain development,” and similarly must address costs impacts of garage requirements in multifamily housing and make specific commitment to address the constraint. 10/3/22 HCD letter, p. 4, and 6/3/22 HCD letter, p. 4, respectively.

The February Draft amends the objectives in Program 4B, but the revised language does not include any terms specific to parking or garages. Instead the revision only makes illusory and vague “commitments” that supposedly “commit to revising or modify development standards that may constrain development.” February Draft, 4-22 to 4-23. Without being specific to parking and garage requirements, the program amendments in the Draft do not address, much less cure, the deficiencies in the constraint program identified by HCD. The City does have existing language in the third bullet point of Program 4B to commit to “reduce or revise” parking 7 standards, particularly for 1 bedroom and studio units, however the City could yet determine that a “revision” of the parking standards does not require any “reduction”, so this still lacks a substantive commitment.

Furthermore, while we commend the City for including information on the amended parking requirements within ½ mile of public transit in AB 2097 (2022), and including the new Program 3H, that program includes language to maximize the City’s ability to deny the reduced parking standards when implementing the new restrictions on imposing parking requirements. The incomplete statement of the requirements of the new Government Code section 65863.2, which allows local governments to impose minimum parking standards upon making certain findings, should be removed from Program 3H because it does not completely reflect the requirements of the law.

Permit Procedures and Timelines
Since the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element was adopted in March 2022, it has consistently failed to address permit processing time and procedures. See 10/2/22 HCD letter, p. 4, 6/3/22 HCD letter, p. 4. The February Draft now for the first time describes permit processing times, demonstrating that while single family homes may require “a few days to 4 weeks to process” whereas larger multifamily developments can take “8-20 weeks”. February Draft, 3-34. Notably, there are no examples provided with this information, other than the simple assertion from the Draft.

Consistent with responses to previous comments by ICLS and HCD, the February Draft now includes language in Program 4G to address the fact that the City’s Zoning Code requires subjective elements in its review of multifamily projects such as being “essential or desirable”, the development will “not be detrimental” to general welfare, and “will not be injurious” to nearby properties, that create uncertainties for applicants. February Draft, 3-35. This Zoning Code language is prejudicial to multifamily housing development since it makes implicit assumptions about the nature of housing development. The language in Program 4G does not include sufficient commitment to correct these biases and uncertainties, instead only to “include objective language” but not to remove subjective terms reflecting bias. Program 4G should be strengthened to remove ambiguous subjective terms that can be used to justify the biases included within them to delay or deny projects based on uncertain subjective criteria.

Conditional Use Permits
The February Draft does not make any amendments to respond to the repeated comments from ICLS and HCD regarding conditional use permits that are required for developments of developments for five or more dwelling units in the medium density zone. February Draft p. 3- 22, 10/2/22 HCD letter, p. 4, 6/3/22 HCD letter, p. 6. The February Draft continues to simply conclude, without any evidence or analysis, that the CUP requirement is not a constraint on development of “Multiple-Family Dwellings” despite the obvious fact that a completely discretionary review is a serious constraint on housing. By concluding that the CUP does not create a constraint to the development of housing, the City skirts the directive from HCD to either revise or modify the constraints upon the development of multi-family housing in the City. 8 The City also fails to analyze the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits or address any hinderance the CUP presents on the development of housing and include programs as appropriate to address those hinderances. Accordingly, HCD should direct the City to remove the sentence that the CUP does not create a constraint to the development of housing and direct the City to analyze and inform the public on how it will work to remove all constraints, including those imposed by CUPs upon the development of housing in the City.

This constraint is compounded by the fact that the discussion of medium density designations is included in the inventory of sites, for example in the Renaissance Specific Plan area, which includes reliance on such sites portions of the RHNA, but could function to exclude lower income households from the area, which would be inconsistent with the City’s obligation to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing throughout the City. February Draft, p. B-6. It is unclear whether the Lytle Creek Specific Plan area is subject to the same CUP requirement, however it is notable that no lower-income RHNA is expected to be accommodated in that area either.

February Draft Table B-1, p. B-3.

Multi-family Housing
Finally, HCD also directed the City to review Program 5F: Housing for Persons with Developmental Disabilities. Even though the City has removed the language “should constraints be found,” the February Draft does not provide any information about City policies or practices concerning group homes and whether those policies comply with AFFH obligations or are constraining and discriminatory on the basis of disability in violation of federal and state fair housing laws. (See HCD Group Home Technical Advisory, December 2022, pp. 8-12; 12-20). In its February Draft, the City states that 7,085 persons aged 5 to 64 years old are living with disabilities in the City, with another 3,540 persons being older adults living with disabilities (See Table X-X, Draft, p. 3-89). Because there are a significant number of persons living with disabilities and as group homes can provide persons living with disabilities stable housing communities, the City should revise the Draft to discuss and analyze this housing type and inform the public how the City will comply with its AFFH duty regarding group homes in the City.

Conclusion
We provide these comments to urge the City to correct the remaining deficiencies in the City’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element before adoption and submission to HCD for review.

Sincerely,
Maria T. Delgado Craig Castellanet
Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc. Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson Public Interest Law Project
Cc: Jose Jauregui ([email protected])
Riverside, CA
Riverside, CA

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Tessie Solorzano, Esq.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Marvin Powell Jr., President
Erica Alfaro, Esq., Vice
President
Goushia Farook, Esq.,
Secretary
Christina Perez, Treasurer
Daniel Aguilar
Rebecca Eckley, Esq.

Bob Garcia
Xingshuo Liu, Esq.

Andrew R. Morand, Esq.

Julie D. Neal, Esq.

Nithin B. Reddy, Esq.

Elaine S. Rosen, Esq.

Steven R. Weber, Esq.

ICLS is a non-profit
501(c)(3) corporation
IRS Tax ID 95-6124556
Donations are welcome.

We provide the following supplemental comments based upon our review of the February Draft.

The City’s obligation to rezone sites to accommodate the lower-income RHNA fails to be consistent with its duty to affirmatively further fair housing. See Gov. Code §65583(c)(10)(A).

The City does not identify sites that are dispersed throughout the community, pursuant to Gov.

February Draft Table B-1, p. B-3.

Conclusion
We provide these comments to urge the City to correct the remaining deficiencies in the City’s Draft Sixth Cycle Housing Element before adoption and submission to HCD for review.

Sincerely,
Maria T. Delgado Craig Castellanet
Inland Counties Legal Services, Inc. Ugochi Anaebere-Nicholson Public Interest Law Project
Cc: Jose Jauregui ([email protected])
Appendix D

GLOSSARY OF HOUSING TERMS
2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-2 Glossary of Housing Terms
Above Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually greater than 120 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 Housing Program.

Accessory Dwelling Unit. A self-contained living unit, either attached to or detached from, and in addition to, the primary residential unit on a single lot. “Granny Flat” is one type of second unit.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH): Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) is a legal requirement that federal agencies and federal grantees further the purposes of the Fair Housing Act. AFFH means "taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws.

Apartment. An apartment is one (1) or more rooms in an apartment house or dwelling occupied or intended or designated for occupancy by one (1) family for sleeping or living purposes and containing one (1) kitchen.

Assisted Housing. Generally multi-family rental housing, but sometimes single-family ownership units, whose construction, financing, sales prices, or rents have been subsidized by Federal, State, or local housing programs including, but not limited to Federal Section 8 (new construction, substantial rehabilitation, and loan management set-asides), Federal Sections 213, 236, and 202, Federal Sections 221 (d) (3) (below-market interest rate program), Federal Sections 101 (rent supplement assistance), Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) Sections 515, multifamily mortgage revenue bond programs, local redevelopment and in lieu fee programs, and units developed pursuant to local inclusionary housing and density bonus programs.

Below-Market-Rate (BMR). Any housing unit specifically priced to be sold or rented to low- or moderateincome households for an amount less than the fair-market value of the unit. Both the State of California and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development set standards for determining which households qualify as “low income” or “moderate income.” The financing of housing at less than prevailing interest rates.

Build-Out. That level of urban development characterized by full occupancy of all developable sites in accordance with the General Plan; the maximum level of development envisioned by the General Plan. 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-3 Build-out does not assume that each parcel is developed to include all floor area or housing units possible under zoning regulations.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). A grant program administered by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) on a formula basis for entitled communities and administered by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for non-entitled jurisdictions. This grant allots money to cities and counties for housing rehabilitation and community development, including public facilities and economic development.

Condominium. A structure of two or more units, the interior spaces of which are individually owned; the balance of the property (both land and building) is owned in common by the owners of the individual units. (See “Townhouse.”)
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). A term used to describe restrictive limitations that may be placed on property and its use, and which usually are made a condition of holding title or lease.

Deed. A legal document which affects the transfer of ownership of real estate from the seller to the buyer.

Density Bonus. The allocation of development rights that allow a parcel to accommodate additional square footage or additional residential units beyond the maximum for which the parcel is zoned, usually in exchange for the provision or preservation of an amenity at the same site or at another location.

Density, Residential. The number of permanent residential dwelling units per acre of land. Densities specified in the General Plan may be expressed in units per gross acre or per net developable acre.

Developable Land. Land that is suitable as a location for structures and that can be developed free of hazards to, and without disruption of, or significant impact on, natural resource areas.

Down Payment. Money paid by a buyer from his own funds, as opposed to that portion of the purchase price which is financed.

Duplex. A detached building under single ownership that is designed for occupation as the residence of two families living independently of each other.

Dwelling Unit (DU). A building or portion of a building containing one or more rooms, designed for, or used by one family for living or sleeping purposes, and having a separate bathroom and only one kitchen or kitchenette. See Housing Unit.

Elderly Housing. Typically, one- and two-bedroom apartments or condominiums designed to meet the needs of persons 62 years of age and older or, if more than 150 units, persons 55 years of age and older, and restricted to occupancy by them.

Emergency Shelter. A facility that provides immediate and short-term housing and supplemental services for the homeless. Shelters come in many sizes, but an optimum size is considered to be 20 to 40 beds. 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-4 Supplemental services may include food, counseling, and access to other social programs. (See “Homeless” and “Transitional Housing.”)
Extremely Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income equal to or less than 30 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Fair Market Rent. The rent, including utility allowances, determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for the purpose of administering the Section 8 Program.

Family. (1) Two or more persons related by birth, marriage, or adoption [U.S. Bureau of the Census]. (2) An Individual or a group of persons living together who constitute a bona fide single-family housekeeping unit in a dwelling unit, not including a fraternity, sorority, club, or other group of persons occupying a hotel, lodging house or institution of any kind [Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, General Plan Guidelines].

General Plan. A comprehensive, long-term plan mandated by State Planning Law for the physical development of a city or county and any land outside its boundaries which, in its judgment, bears relation to its planning. The plan shall consist of seven required elements: land use, circulation, open space, conservation, housing, safety, and noise. The plan must include a statement of development policies and a diagram or diagrams illustrating the policies.

Goal. A general, overall, and ultimate purpose, aim, or end toward which the City will direct effort.

Green Building. Green or sustainable building is the practice of creating healthier and more resourceefficient models of construction, renovation, operation, maintenance, and demolition. (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Historic Preservation. The preservation of historically significant structures through restoration and rehabilitation of the building(s) to a former condition.

Historic Property. A historic property is a structure or site that has significant historic, architectural, or cultural value.

Household. All those persons—related or unrelated—who occupy a single housing unit. (See “Family.”) Housing and Community Development, California Department of (HCD). The State agency that has principal responsibility for assessing, planning for, and assisting communities to meet the needs of lowand moderate-income households.

Housing Element. One of the seven State-mandated elements of a local general plan, it assesses the existing and projected housing needs of all economic segments of the community, identifies potential 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-5 sites adequate to provide the amount and kind of housing needed, and contains adopted goals, policies, and implementation programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing.

Housing Payment. For ownership housing, this is defined as the mortgage payment, property taxes, insurance, and utilities. For rental housing this is defined as rent and utilities.

Housing Ratio. The ratio of the monthly housing payment to total gross monthly income; also called Payment-to-Income Ratio or Front-End Ratio.

Housing Unit. The place of permanent or customary abode of a person or family. A housing unit may be a single-family dwelling, a multi-family dwelling, a condominium, a modular home, a mobile home, a cooperative, or any other residential unit considered real property under State law.

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of (HUD). A cabinet-level department of the federal government that administers housing and community development programs.

Implementing Policies. The City’s statements of its commitments to consistent actions.

Implementation. Actions, procedures, programs, or techniques that carry out policies.

Infill Development. The development of new housing or other buildings on scattered vacant lots in a builtup area or on new building parcels created by permitted lot splits.

Jobs-Housing Balance. A ratio used to describe the adequacy of the housing supply within a defined area to meet the needs of persons working within the same area. The General Plan uses SCAG’s definition which is a job total equal to 1.2 times the number of housing units within the area under consideration.

Land Use Classification. A system for classifying and designating the appropriate use of properties.

Live-Work Units. Buildings or spaces within buildings that are used jointly for commercial and residential purposes where the residential use of the space is secondary or accessory to the primary use as a place of work.

Low-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 51 percent to 80 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Low-income Housing Tax Credits. Tax reductions provided by the federal and State governments for investors in housing for low-income households.

Manufactured Housing. Residential structures that are constructed entirely in the factory, and which since June 15, 1976, have been regulated by the federal Manufactured Home Construction and Safety 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-6 Standards Act of 1974 under the administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). (See “Mobile home” and “Modular Unit.”) Mixed-Use. Properties on which various uses, such as office, commercial, institutional, and residential, are combined in a single building or on a single site in an integrated development project with significant functional interrelationships and a coherent physical design. A “single site” may include contiguous properties.

Moderate-Income Household. A household with an annual income usually no greater than 81 percent to 120 percent of the area median family income adjusted by household size, as determined by a survey of incomes conducted by a city or a county, or in the absence of such a survey, based on the latest available eligibility limits established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for the Section 8 housing program.

Monthly Housing Expense. Total principal, interest, taxes, and insurance paid by the borrower on a monthly basis. Used with gross income to determine affordability.

Multiple Family Building. A detached building designed and used exclusively as a dwelling by three or more families occupying separate suites.

No Net Loss. Requires sufficient adequate sites to be available at all times throughout the RHNA planning period to meet a jurisdiction’s remaining unmet housing needs for each income category. To comply with the No Net Loss Law, as jurisdictions make decisions regarding zoning and land use, or development occurs, jurisdictions must assess their ability to accommodate new housing in each income category on the remaining sites in their housing element site inventories. A jurisdiction must add additional sites to its inventory if land use decisions or development results in a shortfall of sufficient sites to accommodate its remaining housing need for each income category.

Ordinance. A law or regulation set forth and adopted by a governmental authority, usually a city or county.

Overcrowded Housing Unit. A housing unit in which the members of the household, or group are prevented from the enjoyment of privacy because of small room size and housing size. The U.S. Bureau of Census defines an overcrowded housing unit as one which is occupied by more than one person per room.

Parcel. A lot or tract of land.

Planning Area. The area directly addressed by the general plan. A city’s planning area typically encompasses the City limits and potentially annexable land within its sphere of influence.

Policy. A specific statement of principle or of guiding actions that implies clear commitment but is not mandatory. A general direction that a governmental agency sets to follow, in order to meet its objectives before undertaking an action program. (See “Program.”)
2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-7 Poverty Level. As used by the U.S. Census Bureau, families and unrelated individuals are classified as being above or below the poverty level based on a poverty index that provides a range of income cutoffs or “poverty thresholds” varying by size of family, number of children, and age of householder. The income cutoffs are updated each year to reflect the change in the Consumer Price Index.

Program. An action, activity, or strategy carried out in response to adopted policy to achieve a specific goal or objective. Policies and programs establish the “who,” “how” and “when” for carrying out the “what” and “where” of goals and objectives.

Redevelop. To demolish existing buildings; or to increase the overall floor area existing on a property; or both; irrespective of whether a change occurs in land use.

Regional. Pertaining to activities or economies at a scale greater than that of a single jurisdiction and affecting a broad geographic area.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). A quantification by the local council of governments of existing and projected housing need, by household income group, for all localities within a region.

Rehabilitation. The repair, preservation, and/or improvement of substandard housing.

Residential. Land designated in the General Plan and Zoning Code for buildings consisting of dwelling units. May be improved, vacant, or unimproved. (See “Dwelling Unit.”) Residential Care Facility. A facility that provides 24-hour care and supervision to its residents.

Residential, Multiple Family. Usually three or more dwelling units on a single site, which may be in the same or separate buildings.

Residential, Single-Family. A single dwelling unit on a building site.

Retrofit. To add materials and/or devices to an existing building or system to improve its operation, safety, or efficiency. Buildings have been retrofitted to use solar energy and to strengthen their ability to withstand earthquakes, for example.

Rezoning. An amendment to the map to effect a change in the nature, density, or intensity of uses allowed in a zoning district and/or on a designated parcel or land area.

Section 8 Rental Assistance Program. A federal (HUD) rent-subsidy program that is one of the main sources of federal housing assistance for low-income households. The program operates by providing “housing assistance payments” to owners, developers, and public housing agencies to make up the difference between the “Fair Market Rent” of a unit (set by HUD) and the household’s contribution toward the rent, which is calculated at 30 percent of the household’s adjusted gross monthly income (GMI). “Section 8” includes programs for new construction, existing housing, and substantial or moderate housing rehabilitation.
2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-8 Shared Living Facility. The occupancy of a dwelling unit by persons of more than one family in order to reduce housing expenses and provide social contact, mutual support, and assistance. Shared living facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted in all residential districts by Section 1566.3 of the California Health and Safety Code.

Single-Family Dwelling, Attached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally connected with at least one other such dwelling unit. (See “Townhouse.”) Single-Family Dwelling, Detached. A dwelling unit occupied or intended for occupancy by only one household that is structurally independent from any other such dwelling unit or structure intended for residential or other use. (See “Family.”)
Single Room Occupancy (SRO). A single room, typically 80-250 square feet, with a sink and closet, but which requires the occupant to share a communal bathroom, shower, and kitchen.

Subsidize. To assist by payment of a sum of money or by the granting to terms or favors that reduces the need for monetary expenditures. Housing subsidies may take the forms or mortgage interest deductions or tax credits from federal and/or State income taxes, sale or lease at less than market value of land to be used for the construction of housing, payments to supplement a minimum affordable rent, and the like.

Substandard Housing. Residential dwellings that, because of their physical condition, do not provide safe and sanitary housing.

Supportive Housing. Housing with no limit on length of stay, that is occupied by the target population as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 53260(d), and that is linked to onsite or offsite services that assist the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her health status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. “Target population" means adults with low incomes having one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic health conditions, or individuals eligible for services provided under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act and may, among other populations, include families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, or homeless people. [California Health and Safety Code Sections 50675.14(b) and 53260(d)]
Target Areas. Specifically, designated sections of the community where loans and grants are made to bring about a specific outcome, such as the rehabilitation of housing affordable by Very-Low and Lowincome households.

Tax Increment. Additional tax revenues that result from increases in property values within a redevelopment area. State law permits the tax increment to be earmarked for redevelopment purposes but requires at least 20 percent to be used to increase and improve the community’s supply of very lowand low-income housing. 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-9 Tenure. A housing unit is owner-occupied if the owner or co-owner lives in the unit, even if it is mortgaged or not fully paid for. A cooperative or condominium unit is owner-occupied only if the owner or co-owner lives in it. All other occupied units are classified as renter-occupied including units rented for cash rent and those occupied without payment of cash rent.

Townhouse. A townhouse is a dwelling unit located in a group of three (3) or more attached dwelling units with no dwelling unit located above or below another and with each dwelling unit having its own exterior entrance.

Transitional Housing. Shelter provided to the homeless for an extended period, often as long as 18 months, and generally integrated with other social services and counseling programs to assist in the transition to self-sufficiency through the acquisition of a stable income and permanent housing. (See “Homeless” and “Emergency Shelter.”)
Undevelopable. Specific areas where topographic, geologic, and/or superficial soil conditions indicate a significant danger to future occupants and a liability to the City.

Underutilized. Areas in the City that are capable of being developed at a higher density which may include:
nonvacant publicly owned surplus or excess land; portions of blighted areas with abandoned or vacant buildings; existing high opportunity developed areas with mixed-used potential; nonvacant substandard or irregular lots that could be consolidated; and any other suitable underutilized land.

Vacant. A vacant site is a site without any houses, offices, buildings, or other significant improvements on it. Improvements are generally defined as development of the land (such as a paved parking lot or income production improvements such as crops, high voltage power lines, oil-wells, etc.) or structures on a property that are permanent and add significantly to the value of the property 2021-2029 City of Rialto Housing Element – Appendix D: Glossary of Housing Terms D-10 Acronyms Used
ACS: American Community Survey
BMPs: Best Management Practices
CALTRANS: California Department of Transportation
CEQA: California Environmental Quality Act
CHAS: Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
CIP: Capital Improvement Program
DDS: Department of Developmental Services
DIF: Development Impact Fee
DU/AC: Dwelling Units Per Acre
EDD: California Employment Development Department
FAR: Floor Area Ratio
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency
HCD: Department of Housing and Community Development
HOA: Homeowners Association
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development
LAFCO: Local Agency Formation Commission
MFI: Median Family Income
NPDES: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
RTFH: Regional Task Force on the Homeless
RTP: Regional Transportation Plan
SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments
SPA: Sectional Planning Area
STF: Summary Tape File (U.S. Census)
TOD: Transit-Oriented Development
TDM: Transportation Demand Management
TSM: Transportation Systems Management
WCP: Water Conservation Plan

Rialto City CouncilFebruary 24, 2026

Rialto City Council
February 24, 2026