Rialto City Council
March 10, 2026

City of Rialto Municipal Code
The Rialto Code provides a basis for controlling excessive and annoying noise. Some of the more pertinent Code chapters are:
• Chapter 9.50.030, Prohibited Acts
• Chapter 9.50.040, Excessive Noise and Vibration emanating from a Motor Vehicle • Chapter 9.50.050, Controlled Hours of Operation
• Chapter 9.50.060, Exemptions
• Chapter 9.50.070, Disturbances from Construction Activity Federal Highway Administration
The freeways and State routes that run through the City (I-10/SR-210/I-15) are subject to Federal funding and so are under the purview of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA has developed noise standards that are typically used for federally funded roadway projects or projects that require either Federal or Caltrans review.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) issues formal requirements related specifically to standards for exterior noise levels , along with policies for approving HUD -supported or assisted housing projects in high noise areas. In general, these requirements established three zones:
• 65 dBA Ldn or less: An acceptable zone where all projects could be approved • Exceeding 65 dBA Ldn but not exceeding 75 dBA Ldn : A normally unacceptable zone where mitigation measures would be required, and each project would have to be individually evaluated for approval or denial. These measures must provide 5 dBA of attenuation above the attenuation provided by standard construction required in a 65 to 70 dBA Ldn area and 10 dBA of attenuation in a 70 to 75 dBA Ldn area.
• Exceeding 75 dBA Ldn. An unacceptable zone, in which projects would not, as a rule, be approved Federal Railroad Administration
The EPA is charged with regulating railroad noise under the Noise Control Act. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for enforcing EPA regulations related to railroad noise , which were developed as part of the Noise Control Act. FRA’s Office of Safety is responsible for implementing the Railroad Noise Emissions Compliance Regulation that sets maximum sound levels from railroad equipment and regulates locomotive horns. The Union Pacific rail corridor that follows I -10 in the southern portion of Rialto is subject to the aforementioned regulation.

California Department of Health Services
The California Department of Health Services (DHS), Office of Noise Control , studied the correlation of noise levels and their effects on various land uses. As a result, the DHS established four categories to assess the severity of noise intrusion on specific land uses. DHS standards suggest “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” exterior noise levels for various land uses. A “conditionally acceptable” designation implies that new construction or development Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements for each land use is conducted and necessary noise insulation features are incorporated into the design. By comparison, a “normally acceptable” designation indicates that standard construction can occur with no special noise reduction requirements.

Noise/Land Use Compatibility
Most cities and counties in California have adopted noise/land use compatibility criteria that reflect DHS standards and are based on the general assumption that higher noise levels are acceptable in business districts and industrial areas. However, the introduction of mixed- use development principles into traditionally suburban environments has altered thinking regarding acceptable noise levels. People who choose to live in vibrant mixed -use districts know that the excitement and activity levels bring a no isy environment distinctly different from that of traditional residential -only neighborhoods. For example, music played in outdoor dining areas or bars can extend into late-night hours. Garbage collection early in the morning, as well as the noise from HVAC equipment, also occur with greater frequency and intensity in urban settings. Additionally, at locations along major roadways, increased traffic volumes contribute to ambient noise conditions. Projected noise levels throughout most of Downtown, including the area designated for new mixed-use development, are expected to exceed the traditionally accepted noise-land use compatibility guidelines for residential uses. Table 4.13- 1: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning shows Rialto’s noise guidelines for land use planning that incorporate these principles. This General Plan encourages mixed -use development to achieve several objectives: to promote more sustainable development approaches, to increase access to affordable housing for a broader range of people, to create a vibrant Downtown, and to enable residents to live closer to their jobs. To meet these objectives, Rialto has adopted the flexible noise guidelines for mixed-use districts outlined in Table 4.13-

1. Table 4.13-1: Rialto Noise Guidelines for Land Use Planning Land Use Categories
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
R2 – Residential 2
R6 – Residential 6 55-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
R12 – Residential 12 55-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
R21 – Residential 21
R45 – Residential 45 55-65 65-75 75-80 ≥80
DMU – Downtown Mixed-Use 55-65 65-80 80-85 ≥85
CC – Community Commercial 55-70 70-80 80-85 ≥85
GC – General Commercial 55-70 70-80 80-85 ≥85
BP – Business Park
O - Office 55-70 70-80 80-85 ≥85
LI – Light Industrial 55-75 75-80 80-85 ≥85
GI – General Industrial 55-80 80-85 - -
P – Public Facility
P – School Facility 55-65 65-70 70-75 ≥75
OSRC – Open Space – Recreation 55-80 - 80-85 ≥85
Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Land Use Categories
Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)
Normally
Acceptable
Conditionally
Acceptable
Normally
Unacceptable
Clearly
Unacceptable
OSRC - Open Space – Resources 55-80 - 80-85 ≥85
Normally Acceptable – Specified land use is satisfactory, assuming buildings are of conventional construction.

Conditionally Acceptable – New development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements is made.

Normally Unacceptable – New development should be generally discouraged ; if not, a detailed analysis of noise reduction requirements must be made.

Clearly Unacceptable – New development should generally not be undertaken.

Source: City of Rialto. (2023). Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2023, Exhibit 5.13. https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023- City-of-Rialto- Focused-General-Plan. Accessed April 15, 2025.

Coupled with these guidelines are regulations for noise control, as outlined in Rialto Code Chapter 9.50:

Noise Controls, and State standards for interior noise control for residential uses. Specifically, California Health and Safety Code Title 24 stipulates a maximum of 45 dBA CNEL for interior residential noise levels.

In loud environments, insulation, double - or triple-pane windows, and special ventilation systems are among the tools used to achieve acceptable interior noise levels.

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.13a Would the project result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Construction Noise. Less Than Significant Impact.

The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would involve construction activities that would generate on -site noise from heavy construction equipment and off -site noise from heavy -duty haul trucks and construction workers' commutes. With Project implementation, future housing development is anticipated to occur intermittently throughout the City at various locations. As such, construction activities associated with future housing facilitated by the Project could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels.

Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and varies depending on the nature or phase of construction (e.g., land clearing, grading, excavation, and paving). Noise generated by construction equipment, including earthmovers, material handlers, and portable generators, can reach high levels.

Although noise ranges are generally similar for all construction phases, the ground clearing and excavation phase tends to involve the heaviest-duty equipment, having a higher noise-generation potential.

Typical noise levels generated by construction equipment are shown in Table 4.13-2: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels. Operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Other primary sources of acoustical disturbance would be due to random incidents, which would last less than one minute (such as dropping large pieces of equipment or the hydraulic movement of machinery lifts).

As shown in Table 4.13-2, noise levels associated with individual construction equipment used in typical construction projects can reach approximately 91 dBA (i.e., the highest noise level from grading activities) at 25 feet from the source. Noise-sensitive land uses are generally considered to include those uses where noise exposure could result in health -related risks to individuals, as well as places wh ere quiet is an Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

essential element of their intended purpose. The City does not have quantitative standards for construction noise levels.

Table 4.13-2: Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Equipment Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 25 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 50 feet from Source
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
at 100 feet from Source
Air Compressor 86 80 74
Backhoe 86 80 74
Compactor 88 82 76
Concrete Mixer 91 85 79
Concrete Pump 88 82 76
Concrete Vibrator 82 76 70
Crane, Mobile 89 83 77
Dozer 91 85 79
Generator 88 82 76
Grader 91 85 79
Impact Wrench 91 85 79
Jack Hammer 94 88 82
Loader 86 80 74
Paver 91 85 79
Pneumatic Tool 91 85 79
Pump 83 77 71
Roller 91 85 79
Saw 82 76 70
Scraper 91 85 79
Shovel 88 82 76
Truck 90 84 78
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , September 2018.

General Plan Policy 5-12.3 would reduce impacts related to construction noise by ensuring that acceptable noise levels are maintained near schools, hospitals, and other noise sensitive areas in accordance with the Rialto Code, and General Plan Policy 5 -12.5 requires all exterior noise sources (construction operations, air compressors, pumps, fans and leaf blowers) to use available noise suppression devices and techniques to reduce exterior noise to acceptable levels that are compatible with adjacent land uses. Construction noise is an existing noise source in the City . While the noise levels at existing construction sites may not substantially differ from those resulting from future development under the proposed Project, it is anticipated that construction noise would occur in areas of the City that are already developed. In some instances, construction noise may be introduced where it did not previously exist.

Since specific project-level information is not currently available, it is neither possible nor appropriate to quantify the construction noise impacts at specific sensitive receptors. In most cases, the construction of individual developments associated with implementation of the Project would temporarily increase the ambient noise environment in the vicinity of each candidate housing site, potentially affecting existing and future sensitive uses nearby. The nearest sensitive uses (e.g., residential uses) could be located within approximately 25 feet of construction activities associated with the Project. As previously noted, intermittent construction equipment could reach or exceed 91 dBA. Due to the high degree of variability Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

in construction noise from future developments, exposure to such sound level incursions could be brief, and the maximum noise levels at adjacent uses would decrease as the noisiest piece of construction equipment moved farther away, reduced the necessary power setting, and/or altered the interaction with the workpiece. However, nearby sensitive receptors may be exposed to elevated noise levels for the duration of construction. Noise levels would be higher during demolition, site preparation, and excavation activities, where the use of heavy construction equipment is more frequent, as well as during other portions of the overall building construction process. Construction activities would also cause increased noise along access routes to and from the site due to the movement of equipment and workers. These trips would occur incrementally over the construction phases.

Rialto Code § 9.50.070: Disturbances from construction activity, limits noise sources associated with construction, erection, alteration, repair, addition, movement, demolition, or improvement to any building or structure to the hours of Monday through Friday, 7:00 A.M. to 5:30 P.M., and Saturday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. from October 1
st through April 30th and Monday through Friday, 6:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., and Saturday 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. from May 1st through September 30th, with no construction allowed on Sundays or State holidays. As described in Rialto Code § 9.50.060(L), noise sources associated with construction, repair, or excavation are exempt so long as there is a valid written agreement with the City or any of its political subdivisions that provides for noise mitigation measures. Therefore, following compliance with General Plan Policy 5.12.5 and the City’s allowable construction hours according to Rialto Code standard, construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant.

Operational Noise. Operational stationary noise sources (e.g., HVAC) are anticipated to increase incrementally from increased housing development facilitated by the Project. Due to the variability and details for future individual housing developments, quantifying long-term stationary noise impacts from the proposed Project is not feasible. Depending on how development proceeds (i.e., individual housing developments would occur over time , dependent upon market demand, economic, and planning considerations, among other factors ), future housing development could generate noise levels that exceed the City’s noise standards at adjacent sensitive receptors. However, long -term stationary noise levels would be reduced through compliance with General Plan Policies 5-12.1 through 5-12.5. In addition, future development would be required to comply with City, State, and federal guidelines concerning noise abatement and insulation standards. This would ensure that noise levels at the candidate housing sites and surrounding areas are maintained within acceptable standards that prevent excessive disturbance, annoyance, or disruption.

The noise standards outlined in Table 4.13-1 from the General Plan Safety and Noise Element would be relied upon to evaluate noise impacts from stationary sources at future housing developments. Following individual development and design review and compliance with the City’s noise guidelines , as well as General Plan policies, the Project’s impacts from stationary noise sources would be less than significant.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project would result in increased traffic volumes on local City roadways, thereby increasing cumulative noise levels. Additional average daily trips (ADT) from future housing development facilitated by the Project would need to more than double the current ADT for there to be a discernible difference in noise levels (i.e., more than 3 dBA increase). There are 150 candidate housing sites that have already been developed with structures and generate traffic volumes, contributing to mobile noise . Future development on the candidate housing sites would likely not double traffic Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

volumes to increase mobile noise. Future housing development projects facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which requires projects to be reviewed for compliance with adjacent land uses, including noise compatibility. Future development would be subject to compliance with General Plan Policy 5 -12.2, which requires consideration of noise impacts as part of the development review process.

Therefore, following individual development and design review and compliance with the City’s noise guidelines, as well as General Plan policies, the Project’s impacts from operational stationary and traffic noise would be less than significant.

4.13b Would the project cause generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
Construction: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated. Construction activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the Project would require the use of heavy equipment, power tools, generators, and other vibration sources. Construction activities can generate varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the construction procedure and equipment used. Construction equipment operations would generate vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in amplitude with distance from the source. The effect on buildings located near a construction site o ften varies depending on soil type, ground strata, and construction characteristics of the receiver building(s).

Ground-borne vibrations from construction activities rarely reach levels that damage structures. The FTA has published standard vibration velocities for construction equipment operations. In general, the FTA architectural damage criterion for continuous vibration s (i.e., 0.2 inch/second) is conservative even for sustained pile driving. Pile driving levels often exceed 0.2 inch/second at distances of 50 feet, and 0.5 inch/second at 25 feet without any apparent damage to buildings. Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment identifies the anticipated vibration velocity levels (in/sec) for standard types of construction equipment, based on the distance from the receptor.

Table 4.13-3: Typical Vibration Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment
Approximate peak particle velocity
at 25 feet (inches/second)
Approximate peak particle velocity
at 50 feet (inches/second)
Large bulldozer 0.089 0.031
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001
Auger/drill rigs 0.089 0.031
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012
Pile Driver 0.644 0.228
Vibratory hammer 0.035 0.012
Notes:

1. Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual , September 2018. Table 12- 2.

2. Calculated using the following formula:

PPV equip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
where: PPV (equip) = the peak particle velocity in in/sec of the equipment adjusted for the distance PPV (ref) = the reference vibration level in in/sec from FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Table 12 -2.

D = the distance from the equipment to the receiver
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, September 2018.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Short-term construction activities may result in ground- borne vibration impacts at noise -sensitive receptors, depending on the site location, duration of the construction activities, and the equipment used at the construction site. Similar to noise, ground -borne vibration rapidly attenuates with distance.

Ground-borne vibration would primarily impact vibration-sensitive land uses (e.g., non-engineered timber and masonry buildings) located adjacent to or within the vicinity of individual project sites. Based upon the vibration velocity levels provided in the table, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations that could be used during construction activities range from 0.003 to 0.089 inch - per-second PPV at 25 feet from the activit y source (and up to 0.644 PPV if pile driving activities were to occur). Therefore, vibration velocities from typical heavy construction equipment operations at 25 feet from the activity source would not exceed the FTA’s 0.2 inch/second threshold, except f or pile driving activities. Also, vibration velocities from pile driving activities at 50 feet from the activity source would exceed the 0.2 inch/second threshold (Table 4.13-3). Construction-related activities involving pile driving that occur within 50 feet of a vibration -sensitive land use (i.e., non -engineered timber and masonry buildings) may exceed the 0.2 inch/second threshold. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the Project has the potential to expose persons or structures to excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels. To minimize potential vibration -related impacts on adjacent sensitive uses, MM NOI -1 requires a preconstruction survey of all buildings within a 50 -foot radius of proposed construction activities involving pile driving, and alternative methods must be utilized. With MM NOI -1 incorporated, construction vibration impacts would be less than significant.

Operations: Less Than Significant. Residential uses are not expected to generate excessive ground-borne vibration or noise, and the proposed Project does not include changes related to industrial or commercial uses (e.g., airports, waste facilities ) that would generate ongoing ground- borne vibration. Future development under the proposed Project would not involve railroads or heavy truck operations and , therefore, would not result in vibration impacts at surrounding uses. Therefore, operational activities associated with future housing development facilitated by the Project would be less than significant.

4.13c For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. There are no airports within a two -mile radius of the City. Therefore, the P roject would not expose people residing or working in the respective project areas to excessive noise levels . No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA are applicable to the proposed Project.

MM NOI-1 Pile Driving – Preconstruction Survey. To avoid impacts to vibration -sensitive land uses (i.e., non-engineered timber and masonry buildings) located within a 50 -foot radius of pile driving activities, the following measures shall be specified on p roject plans and implemented during construction, prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval:

Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of vibration-sensitive land uses shall utilize alternative installation methods (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, predrilling, cast -in-place systems, Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

resonance-free vibratory pile drivers) to ensure that vibration velocities remain below the

0.2 inch/second peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted to document the existing condition of all vibration-sensitive land uses within a 50-foot radius of proposed pile driving. The preconstruction survey shall include written and photographic documentation of susceptible structural elements, finishes, and fixtures. This documentation shall be used to evaluate any potential construction-related damage. If damage resulting from pile driving is identified, the proj ect applicant shall be responsible for repairing or restoring the affected features to their preexisting condition.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.14(a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. As described in Section 2.0:

Project Description, the proposed Project expands the City’s Residential Overlay Zone to facilitate future development of housing on identified sites.

As indicated in Table 2 -8, together the maximum housing development capacity of 16,198 DU on the candidate housing sites and the 128 ADU throughout the City would result in a housing development capacity of 16,326 DU. When considering the existing zoning’s development capacity of 2,652 DU within the candidate housing sites, the CEQA Project analyzed in this Initial Study assumes a maximum housing development capacity of 13,674 additional DUs (including 128 ADUs) . While this Initial Study considers potential housing development of 16,326 DU, only 8,272 DU are required to meet the City’s 6 th Cycle
RHNA. The proposed buffer is intended to serve only as a site's contingency to prevent no net loss throughout the 2021-2029 Housing Element planning period. Furthermore, future housing development would occur incrementally based on market conditions and other factors, ensuring that potential effects related to population growth (i.e., utilities, fire, police, and other services and infrastructure) would not occur at any single point in time. Therefore, this Initial Study’s analysis of the Project’s potential to induce substantial unplanned population growth is highly conservative, as it includes the buffer and excludes net change from the redevelopment of existing units.

Existing Plus Project Conditions
Table 4.14- 1: Existing Plus Project Growth Projects compares the Project’s anticipated housing and population growth to existing 2024 conditions. As indicated in this table, future housing development facilitated by the Project could increase the City’s existing 2024 housing stock by approximately 48 percent Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

(13,674 additional DU). This estimated housing growth could increase the City’s existing 2024 population by approximately 49 percent (50,320 additional persons).

Table 4.14-1: Existing Plus Project Growth Projects
Description Housing (Dwelling Units)1 Population
2024 Estimate/Existing1 28,523 103,097
2029 Estimated Project2 13,674 50,3202
2023 Existing Plus Project 42,197 153,417
% Change 2024:2029 48% 49%
Notes:

1. State of California, Department of Finance. (May 2024). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021-2024. Retrieved from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.

2. See Table 2-8: Planned/Maximum Development Capacity by Opportunity Area .

3. Based on 13,674 DU and 3.68 persons per household (State of California, Department of Finance. (May 2024). E- 5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021-2024).

SCAG Forecasts Plus Project Conditions
SCAG’s Connect SoCal 2024 includes regional growth forecasts developed in collaboration with local jurisdictions, such as Newport Beach, utilizing the most recent land use plans, policies, and assumptions.

Therefore, SCAG’s population forecasts for the City were based on the City’s adopted General Plan. SCAG forecasts the City’s population will grow to 92,000 persons through 2045. Table 4.14-2: SCAG Plus Project Growth Projections provides SCAG’s 2045 population forecasts for the City and the 2029 population estimates, which were extrapolated from SCAG’s 2045 forecast. SCAG forecasts extrapolated to 2029 are provided because they correlate with the 6th Cycle (2021-2029) planning period.

Table 4.14-2: SCAG Plus Project Growth Projections
Definition
2024 Existing Population1 103,097
2045 SCAG Forecast Population2 139,100
Change 2024 to 2045 +36,003
Change per Year 2024 to 2045 +1,714
Extrapolated SCAG 2029 Population3 111,667
Extrapolated SCAG 2029 Population With Project (persons) 161,987 Extrapolated SCAG 2029 Population With Project (percent increase) +45%

1. State of California, Department of Finance. (May 2024). E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State - January 1, 2021-2024. Retrieved from: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e -5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2024/.

2. SCAG. 2020. SCAG RTP/SCS: Connect SoCal Plan – Demographics and Growth Forecast. https://scag.ca.gov/read-plan-adopted-final-plan.

3. Based on constant growth rates between 202 4 and 2029.

Using the annual growth rates based on SCAG’s Connect SoCal and the City’s existing year 202 4 population, the City’s population is forecast to be 111,667 persons in 2029. As indicated in Table 4.12-2, the City’s population in 2029 would total approximately 1 61,987 persons with Project implementation.

Compared to the current housing, the future housing facilitated by the Project would result in population and household growth of approximately 45 percent over the extrapolated SCAG 2029 forecasts. Project Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

implementation would facilitate future housing development, thereby inducing indirect population growth in the City beyond the extrapolated SCAG 2029 forecast population of 111,667 persons.

The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate the development of housing units by implementing actions associated with the HEU . As discussed above, the Project’s implementing actions would facilitate future housing development, which could induce population growth in the City beyond 202 4, existing conditions and extrapolated 2029 SCAG forecast conditions.

However, State law requires that the City accommodate its RHNA “fair share” of the region’s housing needs, which cannot be achieved without the proposed rezoning and land use amendments. While the Project would facilitate the development of additional housing throughout the City, resulting in a forecast population growth of approximately 50,320 persons, this forecast population growth would be attributed to accommodating the City’s RHNA allocation of 8,272 DUs plus the RHNA buffer. Therefore, although the Project would indirectly induce population growth in the City, it is not considered unplanned given the State law requirements. It is also important to note the following factors concerning the Project’s forecast population growth:
• Future housing development would occur incrementally based on market conditions and other factors, such that potential effects concerning population growth (i.e., utilities, fire, police, and other services and infrastructure) would not occur at any single point in time. • All future housing developments facilitated by the Project and within overlay zones would be subject to compliance with all federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth - related impacts through the City’s development review process, which would occur on a project- by-project basis.

Furthermore, when adopting Connect SoCal 2024, SCAG acknowledged that its growth projections do not constitute a prescriptive pattern for future development in General Plan or Z oning Code amendments.

The distribution and types of RHNA housing units allocated within each local jurisdiction continue to be fully and completely subject to local control and subject to other applicable laws, and not be constrained or affected by Connect SoCal’s growth projections. SCAG’s Resolution No. 20-624-1 further notes that for many cities and counties, the required RHNA General Plan and zoning changes may need to accommodate more housing units than reflected in Connect SoCal’s household and population growth projections.

Given SCAG’s use of growth projections for regional planning and modeling purposes, and the local jurisdictions’ obligations to comply with State Housing Laws, including RHNA, SCAG agrees that potential exceedances may not be used to impede a local jurisdiction’s compliance with the 6 th Cycle RHNA
requirements or to assess impacts of a plan or project under CEQA. Further, it is anticipated that the next RTP/SCS update will incorporate the latest population and housing growth projections from the 6 th Cycle
RHNA and the Housing Elements of cities and counties within the SCAG region. Accordingly, the forecast population growth generated by future housing development facilitated through Housing Element implementation would not be classified as unplanned growth, but rather would be accommodated.

In addition, as the City is predominantly built out, it is anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the Project would be adequately served by existing services and located near established infrastructure (e.g., roads and utilities), with only minor modifications required; see Section 4.15 : Public Services, and Section 4.1 9: Utilities and Service Systems . Therefore, the Project would not induce Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

unplanned population growth in the City by proposing new businesses or through the extension of roads or other infrastructure.

As stated above, future housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process and assessed on a project -specific basis for potential indirect effects related to population growth.

Additionally, future housing development would be subject to compliance with all federal, State, and local requirements for minimizing growth -related impacts. Upon approval of the proposed Project’s discretionary actions (e.g., the proposed overlays), future housing development facilitated by the Project would be considered planned development and contribute to the City meeting its RHNA allocation.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.14b Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Of the 258 candidate housing sites identified in the Housing Element Sites Inventory, only two sites (i.e., 408 and 415) currently contain existing housing, each improved with a single dwelling unit, for a total of two housing units.
38 Based on the City’s average household size of 3.68 persons per household, development on these sites could result in the displacement of up to two households or approximately eight people.

As discussed in Section 2.0: Project Description, the proposed Project would apply a Residential Overlay Zone, permitting a maximum density of up to 50 dwelling units per acre. These two housing sites together total approximately 10 acres, which would allow for the development of up to 500 new DU, assuming a maximum allowable density of 50 DU/AC. This would result in a net increase of 498 dwelling units over existing conditions. While these sites may currently support single -family homes, their size and location make them appropriate candidates for future higher-density residential development consistent with the Housing Element. Redevelopment of these parcels with high-density housing would be expected to occur only when voluntarily initiated by the property owner and subject to the City’s standard development review process.

To further minimize the potential for future housing displacement, the City has included a buffer of additional housing units beyond its 6
th Cycle RHNA allocation to comply with Government Code § 65863 (SB 166, “no net loss” law). 39 This Initial Study conservatively evaluates a maximum residential development capacity of 13,674 DU, including a net increase of up to 13,546 units on 258 candidate housing sites and 128 ADUs. Only a portion of the se units will ultimately be needed to satisfy the City’s RHNA planning obligation of 8,272 DU. In addition to SB 166, the City’s compliance with SB 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019) further reduces the likelihood of displacement. Under Gov ernment Code § 66300(b)(1)(A), any proposed residential development that would demolish existing housing must provide at least a one-to-one replacement of demolished units, preserving housing capacity.

Finally, all development of ADUs would occur on as -yet unidentified sites and, by nature, would not displace existing housing but instead supplement the City’s housing stock. Therefore, future housing

38 City of Rialto. (2025). Plan to House Rialto, 6 th Cycle Housing Element 2021 -2029, Table B-20: Sites Inventory by Opportunity Area. 39 State Housing Laws require cities and counties to identify RHNA obligations by income category. A future housing applicant is not required to meet affordability goals. The City is obligated to ensure there is no net loss when projects are developed, such that ther e are adequate opportunities for the City to meet its RHNA obligations. If there is a net loss, the City has 120 days to provide rezoning th at accommodates the net loss. Therefore, Rialto includes a buffer to avoid the net loss scenario.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

development facilitated by the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and no impact would occur.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES
No SCA or MM are applicable to the proposed Project.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.15a Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physical altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection?
Less Than Significant Impact. The Rialto Fire Department provides fire protection services throughout the City, operating five fire stations staffed 24 hours per day and supported by one administrative office. The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate future residential development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. All candidate housing sites are located in urbanized areas already served by the Rialto Fire Department.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project is anticipated to result in an estimated population increase of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.14: Population and Housing ), which would incrementally increase the demand for fire protection services.

The General Plan EIR acknowledges that future development may lead to increase d service demands, potentially necessitating the expansion of existing facilities or the construction of new ones. New development would be subject to the City’s development review process and would be required to pay all Development Impact Fees pursuant to Rialto Code Chapter 3.33 . These fees support capital improvements for public services, including fire protection.

Additionally, General Plan Safety and Noise Element Policy 5-8.4 requires that development be phased in relation to the City’s ability to provide adequate fire protection, consistent with the City ’s Standard of Cover and Fire Department Strategic Plan. All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be required to demonstrate that adequate fire protection services can be maintained for both new and existing development. At the program level, the Project would not result in the construction of new fire Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

protection facilities, and all candidate housing sites are located within areas already served by the Fire Department. Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts related to fire protection infrastructure.

While some future housing development may increase service demand to the point that new or expanded facilities are warranted, any such facility would be subject to separate site-specific environmental review under CEQA, unless exempt. In cases where CEQA exemptions apply, these indirect service impacts may not be subject to further environmental review, but they would still be addressed through Development Impact Fees and General Plan consistency requirements. Impacts would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.

4.15b Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for police protection?
Less Than Significant Impact . The Rialto Police Department provides police protection services for the City. The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate the development of housing units by implementing actions associated with the HEU. All candidate housing sites are within urbanized areas that the Rialto Police Department already serves.

Future housing development facilitated by the proposed Project is anticipated to result in a population increase of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.14: Population and Housing ), which would incrementally increase the demand for police protection services throughout the City.

The General Plan EIR recognizes that increased development may require additional police staffing, equipment, and facilities to maintain acceptable service levels. As such, future housing development could contribute to the need for new or expanded police protection facilities, the construction of which may have the potential to result in significant environmental impacts.

To address these potential impacts, the City requires new development to contribute toward public facilities through the Development Impact Fee program outlined in Rialto Code Chapter 3.33, which includes a law enforcement facilities fee to fund necessary facilities, equipment, and training.

All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include project -specific review under CEQA. Where applicable, individual projects would be assessed for indirect impacts related to increased demand for public services. However, some future residential projects may qualify for statutory or categorical CEQA exemptions and therefore may not undergo detailed environmental review, even though they would still be required to pay impact fees and comply with service adequacy requirements.

At the program level, the Project would not directly result in the construction of new police facilities, and the candidate housing sites are already located in areas served by existing law enforcement infrastructure.

Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with police protection facilities . Should future housing development trigger the need for new police protection facilities, any such construction would undergo site -specific environmental analysis under CEQA, unless otherwise exempt. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15c Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for schools?
Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate the development of housing units by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing development facilitated by the proposed Project c ould result in a population increase of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.14: Population and Housing), which would increase student enrollment within the Rialto Unified, Colton Joint, Fontana Unified, and San Bernardino City Unified School Districts, thereby incrementally increasing demand for school facilities and services.

Future development would be required to comply with General Plan Policy 3 -6.2, which mandates coordination with school districts to ensure that local school facilities can accommodate the pace of residential development and growth. However, the City’s ability to mitigate school facility needs is limited by state law. Under Government Code §§ 65995-65998 (SB 50), school districts may collect development impact fees for new residential and non- residential development to offset school -related impacts.

Government Code § 65995(h) specifies that payment of statutory fees constitutes full and complete mitigation under CEQA for school facility impacts.

All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to school developer fees, calculated based on building square footage and collected at the time of building permit issuance. These fees would support school facility expansion and equipment needs and are reviewed and updated regularly by each school district.

While the Project could lead to localized increases in school enrollment, particularly in areas of concentrated growth, the payment of school fees under SB 50 ensures that school -related impacts are legally and financially mitigated. Should a school district propose new or expanded school facilities in the future, such facilities would be subject to project- specific environmental review under CEQA, as applicable.

Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction of new school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.15d Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for parks?
Less Than Significant Impact. See Section 4.16: Recreation.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.15e Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for other libraries?
Less Than Significant Impact. Library services in Rialto are provided by the San Bernardino County Library system, which operates the Rialto Branch and Carter Branch Library within the City. These facilities offer a full range of library services, including movies, books, computers, and Internet access. The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate future housing development through the HEU , which could lead to population growth and an incremental increase in demand for library services. Future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to pay library development impact fees pursuant to Rialto Code Chapter 3.33.

These fees support the cost of constructing , expanding, or equipping library facilities , including land acquisition if needed. Development would also be phased over time, allowing public facilities to expand in step with population growth and tax revenue. If new or expanded library facilities are warranted in the future, such projects would be subject to project-specific CEQA review, unless statutorily or categorically exempt. However, the incremental demand from the Project is not expected to be substantial enough to require new library construction, and existing mechanisms ensure that facility needs are addressed as growth occurs.

Therefore, the Project would not result in substantial adverse environmental impacts related to library services. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA or MM are applicable to the proposed Project.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.16 RECREATION
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such
that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities
which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.16a Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

4.16b Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact.

An increase in City residents associated with the future development of housing sites within the OAs would result in an increased demand for recreational facilities. According to the City’s General Plan, Rialto’s park dedication requirement is 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons. The anticipated 13,674 DU facilitated by implementation of the HEU would generate a population growth of approximately 50,320 persons, increasing the City’s demand for parkland by approximately 151 acres. This acreage estimate assumes buildout of all identified housing units.

All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process and compliance with applicable General Plan policies and Rialto Code requirements. New development would be required to pay applicable impact fees pursuant to Rialto Code Chapter 3.33, including a parks and recreation development impact fee to fund facilities needed to meet the increased demand for recreational services, as well as land acquisition if necessary . In addition, pursuant to Rialto Code Chapter 17.23: Park and Recreation Facilities Dedication, every developer of a residential project requiring a land division must dedicate land, pay an in-lieu fee, or provide a combination of both (at the City’s discretion) to support the provision of park and recreational facilities. These mechanisms ensure that future development facilitated by the Project would not result in substantial deterioration of existing park or recreational facilities due to increased usage. Furthermore, it is possible that future developments may include new recreational facilities or developer -constructed parks; however, specific details are unknown at this time and would be addressed through subsequent project-level reviews.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Additionally, the Project’s candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the City, helping minimize the potential for overburdening specific recreation amenities or causing localized deterioration .

Adherence to mandatory development permit requirements and regulations would support the City’s goals for maintaining sufficient recreation opportunities for residents. For these reasons, the Project and future housing development facilitated by the Project would not result in substantial physical deterioration of the existing neighborhood or regional parks. Impacts would be less than significant.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA or MM are applicable to the proposed Project.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.17 TRANSPORTATION
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadways, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

X
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines §
15064.4, subdivision (b)?
X
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.17a Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? Less Than Significant Impact . Bus services are provided to the City via Omnitrans, a public agency that serves the greater San Bernardino Valley. Metrolink is a Southern California agency that provides passenger rail services to the region’s cities. The City also contains a contiguous bicycle lane system that allows bicycle access throughout the City.

SCAG and the City have adopted programs, plans, ordinances, and policies that establish the planning framework to achieve a safe, accessible, and sustainable transportation system for all users. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. The HEU does not include any goals, policies, or implementation programs that conflict with plans or other regulations addressing the circulation system.

Connect SoCal 20 24. On April 4, 2024, SCAG adopted Connect SoCal 2024, which was subsequently approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) on May 10, 2024, and accepted by CARB as meeting GHG reduction targets under SB 375 on May 7, 2025. As the currently adopted RTP/SCS, Connect SoCal 2024, supersedes Connect SoCal 2020 as the operative regional plan for CEQA purposes. Connect SoCal 2024 aims to reduce or limit new trip generation and associated regional g rowth in traffic congestion and VMT by focusing on growth, density, and land use intensity within existing urbanized areas. Connect SoCal also strives to enhance the existing transportation system, maximize multi -modal transportation, and integrate land use into transportation planning.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Connect SoCal recommends local jurisdictions accommodate future growth within existing urbanized areas to reduce VMT, congestion, and GHG emissions.

As shown in Table 4 .11-1: Connect SoCal 2024 Consistency Analysis, future housing development facilitated by the Project would not conflict with any applicable Connect SoCal 2024 goals related to circulation, transportation, or environmental sustainability. The Project supports regional objectives to concentrate new growth in existing communities and reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicle travel.

Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant impact, and no mitigation is required.

Rialto General Plan. General Plan Chapter 3: Making the Connections – The Circulation Chapter (2010, as amended in 2024) outlines goals and policies that address the anticipated level and pattern of development, which will generate travel throughout the City and must be accommodated by the roadway system, public transportation, and non -motorized forms of transportation. The General Plan outlines a range of goals and policies designed to enhance Rialto’s mobility, address parking demands, increase rail and bus ridership, improve pedestrian and bicycle environments, and facilitate the movement of goods .

General Plan Policy 4-1.1 states that the City aims to maintain standards for various street classifications to serve both local and regional traffic. Although level of service (LOS) is no longer a CEQA threshold of significance, General Plan Policy 4 -1.20 identifies that the City aims to maintain signalized intersection operations at Level of Service (LOS) D or better during the morning and evening peak hours and also requires new development to mitigate traffic impacts that degrade LOS below that level. General Plan Policies 4 -1.6, 4- 1.7, and 4- 1.9 require the City to coordinate with the California Department of Transportation, San Bernadino Association of Governments (SANBAG) and neighboring jurisdictions to accommodate growing volumes of traffic, implement the San Bernardino Valley Coordinated Traffic Signal Systems Plan, and work with Caltrans to improve coordination of traffic at freeway interchanges on City streets. Policies 4-8.1 through 4-8.6 are aimed at maintaining a comprehensive system of pedestrian trails and bicycle routes throughout the City. Finally, the City has adopted a Development Impact Fee (DIF) program, and Policy 4-1.18 requires the City to review its DIF for traffic impacts regularly.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project would not conflict with General Plan policies addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Rialto Municipal Code. Future development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the existing regulatory framework, including Rialto Code § 3.33.170: Local Traffic Development Impact Fee , which requires new construction to pay its fair share of transportation facility impacts to mitigate citywide improvements to City roadway and intersections. Additionally, future development would also be subject to compliance with CBC Chapter 32 , which identifies requirements associated with right -of-way encroachments, and CBC Chapter 33, which specifies requirements for temporary construction street closures. Therefore, given compliance with the established regulatory framework, future housing development would not conflict with Rialto Code standards addressing the circulation system, including transit, r oadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be required to comply with General Plan policies, Rialto Code standards, and relevant policies and standards concerning public transit and pedestrian facilities. This includes policies and regulations needed to enhance public access and safety for Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as improve the transportation system, as applicable. Future housing development on the candidate housing sites would be required to adhere to all state requirements for consistency with transportation plans.

The City’s review process would examine the project's compatibility with the surrounding areas.

Conditions of approval may include requirements for street improvements, dedications, and traffic circulation. As a result, future housing development on the candidate housing sites facilitated by the HEU would not conflict with an adopted program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bi cycle, and pedestrian facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

4.17b Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Senate Bill 743 required changes to the State CEQA G uidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. A utomobile delay, as measured by “level of service” (LOS) and other similar metrics, generally no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. The changes identified vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (currently the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) ) developed the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (“Technical Advisory”) in CEQA (April 2018). The Technical Advisory provides technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of significance, and mitigation measures.

The City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled ( VMT) and LOS Assessment (“TIA Guidelines”) (December 2024) provide details on appropriate screening thresholds that can be used to identify when a proposed land use project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant impact without conducting a more detailed level of analysis. According to the TIA Guidelines, if a project meets one of the City’s screening thresholds, the project is presumed to result in a less than significant VMT impact. The City’s screening criteria are as follows:

Transit Priority Area (TPA) Screening. A project would be considered to have a less -than-significant transportation impact if it is located within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), as determined by the most recent SCAG RTP/SCS and the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) VMT screening tool.

Low VMT Area Screening. A project would be considered to have a less -than-significant transportation impact if the project is located within a low VMT -generating area, as determined by the TIA Guidelines and the SBCTA VMT screening tool.

Project Type Screening. A project would be considered to have a less -than-significant transportation impact if the project generates fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips. According to the TIA Guidelines, the 110 daily vehicle trip threshold applies only to passenger vehicles; truck trips and PCE calculations are excluded from project type screening. The following residential uses would also be presumed to have a less -than- significant VMT impact:
• Student housing projects
• Student housing projects on or adjacent to college campuses • Affordable or supportive housing
Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Assisted living facilities
• Senior housing (as defined by HUD)
The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development in urbanized areas by implementing actions associated with the HEU . The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the City to reduce the potential for adverse environmental impacts. The intent is to minimize the effects by locating housing near public transportation and recreational opportunities, and away from environmentally sensitive resources. Many of the housing opportunity sites are located along major arterial roadways. Future development projects would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to verify consistency w ith application regulations that address the circulation system, including VMT. The candidate housing sites are located within urban areas, and therefore, future housing development on these sites, facilitated by the HEU, would be expected to reduce VMT. Future housing development in some areas of the City would provide more housing closer to employment and commercial areas, further increasing opportunities to reduce VMT and improve the ease of walking, cycling, and using public transit.

Future housing development would complete the City’s VMT Analysis Project Scoping Form to determine if the project is screened from the VMT Assessment. Future housing development projects within a Transit Priority Area (TPA), wit hin a Low VMT Area, which generate fewer than 110 daily vehicle trips, or that involve the residential uses identified above , would be exempt from requiring a VMT analysis and thus are presumed to result in a less -than-significant transportation impact concerning VMT. Future housing development projects that are not screened (i.e., do not meet any one of these criteria) would require a VMT Assessment pursuant to the TIA Guidelines. Future housing developments that have a significant VMT impact (as determined by the VMT Analysis) would be required to mitigate these impacts through implementation of MM TRANS-1, which includes feasible mitigation strategies that can help projects avoid or substantially reduce VMT -related impacts to a level that is less than significant . Furthermore, future housing development within candidate housing sites would be subject to all State and local requirements for minimizing VMT-related impacts. Additionally, future development would be subject to the General Plan, which encourages transportation improvements to reduce traffic congestion associated with regional and local trip increases, as well as the maintenance of efficient roadway capacities and the minimization of traffic hazards near residential uses. Therefore, the Project would not conflict or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines § 15064(b), and impacts would be less than significant with MM TRANS-1 incorporated.

4.17c Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing facilitated by the Project would be located in an urbanized area. Because future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur primarily on developed properties, it would utilize existing roadways that are connected and adjacent to the existing transportation network, and hazards due to geometric design features or incompatible uses are not anticipated. Any roadway modifications required for future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with General Plan policies, Rialto Code standards, and applicable regulations to avoid hazards associated with geometric design features.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations for the design of new housing and emergency access. Additionally, it would be required to adhere to all State and local requirements for minimizing construction and operational impacts related to design and incompatible uses.

Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

4.17d Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be located within an urbanized area. Because future housing development facilitated by the HEU would occur on primarily developed properties, it is not anticipated that future housing development would result in inadequate emergency access. Additionally, all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be required to comply with the General Plan and Rialto Code.

The City has adopted the California Fire Code (CFC) as outlined in Rialto Code § 15.28. The CFC sets standards for road dimensions, design, grades, and other fire safety features. Additionally, more stringent CBC standards also apply regarding new construction and development of emergency access issues associated with earthquakes, flooding, climate/strong winds, and water shortages. Future housing developments would be required to comply with applicable building and fire safety regulations, including those related to the design of new housing and emergency access. Thus, compliance with the Rialto Code would be required to provide adequate access, including emergency access. As a result, future housing development facilitated by the HEU would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA are applicable to the proposed Project.

MM TRANS-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Prior to issuance of a building permit, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to reduce VMT -related impacts associated with future projects that cannot be screened out of the VMT analysis process, such that the development’s VMT falls below the low -VMT thresholds identified by City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and LOS Assessment (TIA Guidelines) (December 2024) or guidelines adopted by the City of Rialto at the time of the development application:
• Modify the project’s built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project;
• Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce project-generated VMT; and/or
• Participate in a fair share traffic impact fee program or VMT mitigation banking program, if available.

Examples of potential VMT-reducing measures include, but are not limited to:

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

• Improve or increase access to transit;
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare;
• Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
• Orient the project toward transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; • Provide traffic calming features;
• Provide secure bicycle parking;
• Limit or eliminate on-site parking supply;
• Unbundle parking costs from housing units;
• Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program; • Provide car-sharing, bike-sharing, or ride-sharing programs; • Provide subsidized or free transit passes.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.18 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape , sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public Resources
Code § 5020.1(k), or
X
ii) A resource determined by the Lead Agency , in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In
applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the Lead Agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.

X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.18a Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k)? ii) A resource determined by the Lead Agency , in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the Lead Agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
Less Than Significant W ith Mitigation Incorporated. Pursuant to Government Code §21080.3.2(b) and §21074(a)(1)(A)-(B) (Assembly Bill 52) and Senate Bill 18, the City provided formal notification to California Native American tribes that have previously requested such notice regarding projects within the geographic area traditionally and culturally affiliated with tribe(s). Native American groups may possess knowledge about cultural resources in the area and may have concerns about the adverse effects of development on tribal cultural resources, as defined in Public Resources Code § 21074.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

As a result of tribal consultation, future housing development facilitated by the Project would incorporate MM CUL-2, MM CUL-3, MM TCR-1, and MM TCR-2 to reduce potential impacts to tribal cultural resources to a less than significant level.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA are applicable to the proposed Project.

MM TCR-1 Tribal Notification and Coordination for Unanticipated Discoveries. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted in the event that any pre -contact cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, as required under MM CUL -1. YSMN shall be provided with information regarding the nature of the find to enable t ribal input regard ing the resource’s significance and appropriate treatment. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource under CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21074) , a Cultural Resou rces Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN . All subsequent finds shall be subject to the provisions of this Plan. The Plan shall allow for a tribal monitor representing YSMN to be present during all remaining ground-disturbing activities, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

MM TCR-2 Sharing of Archaeological Documentation. All archaeological and cultural documentation prepared in connection with future housing projects facilitated by the Project (e.g., isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, data recovery reports) shall be provided to both the Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the duration of project construction regarding any discoveries and cultural resource management actions.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.19 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry , and multiple dry
years?
X
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatment provider which serves or may serve the
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
X
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management
and reduction statutes and regulations related to
solid waste?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.19a Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Less Than Significant Impact.

Water
The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate the development of housing units by implementing actions associated with the Project . Future housing development facilitated by the Project and the resulting population growth of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.14: Population and Housing ) would incrementally increase the demand for utility and service systems. Of the 258 housing sites, 150 are currently developed and receive water service from the City of Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Rialto Municipal Water System (through its water system operator, Veolia, via Rialto Water Services), the West Valley Water District (WVWD), or the Fontana Union Water Company (FUWC). All candidate housing sites are located within urbanized and developed areas, where existing water infrastructure is available .

Therefore, it is anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the Project would connect to existing nearby domestic water infrastructure of the respective water purveyors with a limited need for relocation or construction of new or expanded water infrastructure. Construction may require excavation, removal of aging and/or undersized water lines, and installation of new lines within existing paved streets and public rights-of-way. Such infrastructure improvements are limited to short-term construction effects that cease upon completion of the improvements. All future housing projects would be subject to the City’s development review process , including site -specific evaluation of the respect ive water districts’ existing water system capacity to serve the development.

Additionally, if any future development facilitated by the Project contains 500 or more housing units, SB 610 requires the preparation of a Water Supply Assessment. Where it is determined that new or expanded water infrastructure is required, the potential effects of these improvements would need to be addressed as a part of the site -specific development review process. If improvements to the existing water system are required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay their fair share of the cost of all or portions of the needed improvements.

Future development would be subject to General Plan policies that require adequate infrastructure to be provided as new development occurs. For example, compliance with General Plan Policy 3 -6.1 requires that public facilities and infrastructure adequately support development proposals. All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process, which may include review under CEQA, and would be assessed on a case -by-case basis for potential effects concerning the secondary impacts of population growth, including but not limited to the need for infrastructure improvements. Projects would need to demonstrate that adequate water infrastructure is available or can be provided for new housing and that it would continue to be provided for existing land uses. Although future development may require the construction or relocation of water supply infrastructure, potential impacts would be addressed as a part of the individual projects , and it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
The City owns, operates, and maintains the local public sanitary sewer system, which includes a wastewater collection system and treatment plant. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would incrementally increase wastewater generation in the City. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU.

The resulting population growth of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.1 4: Population and Housing) would incrementally increase the wastewater generation . The candidate housing sites are located within urbanized and developed areas, where existing sewer infrastructure is available. Therefore, it is anticipated that future housing development facilitated by the Project would connect to existing nearby sewer infrastructure of the respective districts with a limited need for relocation or construction of new or expanded infrastructure. Infrastructure improvements would likely require only a limited need for expansion or replacement of individual sewer line segments to meet increased residential wastewater demand. Construction of new sewer pipes or mains , or replacement of existing facilities, may require excavation, removal of older mains, removal of existing manholes, and installation of new manholes and Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

lines within existing paved roads and public rights-of-way. Such infrastructure improvements are limited to short-term construction effects that cease upon completion of the improvement.

All future housing projects would be subject to the City’s development review process , including site- specific evaluation of the respective sanitation districts’ existing infrastructure and treatment capacity to serve the development. Projects would be assessed on a case- by-case basis for potential effects concerning the secondary effects of population growth, including but not limited to the need for infrastructure improvements. Projects would need to demonstrate that adequate sewer infrastructure and treatment capacity are available or can be provided for new housing and continue to be provided for existing land uses. The City levies connection fees for new or expanded sewer connections, including those to new development. These connection fees help fund the costs associated with providing wastewater facility capacity to both new users requiring new connections and existing users requiring additional capacity. Therefore, although future development may require the construction or relocation of wastewater su pply infrastructure, potential impacts would be addressed as a part of the individual projects, and it is anticipated that impacts would be less than significant.

Dry Utilities
The candidate housing sites are within urbanized and developed areas, where there is existing electrical infrastructure. Housing sites located in or near developed areas would be connected to existing electric power provided by SCE, natural gas supplied by SoCalGas, and telecommunications facilities provided by various service providers. Future development would be subject to compliance with Title 24 energy efficiency standards. Additionally, any expansion of natural gas service necessitated by implementati on of the proposed Project would be in accordance with SoCalGas’s policies and extension rules on file with the California Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual agreements are made. F uture housing development would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements for avoiding and minimizing impacts related to the relocation or construction of new or expanded electricity, natura l gas, and telecommunication facilities. Future development of the candidate housing sites evaluated in this Initial Study is located in an urban environment. The provision of electrical, natural gas, and telecommunication services would not result in foreseeable significant impacts.

4.19b Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not directly construct new housing, but would facilitate the development of housing units by implementing actions associated with the Project. Future housing development facilitated by the Project, along with the resulting population growth of approximately 50,320 persons (see Section 4.14: Population and Housing), would incrementally increase water demand. Of the 258 housing sites, 150 are currently developed and receive water service from the City o f Rialto Municipal Water System (through its water system operator, Veolia, via Rialto Water Services), the WVWD, or the FUWC. All candidate housing sites are located within urbanized and developed areas, where existing water infrastructure is available.

The 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan (IRUWMP) conducted a Water Reliability Assessment to compare the total water supply sources available to the water supplier with long -term forecast water use over the next 20 years, in five -year increments, Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

for a normal water year, a single dry water year, and a drought lasting five consecutive water years. 40 While the UWMP concluded that sufficient water supplies would be available during all hydrologic scenarios, including the multiple dry year scenario, the 2020 UWMP does not account for the Project’s forecasted population growth of up to 50,320 persons or the associated water demand.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to the City’s development review process and required to adhere to all federal, State, and local requirements during construction and operation to ensure that sufficient water supplies are available. Future developments that contain 500 or more housing units are required to prepare a Water Supply Assessment, per SB 610. Future housing development would also be subject to Title 24 CBC requirements , such as smart water fixtures, which would reduce water demand. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would require will - serve letters from the WVWD or FUWC regarding their ability to provide sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years to ensure proper service and availability necessary to serve future housing development facilitated by the Housing Element. A less than significant impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.

4.19c Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less Than Significant Impact . The City owns, operates, and maintains the local public sanitary sewer system, which includes a wastewater collection system and treatment plant. Wastewater is treated at the Rialto Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWWTP) located at 501. E. Santa Ana Avenue in Rialto. The RWWTP treats domestic and commercial/industrial wastewater generated in the City of Rialto and portions of the City of Fontana. The combined total treatment design capacity of the plant is 11.7 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of 7 to 8 mgd, with 4 to 5 mgd remaining capacity. 41 Future housing development may be subject to discretionary permits and be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements related to wastewater treatment during construction and operations, including the City’s Sewer System guidelines outlined in Rialto Code Chapter 12.08.

Considering these requirements and the available capacity discussed above, the Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projec ted demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. No new significant expansions of infrastructure facilities are required, and impacts would be less than significant.

4.19d Would the project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?

4.19e Would the project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Less Than Significant Impact. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would incrementally increase solid waste generation in the City. The City contracts for waste collection services with Burrtec

40 San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District, 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Available at: https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1601/2020- Upper-Santa-Ana-River-Watershed-Integrated-Regional-Urban- Water-Management-Plan.
41 Veolia Municipal Water Division. (2022). Building a Sustainable Future in Rialto, CA. Retrieved from:
hhttps://www.veolianorthamerica.com/case -studies/strengthening-rialtos-water-wastewater-infrastructure. Accessed April 15, 2025.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Waste Industries; the service purveyor would be responsible for solid waste collection and hauling during both construction and operational phases of any future development projects. Solid waste generated during construction activities typically includes the demolition of existing on -site structures, vegetation clearing, and grading, which also generate solid waste. Such waste would be source-separated on-site for reuse, recycling, or proper disposal. Bins for the various types of construction material wast e would typically be provided on-site by Burrtec, who would also transport the waste materials to the appropriate facilities for disposal. For future operations, Burrtec would offer a variety of trash collection and recycling services. It is anticipated that solid waste from future housing development facilitated by the Project would be disposed of at the landfill nearest the City: Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill.

Future housing development facilitated by the Project would comply with applicable local, State , and federal regulations regarding solid waste, including those of the City of Rialto. Future housing development facilitated by the Project includes the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), AB 1826, SB 2022, SB 1383, SB 1019, CalGreen Code § 4.408, AB 341, and Rialto Code §18.108.

Rialto Code §18.108 outlines policies and regulations regarding solid waste handling and recycling for both customers and collectors in the City. Compliance with the above-mentioned policies and programs would ensure that the f uture housing development facilitated by the Project would not conflict with federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Furthermore, future housing development would be required to comply with the General Plan, which contains goals and policies related to solid waste and recycling management. Therefore, Project implementation would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of local infrastructure’s capacity , or conflict with statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Impacts would be less than significant , and no mitigation is required.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA or MM are applicable to the proposed Project.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.20 WILDFIRE
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
X
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildlife
or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks,
emergency water resources, power lines or other
utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may
result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
X
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post- fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.20a If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

4.20b If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the project exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

4.20c If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, powe r lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?

4.20d If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project e xpose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

No Impact. According to the CalFire Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map42, the candidate housing sites are not within a State Responsibility Area (SRA) or a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Therefore, future housing development facilitated by the Project would result in no impact concerning wildfires, and no mitigation is required.

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MEASURES No SCA or MM are applicable to the proposed Project.

42 California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025). Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, City of Rialto – San Bernardino. Retrieved from: https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/file/1810973577265. Access April 16, 2025.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Environmental Issue
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Does the project:
a) Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self -sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co mmunity,
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
X
b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects.)
X
c) Have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X

IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.21a Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co mmunity, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Less Than Significant Impact. On the basis of the foregoing analysis, the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self -sustaining levels, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. All future housing development facilitated by the Project would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local requirements. The Project would not result in any direct environmental impacts that would substantially degrade the quality of the environment, Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Impacts are less than significant.

4.21b Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other c urrent projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)
Less Than Significant Impact. State CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(3) defines “cumulatively considerable” as times when “the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.” This document provides a programmatic analysis of the effects of future housing development facilitated by Project implementation.

The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be located within an urbanized area. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would occur as market conditions allow and at the discretion of the individual property owners, and does not propose changes to current land use designations and zoning. Based on these factors, and since all future housing development facilitated by the HEU would be subject to the City’s development review process, the Project would not result in environmental effects, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable.

4.21c Does the project have environmental effects which will have substantial adverse effects on human beings, directly or indirectly?
Less Than Significant Impact. There are no known substantial adverse effects on human beings that would be caused by the proposed P roject. The Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development by implementing actions associated with the HEU. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would be located within an urbanized area. The HEU provides capacity for future housing development consistent with State Housing Law. The candidate housing sites are dispersed throughout the community to minimize the potential for adverse environmental impacts.

The provision of additional housing in the City is intended to create adequate housing availability at all income levels. The creation of more economically and socially diverse housing choices is a goal of the HEU, intended to provide new housing opportunities for low -income households. Implementation of the HEU would provide additional housing options for a variety of income levels, as allocated by RHNA.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

5.0 REFERENCES
California Air Resources Board. (2022). Climate Change Scoping Plan. Retrieved from:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/ab-32-climate-change-scoping-plan/2022-scoping- plan-documents.

California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/
California Department of Conservation, California Important Farmland Finder . https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Community Conservation Plans. Available at https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer Available at: https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/789d5286736248f69c4515c04f58f414.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. (2025). Local Responsibility Area Fire Hazard Severity Zones, City of Rialto – San Bernardino. Retrieved from:
https://calfire.app.box.com/s/wahuw9ny7cgn89xpxh7092ur50r1pwvj/file/1810973577265.

California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/index.shtml.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). (2021). California State Scenic Highway System Map.

Retrieved from:
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=465dfd3d807c46cc8e805 7116f1aacaa.

City of Rialto. 2010. General Plan.
-----. 2010. General Plan. Safety Element - Figure S-3. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure S-5, Liquefaction Susceptibility. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure S-6, Potential Subsidence Areas. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure S-7, Slope Stability and Major Landslides, page 10-33. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure S-8, Wind Hazards.
-----. 2010. General Plan. Figure S-9, Fire Hazard Areas, page 10-43. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure U-2, Water Service Area Boundaries. -----. 2010. General Plan. San Bernardino International Airport Planning Boundaries – Figure LU4, page 2-47.
-----. 2010. General Plan. Figure NRC-1 – Potential Habitat for Sensitive Wildlife.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

-----. 2010. General Plan. Figure NRC-2 – Biological Resource Areas. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure NRC-3, Mineral Resources, pages 12-15. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure U-1, Sewerage Service Area Boundaries. -----. 2010. General Plan. Figure U-2, Water Service Area Boundaries. -----. 2010. General Plan. Land Use Plan, page 2-4, 2-9 -----. 2012. Lytle Creek Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact -----. 2010. General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact State Clearinghouse Number 200807110
City of Rialto. (2023). Rialto Focused General Plan Update 2024. https://www.rialtoca.gov/773/2023-City- of-Rialto-Focused-General-Plan.

City of Rialto. SEMS/NIMS Multi -Hazard Functional Plan. Retrieved from:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/943/Emergency-Operations-Plan-PDF City of Rialto. December 2024. Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT and Level of Service Assessment (LOS) (TIA Guidelines)
San Bernadino Valley Municipal Water District, 2020 Upper Santa Ana River Watershed Integrated Regional Urban Water Management Plan, Available at:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1601/2020-Upper-Santa-Ana-River- Watershed-Integrated-Regional-Urban-Water-Management-Plan. SCAQMD. (1993). CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Section 12.1 Overview of Consistency with Regional Plans, page 12 -1.

Retrieved from: https://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air-quality-analysis- handbook/ceqa-air-quality-handbook-(1993).

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal (2020). Retrieved from https://scag.ca.gov/connect-socal.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Retrieved from 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forecast by Jurisdiction.

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). What is RHNA? Available at https://scag.ca.gov/rhna.

U.S. Geological Survey. (2024). Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Retrieved from:
https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html.

United States Census Bureau. Quick Facts : Rialto City, California. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/rialtocitycalifornia
Veolia Municipal Water Division. (2022). Building a Sustainable Future in Rialto, CA. Retrieved from: https ://www.veolianorthamerica.com/case-studies/strengthening-rialtos-water-wastewater- infrastructure.

Rialto 6th Cycle HEU
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
October 2025
Appendix A: Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

1 12758240 0.52 Yes 50 26 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 2 12836120 1.15 Yes 50 57 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 3 12836123 1.44 Yes 50 72 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 4 12806150 5.26 No 50 263 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 5 12807129 2.06 No 50 103 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 6 24316104 0.73 No 50 36 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 7 13006125 4.12 No 50 206 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 8 13006118 0.85 No 50 42 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 9 13317123 0.99 No 50 49 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 10 24316105 1.65 No 50 82 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 11 13339107 9.95 No 50 497 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 12 13001336 0.51 No 50 25 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 13 13317125 0.51 No 50 25 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 14 12806143 1 No 50 50 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 15 13317127 0.66 No 50 33 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 16 12808144 1.26 No 50 63 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 17 24316106 0.72 No 50 36 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 18 13001346 1.38 No 50 69 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 19 13046101 1.38 No 50 69 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 20 13006113 0.83 No 50 41 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 21 12857120 1.86 No 50 93 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 22 12801145 1.88 No 50 94 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 23 13006120 2 No 50 100 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 24 12806144 2.43 No 50 121 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 25 13006123 2.53 No 50 126 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 26 12806129 4.05 No 50 202 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 27 12801137 4.77 No 50 238 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 28 12759139 8.04 No 50 402 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 29 13002136 1.1 No 50 55 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 30 13003115 1.16 No 50 58 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 31 12758239 0.61 No 50 30 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 32 12758229 0.66 No 50 33 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 33 12757237 0.93 No 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 34 12857119 1.81 No 50 90 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 35 12760240 0.86 No 50 43 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

36 12757238 0.54 No 50 27 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 37 12757239 1.8 No 50 90 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 38 12857123 0.91 No 50 45 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 39 13046107 0.53 No 50 26 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 40 12801146 2.95 No 50 147 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 41 12836116 0.6 No 50 30 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 42 13003102 0.58 No 50 29 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 43 13339108 0.62 No 50 31 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 44 12758220 0.76 Yes 50 38 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 45 12758231 0.55 No 50 27 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 46 12760241 0.78 No 50 39 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 47 12801142 1.71 No 50 85 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 48 13041105 0.77 No 50 38 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 49 13046116 2.11 No 50 105 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 50 13005128 2.17 No 50 108 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 51 13005151 2.07 No 50 103 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 52 13315504 0.64 No 50 32 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 53 13315505 0.51 No 50 25 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 54 12759123 0.52 No 50 26 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 55 12801144 0.55 No 50 27 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 56 12758237 0.56 No 50 28 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 57 13315502 0.59 No 50 29 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 58 13006124 0.61 No 50 30 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 59 13315501 0.63 No 50 31 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 60 13316407 0.65 No 50 32 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 61 12758241 0.66 No 50 33 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 62 12836117 0.69 No 50 34 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 63 12801147 0.77 No 50 38 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 64 12857121 0.79 No 50 39 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 65 12857122 0.84 No 50 42 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 66 13041106 0.86 No 50 43 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 67 13006121 0.87 No 50 43 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 68 12806146 0.87 No 50 43 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 69 13005149 0.92 No 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 70 12806142 0.94 No 50 47 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

71 13002120 0.94 No 50 47 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 72 12757228 0.96 No 50 48 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 73 12757229 0.82 No 50 41 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 74 12757231 0.81 No 50 40 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 75 12758230 0.55 No 50 27 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 76 13005148 0.92 No 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 77 13046208 1.74 No 50 87 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 78 13316405 0.65 No 50 32 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 79 13339119 0.82 No 50 41 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 80 13339118 2.74 No 50 137 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 81 12758221 0.62 Yes 50 31 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 82 12836115 2.37 Yes 50 118 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 83 12836118 0.92 No 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 84 12836119 0.92 Yes 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 85 12836121 0.92 Yes 50 46 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 86 12836122 1.61 Yes 50 80 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 87 12857125 1.61 Yes 50 80 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 88 13046207 1.63 Yes 50 81 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 89 13046102 2.03 Yes 50 101 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 91 13001313 0.57 Yes 50 28 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 92 13001312 0.57 Yes 50 28 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 93 13006105 0.69 Yes 50 34 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 94 24316113 0.67 Yes 50 33 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 95 12806124 0.86 No 50 43 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 96 12808143 1.12 Yes 50 56 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 97 12808145 1.13 Yes 50 56 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 98 13001311 1.13 Yes 50 56 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 99 24316151 1.17 Yes 50 58 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 100 13317109 1.25 Yes 50 62 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 101 13001302 1.67 Yes 50 83 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 102 13317131 2.08 No 50 104 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 103 12807130 2.09 Yes 50 104 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 104 24316110 2.1 Yes 50 105 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 105 12801132 2.15 Yes 50 107 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 106 12801133 2.23 Yes 50 111 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

107 13317108 2.24 Yes 50 112 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 108 13317107 2.43 Yes 50 121 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 111 12857126 5.15 Yes 50 257 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 400 13001316 0.46 Yes 50 23 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 401 13002145 0.51 Yes 50 25 1 – Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan 112 12703201 0.76 Yes 50 38 2 – North Riverside Avenue
113 12709101 1.16 No 50 58 2 – North Riverside Avenue
114 12708104 1.12 No 50 56 2 – North Riverside Avenue
115 12708103 1.12 No 50 56 2 – North Riverside Avenue
116 12705308 0.51 No 50 25 2 – North Riverside Avenue
117 12704102 0.39 No 50 19 2 – North Riverside Avenue
118 12704143 0.48 No 50 24 2 – North Riverside Avenue
119 12705310 4.9 Yes 50 245 2 – North Riverside Avenue
402 26417135 1.02 Yes 50 51 2 – North Riverside Avenue
403 26417137 2.4 Yes 50 120 2 – North Riverside Avenue
404 26417144 0.33 Yes 50 16 2 – North Riverside Avenue
405 26417145 0.33 Yes 50 16 2 – North Riverside Avenue
406 26417146 0.39 Yes 50 19 2 – North Riverside Avenue
407 12711387 1.5 No 50 75 2 – North Riverside Avenue
408 26420124 5.36 No 50 268 2 – North Riverside Avenue
120 25404113 9.86 Yes 50 493 3 – Gateway Specific Plan
121 25404111 10.08 No 50 504 3 – Gateway Specific Plan
124 13022226 1.22 No 50 61 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 125 13022216 0.68 No 50 34 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 126 13022219 0.62 No 50 31 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 128 13014116 0.5 No 50 25 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 129 13022227 1.03 No 50 51 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 130 13022223 0.12 No 50 6 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 131 13022220 0.3 Yes 50 15 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 132 13022207 0.17 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 133 13022206 0.17 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 134 13014110 0.32 Yes 50 16 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 136 13028148 0.59 No 50 29 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 137 13028135 0.29 Yes 50 14 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 138 13027104 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

139 13027125 0.08 Yes 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 140 13027103 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 141 13027126 0.08 Yes 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 142 13027102 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 143 13027127 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 144 13027101 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 145 13028136 0.19 No 50 9 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 146 13027122 0.24 No 50 12 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 147 13027123 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 149 13027105 0.16 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 152 13027112 0.21 No 50 10 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 153 13027120 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 154 13027106 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 155 13028104 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 157 13028139 0.16 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 158 13027118 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 159 13028103 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 160 13028102 0.08 No 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 161 13027124 0.16 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 162 13025101 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 163 13025102 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 164 13025103 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 165 13025104 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 166 13025105 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 167 13025106 0.14 Yes 50 7 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 168 13025135 0.11 Yes 50 5 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 169 13025136 0.07 Yes 50 3 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 170 13025142 0.24 Yes 50 12 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 173 13023102 0.16 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 174 13023103 0.16 No 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 175 13023106 0.24 No 50 12 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 176 13023109 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 177 13023110 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 178 13023111 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 179 13023112 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

180 13023120 0.24 No 50 12 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 181 13023121 0.08 Yes 50 4 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 182 13023122 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 183 13023123 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 184 13023124 0.12 Yes 50 6 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 185 13023125 0.2 Yes 50 10 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 186 13023126 0.2 Yes 50 10 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 187 13023127 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 188 13027113 0.24 Yes 50 12 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 189 13027114 0.2 Yes 50 10 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 190 13027115 0.11 Yes 50 5 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 191 13027116 0.16 Yes 50 8 4 – Central Area Specific Plan 192 12715113 2.36 Yes 50 118 5 – Baseline Parcels
193 13302329 0.28 Yes 50 14 5 – Baseline Parcels
194 13302330 0.28 Yes 50 14 5 – Baseline Parcels
195 13302331 0.23 Yes 50 11 5 – Baseline Parcels
196 13302328 0.23 Yes 50 11 5 – Baseline Parcels
197 13302327 0.23 Yes 50 11 5 – Baseline Parcels
198 13302326 0.23 Yes 50 11 5 – Baseline Parcels
199 13302325 0.27 Yes 50 13 5 – Baseline Parcels
200 12728106 1 No 50 50 5 – Baseline Parcels
300 26421351 0.87 Yes 50 43 5 – Baseline Parcels
202 12732122 0.73 No 50 36 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 203 12732140 0.53 No 50 26 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 204 12731124 1.01 No 50 50 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 205 12726105 0.51 No 50 25 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 206 12732146 0.5 No 50 25 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
207 12732147 1.56 No 50 78 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 208 12732105 0.51 No 50 25 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 209 12731121 1.2 No 50 60 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
210 12726112 2.14 No 50 107 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 211 12726108 0.52 No 50 26 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 212 12731119 8.64 No 50 432 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 213 12732145 2.37 No 50 118 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 214 12726110 0.73 No 50 36 6 – Baseline Shopping Center Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

215 12732123 0.73 No 50 36 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 216 12732104 1.74 No 50 87 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 217 12732103 0.63 No 50 31 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 218 12726116 0.51 No 50 25 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 219 12731125 1.03 No 50 51 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 220 12731123 0.85 No 50 42 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 221 12725115 0.8 No 50 40 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
222 12725119 0.69 No 50 34 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 223 12725120 1.46 No 50 73 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 224 12725118 0.8 No 50 40 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
225 12725117 0.34 No 50 17 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 226 12725116 0.43 Yes 50 21 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 227 12725113 7.61 No 50 380 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 228 12725112 4.23 No 50 211 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 229 12725114 0.98 Yes 50 49 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 230 12726115 0.64 No 50 32 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 231 12726113 0.8 No 50 40 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
232 12726109 3.67 No 50 183 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 233 12726106 3.67 No 50 183 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 234 12726114 1.43 No 50 71 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 235 12726107 1.82 No 50 91 6 – Baseline Shopping Center 236 12726111 1.1 No 50 55 6 – Baseline Shopping Center
409 23930128 0.62 Yes 50 31 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 410 23930129 3.85 Yes 50 192 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 411 23930146 1.09 Yes 50 54 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 412 23930147 1.09 Yes 50 54 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 413 26401258 1.78 Yes 50 89 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 414 113332121 5 Yes 50 250 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 415 113321113 4.6 No 50 230 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 416 26421212 4.87 Yes 50 243 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 417 13320123 3.26 No 50 163 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 418 13204168 0.5 Yes 50 25 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 419 13204169 1.06 Yes 50 53 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 420 26401248 5.58 Yes 50 279 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 421 23934113 1.34 Yes 50 67 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay Appendix A – Candidate Housing Sites Inventory
ID APN Buildable
Acreage Vacant
Maximum
Density
(DU/AC)
Maximum
Allowable
Units
Opportunity Area

422 113328105 2.54 Yes 50 127 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 423 113328106 2.49 Yes 50 124 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 424 26401224 0.45 Yes 50 22 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 425 113309135 0.54 Yes 50 27 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 426 113310112 0.23 Yes 50 11 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 427 113328102 0.39 Yes 50 19 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 428 113310130 0.34 Yes 50 17 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 429 13002321 0.139 Yes 50 6 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 430 13002341 0.141 Yes 50 7 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 431 13002339 0.218 Yes 50 10 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 432 13004317 0.176 Yes 50 8 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 433 13006127 2.63 Yes 50 131 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay 434 13031203 2.48 Yes 50 124 7 – Housing Opportunity Overlay

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update
(2021-2029)

Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026

Lead Agency:

City of Rialto
150 South Palm Avenue
Rialto, CA 95476
City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Introduction
The City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Project (2021-2029) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code §§21000-21177) and State CEQA Guidelines §15063 requirements.

The City of Rialto 6 th Cycle Housing Element Update Project (2021 -2029) (Project or proposed Project) IS/MND and supporting documentation were made available for public review pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15070. The public review period began on October 26, 2025, and ended on November 25 , 2025. The IS/MND and supporting documentation were made available for public review at the following locations:
• Accessed via https://www.rialtoca.gov/633/Plan-to-House-Our-Rialto-Housing-Element. • City of Rialto Development Services Department, Planning Division 150 South Palm Avenue, Rialto, CA, 92376
CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses
Although CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines do not require a Lead Agency to prepare responses to comments for an IS/MND, as contrasted with the requirement to prepare responses to comments on a Draft Environmental Impact Report (State CEQA Guidelines §15088), the City of Rialto (City) has elected to prepare written responses in the spirit and with the intent of conducting a comprehensive and meaningful evaluation of the proposed Project. Written responses have been prepared to the comments that raised environmental concerns during the public review period.

State CEQA Guidelines §15204(b) states that “persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the project may have a significant effect, they should:

1. Identify the specific effect,

2. Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and

3. Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.” State CEQA Guidelines §15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines §15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” State CEQA Guidelines §15204(d) states, “Reviewing agencies or organizations should include with their comments the name of a contact person who would be available for later consultation if necessary. Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” State CEQA Guidelines §15204(e) states, “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.”
City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 3
List of Parties Commenting on the IS/MND
The parties listed below submitted comments on the IS/MND as of the close of the public review period on November 25, 2025. For ease of reference, each comment letter has been consecutively numbered, as indicated below. The responses to these comments are also numbered and correlated to each comment letter.
• Jill McCormick, M.A., Historic Preservation Office of Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe, October 24, 2025. (Comment Letter 1)
• Andrew R, October 24, 2025. (Comment Letter 2)
• Xitlaly Madrigal, NAGPRA Supervisor, Tribal Historic Preservation Office, October 24, 2025. (Comment Letter 3)
• Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner, HWMP -Permitting Division – CEQA Unit of Department of Toxic Substances Control, October 29, 2025. (Comment Letter 4) • Margaret L. Resendez, November 19, 2025. (Comment Letter 5) • Margaret L. Resendez, November 20, 2025. (Comment Letter 6)

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 4

2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
Responses have been provided to comments on significant environmental points in order to describe the disposition of issues and any new information or clarifications, as appropriate. When comments did not address the IS/MND’s completeness or adequacy or did not raise significant environmental issues, the receipt of the comment is noted, and no further response is provided.

This section is formatted such that the respective comment letters are followed immediately by the corresponding responses.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 5
Comment Letter 1

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 6
Responses to Comment Letter 1
Historic Preservation Office of Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe Jill McCormick, M.A.

October 24, 2025

1-1 This comment communicates that the Fort Yuma Quechan Indian Tribe has no comment on the Project. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 7
Comment Letter 2

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 8
Responses to Comment Letter 2
Andrew R
October 24, 2025

2-1 This comment requests to be removed from the email list and communicates that the email was sent in error. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 9
Comment Letter 3

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 10
Responses to Comment Letter 3
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Xitlaly Madrigal, NAGPRA Supervisor
October 24, 2025

3-1 This comment notifies that the Project site is not within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 11
Comment Letter 4

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 12

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 13

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 14
Responses to Comment Letter 4
HWMP-Permitting Division – CEQA Unit of the Department of Toxic Substances Control Dave Kereazis, Associate Environmental Planner
October 29, 2025

4-1 This comment is an introductory statement to the letter. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.
4-2 This comment communicates that the Project includes multiple active and nonactive mitigation and clean-up sites where DTSC has conducted oversight that may be impacted by the Project. On these sites, the past DTSC mitigation may restrict what construction activities are permissible.

IS/MND Response 4.9b notes that for any property currently or historically involving hazardous materials or waste, future housing development facilitated by the Project would be subject to compliance with Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ -1, which requires preparation of a project - specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) . The Phase I ESA would identify potential environmental contamination on a site, including active and nonactive mitigation and clean -up sites. The Phase I ESA would also identify the permissible construction activities on a site . With MM HAZ -1 incorporated, future development facilitated by the Project would not create a significant hazardous impact to human health or the environment. 4-3 This comment states the DTSC requirements and recommendations for imported soil/fill material, referencing the screening levels in DTSC’s Preliminary Endangerment Assessment Guidance Manual. DTSC recommends documenting the origins of soil/fill material and sampling to ensure the imported material is suitable for the intended land use, and providing additional information through the DTSC HERO webpage.

The following procedures can be followed to minimize the possibility of introducing contaminated soil onto a sensitive land use property (e.g., residential site) that requires imported fill material :
selecting fill material (i.e., the fill source area); conducting fill material sampling; and verification through analysis/documentation appropriate fill source; and/or conducting a Phase I ESA of the borrow area. Currently, there are no standards in California statutes or regulations that address environmental requirements for imported fill material. Notwithstanding, f uture housing development under the Project requiring imported fill material would be conditioned to follow the above procedures through a Condition of Approval.
4-4 This comment recommends that future housing development facilitated by the Project conduct surveys for lead-based paints (LBPs) and products, mercury, asbestos-containing materials (ACM), and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) caulk whenever demolition of buildings or other structures is proposed at future housing sites. DTSC also emphasizes the need to comply with all applicable California environmental regulations and policies governing the removal, demolition, and disposal of these materials, and refers to its PEA Guidance Manual for sampling near current or former City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 15
buildings. As noted in ISMND Response 4.9b, future development under the proposed Project would be subject to compliance with MM HAZ-1, which requires preparation of a project-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) for any property currently or historically involving hazardous materials or waste. The Phase I ESA would identify the potential presence of LBPs and products, mercury, ACM, and PCB , and the regulatory compliance requirements. Removal, demolition, and disposal of any of the above-mentioned chemicals at future housing development sites would be conducted in compliance with California environmental regulations and policies .

Additionally, any future housing development involving potential demolition or renovation would be required to comply with South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1403, which establishes work practices to limit asbestos emissions from demolition and renovation activities.

These requirements include asbestos surveying, notifications, ACM removal procedures and schedules, handling and cleanup procedures, proper storage, disposal, and landfilling of asbestos- containing waste. Comment noted concerning DTSC’s reference to the PEA Guidance Manual for conducting sampling near existing or former buildings.
4-5 This comment emphasizes that the City should address the above DTSC comments to determine and avoid significant impacts under CEQA. The DTSC recommends that the City communicate with the DTSC if hazardous waste projects managed or overseen by the DTSC are discovered.

The above responses address and consider the DTSC’s comments. As evidenced by the above responses, there are no new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects in the IS/MND. Further, as concluded in IS/MND Section 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials , the Project would not directly construct new housing but would facilitate housing development, and future development on the candidate housing sites would be reviewed through the City’s development review process to confirm compliance with all applicable regulations , including federal, State, and local regulations for minimizing upset associated with hazardous materials. Future housing development facilitated by the Project would also be subject to compliance with MM HAZ-1, which requires preparation of a project-specific Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA would include a search of EnviroStor for additional information on potential contamination in the areas and identify any potential environmental contamination on the housing sites. The Project’s potential impacts concerning hazardous waste would be reduced to less than significant through the incorporation of MM HAZ -1. It is noted, should further concerns or impacts surface at the time of future housing development , DTSC reserves the right to comment.
4-6 This comment is a concluding statement to the letter. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 16
Comment Letter 5

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 17
City Email Response to Comment Letter 5

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 18

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 19

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 20
Responses to Comment Letter 5
Margaret L. Resendez
November 19, 2025

5-1 This comment introduces the comment letter and states that the commenter’s property may be included among the candidate housing sites. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 5-2 This comment asks for further clarification on the Notice of Intent. It is noted that the City of Rialto responded to this comment letter via email on November 19, 2025. The City’s response is provided below; see “text.” A copy of the City’s November 19, 2025, email is provided following Comment Letter 5.
“The Mitigated Negative Declaration is an environmental analysis of the proposed Housing Element Update (HEU), which is proposing to increase the density of several properties across the City. The notice you received is the City’s intent to utilize the analysis as part of the update, which will also be presented to Planning Commission and City Council. At this point, we do not have a date for the upcoming public hearing dates, but we anticipate the HEU to be presented before City Council in early spring 202 6. You have been added to the HEU email list, as such you will be receiving notifications on upcoming public hearings. All documents, including the HEU Draft and the environmental analysis, are available for public review by clicking the link below:
https://www.rialtoca.gov/633/Plan-to-House-Our-Rialto-Housing-Element Your property is proposed at a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and a maximum density of 40 dwelling units per acre. Please let me know if you have additional questions.” [Please note this maximum density is corrected to 50 du/ac.] 5-3 This comment communicates the commenter’s intent to send their other questions regarding the Project and their property . This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 21
Comment Letter 6

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 22

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 23

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 24
City Email Response to Comment Letter 6

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 25

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 26

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 27

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 28

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 29

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 30
Responses to Comment Letter 6
Maragret L. Resendez
November 20, 2025

6-1 This comment communicates that the commenter owns a property (i.e., APN 0264-171-37-0000), that they received the Notice of Intent, and that the ir property may be included among the candidate housing sites. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary. 6-2 through 6-6
These comments ask various questions concerning APN 0264- 171-37-0000. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. However, the City of Rialto responded to this comment letter on December 8, 2025. The City’s previous response is provided below ; see “ text.” Additional responses are provided where needed for further clarification. A copy of the City’s December 8, 2025, email is provided following Comment Letter

6. 6-2: Property and Zoning Details

1. My parcel APN 0264- 171-37-0000 is included in the Housing Element rezoning program/Overlay Project, correct? “Correct.” This property is candidate housing site 403; see IS/MND Exhibit 2-8: Map of Opportunity Area 2 (North Riverside Avenue).

2. What is the current R1 -A zoning? “Current zoning is R1 -A. You can obtain all information regarding the R1-A zone by clicking here (R-1) and here (R-1A).“ [Note, these links were live in the original response.] Also, see Rialto Municipal Code Chapter 18.12 : R-1 A-10,000 Single Family Zone for regulations concerning square footage, lot size, and structure size.

• What is the current R1A allocated zoning size in terms of sq footage of Lot size and structure size? “R1-A Minimum 10,000 SF” and “R1-A median dwelling size shall not be less than 1,800 sf with minimum of 1,600 sf”

• What is the proposed addition of new R2 zoning for my property? “ There is no “new R2 zoning.” – the city is proposing an overlay. ” The Project proposes a Zoning Code Amendment to establish a residential overlay that allows up to 50 du/ac on these sites.

The residential overlay would retain the development potential of the underlying zoning.•

3. What are the new R2 zoning - allowable uses, density, height limits, or setbacks?/Will the new R2 zoning change the allowable uses, density, height limits, or setbacks? “The details of the new overlay have not been adopted, as such, this information is not currently available. The housing element draft that I previously provided you, indicated that your parcel will have a City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 31
minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre (dua) and maximum of 40 dua. ” [Please note this maximum density is corrected to 50 du/ac.]

4. Are there any affordable housing or overlay zone requirements attached to the proposed designation? “The housing element update (HEU) will require an overlay. No current requirements for affordability have been adopted. However, any residential parcel may file an affordable housing project.”
4A. Regarding my 2.4 acre Property size and the adding of R2 zoning - what is the minimum and maximum number of dwelling units allowed to be built per acre, please clarify since I have been informed several different numbers? “20 DUA minimum, 40 DUA maximum .” [Please note this maximum density is corrected to 50 du/ac.]
4B. What types of structures would be allowed & approved to be built in a R2 zoning, on my Property? “Residential. Other details have not been released.”

1. Please indicate if the types of structures listed below that would be allowable structures to be built in the R2 zoning?
a. Apartments b. Condos c. Duplexes d. Studios e. Mobil Homes f. Modular Homes g. ?? “High-Density Residential (i.e., no low -density such as duplexes will be permitted). No other details have not been released.”
6-3: Timeline and Process

5. What stage is the rezoning process in right now (e.g., under staff review, scheduled for Planning Commission, awaiting Council adoption)? “The next step is planning commission for recommendation to the city council and, later, city council adoption.”

6. When are the Planning Commission and City Council hearings expected, and when would the zoning officially become effective after adoption? “The schedule is currently being finalized. Being that you are on the mailing list, you will receive an alert.”

7. Are there any additional environmental steps required beyond the current Mitigated Negative Declaration? “No other environmental analysis will be required” if the future development requires only ministerial approval or is within the scope of the environmental analysis included in the IS/MND.
6-4: Potential Risks and Delays
8 Have there been any public objections, comments, or agency feedback that could delay or change the proposed rezoning? “We will not be able to answer this question until the date of the hearings, as more public noticing is expected.”
9 Is my property considered a priority site under the City’s RHNA obligations, or could it be adjusted later in the process? “Your project [property] has been identified in the housing element site inventory.“
City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 32
6-5: Development Implications

10. Once rezoning is complete, would potential buyers be able to develop by right or would they still need discretionary approvals? “This will depend on what is proposed and the parameters of development standards, once the overlay is adopted.”

11. Are there any special fees or conditions expected for new development under the updated zoning? “The same develo pment and application fees and/or conditions will apply – fees and conditions pertain to a specific development project.”

12. Since my Property has been in the Overlay Project to add the R2 zoning since Spring of 2024 and I was initially informed at that time this process would take 1 1/2 yrs to implement the R2, whether the Property was in the Overlay Project or if I Paid to have the R2 added to 2.4 acres in the event I would sell my Property before the City Approvals of the adding of R2 zoning to my Property. What or Would: “This question is unclear. You do not pay to be added to the overlay.”

12. A. Would any potential New Buyers that purchased my 2.4 ac Property be able to be Grand Fathered into the Overlay Project since the Property has been in the Overlay Project since Spring 2024 so for almost 2 years? “The new overlay shall supersede all previous zones/overlays. A development project may continue if the application is currently in process or was submitted prior to the overlay adoption.”

12. B. If any New Buyers that purchase my 2.4 ac Property and was not be able to be Grand Fathered into the Overlay Project to add the R2 zoning.

1. What would be the Time frame in terms of months to get Approved to add R2 zoning? “No R-2 will be adopted. The overlay is scheduled to be adopted in spring 2026.”

2.What would be Total Cost for adding R2 zoning? “This is unclear. You do not pay to be included in the overlay.”

3. Is there a quicker way and more Cost effective way for them to add R2 zoning to the 2.4 ac property? “No.”

12. C. If any New Buyers that would purchase my 2.4 ac Property and was not be able to be Grand Fathered into the Overlay Project to have the R2 zoning added, would there be any Special fees or anything out of the ordinary a ssociated in adding a R2 zoning to the 2.4 ac property? “This is unclear. We are adopting a new overlay. This updated plan added more sites, which is the reason why we had to revise the overlay.”

12. D. If any New Buyers would purchase my 2.4 ac Property and was not be able to be Grand Fathered into the Overlay Project to have the R2 zoning. Are there a ny Legal information that needs to be disclosed to all involved in regards to add R2 zoning to the 2.4 ac property? “This is the legal action to adopt the overlay.”

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) City of Rialto Responses to Comments Raised During the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Public Review Period

January 2026 Page 33
6-6: Staying Updated

13. Could you please share a map or list showing which parcels are part of the rezoning proposal? ”Yes, I shared the draft in its entirety in my previous email. As previously stated, the draft provides the list. You can access it here: https://www.rialtoca.gov/633/Plan-to-House-Our-Rialto-Housing- Element “

14. What’s the best way to receive notifications or updates as the project moves forward? “You are signed up to receive updates. This is the best way.” 6-7 This comment is a conclusionary statement. This comment does not address the IS/MND’s adequacy or raise a significant environmental issue. As such, no further response is necessary.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 1

CITY OF RIALTO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
150 South Palm Avenue, Rialto, California 92376
(909)-820-2505

INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Preparation Date: January 7, 2026

Name or Title of Project: City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Location: The proposed project is located within the City of Rialto (City). The City is situated in the southwest portion of the County of San Bernardino (“County”), within the Western San Bernardino Valley.

It is bordered by unincorporated County areas to the northeast and southwest, Riverside County to the south, the Cities of Colton and San Bernardino to the east, and the City of Fontana to the west.

Entity Undertaking Project: City of Rialto
Description of Project : The Project involves implementation of the City's 6th Cycle Housing Element (“HEU”), which includes amending the General Plan and Zoning Code. The Project involves 258 candidate housing sites (i.e., parcels) for rezoning within the City's boundaries. The HEU estimates a total potential housing capacity of 16,197 dwelling units ("DU"), in cluding accessory dwelling units , entitled Specific Plans, and proposed rezones. This shows a surplus of approximately 96 percent (7,925 DU) over the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) of 8,272 DU. The proposed rezone strategies on the candidate housing sites have a realistic housing development capacity of 8,587 DU and a maximum housing development capacity of 16,198 DU. The Project is programmatic in nature and does not approve or entitle any site-specific development. Future housing projects would occur incrementally over time and may be subject to ministerial or discretionary review depending on applicable State housing laws.

Statement of Findings : The City of Rialto Planning Commission has reviewed the Initial Study for this proposed project and has found that there are no adverse environmental impacts to either the man-made or physical environmental setting if the following mitigation measures are implemented in con formance with the Mitigation Monitoring Policy. A copy of the Initial Study and other applicable documents used to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is available for review at the City of Rialto Planning Division.

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 2
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
MM BIO-1 Biological Resources Survey. Housing development facilitated by the Project, in areas where the City has identified a potential presence of sensitive biological resources, shall comply with the following mitigation framework: Prior to any ground-disturbing activity, a qualified biologist shall conduct a site-specific survey of general biological resources. A biological resources report shall be submitted to the City to document the results of the biological resources survey. The report shall include (1) the methods used to determine the presence of sensitive biological resources; (2) vegetation mapping of all vegetation communities and/or land cover types; (3) the locations of any sensitive plant or wildlife species; (4) an evaluation of the potential for occurrence of any listed, rare, and narrow endemic species; (5) an evaluation of the significance of any potential direct or indirect impacts from the proposed project; and (6) recommended mitigation to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. If potentially significant impacts to sensitive biological resources are identified, future project-level grading and site plans shall incorporate project design features to avoid/minimize direct impacts on sensitive biological resources to the extent feasible. If avoidance is not feasible, additional mitigation measures shall be proposed to reduce impacts to a level that is less than significant.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
Prior to any ground-
disturbing activity.

If potentially significant
impacts to sensitive
biological resources are
identified, during future
project-level grading and
site plans.

If avoidance is not
feasible.

Qualified Biologist conducts
the site-specific survey of
general biological resources.

Qualified Biologist prepares
a Biological Resources
Report with required
components and submits
the report to the City.

City verifies incorporation of
avoidance, minimization, or
additional mitigation into
project plans as applicable.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

MM BIO-2A Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Surveys. No less than 14 days prior to any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey the project site’s construction limits plus a 500-foot buffer for the presence of burrowing owls (BUOW) and occupied nest burrows. A second survey shall be conducted within 24 hours prior to any ground-disturbing activities. The surveys shall be conducted in accordance with the most current survey methods of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

If burrowing owls are not observed during the clearance survey, no additional conditions are required to avoid impacts to burrowing owl. At least one burrowing owl pre-construction survey report shall be submitted to the City to document compliance with this mitigation measure. For the purposes of this measure, ‘qualified biologist’ is a biologist who meets the requirements set forth in the BUOW Guidelines (CDFW 2012).

Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
First survey: No less than
14 days prior to any
ground disturbing
activities.

Second survey within 24
hours prior to any ground
disturbing activities.

Submittal of the
preconstruction survey
report: Prior to the start of
construction.

Qualified Biologist conducts
BUOW surveys within
project limits and 500-foot
buffer per current CDFW
protocols.

Qualified Biologist prepares
and submits at least one
preconstruction survey
report to the City.

City reviews report(s) and
confirms no active BUOW
burrows are present prior to
construction.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

MM BIO-2B Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Coordination. If burrowing owl is documented on the project site or within 500 feet of the site during either focused surveys or pre-construction surveys, occupied burrowing owl burrows shall not be disturbed. The City and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) shall be contacted within 48 hours of the burrowing owl observation, and a qualified biologist shall set up disturbance avoidance buffers in accordance with CDFW guidance or recommendations.

No work shall occur within avoidance buffers until consultation with CDFW and issuance of permits, if required. If avoidance of burrowing owls is not possible, either directly or indirectly, consultation with CDFW shall be pursued to determine the appropriate course of action. CDFW may require an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) or a Burrowing Owl Relocation and Mitigation Plan.

The conditions of the ITP or measures outlined in the Plan shall be adhered to, and any required compensatory mitigation of habitat would be provided. If the burrowing owl is no longer a candidate or listed species under CESA at the time of construction, an ITP would not be required.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist;
CDFW (if permit or
relocation plan is required)
Within 48 hours of
detecting burrowing owl
during focused or pre-
construction surveys.

Prior to and during any
ground-disturbing activity.

Prior to any work
occurring within the
avoidance buffer until
CDFW consultation and
approvals (if required) are
complete.

Establishment of
disturbance avoidance
buffer zones in accordance
with CDFW guidance or
recommendations as
determined by Qualified
Biologist, if burrowing owl is
documented on the Project
site or within 500 feet of the
site during focused surveys
or pre-construction surveys.

Issuance of permits for
construction conducted
inside of buffer zones.

Incidental Take Permit (ITP)
or a Burrowing Owl
Relocation and Mitigation
City of Rialto Planning
Department;
CDFW (if ITP or Burrowing
Owl Relocation and
Mitigation Plan is required)

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 3
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
Plan, if avoidance of
burrowing owls is not
possible.

MM BIO-3 Nesting Bird Surveys. To ensure compliance with California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513 and to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds, vegetation clearing and ground- disturbing activities shall be conducted outside of the bird nesting season (generally February 15 through August 31), if feasible. Regardless of the time of year, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three (3) days prior to any disturbance of the site, including but not limited to vegetation clearing, disking, demolition activities, staging, or grading.

If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests depending on the level of activity within the buffer and the species observed. Buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied, and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. During construction activities, the qualified biologist shall continue biological monitoring activities at a frequency recommended by the qualified biologist using their best professional judgment. If nesting birds are documented, avoidance and minimization measures may be adjusted and construction activities stopped or redirected by the qualified biologist to avoid take of nesting birds.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Biologist
During vegetation and
ground-disturbing
activities outside of the
bird-nesting season
(February 15–August 31) if
feasible.

Within three days prior to
any disturbance of the site
regardless of the time of
year: nesting bird survey.

If active nests are
identified: biologist shall
establish suitable buffers;
shall be avoided until the
nests are no longer
occupied.

Biological monitoring
during construction
activities at a frequency
recommended by the
qualified biologist.

Avoidance and
minimization measures if
nesting birds are
documented.

Qualified Biological
conducts a bird nesting
survey.

Qualified biologist
establishes suitable buffer
areas around the nests if
active nests are identified.

Avoidance of buffer areas
until nests are no longer
occupied and juvenile birds
can survive independently.

Biological monitoring
activities during
construction at a frequency
recommended by the
Qualified Biologist.

Adjustment of avoidance
and minimization measures
if nesting birds are
documented.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

CULTURAL RESOURCES
Standard Conditions of Approval
SC CUL-1 Archaeological Resources. For development projects or land use plans in areas determined to have a high potential for archaeological resources as determined through field surveys required by General Plan Policy 7-3.1, grading shall be monitored by trained archeological crews working under the direction of a qualified professional, so that resources exposed during grading can be recovered and the scientifically important information preserved. Archaeological monitors shall be equipped to recover resources as they are unearthed and to avoid construction delays.

Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow the removal of abundant or large specimens. Qualified archaeological personnel shall prepare recovered specimens to the point of identification and permanent preservation. Qualified archaeological personnel shall identify and curate specimens into the collections of an appropriate, established, and accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable archaeological storage as determined in consultation with the Community Development Director. Qualified archaeological personnel shall prepare a report of findings with an appendix itemizing specimens subsequent to implementation of curation. A preliminary report shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director before granting of building permits, and a final report shall be Project Applicant;
Trained archaeological
crews working under the
direction of a qualified
professional;
Archaeological monitors;
Qualified archaeological
personnel
Preliminary Archaeological
Findings Report shall be
submitted to and
approved by the
Community Development
Director: Prior to building
permit issuance.

Final archaeological
findings and curation
report shall be submitted
to and approved by the
Community Development
Director: before granting
of occupancy permits.

A qualified archaeologist
directs trained
archaeological monitors
during grading; monitors
recover resources as they
are unearthed and are
authorized to halt or
redirect equipment to allow
removal of abundant or
large specimens.

Recovered materials are
prepared, identified, and
curated at an appropriate
accredited museum
repository as determined in
City of Rialto Planning
Department / Community
Development Director

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 4
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director before granting of occupancy permits.

Monitoring ongoing during
all grading activities in
areas identified as having
high archaeological
sensitivity, not all
construction activities
consultation with the
Community Development
Director.

The qualified archaeologist
prepares both the
preliminary and final
findings reports, including
an inventory of curated
specimens, for City review
and approval.

Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1 Historic Resources Evaluation. Prior to issuing a demolition permit or engaging in other ground- disturbing activities on sites containing structures that are more than 50 years old, the City shall determine whether the proposed development could potentially impact historical resources. If a potential impact is identified, the applicant shall retain a qualified professional meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for History or Architectural History to prepare a Historic Resource Evaluation Report to determine whether the affected building/structure is historically significant. The evaluation of historic architectural resources shall be based on criteria such as age, location, context, association with an important person or event, uniqueness, or structural integrity, as indicated in State CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. The applicant shall submit a historical resource report to the City and shall include: (1) the methods used to determine the presence or absence of historical resources; (2) an identification of potential impacts from the proposed project; and (3) an evaluation of the significance of any historical resources identified.

Project Applicant;
Qualified professional
meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards for
Architectural History

Prior to issuance of any
demolition permit or
initiation of ground-
disturbing activities on
structures more than 50
years old.

The Historic Resource
Evaluation Report must be
completed and submitted
to the City in advance of
permit issuance and prior
to any activity that could
affect a potential historical
resource.

City determines if a
potential impact to
historical resources is
identified.

Qualified historian or
architectural historian
retained by the Project
Applicant conducts the
historic resource evaluation
and prepares a Historic
Resource Evaluation Report
consistent with State CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5: report
shall document the
presence or absence of
historical resources,
identifies potential impacts
from the proposed
development, and evaluates
the significance of any
identified resources.

Applicant submittal the
report to the City for review.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

MM CUL-2 Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are discovered during ground-disturbing activities, all work within a 60-foot radius of the find shall cease immediately. A qualified archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards shall evaluate the nature and significance of the finding. Work may continue outside the buffered area during this evaluation.

If the discovery is determined to be a pre-contact archaeological resource, the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation (YSMN) Cultural Resources Department shall be notified and invited to participate in the evaluation, as specified in MM TCR-1. The archaeologist shall prepare a Monitoring and Treatment Plan that outlines procedures for avoidance, documentation, and recovery, in coordination with YSMN. A draft of the plan shall be provided to YSMN for review Qualified Archaeologist
meeting the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualification Standards;
Project Applicant;
Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation (YSMN)
Cultural Resources
Department

If cultural resources are
discovered during ground-
disturbing activities: work
stops immediately upon
discovery, work may
continue outside the 60-
foot buffer, and that
resumption of work within
the buffer cannot occur
until the Monitoring and
Work ceases within a 60-
foot radius of cultural
resources discovery during
ground-disturbing activities.

Evaluation of the find by a
Qualified Archaeologist.

YSMN shall be notified if the
discovery is determined to
be a pre-contact
archaeological resource
City of Rialto Planning
Department

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 5
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
and comment. The plan shall be submitted to the Lead Agency for approval prior to resumption of work within the buffered area.

Treatment Plan is
approved.

If the discovery is
determined to be a pre-
contact archaeological
resource.

Preparation of a Monitoring
and Treatment Plan
prepared by the
archaeologist and in
coordination with YSMN;
draft of plan provided to
YSMN for review and
comment.

Submittal of Monitoring and
Treatment Plan to the Lead
Agency for approval prior to
the resumption of work.

MM CUL-3 Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered during any ground -disturbing activities associated with the project, all work within a 100 -foot radius of the discovery shall cease immediately. The County Coroner shall be contacted pursuant to Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 to determine the nature and origin of the remains.

If the Coroner determines that the remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in accordance with Public Resources Code § 5097.98. The NAHC shall identify a Most Likely Descendant, who shall be afforded the opportunity to make recommendations regarding the treatment or disposition of the remains and any associated grave goods. The project applicant shall coordinate with the Most Likely Descendant and the Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation to ensure that treatment and disposition of the remains are carried out in accordance with the law and tribal preferences, as appropriate.

Work may not resume within the 100-foot buffer until the remains have been properly removed or protected, and all applicable procedures under state law have been completed.

Project Applicant;
County Coroner;
Native American Heritage
Commission;
Most Likely Descendant;
Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation
If human remains or
funerary objects are
encountered during
ground disturbing project
activities: All work within a
100-foot radius of the
discovery shall cease
immediately. Work may
not resume within the
100-foot buffer until the
remains have been
properly removed or
protected.

If the Coroner determines
that the remains are of
Native American origin.

Work ceases within a 100-
foot radius of human
remains or funerary object
discovery during any
ground-disturbing activities;
may not resume until
remains have been properly
removed or protected.

County Coroner is contacted
to determine the nature and
remain of the origins.

Notification to the NAHC if
remains are determined to
be of Native American
Origin.

Project Applicant
coordination with NAHC-
identified MLD an the YSMN
to ensure that treatment
and disposition of the
remains are carried out in
accordance with the law and
tribal preferences.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Standard Conditions of Approval
SC GEO-1 Paleontological Field Surveys. In areas containing middle to late Pleistocene era sediments (Qof), where it is unknown if paleontological resources exist, field surveys prepared by a qualified paleontological professional before grading shall be conducted to establish the need for paleontological monitoring. Should paleontological monitoring be required after recommendation by the professional paleontologist and approval by the Community Development Director, SC GEO-2 shall be implemented.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Paleontological
Professional
Prior to grading activities.

Field surveys prepared by a
qualified paleontological
professional and approved
by the Community
Development Director.

City of Rialto Planning
Department;
Community Development
Director

SC GEO-2 Paleontological Monitoring. A project that requires grading plans and is located in an area of known fossil occurrence or that has been demonstrated to have fossils present in a field survey Project Applicant; Monitoring during grading
activities when the site is
Monitoring conducted by
trained paleontological
City of Rialto Planning
Department

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 6
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
as described in SC GEO-1 shall have all grading monitored by trained palaeontologic crews working under the direction of a qualified professional, so that fossils exposed during grading can be recovered and preserved. Palaeontologic monitors shall be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring is not necessary if the potentially fossiliferous units described for the property in question are not present or if present are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified palaeontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources. Should paleontological resources require recovery, SC GEO-3 shall be implemented.

Qualified Paleontologist;
trained paleontological
monitor crews working
under the direction of the
Qualified Paleontologist
in an area of known fossil
occurrence or when SC
GEO-1 field surveys have
identified fossil potential.
crews; not required if units
are absent or determined to
have low potential upon
exposure.

SC GEO-3 Paleontological Recovery, Identification, and Curation. Qualified paleontological personnel shall prepare recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Qualified palaeontologic personnel shall identify and curate specimens into the collections of the Division of Geological Sciences, San Bernardino County Museum, an established, accredited museum repository with permanent, retrievable palaeontologic storage. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. This measure is not considered complete until curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented.

Paleontological Resources
Monitor and crew retained
by the Project Applicant;
Project Applicant;
Qualified Paleontologist
Upon discovery of
paleontological specimens
during ground disturbing
activities when SC GEO-2
determines that
paleontological recovery is
required.

Preparation of recovered
specimens to a point of
identification and
permanent preservation by
Qualified paleontological
personnel; further
identification and curation
of specimens into the
collection of the Division of
Geological Sciences and San
Bernadino County Museum.

Written repository
agreement prepared by
paleontologist prior to the
initiation of mitigation
activities.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

SC GEO-4 Paleontological Findings. Qualified palaeontologic personnel shall prepare a report of findings with an appendix itemized of specimens subsequent to implementation of SC CUL-2. A preliminary report shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director before granting of building permits, and a final report shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director before granting of occupancy permits.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Paleontological
personnel
Upon completion of
paleontological recovery
activities under SC GEO-3.

Preliminary report: Prior
to issuance of building
permits.

Final report: before
granting occupancy
permits.

Submittal of preliminary and
final findings reports to the
Community Development
Director for approval.

City of Rialto Planning
Department;
Community Development
Director

GREENHOSUE GAS EMISSIONS
MM GHG-1 Project-Level Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment. Prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval, and in accordance with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) guidance, a project-specific Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment shall be prepared for housing developments facilitated by the Project that would exceed SCAQMD’s recommended threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e, or any applicable threshold in effect at the time of development application. If the analysis identifies that project emissions would exceed the applicable threshold, the project shall incorporate feasible mitigation measures to reduce GHG emissions to below the applicable threshold of significance, or as close to that level as feasible, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4(c).

Project Applicant Prior to demolition,
grading, or building permit
approval.

Preparation of a project-
specific Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Assessment for
review and approval by the
City.

If the analysis identifies that
project emissions would
exceed the applicable
threshold, verification that
City of Rialto Planning
Department

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 7
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
feasible mitigation measures
have been incorporated into
the project to reduce GHG
emissions to below the
applicable threshold of
significance, or as close to
that level as feasible, in
accordance with CEQA
Guidelines § 15126.4(c).

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
MM HAZ-1 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment. Future housing development facilitated by the Project, on a site where the City has determined potential for risk of upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, shall be subject to the following requirements prior to the issuance of grading permits:
• Preliminary Site Screening. The project applicant shall conduct a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) or an equivalent preliminary environmental assessment to determine whether the project site or immediately adjacent properties have a history of hazardous material use or contamination. If evidence of contamination is found, the report shall characterize the type, location, and potential extent of contamination, and recommend whether additional sampling or remediation is warranted prior to site disturbance
• Additional Investigation and Remediation, If Needed. If contamination is identified on the project site, the City, in coordination with the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g., the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services or the Regional Water Quality Control Board), shall determine whether further site investigation (e.g., Phase II ESA) or remediation is necessary. If required, the project applicant shall be responsible for preparing and implementing an agency-approved investigation or remediation plan prior to initiation of construction activities • Completion of Remediation. If the applicable oversight agency requires remediation, it shall be completed in compliance with all applicable regulatory standards and guidance, and to a level that reduces risk to below the applicable thresholds. Remediation shall be completed prior to issuance of any building or occupancy permits for the affected site • Documentation of Completion. Closure reports, no further action (NFA) letters, or other documentation acceptable to the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health Services or other applicable oversight agency shall be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. No construction shall occur in the affected area until the City accepts such documentation.

Project Applicant A Phase I ESA (or
equivalent) shall be
completed prior to the
issuance of grading
permits.

If contamination is
identified, additional
investigation or
remediation as required
by the City and
appropriate oversight
agencies shall be
completed prior to
initiation of construction
activities. Any required
remediation shall be
completed to regulatory
standards prior to
issuance of building or
occupancy permits.

Documentation of
completed remediation,
including closure reports
or NFA letters, shall be
submitted to and
accepted by the City prior
to issuance of grading
permits.

Project Applicant conducts a
Phase I ESA.

If contamination is
identified, the City and
appropriate oversight
agencies determine whether
further investigation or
remediation is required.

If necessary, the Project
Applicant prepares and
implements an agency-
approved investigation or
remediation plan.

Upon completion, closure
documentation, NFA letters,
or other acceptable
verification from the
oversight agency is
submitted to the City for
review and approval before
grading or construction
proceeds.

City of Rialto Planning
Department in
coordination with the
appropriate regulatory
agencies (if needed)

NOISE
MM NOI-1 Pile Driving – Preconstruction Survey. To avoid impacts to vibration-sensitive land uses (i.e., non-engineered timber and masonry buildings) located within a 50-foot radius of pile driving activities, the following measures shall be specified on project plans and implemented during construction, prior to demolition, grading, or building permit approval:

Pile driving within a 50-foot radius of vibration-sensitive land uses shall utilize alternative installation methods (e.g., pile cushioning, jetting, predrilling, cast-in-place systems, resonance- free vibratory pile drivers) to ensure that vibration velocities remain below the 0.2 inch/second Project Applicant;
contractor and
construction team retained
by the Project Applicant;
qualified professional
responsible for conducting
The preconstruction
survey shall be completed
and incorporated into
project plans prior to
demolition, grading, or
building permit approval.

A qualified professional
conducts a preconstruction
survey of all vibration-
sensitive land uses within 50
feet of the proposed pile-
driving activities,
documenting existing
City of Rialto Planning
Department

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 8
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold. A preconstruction survey shall be conducted to document the existing condition of all vibration-sensitive land uses within a 50-foot radius of proposed pile driving. The preconstruction survey shall include written and photographic documentation of susceptible structural elements, finishes, and fixtures. This documentation shall be used to evaluate any potential construction-related damage. If damage resulting from pile driving is identified, the project applicant shall be responsible for repairing or restoring the affected features to their preexisting condition.
the preconstruction survey
and documentation
All measures shall be
implemented prior to
initiation of pile-driving
activities.
structural conditions
through written and
photographic records.

Contractor implements
alternative installation
methods to ensure vibration
velocities remain below 0.2
inch/second PPV.

Project Applicant evaluates
any reported construction-
related damage by
comparing conditions to the
preconstruction
documentation and is
responsible for restoring
affected features to their
preexisting conditions.

Documentation of the
preconstruction survey and
confirmation of
implemented measures shall
be submitted to the City for
review.

TRANSPORTATION
MM TRANS-1 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). Prior to issuance of a building permit, one or more of the following measures shall be implemented to reduce VMT-related impacts associated with future projects that cannot be screened out of the VMT analysis process, such that the development’s VMT falls below the low-VMT thresholds identified by City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and LOS Assessment (TIA Guidelines) (December 2024) or guidelines adopted by the City of Rialto at the time of the development application:
• Modify the project’s built environment characteristics to reduce VMT generated by the project;
• Implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies to reduce project- generated VMT; and/or
• Participate in a fair share traffic impact fee program or VMT mitigation banking program, if available.

Examples of potential VMT-reducing measures include, but are not limited to:
• Improve or increase access to transit
• Increase access to common goods and services, such as groceries, schools, and daycare; • Incorporate affordable housing into the project;
• Orient the project toward transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities; • Improve pedestrian or bicycle networks, or transit service; • Provide traffic calming features;
• Provide secure bicycle parking;
• Limit or eliminate on-site parking supply;
• Unbundle parking costs from residential units;
Project Applicant Prior to the issuance of a
building permit.

For projects that cannot be
screened out of the VMT
analysis process,
documentation that one or
more of the outlined
measures have been
implemented and are
included on project plans
shall be submitted to the
City for review and
verification that selected
measures achieve
compliance.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

City of Rialto 6th Cycle Housing Element Update (2021-2029) Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

January 2026 Page 9
Number Mitigation Measure
Implementation
Responsibility Implementation Timing
Monitoring/Reporting
Methods
Responsible for
Approval/Monitoring
Verification of Compliance
Initials Date Remarks
• Implement or provide access to a commute reduction program; • Provide car-sharing, bike-sharing, or ride-sharing programs; • Provide subsidized or free transit passes.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM TCR-1 Tribal Notification and Coordination for Unanticipated Discoveries. The Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation Cultural Resources Management Department (YSMN) shall be contacted, in the event that any pre-contact cultural resources are discovered during project implementation, as required under MM CUL-1. YSMN shall be provided with information regarding the nature of the find to enable tribal input regarding the resource’s significance and appropriate treatment. If the find is determined to be a tribal cultural resource under CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21074), a Cultural Resources Monitoring and Treatment Plan shall be prepared by the qualified archaeologist, in coordination with YSMN. All subsequent finds shall be subject to the provisions of this Plan. The Plan shall allow for a tribal monitor representing YSMN to be present during all remaining ground-disturbing activities, should YSMN elect to place a monitor on-site.

Project Applicant;
Qualified Archeologist
retained by Project
Applicant;
Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation Cultural
Resources Management
Department
YSMN shall be contacted
in the event that any pre-
contact cultural resources
are discovered during
project implementation.

If the resource is
determined to be a tribal
cultural resource under
Public Resources Code
§21074, a Cultural
Resources Monitoring and
Treatment Plan shall be
prepared by the Qualified
Archaeologist in
coordination with YSMN
and finalized prior to
resumption of ground-
disturbing activities in the
area of the find.

Tribal monitoring, if
elected by YSMN, shall
occur during all remaining
ground-disturbing
activities in accordance
with the Plan.

Contact YSMN if pre-contact
cultural resources are
discovered.

Preparation of a Cultural
Resources Monitoring and
Treatment Plan in
coordination with YSMN.

Documentation of YSMN
notification and a copy of
the finalized Plan are to be
submitted to the City for
review.

City of Rialto Planning
Department

MM TCR-2 Sharing of Archaeological Documentation. All archaeological and cultural documentation prepared in connection with future housing projects facilitated by the Project (e.g., isolate records, site records, survey reports, testing reports, data recovery reports) shall be provided to both the Lead Agency for dissemination to YSMN. The Lead Agency shall, in good faith, consult with YSMN throughout the duration of project construction regarding any discoveries and cultural resource management actions.

Project Applicant;
City of Rialto Planning
Department
Throughout the duration
of project construction
Project Applicant submits
archaeological
documentation to the City.

The City provides the
documentation to YSMN
and engages in ongoing
good faith consultation
regarding discoveries and
resource management
actions throughout
construction.

Proof of documentation
transmittal and records of
consultation are maintained
by the City.

City of Rialto Planning
Department