Jurupa Valley City Council
September 7, 2023

Exhibit A

FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS

I. Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq.) (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000, et seq.) (“Guidelines”) provide, in CEQA Guidelines section 15091(a), that no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment caused by the project unless the public agency makes one or more of the following findings:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project, which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR.

2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency.

3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR.

These findings shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (CEQA Guidelines § 15091(b).)
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (“Jurupa Valley” or “City”) hereby makes the following environmental findings in connection with the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan project (the “Project”). These findings are based upon the Draft EIR for the Project, including its supporting technical reports and appendices; comments on the Draft EIR and the written responses thereto; the Errata to the Draft EIR; the Final EIR; reports presented to the Planning Commission and the City Council by City staff and experts; and written and oral evidence included in the record of these proceedings.

II. Project Objectives
As set forth in the EIR, the Project applicant’s objectives (the “Project Objectives”) are as follows:

A. Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities.

B. Transform the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment.

C. Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity and mix of uses through new development standards.

D. Create guidelines and standards for architecture that reinforces the unique character and identity of the City of Jurupa Valley characterized by high quality architectural forms and material and emphasize a Southern California lifestyle that maximizes the outdoor spaces.

E. Encourage compatible land uses and interface with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives and/or local streets.

F. Facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley.

G. Capitalize on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues and infrastructure improvements.

H. Establish an open space plan that accommodates recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.

I. Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, activities and contain vehicular impacts.

J. Provide flexible parking standards to encourage parking facilities that meet the parking demand for all users at all times, in order to avoid excess, unnecessary parking and ensuring no overflow parking into public streets.

K. Create guidelines and standards for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement; and minimize impacts of truck traffic and circulation throughout the site and adjoining areas.

L. Establish infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, storm drains, utilities, roads, intersections and other facilities to adequately support development.

M. Create a sustainable environment by incorporating strategies that minimize consumption of natural resources, conserve energy and water, incorporate natural systems and minimize release of pollutants into the environment.

III. Project Description

As described in greater detail in the EIR, the Project proposes to permit the construction of up to 1,192 new residential units; approximately 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial land uses (including warehouse and logistic uses); a hotel with conference and hospitality area; and approximately 11 acres of parks and open space

on an approximately 248.3-acre project site in the northeast part of the City of Jurupa Valley. More specifically, the Project includes the potential for development of up to 1,196 residential units on 42.0 acres; 1,472,500 square feet of commercial uses on 97.7 acres; 30,000 square feet of business park uses on 7.8 acres; 1,500,000 square feet of industrial/logistics uses on 67.3 acres; 11.1 acres of public open space; and 22.4 acres of public improvements (including roadways and public facilities such as storm drainage basins).

The Project site is bounded by the State Route (SR) 60 freeway on the north, the Santa Ana River on the east, 34th Street and single-family residential uses on the south, and Rubidoux Boulevard on the west. Most of the Project site is vacant and undeveloped, though previously used for agriculture, commercial and residential uses; 11 single- family residences are present in the central part of the Project site.

The County of Riverside approved the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (EMRSP) SP-337 on the site in 2005, but the EMRSP was not developed. The EMRSP proposed a mixed-use community with residential, commercial retail, and park and open space uses.

The Project includes applications for the following discretionary approvals from the City of Jurupa Valley, the lead agency:
• Approval of the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan and repeal of the existing Emerald Meadows Specific Plan.
• General Plan Amendment.
• Development Agreement.
• Tentative Tract Map.

The Project site is approximately 248 acres on the east boundary of the City of Jurupa Valley, which is in the northwest corner of Riverside County and in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley. Regional access to the Project site area is from SR-60 via Rubidoux Boulevard. Wallace Street passes through the Project site north to south; Hall Avenue/30th Street (one roadway with two names for different segments) passes through the northern part of the site.

The Project site is vacant except for 11 single-family residences in the central part of the site and two garages on the southeast site boundary. Remnants of demolished structures are present near Wallace Street in the middle of the site, and near 30th Street and Hall Avenue in the north part of the site. The Project site is relatively flat; elevations onsite range from approximately 845 feet above mean sea level (amsl) in the north-central part of the site to 785 feet amsl next to the south site boundary.

The Project site is surrounded by the following land uses:
• North: The SR-60 freeway, single-family and multi-family residential, commercial and industrial uses.

• South: Single family and multi-family dwellings, churches, educational institutions, and light agriculture uses.
• East: Santa Ana River and City of Riverside jurisdictional boundary with residential, and parks and recreational uses.
• West: Single-family and multi-family residential, and commercial uses.

IV. Effects Determined to Be Less than Significant During the Scoping Process

The City issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) pursuant to CEQA and in the course of the environmental review, the Project was found to have either no impact or a less than significant impact on two environmental factors—Agriculture and Forestry Resources, and Wildfire.

A. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

1. The Project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. No Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is mapped on or near the Project site.

2. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agriculture use, with a designated Agricultural Opportunity, or with a Williamson Act contract. The Project site does not contain any land subject to a Williamson Act contract.

3. The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. The Project site is zoned Specific Plan (SP), and is not zoned as forest land, timberland, or timberland production.

4. The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The Project Site does not contain any type of forest land.

5. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agriculture use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. No forest land is present on or next to the Project Site.

B. WILDFIRE

1. The Project is not located within a Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ) mapped by CAL FIRE. The Project would not substantially

impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. Project construction would comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency access. Therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements, construction would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. During operation, the Project would not involve activities that would impede public access or travel along the public right-of-way or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project would continue to adhere to applicable emergency response plans and policies.

2. The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and would not expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations form a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. No slopes are present on or next to the Project site that would substantially exacerbate wildfire hazards. The mean wind speed at the Project site is approximately four miles per hour most of the year (March through December), and lower than that in January and February. Prevailing directions are from the east and southeast. Project development would not exacerbate wildfire risks due to slope or prevailing winds.

3. The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Project development would involve installation and maintenance of utilities.

Utility mains would be installed in proposed roadways onsite and would be extended to connect to utility mains in existing roadways next to the site. Electric distribution lines installed as part of the Project would be underground. Project development would not involve installation or maintenance of overhead electric lines that would exacerbate wildfire risks.

4. Project development would not 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. No substantial slopes – where impacts subsequent to wildfires, including flooding, landslides, and mudflows, could be anticipated to originate – are present on the Project site. Project construction would include installation of a drainage system with capacity meeting requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

Therefore, Project drainage changes would not cause downstream flooding. Impacts would be less than significant.

V. Effects Found in the EIR to Create No Impact or a Less Than Significant Impact Without Mitigation.

The Project will have no impact, or a less than significant impact without the incorporation of mitigation, in a number of environmental areas listed below, as discussed more fully in the EIR.

A. AESTHETICS

1. The Project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have would have significant effects if the Project would substantially block public views of a scenic vista that is visible from a scenic corridor as identified by General Plan Figure 4-23, Jurupa Valley Scenic Corridors and Roadways. Because there are no scenic corridors in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, there is no impact in this regard.

The City’s General Plan specifies the Pedley Hills, Jurupa Mountains, and Santa Ana River as scenic resources, and publicly accessible vantage points that provide views of these scenic resources are considered scenic vistas. The EIR also evaluates impacts to views of Mount Rubidoux in the City of Riverside because it is within one mile of the Project site and is considered a scenic resource by the City of Riverside.

The public rights-of-way within and surrounding the Project site provide distant and partial views of the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, and Mount Rubidoux. With the implementation of floor area ratio limits, building setback lines, and building height limits contained in the Specific Plan, the partial views to these scenic resources would still be publicly available from the Project site post- development. As a result, the implementation of the Project does not have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas.

Views of the Santa Ana River from the public-right-of way of existing streets within and adjacent to the Project site are blocked by the raised berm that runs along the eastern border of the site adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Therefore, the Project would not block unobstructed public views of the River, and there is no impact in this regard. The primary public view of the Santa Ana River from the City of Riverside is from an approximately 4,000-foot-long segment of the Santa Ana River Trail along the east side of the River in the City of Riverside. This view corresponds to the distance between 34
th Street and SR 60 on the Jurupa Valley side of the

River. The existing public views of the Santa Ana River are already blocked because the elevation is the same or lower than public viewing vantage points and because intervening structures and vegetation block any view. Therefore, impacts are less than significant in this regard.

The Specific Plan land uses proposed adjacent to the Santa Ana River are Industrial/Logistics (I-L) and Public Facility (PF). The I-L designation is intended to provide a wide range of industrial uses including research and development; light manufacturing, assembly and processing of manufactured goods and materials; warehousing and distribution including e-commerce, high-cube logistics and cross-dock facilities. Ancillary uses include office, employee services, and property management facilities. The Public Facility designation provides for the development of a stormwater basin.

As required by the Specific Plan, all loading docks and truck parking areas shall be visually screened from the public right-of- way. Additionally, the Santa Ana River is approximately 1,000 feet wide, and abundant vegetation—including trees—in the riverbed would partly screen the proposed Project from the public vantage points in the City of Riverside. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Only the berm adjacent to the River is seen from eastbound traffic on State Route 60 because the travel lanes are approximately at the same elevation as the Project site. The travel lanes elevate over the Santa Ana River at the Mission Boulevard Bridge, which is at a point past the Project site, and thus the development on the Project site would not obstruct the views of the River from this vantage point. Therefore, there are no impacts in this regard.

2. The Project would not substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway. Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if it is located within a state scenic highway corridor pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code, Sections 260 through 263 and the Project will damage trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings.

There are no designated eligible State Scenic Highways adjacent to the Project site. The nearest designated state scenic highway to the Project site is a segment of State Route 91 approximately 23 miles to the southwest. Project development would not damage scenic resources in the designated segment of SR-91 and no impact would occur.

3. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Under the

City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if it is inconsistent with General Plan policies or Municipal Code requirements pertaining to scenic quality. Future development projects would be required to comply with the applicable development standards and design guidelines of the Specific Plan, which are consistent with the General Plan. Future development of the Specific Plan will occur through the processing of a variety of implementing projects, including, but not limited to, tract maps, parcel maps, grading plans, site development permits, conditional use permits, tenant improvements, and sign permits. All implementing projects shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department for review and
processing. The Community Development Department shall review all plans for consistency with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality contained in the Specific Plan.

Impacts would be less than significant.

4. The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy COS 10.1. General Plan Policy COS 10.1 requires outdoor lighting to be shielded and prohibits outdoor lighting that: 1) Operates at unnecessary locations, levels, and times; 2) Spills onto areas off-site or to areas not needing or wanting illumination; 3) Produces glare (intense line-of-sight contrast); 4) Includes lighting frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing; and 5) Includes building materials that create glare.

Outdoor lighting fixtures are required to comply with Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements, and Section 4.5, Lighting, of the Specific Plan. These regulations require all exterior lighting fixtures to be directed downward to illuminate the site and avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution on adjacent properties. Subsequent project approvals for specific buildings will have to comply with these requirements and will be evaluated by the Community Development Department to ensure compliance with the standards specified to prevent light spillage off-site. Mandatory compliance with the applicable requirements of the Specific Plan’s development standards regulating light and glare would ensure the proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to light and glare, and daytime and nighttime views. Impacts would be less than significant in this regard.

Implementation of the Specific Plan and development of the proposed buildings would not result in large expanses of reflective materials so the increase in glare would be less than significant in this regard.

Section 4.9.2, Lighting and Display Requirements, of the Specific Plan requires that all digital billboards must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning brightness, including, without limitation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, and as amended and that signs are to be oriented primarily for viewing from the freeway and shall be oriented, and adequately shielded if necessary, to prevent the trespass of light and glare upon any residential land use (within 1,000 feet of the sign), including those in mixed-use districts, as exists on the date of building permit issuance. With compliance with these requirements, impacts would be less than significant.

5. The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to aesthetics, and no mitigation is required.

B. AIR QUALITY

1. The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people. Odors that could be generated by Project construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of odor nuisances. Construction-related odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.

Construction-related odors are considered less than cumulatively- considerable. The Project and cumulative developments in the surrounding areas would all also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would ensure that long-term operational odor impacts would be less than cumulatively-considerable.

C. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

1. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The Project site is a highly disturbed parcel supporting little in terms of native cover or sensitive biological resources. The Jurupa Ditch does provide

some open water and disturbed riparian vegetation; however, this is isolated and variable, given that this is a water delivery channel and subject to water control and maintenance. While the site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and may serve as an extension of open space available to local wildlife for foraging, it is highly constrained as a wildlife movement corridor to any other habitat areas.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

2. The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources including Conservation and Open Space Policies COS 1.2 (Protection of Significant Trees), 1.3 (Other Significant Vegetation), 2.1 (MSHCP Implementation), and 2.3 (Biological Reports). No native trees or oak species occur onsite and the removal of primarily Peruvian pepper trees would not conflict with any City of Jurupa Valley protected tree ordinance or oak tree management guidelines.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

D. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries. The Project site has been graded and in use since 1929. The fully built environment of the Project site and elevation relative to adjacent roads and parcels suggests that there was significant cut-and-fill of the ground surface for construction, with no native surface soil remaining. During previous ground disturbance activities, no human remains were identified or recorded onsite. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during precise grading or construction activities, compliance with existing law would ensure that impacts to human remains would be less than significant.

E. ENERGY

1. The Project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

The Project would be required to comply with existing regulatory requirements imposed by federal and state agencies that regulate energy use and consumption.

Although petroleum based fuels would be consumed during Project construction, vehicles would be required to comply with regulations and fuel efficiency standards. Electricity used during Project construction would comply with energy efficiency standards, such as wattage limitations. Compliance with these regulations and efficiency standards would ensure that fuel and electricity use during Project construction would have a less than significant impact.

Fuel and electricity energy would be consumed during Project operation. The Project would comply with all applicable regulations and codes that require achievement of various levels of energy efficiency in building operation. The Project will include features that encourage advanced energy conservation techniques and the incorporation of energy-efficient design elements. The Project would not result in an increase in demand for electricity that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Energy use during Project construction would have a less than significant impact.

2. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to energy would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

F. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. The Project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1) rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault; 2) strong seismic ground shaking; 3) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or 4) landslides.

No active fault is mapped in or next to the Project site, and the Project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone.

Therefore, the Project would cause no impacts relating to rupture of a known earthquake fault.

Although the Project is located in a seismically active region and soils under the Project site are potentially liquefiable, compliance with approved seismic design requirements would be a condition of Project development (refer to Section 4.6.6 of the Draft EIR), and would ensure that impacts related to ground shaking and liquefaction would be less than significant.

Landslide hazards are not considered to be present on the Project site due to the lack of slopes on or next to the site. In addition, compliance with seismic design requirements would ensure that impacts related to landslides would be less than significant.

2. The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Project construction would involve disturbance, exposure, and excavation of large amounts of soil and could thus accelerate erosion if effective soil erosion measures are not used.

Implementation of BMPs would reduce construction impacts on stormwater quality and soil erosion to less than significant levels.

Thus, impacts relating to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

3. The Project would not be located in a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

Hazards arising from liquefiable soils would be less than significant after compliance with recommendations of the updated
geotechnical report for minimizing liquefaction hazards summarized in Section 4.6.A.2.iii (refer to the Draft EIR).

The Project site is not in an area of land subsidence mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey. Project development would not cause soil instability relating to ground subsidence, and impacts would be less than significant.

Project development would not cause soil instability arising from collapsible soils after implementation of recommendations in the geotechnical report (refer to Section 4.6.A.2.iii of the Draft EIR), and impacts would be less than significant.

4. The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property. Soils on the Project site are expected to have low to very low expansion potentials, and some soils with medium expansion potential may be present. With implementation of geotechnical investigation recommendations addressing expansion hazards and compliance with the City Building Code, impacts arising from expansive soils would be less than significant.

5. The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. Project development would involve construction of a

system of sewers that would connect to an existing sewer main at the intersection of Wallace Street and 34th Street; all wastewater from the Project would be conveyed to that existing main. All proposed on-site mains are sized to meet project requirements.

Therefore, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required and no impact would occur.

6. The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to geology and soils, and no mitigation is required.

E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials during Project construction would comply with existing laws which effectively reduce impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials. Construction impacts arising from the routine use of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

The Project site would include industrial and commercial land uses.

The future occupants of the proposed buildings are not yet known.

If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the future buildings on the Project site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper transport, use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances.

With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of the Project would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.

2. The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Project construction contractors would train construction workers in safe containment and cleanup of small hazardous materials spills and would keep equipment and supplies for containing and cleaning up small spills on their worksites. Construction impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.

Commercial and industrial tenants of the proposed Project would comply with requirements respecting Hazardous Materials Business Plans, California Accidental Release Program,
underground storage tanks, aboveground petroleum storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators. Tenants would provide records of types and amounts of hazardous materials used, containment and cleanup procedures, procedures for notifying the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous materials release requiring first-responder assistance, and procedures for emergency evacuation and for notifying neighbors. Operational impacts arising from accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant after compliance with regulations.

3. The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. There is one school within one-quarter mile of the Project site. Project construction would generate diesel particulate matter (DPM). A health risk assessment for exposure of nearby workers and residents, including students at the school, to DPM emissions during construction determined that the exposure would not pose substantial hazards to students at the school (See Section A.2 of the Draft EIR and Appendix D2). Impacts would be less than significant.

4. The Project Site is located within an airport land use plan but would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area. The Project site is located in airport land use compatibility zones for Flabob Airport. The Project does not propose development of land uses prohibited or discouraged in the compatibility zones. The Project site is outside of noise contours for Flabob Airport. The Project is consistent with the Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Thus, the Project would cause no impacts relating to an airport land use plan or public airport.

5. The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Construction activities for the Project would be primarily confined to the Project site and would only include minor offsite improvements in the public right-of-way in the streets surrounding the Project site. Construction Management Plans would be implemented during Project construction to ensure that adequate and safe access remains available during construction activities. The Project would also comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency access. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction.

During operation, the Project would not involve any activities that would impede public access or travel along the public right-of-way or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project site plan will be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department and the Project would comply with all emergency access requirements. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access during operation and no impacts would occur.

6. The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires. The entire Project Site is outside of any fire hazard severity zone. Thus, development of the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to wildland fire hazards and the Project would cause no impacts relating to wildland fires.

7. The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, airport-related hazards, and emergency response planning, and no mitigation is required.

F. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

1. The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. The Project would be required to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction. After compliance with the Construction General Permit, potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during Project construction would have a less than significant impact. The Riverside County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post-construction low-impact development (LID) BMPs into Project design to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from the Project site. Site design BMPs reduce or eliminate post-Project runoff and filer contaminants from stormwater generated onsite. Source control BMPs reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff. The Project would store and treat runoff in accordance with the Riverside County MS4 permit and City of Jurupa Valley requirements. Thus, impacts relating to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant.

2. The Project would not substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the

Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Water service to the Project would be supplied by the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD). Based on the Project’s Water Supply Assessment report, RCSD’s current and future water supply will consist of groundwater extracted from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin, augmented by water
purchased from the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD).

Water rights within the San Bernardino Basin Area, of which Riverside South Groundwater Basin is a part, have been
adjudicated, and RCSD is guaranteed a sufficient water supply from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin to meet current and future demands, even if that supply is not augmented by water purchased from the WMWD.

LID BMPs would be incorporated into Project which will capture stormwater generated on the Project site and channel it into Bio Clean Modular Wetlands or similar stormwater infiltration BMPs.

Stormwater would filter through the soils and eventually recharge the aquifer below the Project site. Thus, impacts relating to groundwater supply, groundwater recharge, and sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant.

3. The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.

Development of the Project would alter the on-site drainage patterns with the development of the buildings, roadways, and associated site improvements. The Project would include onsite stormwater detention BMPs designed in accordance with the RCFC and NPDES requirements. Although the type of drainage
conveyance onsite would change, the direction of drainage would remain similar to existing conditions.

Project development would increase impervious areas onsite by 87 acres. However, the additional runoff created by post-development conditions is mitigated by the proposed BMPs, and the overall impact would be less than significant.

The Project would be required to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. After compliance with the Construction General Permit, the potential for substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite would be less than significant.

Proposed infiltration basins and culvert extensions are adequately sized to accommodate the Project. Existing basins dedicated to regulating flows of the Santa Ana River upstream of the Project site and other local flooding areas outside of the mapped FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas site are adequately sized to limit 100-year discharge flows at or below the existing condition of these basins.

The Project would not result in flooding on- or offsite, nor would it result in runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide a substantial additional source of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant.

The Project is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain) designated by FEMA, and existing and proposed levees, basins, culverts, etc. are sufficiently sized to prevent onsite flooding from the 100-year flood. Impacts would be less than significant.

5. The Project would not, in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.

6. The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable City of Jurupa Valley regulations regarding stormwater runoff, as well as the Riverside County MS4 permit, and the LID capture and infiltration facilities would, through natural infiltration of soils, ensure that the water quality objectives of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) are met. Project development will not be drawing any groundwater since all water will be supplied by the RCSD, as such the Project would not conflict with an adopted SGMP. Impacts relating to a water quality control and sustainable groundwater management plan would be less than significant.

7. The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to hydrology and water quality, and no mitigation is required.

G. LAND USE AND PLANNING

1. The Project would not physically divide an established community.

The Project site is characterized as predominantly vacant land, with limited previous development of older residential properties. Thus, the Project will not divide an established community and there will be no impact.

2. The Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Table 4.10-2 in Section 4.10 (refer to the Draft EIR) provides an assessment of the Project’s relationship to pertinent City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Element goals and policies. The analysis concludes that the proposed Project would be consistent with the applicable General Plan goals and policies that are intended to avoid or minimize an environmental effect.

Table 4.10-3 in Section 4.10 (refer to the Draft EIR) provides a detailed analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) goals. The analysis concludes that the Project would be consistent with the SCAG RTP/SCS goals. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in significant land use impacts.

3. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to land use and planning would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

H. MINERAL RESOURCES

1. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. The Project site contains two mineral resource sectors, which combined span approximately 79 acres in the eastern half of the Project site. Mining is prohibited onsite under the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and would also be prohibited under the proposed Specific Plan. Because mining is not permitted under either the existing Specific Plan or Project, there is no loss of a mineral resource and development of the Project on mineral resources would be less than significant.

2. The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. No mine is identified on or next to the Project site in the City’s General Plan,

Specific Plan, or other Land Use Plans, and the Project site is not designated Open Space – Mineral Resources in the General Plan which allow for mineral extraction and processing facilities.

3. The Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact related to mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.

I. NOISE

1. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or within an airport land use plan or, where such plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. The Project site is in the airport influence area for Flabob Airport, which is approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the Project site. However, the site is outside the lowest (55 CNEL) noise contour for Flabob Airport, as shown in Figure 4.12-2 (refer to the Draft EIR). Therefore, Project development would not expose residents or workers onsite to excessive noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of the noise standards identified in the applicable land use compatibly plans and impacts would be less than significant.

J. POPULATION AND HOUSING

1. The Project would not induce substantial population growth in the area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure).

Construction jobs created by the Project would not result in substantial population growth in the Project area because construction jobs are temporary in nature. It is expected that Project construction employment would be absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract workers to move from outside of the Project region. Project construction impacts on population and housing would be less than significant.

The Project area was intended for residential and nonresidential uses when the County approved the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and certified the associated EIR. Thus, both local and regional growth projections account for population and employment growth within the Project site. Therefore, the buildout of the proposed Project would constitute planned growth in accordance with regional and local projections. Additionally, Project development would not cause growth in population or housing exceeding regional forecasts for the City of Jurupa Valley. The

operational population and housing impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

The Project would provide needed housing options in the City to support planned population growth. The Project would provide up to 1,192 housing units, which would help to support the housing needs of the City. The increase in housing resulting from the construction of the Project would constitute planned growth in accordance with regional and local projections.

Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 3,779 jobs. Project-generated employment would not exceed the regional forecast for the City and thus would have a less than significant impact.

The Project is not expected to contribute to direct unplanned growth in the City. Impacts related to unplanned population growth would be less than significant.

While the Project site is currently undeveloped and is not served by major infrastructure, a few roadways are present on site including Rubidoux Boulevard and 34
th Street. Existing utilities are present
onsite along Wallace Street and abutting the site in roadways including Rubidoux Boulevard and 34th Street. The proposed Project would include extension of roads and infrastructure to serve the proposed residential and nonresidential uses. However, the infrastructure would only serve the Project site. As such, the Project would not contribute to the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area. Impacts relating to the extension of roads or other infrastructure would be less than significant.

2. The Project would not displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. There are 11 housing units on the Project site, seven of which would be demolished during site clearance. Based on the average household size in the City of Jurupa Valley of 3.71 persons, the seven units to be demolished are estimated to house 26 persons. The Project proposes the development of a net increase of 1,192 housing units, over 100 times the number of units that would be demolished. Therefore, Project development would not require the construction of replacement housing offsite, and impacts would be less than significant.

3. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to population and housing would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

K. PUBLIC SERVICES

1. The Project would not result in a substantial adverse physical impact associated with the provisions of new or physically altered governmental facilities, 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 fire protection services, police protection services, schools, parks, or other public facilities.

The City General Plan considers the proposed Project as planned growth within the City. The General Plan Final EIR
stated that
future development would be required to be designed, constructed, and operated per applicable fire prevention/protection standards established by the City. It further stated that all new developments would be required to pay Development Impact Fees to the City, concluding that there would be no significant impacts related to fire protection from implementation of the General Plan. Finally, the General Plan identifies the need for expanding public service by establishing Program CSSF 2.2, which would ensure the provision of sufficient public facilities and services prior to, or concurrently with, new development. Thus, impacts relating to fire protection services would be less than significant.

Cumulative growth anticipated in the region would generate increased tax revenues, and some of those revenues would be available to fund the construction of new or expanded fire stations, purchase additional equipment, or hire more staff to meet the needs of new developments. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with public service resources would be less than significant.

The existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and planned development for that plan was included and accounted for in the City’s current General Plan. Thus, impacts relating to police protection services would be less than significant.

The Project site is served by the JUSD. Development projects undertaken pursuant to the Specific Plan would pay development fees to the JUSD. The payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for project-related impacts on school services and on school capacity.

Demands for library services are generated by the population in the libraries’ service areas. Development projects in Jurupa Valley are required to pay development impact fees for library collection items

and computers pursuant to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Projects built in accordance with the Specific Plan would pay the referenced development impact fees. Payment of such fees will provide funding to expand the library to support new development.

With the payment of development impact fees for libraries, Project impacts on library services would be less than significant.

2. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to public services would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

L. RECREATION

1. The Project would not 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. The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

The Project proposes development of 1,192 residential units. The average household size in Jurupa Valley is 3.71 persons. Thus, at project buildout, the residential units are estimated to house 4,422 persons. At the City standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, the Project would generate a need for approximately 13.3 acres of parkland. The Specific Plan includes Open Space Use as a component of the Residential Land Use. The open spaces areas include neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off-street trails. The Open Space area also incorporates landscape buffers and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater. Community pedestrian and multi-use trails are planned along streets and the Santa Ana River. The Specific Plan accommodates the area for a future multi-use path (Class I) along the Santa Ana River and will implement an on-street bicycle lane (Class I) along Rubidoux Boulevard, A Street and B Street. Off-street bicycle paths will be incorporated south of the Industrial, and within the Residential.

The Specific Plan would include a combination of park dedication, community improvements associated with the residential
development, as well as payment of in-lieu fees to meet parkland requirements. In addition to the Open Space Areas identified, residential development will incorporate private and common areas that will expand and connect to the open space areas, and adjacent uses. The location of these facilities will be determined with subsequent site development permits and will comply with the development standards included in the Specific Plan.

The Project would include 11.1 acres of open space, leaving a remaining requirement for 2.1 acres of parkland or open space to meet City standards. The Project would be required to dedicate parkland and/or pay in-lieu fees for acquisition and/or improvement of parkland pursuant to the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Impacts would be less than significant after dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees. Thus, Project-related impacts to parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant.

2. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to recreation would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

M. TRANSPORTATION

1. The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The Project incorporates community serving pedestrian and bicycle pathways through a multi-use trail and sidewalks. All future projects would incorporate design improvements as applicable, including improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes. The internal circulation between land uses would be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards.

2. The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). As detailed in the Specific Plan, the internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area.

Access drives off of the backbone infrastructure are shown on the Circulation Plan. The internal circulation between land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards.

Thus, impacts relating to design feature or incompatible uses hazards would be less than significant.

3. The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.

Regional access is provided via several major roads and highways.

Emergency access to the Specific Plan area is provided around each proposed building, through private streets, parking areas, and truck courts. The roadways and internal circulation would be

designed to meet City standards, including standards for emergency vehicle access. With adherence to the design standards of the City and review of the proposed infrastructure improvements by City staff, the Project would not substantially increase hazards.

Thus, the impacts relating to emergency access would be less than significant.

4. The Project would have less than significant cumulative impacts related to conflicts with existing programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system; hazards due to a roadway’s geometric design; and emergency access, and no mitigation is required.

N. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, or telecommunications facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.

Project construction would involve construction of a network of water mains under existing and proposed roadways. Impacts of construction and maintenance of the proposed water mains would be part of the impacts of the whole Project analyzed throughout the EIR. No additional impact related to water supplies would occur.

Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative water supply impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts on water supplies would not be cumulatively considerable.

All proposed on-site mains are sized to meet RCSD flow depth and slope requirements. Project development would involve
construction of a system of sewers that would connect to an existing sewer main at the intersection of Wallace Street and 34 th
Street; all wastewater from the Project would be conveyed to that existing main. Impacts of construction and maintenance of the proposed sewer mains would be part of the impacts of the entire Project analyzed throughout the EIR. No additional impact related to wastewater would occur. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

The Project would include construction of a drainage system including storm drains conveying runoff to two outfalls. The Project would include construction of an offsite storm drain connecting the proposed outfall to an existing storm drain. Impacts related to

construction and operation of the proposed drainage system would be part of the impacts of the entire project analyzed throughout the EIR. No additional impact related to storm water drainage would occur. Thus, impacts would be less than significant. Compliance with existing drainage requirements would reduce cumulative impacts on surface water and drainage to less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Project construction would include installation of
telecommunications facilities onsite connecting to existing facilities on and near the Project site. Project development would not require construction of new or upgraded telecommunications facilities offsite. Impacts of construction and operation of new
telecommunications facilities onsite would be part of the impacts of the whole Project analyzed throughout the EIR. No additional impact related to telecommunications would occur. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.

2. The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. The Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) provides water to the Project site. RCSD has sufficient existing and planned water supplies to meet proposed Project water demands in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions. The Project's water demand has actually been included and accounted for in RCSD's most recently adopted UWMP, with a substantial safety factor. Since the Project's water demand has been included in RCSD's most recently adopted UWMP, it is included as evidence in the Written Verification and WSA that there is a sufficient water supply to support the Project.

Thus, Project impacts on water supplies would be less than significant.

3. The wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s protected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. The RCSD, in its 2022 Wastewater Master Plan, identified no deficiencies downstream of the Project site based on the previously approved uses. Those previously approved uses were estimated to generate approximately 283,697 gpd on average. The proposed Project is projected to generate approximately 286,650 gpd average (see Table 4.18-4 in Section 4.18 of the Draft EIR), an increase of approximately one percent. Since the generation rate of the Specific Plan is substantially similar to the uses studied in the RCSD Master Plan, the Specific Plan is not expected to require any additional downstream improvements or facility upgrades. Sufficient

wastewater treatment capacity is available in the region for project wastewater generation, and impacts would be less than significant.

4. The Project would not 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.

The Project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Development would increase solid waste generation by an estimated 38,823 pounds (19.4 tons) per day. Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available in the region for project solid waste generation. The three landfills serving the City of Jurupa Valley have a total remaining capacity of approximately 10,000 tons per day. Thus, Project impacts relating to solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

There is sufficient landfill capacity in the region for the cumulative increase in solid waste disposal. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

5. The Project’s cumulative impacts relating to utilities and service systems would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

VI. Potentially Significant Environmental Impacts Determined to be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level.

The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant environmental impacts in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Noise, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Measures have been identified that would mitigate the specific impacts in each section to a less than significant level.

The City Council finds that mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR would reduce the Project’s impacts to a less than significant level, with the exception of those unmitigable impacts discussed in Section VII. The City Council adopts all of the feasible mitigation measures for the Project described in the Final EIR and as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) as conditions of approval of the Project and incorporates those into the Project.

A. AIR QUALITY
The Draft EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant air quality impacts, as further discussed below. Measures have been identified that would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.

1. Pollutant Concentrations

Threshold c): The Project could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to exposure to substantial pollutant concentrations. Specifically, Measures MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-11 are required to reduce impacts to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Mitigation Measures (applicable to all Specific Plan uses). Minimize Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to incorporate the following measures to minimize construction emissions:

• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. This equipment shall be used when commercial models that meet the construction needs of the proposed Project are commercially available from local suppliers/vendors. The determination of commercial availability of such equipment shall be made by the City, based on applicant-provided evidence from expert sources, such as construction contractors in the region.
• The maximum daily disturbance area (actively graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
• All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three minutes in any one hour.
• Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year 2010 or newer if diesel- fueled.
• Information on ridesharing programs shall be made available to construction employees.

• During construction, lunch options shall be provided onsite. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints per SCAQMD Standards.
• All construction contractors shall be provided information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District Surplus Off-road Opt-In “SOON” funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles. • The Project shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and provide appropriate documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet- power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the SCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Low VOC Paint. During construction, the Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints. • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints.

• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
• Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
• Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable. • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following measures shall be incorporated into the TDM plan.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.

Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
• The portion of the TDM plan for non-residential uses shall include, but not be limited to the following potential measures: ride-matching assistance, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half-time transportation coordinators, providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities. This list may be updated as new methods become available. Verification of this measure shall occur prior to building permit issuance for the commercial uses.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:

• Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant or subsequent property manager shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the vicinity of the development.

The materials shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. The materials shall be provided no later than the time the rental agreement is executed.

This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NOX, particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces used for supplemental heat, or ambiance and does not apply to HVAC systems. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All residential and non- residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure does not apply to open space areas that are maintained by the Park’s District or City of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules regulating landscape equipment.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Warehouse Mitigation Measures (Electrical Rooms). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.

Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-7: TRUs to be Plug-in-Capable. Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-8: Truck Rule Signage. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted those states the following:
• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. • Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling

regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-9: Energy Efficiency for Trucks (Carl Moyer Program). Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications shall include requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include energy efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer Program—including truck modernization, retrofits, and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance tires— to reduce fuel consumption. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit for any residential, commercial, or industrial building, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications for the residential, commercial, and industrial buildings shall include electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and parking spaces at each building for employees and the public to use as required by the CalGreen Code in effect at the time of permit issuance. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-11: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
• All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and
Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
• All standard emergency generators (i.e. non-cold storage generators) shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply to the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential air quality impacts. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to air quality. These requirements are

included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.2-1: Rule 401 (Visible Emissions). This Rule prohibits discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever of any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.

PPP 4.2-2: Rule 402 (Nuisance). This Rule prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

PPP 4.2-3: Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This Rule is intended to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the ambient air from anthropogenic (manmade) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or manmade condition capable of generating fugitive dust.

Some specific requirements of Rule 403 that apply to all construction projects, regardless of the size of their disturbed areas, are addressed below:
• No person shall cause or allow emissions of fugitive dust to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source or to exceed 20 percent opacity if the dust emission is a result of a moving motorized vehicle.
• Apply applicable Best Available Control Measures in Table 1 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions during active operation. • No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high volume PM samplers or other USEPA approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring at the Project limits for a five hour period during the time of Active Operations. Sampling will only occur if a complaint is reported to the SCAQMD, in which case the decision to conduct sampling will be made by SCAQMD, and SCAQMD will conduct sampling.
• No person shall allow track out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation, and all track out from an active operation shall be removed at the end of each workday or evening shift.
• No person shall conduct an active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic

yards or more of bulk material without at least one of the measures listed under subparagraph (d)(5) of Rule 403 at each vehicle egress.

PPP 4.2-4: Rule 445 (Wood burning Devices). The purpose of this rule is to reduce the emission of PM from wood burning devices. Section (d)(1) requires that no person shall permanently install a wood burning device into any new development.

PPP 4.2-5: Rule 481 (Spray Coating Operations) applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. This rule would apply to the application of architectural coatings to the exterior and interior or of the building walls.

PPP 4.2-6: Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt) governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt used in the SoCAB. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the proposed Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.

PPP 4.2-7: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used in the District and applies to any person who supplies, sells, markets, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating that is intended to be field applied within the District and any person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District.

PPP 4.2-8: Rule 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents) governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule,.

PPP 4.2-9: Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations) limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, State, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district.

PPP 4.2-10: Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) specifies the work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions and exposure from building demolition and renovation activities. Requirements include asbestos surveying; notification; asbestos-containing material (ACM) removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste material (ACWM).

PPP 4.2-11: Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000

square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse.

These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouse’s WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

PPP 4.2-12: Title 24. The proposed Project is required to comply with Title 24 of the CCR established by the California Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards.

PPP 4.2-13: Cal Green Code. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2023. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303 (residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with §

4.408.1 (residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Additionally, the following Project Design Features (PDF) will be included as part of the Project design and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to air quality. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PDF 4.2-1: Industrial Land Use Buffer. Where there are industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any industrial building to any residential building. The buffer area can be used as open space, providing landscape and infrastructure improvements that can include sidewalks, trails, and other passive uses.

PDF 4.2-2: Specific Plan Section 2.6.3 Truck Circulation. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles.

Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses. Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways. The following exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2-4 and 2-5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan).

PDF 4.2-3: Specific Plan Section 2.7.8, Roundabout. A Roundabout will be located at the intersection of Wallace Street, and future A Street and B Street. The Roundabout provides a significant traffic control measure to deter truck traffic, while providing an amenity to the community.

PDF 4.2-5: Landscaped Paseo. Adjacent to Industrial. As shown on Specific Plan Figure 2-2-Open Space Plan, the southern boundary of the Industrial Land Use Area includes an expansive landscaped paseo to screen and buffer from the adjacent Residential Land Use Area to the south.

PDF 4.2-6: Truck Routes. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses. Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways. The following exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2-4 and 2- 5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan).

PDF 4.2-7: 10 Hour Limit for Construction Equipment. The construction plans and specifications shall prohibit off-road diesel powered construction equipment from being in the "on" position for more than 10 hours per day during Project construction.

PDF 4.2-8: Model Year 2010 Fleet. The Project Applicant/Developer /Tenant shall require that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025.

Facility operators which own vehicles subject to Section 2025 shall maintain records on- site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.

PDF 4.2-9: ZE Trucks by 2030. The Project Applicant/Developer/Tenant shall require that all heavy-duty trucks entering or operated on the Project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030, if such trucks are widely available and economically feasible.

PDF 4.2-10: LEED Buildings. The Project will be designed to demonstrate equivalency with LEED green building standards as “certified” for the industrial buildings.

PDF 4.2-11: MERV 13 Filters within 500 Feet of TAC Source. Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

PDF 4.2-12: MERV Filters Program. Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters. a. Disclose potential health impacts to prospective sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to freeways or other sources of air pollution and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when windows are open or residents are outside.
b. Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
c. Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
d. Provide information to residents on where MERV filters can be purchased. e. Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
f. Identify the responsible entity such as future residents themselves, Homeowners Association, or property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time.
g. Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
h. Set criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
i. Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if:
• The Project would exceed the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) which were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities;
• The Project would create a Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: of 10 in 1 million at the nearest sensitive receptor or off-site worker; or a Hazard Index (project increment) 1.0 or greater at the nearest sensitive receptor or off-site worker; • The Project emissions would contribute traffic volumes to an intersection in the vicinity of the Project site which exceeds 100,000 vehicles per hour.

The Project is a Specific Plan, and no development proposals are included at this time.

Buildout of the Specific Plan would occur in two phases over several years. For analysis purposes, construction phases were modeled starting in 2022 for Phase 1 and 2026 for Phase 2. The nearest receptors are adjacent residences to the south of the Project site and a residential building within the Project boundary. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I-4). SCAQMD staff prepared the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impacts associated with project-specific emissions. It should be noted that LSTs were developed for small typical projects and generally are not applicable to regional projects, such as the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, LSTs were conservatively applied in the Draft EIR.

Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-17 (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) was used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is Metropolitan Riverside (SRA 23), since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO
2, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The SCAQMD produced
look-up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres. CalEEMod construction modeling for Phase 1 and Phase 2 anticipates that both phases will use similar equipment. Project construction during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1, 2, and 5 acres and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 4-acre threshold were determined by interpolation.

The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off-site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest

sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 construction area is a residential building adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters. Therefore, 25-meter LSTs for receptors located adjacent to the construction zone were utilized in this analysis. Table

4.2-19 (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) presents the results of the unmitigated localized emissions analysis during each construction activity during Phase 1 after incorporating the mitigation measures required for the regional criteria pollutant emissions. In addition, building construction and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2- 19 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 1 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 2 construction area is a residential building adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. Table 4.2-20 (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR) presents the results of the localized emissions analysis during each construction activity during Phase 2. In addition, building construction and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2-20 shows that unmitigated localized emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 2 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors As shown in Tables 4.2-19 and 4.2-20, construction emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project are below SCAQMD LSTs with implementation of mitigation measures prescribed for regional criteria pollutant emissions. Thus, impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.

According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g., warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes warehouses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions for both Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 operations. It should be noted that LSTs were developed for small typical projects and generally are not applicable to regional projects, such as the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, LSTs were conservatively applied in this analysis. The SCAQMD recommends that projects which exceed the LST emission levels found in the LST lookup tables conduct air dispersion modeling to demonstrate that pollutant concentrations are below localized significance levels.

LST thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 23 were utilized in this analysis for Phase 1 operations because the closest receptor to the Phase 1 area is a residential building to the south of the Project boundary. Although the Phase 1 area of the Project site is approximately 178 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.

Table 4.2-21 (refer to the Draft EIR) shows the results of the Phase 1 operations LST analysis. The analysis only includes onsite sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and offsite emissions for mobile sources. For a worst-case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4.2-21 conservatively include all onsite Project-related stationary sources and three percent of the Phase 1-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling onsite. It should be noted that analysis incorporated mitigation measures prescribed for the regional criteria pollutant emissions. Mitigated maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Phase 1 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

LST thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 23 were utilized in this Phase 2 operations analysis because the closest receptors to the Phase 2 area are located adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. Although the Phase 2 area of the Project site is approximately 70 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site due to dispersion over a greater area.

For a worst-case scenario assessment, the mitigated emissions shown in Table 4.2-21 (refer to the Draft EIR) conservatively include all onsite project-related stationary sources and three percent of the Phase 2-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling onsite. It should be noted that the analysis incorporated mitigation measures prescribed for the regional criteria pollutant emissions. Table 4.2-21 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Phase 2 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.

Tables 4.2-19 and 4.2-20 show that emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 individually do not exceed operational LSTs. Table 4.2-21 (refer to the Draft EIR) shows the combined mitigated operational emissions for the entire project. Table 4.2-22 (refer to the Draft EIR) shows the combined mitigated operational emissions for the entire Project. For Project buildout, the nearest receptors are located adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. As noted above, LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The operational LST acreage is based on a maximum 5-acre site.

Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used as a screening evaluation. Project operations would occur over an approximately 248.3-acre site. Therefore, on-site emissions would disperse over a larger area, which would decrease the concentrations
As shown in Table 4.2-22, combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 operational emissions generated on-site by the Project would not exceed LSTs at the nearest sensitive receptors, with the exception of PM

2.5. Therefore, PM2.5 dispersion modeling has been
conducted to determine if Project operations would result in significant PM2.5 concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with SCAQMD LST methodology. Localized construction emissions were estimated using the USEPA

AERSCREEN model to determine the worst-case PM2.5 concentrations. Table 4.2-23 (refer to the Draft EIR) shows on-site operational PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 24-hour average PM2.5 operational standard. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant localized operational impact.

The SCAB was re-designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis, the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average daily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35-ppm Federal standard.

The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 39,402 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project and distributed throughout the roadway network. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

The primary source of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) generated by the Project would be from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a result of heavy-duty diesel trucks accessing the site. The following uses are allowed in the Industrial-Logistics(I-L) and Commercial- Retail (with Integrated Use), subject to the approval of a Site Development Permit:

Trucking and Trailer Facilities; Warehousing; Industrial/Logistics; Commercial Retail; and Commercial Retail-Integrated Use Boundary.

It is standard City practice to require that DPM emissions from warehouse projects be assessed through a Health Risk Assessment. During the Notice of Preparation period for the EIR, the SCAQMD also recommended that because the Project generates diesel emissions from long-term construction and attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy-duty diesel-fueled vehicles, the City perform a mobile source health risk assessment to disclose the potential health risks. Accordingly, the Draft EIR evaluates potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project. The analysis was prepared in accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine if health risks are likely to occur from the Project (refer to Appendix D2 of the Draft EIR).

The Project site is mainly surrounded by residential and commercial land uses to the north, west, and south. Furthermore, there are scattered undeveloped land uses around the Project site mostly to the north, east, and southeast. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Figure 4.2-3 (refer to the Draft EIR). Descriptions of the existing sensitive receptors are found in Table 4.2-25 (refer to the Draft EIR).

Project health risks are determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the impacts from the Project are significant. If the lead agency finds that the Project has the potential to exceed the air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered significant. The thresholds for air toxic emissions are as follows.

The SCAQMD’s CEQA risk thresholds for toxic air contaminants are (SCAQMD, 2019):
• Maximum incremental cancer risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
• Maximum incremental chronic or acute hazard index ≥ 1.0 The hazard index is calculated by dividing the modeled pollutant concentration by a reference exposure level (REL) established by the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The REL for DPM is 5 micrograms per cubic meter and the target organ is the respiratory system.

Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern.

On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment were included in the Draft EIR’s analysis, although they are typically less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site potentially poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors are within and immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project site.

Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long-term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel- powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur throughout the Project site. Construction activities would limit idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Furthermore, even during the most intense period of construction, emissions of DPM would be generated from different locations on the Project Site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time. Construction emissions rates for PM10 (DPM) were calculated from the CalEEMod construction emissions modeling conducted for the Project Air Quality Assessment. It is anticipated that Project construction would occur over two development phases. The duration of construction activities for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to occur less than three years for each phase. However, the Draft EIR conservatively assumes a 3-year exposure duration for each phase.

The Project is located near existing residential uses. Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could result in pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors. Average daily trips from truck traffic to the Project were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis for District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by Kimley-Horn. An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC)9 model run for Riverside County (refer to Appendix A of the Draft EIR).

EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type. The model was run for heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating the Project site, and idling at proposed loading docks.

The Project’s off-site truck route is along Hall Avenue, 26th Street, and Rubidoux Boulevard. Inbound/outbound trucks going to or coming from the north would utilize Hall Avenue and Market Street. On-site, inbound trucks would access the internal road (30th Street) via Frontage Road. Outbound trucks would access SR-60 east via the internal road. The Draft EIR evaluates concentrations at the receptors along these roadways.

The concentrations at the closest receptors along Hall Avenue and Rubidoux Boulevard are representative of conditions along each of the off-site roadways described above.

Tables 4.2-26 and 4.2-27 of the Draft EIR summarize the results of the health risk assessment. Table 4.2-26 shows that with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not exceed the threshold for carcinogenic risk to residential receptors near the Project site. Table 4.2.27 shows that with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the Project would not exceed the threshold for chronic hazards risk to residential receptors near the Project site.

Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-11 work together to reduce exposure to pollutant concentrations through various means, including applying standards to off-road diesel- powered construction equipment of a certain horsepower; requiring only certain types of paint be used; requiring a Transportation Demand Management Plan to reduce mobile emissions; prohibiting wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces that can emit ROG, NOX, and particulate matter; requiring certain energy efficiency features for trucks; and compliance with standards to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during warehouse operations. With the application of these Mitigation Measures, collectively, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-11.

B. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The EIR identified the potential for the Project to cause significant biological resources impacts and a significant cumulative impact related to biological resources, as further

discussed below. Measures have been identified that would mitigate impacts to a less than significant level.

1. Sensitive and Special Status Species
Threshold a): The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to sensitive and special-status species. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential biological impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503 and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If vegetation removal activities must occur during this breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of breeding migratory birds, including raptors within the impact footprint. If nests or breeding activities are located on the survey area, an avoidance buffer area would be required around the nesting site. The width of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and biological monitoring would be required during construction until the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional measures would be required (RECON, 2023a, p. 33).

The following measures are recommended to avoid indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive riparian birds, specifically least Bell’s vireo, that could be present in the riparian habitat located within 500 feet of the project site in the adjacent Santa Ana River (RECON, 2023a, pp. 33 and 34).
• Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) L
eq (hourly noise equivalent of 60 A-weighted decibels
[dB(A)] or less) at the edge of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities during the breeding season, areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist; OR
• At least two weeks prior to the commencement of construct ion activities, under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., noise

monitoring, installation of berms or walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq at the edge of habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of necessary attenuation facilities, noise monitoring shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) L eq. If
the noise attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding season (September 16).

Construction noise monitoring shall continue to be monitored at least twice weekly on varying days, or more frequently depending on the construction activity, to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A) L eq or to the
ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. If not, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) Leq or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: A pre-construction survey shall be required within 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If western burrowing owls are present, one of the following mitigation measures from the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2003) shall also be required:
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site contains or is part of an area that supports less than 35 acres of suitable habitat, or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area support fewer than three pairs of western burrowing owls, the on-site western burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols; or • Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site, including adjacent areas, supports three or more pairs of western burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSCHP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long- term conservation value and western burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on- site (RECON, 2023a, p. 30).

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the MSHCP, A qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the Project footprint (Riverside County, 2003). • A biological monitor shall monitor activities that result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected

species observed during the pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring shall also be conducted periodically during construction activities to ensure no new nests are built during any vegetation removal or building demolition activities between February 1 and September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs), avoidance, protection and mitigation measures described in the relevant project permits and reports are in place and are adhered to.
• The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt all construction activities and all non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or nesting birds are identified and would be directly affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary, the biological monitor shall relocate the individual outside of the work area where it shall not be harmed. Work can continue at the location if the applicant and the consulted resource agency determine that the activity will not result in adverse effects to the species.
• The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is located within the Project site. Written notification shall be made within 15 days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and must include; location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent information.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.3-1: The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Additionally, the following Project Design Feature (PDF) will be included as part of the Project design and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PDF 4.3-1: Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design.

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project results in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the Project that has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The literature review discovered records of three sensitive plant species which required biological investigation:
• Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris; CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP FC) • San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila; FE, CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP FE) • San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri; CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP) The literature review also revealed records of four sensitive wildlife species which required biological investigation:
• western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; SSC, MSHCP) • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, MSHCP)
• monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; FC)
• Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; FE, MSHCP)
Cooper’s hawk and monarch were incidentally observed within the survey area during the burrowing owl focused surveys. No other federal or state listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or wildlife or rare plant species were observed within the Project site during the habitat assessment.

The habitat assessment for Brand’s star phacelia, San Diego ambrosia, and San Miguel savory was completed concurrently with the December 2021 general biological surveys.

No suitable habitat for these species was identified within the Project site during these surveys; therefore, no additional surveys were recommended.

A Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) habitat assessment was conducted on August 19 and September 11, 2022. The assessment determined that the agricultural history of the Project site, in combination with the presence of the Jurupa Ditch, compacted, mixed and contaminated the adjacent Delhi Sand soils and the Project site no longer supports the clean, unconsolidated Delhi Sands soils needed to support a DSF population. In addition, given the unsuitable rating of Delhi sand soils, the general lack of DSF sightings in this area of Jurupa Valley north of the Santa Ana River, the recognized adverse changes in soil chemistry of Delhi Sand soils in areas subjected to agricultural activities, it is highly unlikely that the Project site is occupied or that the site can become occupied by DSF in future. A focused protocol survey for DSF was not recommended

for the site based on current conditions and the lack of unconsolidated clean Delhi series soils.

One Monarch butterfly was observed during western burrowing owl surveys in the vicinity of the Jurupa Ditch. While this species has a moderate potential to nectar within the Project area, it is not expected to breed within the Project site due to a lack of suitable overwintering habitat and absence of its host plant, milkweed. No impacts to Monarch butterfly are anticipated (RECON, 2023a, p. 29), and no mitigation is required.

The Project has potential to result in direct impacts to migratory or nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503 if vegetation removal and/or project grading occurs during the bird breeding season (February 1 to September 15). Direct impacts to nesting and migratory birds would be considered significant without mitigation (refer to Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3).

Based on a review of federal, state, and local databases and evaluation of the biological resources on-site, the western burrowing owl has a moderate potential to nest/occur within the survey area and could be directly impacted. The habitat assessment for western burrowing owl was completed in accordance with Step I of the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions and suitable habitat was identified in the Project area. Based on the results of the habitat assessment, focused surveys for burrows and burrowing owl in accordance with Step II-Part A and Step II-Part B were conducted in June and July 2022, and no burrowing owl were detected. The disturbed land within the Project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl. Additionally, during the habitat assessment potentially suitable burrows were identified. As suitable habitat was identified, a focused burrow survey as well as burrowing owl surveys were conducted. No burrowing owls were detected, and no active burrows were identified.

However, when suitable habitat is present, the survey guidelines require pre- construction surveys to be conducted within the impact area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance, to ensure avoidance of any individuals, as detailed in Mitigation Measure MM BIO-2.

The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), was incidentally detected in the survey area.

Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest on-site. Several trees found scattered throughout the Project area are large enough to potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk and other tree-nesting raptors. These species are considered adequately covered by the MSHCP and no high-quality riparian habitat within the portions of the Criteria Cell existing within the survey area would be impacted. Indirect impacts would include loss of foraging habitat and potential noise impacts from construction activities as well as during operations after development. However, trees are to be installed as a part of the final landscaping plan for the Project and the adjacent suitable nesting habitat within the Santa Ana River would not be impacted. Therefore, impacts to these species would be considered less than significant under the MSHCP.

However, these species are protected by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503.5, and direct impacts to nesting individuals would be significant without mitigation as discussed

above under nesting migratory birds and in Mitigation Measures MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3.

Based on the presence of riparian habitat in the Santa Ana River adjacent to and within 500 feet of the proposed Project construction footprint and database records there is a potential for noise from construction activities to impact least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belllii pusillus). Avoidance measures to avoid significant indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo and any other sensitive riparian birds are included in Mitigation Measure MM BIO-1.

Mitigation Measures BIO-1 (Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys) and BIO-2 (Pre- Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys) require that surveys be conducted to determine if nesting birds and burrowing owls respectively, or their nests, are present; if that is determined, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 require buffers, avoidance measures, or relocation, as detailed in the measure. The requirements to identify and avoid these species reduces the potential for adverse impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 (Biological Monitor) requires the presence of a qualified biologist to monitor construction activities to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern. The monitor provides additional support to avoid adverse impacts on species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. With the imposition of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

2. Riparian Habitat
Threshold b): The Project could have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to riparian habitat. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential biological impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to City and County approvals, including the issuance of a Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) Encroachment Permit, and prior to ground disturbance and construction of the Project, the applicant shall obtain or provide documentation that an Agency declines jurisdiction of any features and a permit is not required:
a. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section 404 permit is not required (i.e. Army Corps declines jurisdiction or

definition of Water of US changes pursuant to Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency;
b. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for water quality impacts related to the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction with the USACE 404 permit or a Waste Discharge Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
c. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.

The Project Applicant would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions.

Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, implementation of best management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions, as appropriate. In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory habitat acreage would be based on the functions and values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provided at a ratio of up to 1:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit process if the agencies find that a different ratio is sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat.

If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required, evidence of that change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and concurrence.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.3-1: The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.

Three vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land. The Project would cause permanent, direct impacts to these three vegetation communities/land cover types as shown in the Draft EIR on Table 4.3-1 (see Figure 4.3-2). Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under CEQA based on lack of sensitive vegetative resources; however, to comply with the requirements of the MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee is required for the total acreage of Project impacts.

The disturbed riparian habitat along the Jurupa Ditch would be impacted. These areas would be considered riparian/riverine areas and impacts would be considered significant and require mitigation in accordance with the MSHCP and wetland regulatory agencies.

Indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive vegetation communities, primarily within the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor due to fugitive runoff (erosion) are not anticipated, as BMPs, such as silt fencing, straw wattle, and sandbags, would be installed around the perimeter of the grading limits. During construction indirect impacts from fugitive dust would be prevented by watering of haul roads and areas actively being used by equipment.

Additional discussion regarding avoidance of indirect impacts specific to adjacent MSHCP open space lands is provided in Section 4.3.6, A3 of the Draft EIR.

Implementation of these measures will reduce indirect impacts to adjacent vegetation and sensitive plants, if present, to less than significant.

Disturbed riparian habitat would be considered sensitive and impacts would be considered significant. Impacts to disturbed riparian would require implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, which requires compliance with regulatory requirements and conditions that are themselves intended to address and reduce adverse impacts to riparian habitat. After implementation and completion of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

3. Wetlands
Threshold c): The Project could have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to wetlands. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential biological impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to City and County approvals, including the issuance of a Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) Encroachment Permit, and prior to ground disturbance and construction of the Project, the applicant

shall obtain or provide documentation that an Agency declines jurisdiction of any features and a permit is not required:
a. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section 404 permit is not required (i.e. Army Corps declines jurisdiction or definition of Water of US changes pursuant to Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency;
b. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for water quality impacts related to the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction with the USACE 404 permit or a Waste Discharge Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
c. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.

The Project Applicant would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions.

Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, implementation of best management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions, as appropriate. In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory habitat acreage would be based on the functions and values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provided at a ratio of up to 1:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit process if the agencies find that a different ratio is sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat.

If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required, evidence of that change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and concurrence.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to state or federally protected wetlands.

The Aquatic Resources Delineation Report determined that two non-wetland water features are within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the RWQCB, and CDFW pursuant to Sections 401 and 401 CWA and Sections 1600 - 1617 FGC. Jurupa Ditch appears to contain perennial flow based on the presence of algae and sediment sorting. It flows out of the Review Area to the northwest and eventually into the Santa Ana River, a Traditional Navigable Water. However, the source of the water is pumped groundwater along the Jurupa Ditch and is subject to sudden cessation of flow. Because the Jurupa

Ditch appears to have been excavated in a historic upland area and conveys water used for agricultural purposes, it may be exempt as a water of the U.S. upon review by the USACE. Figure 4.3-3 (refer to the Draft EIR) shows locations of Aquatic Resources on the Project site.

Non-wetland waters and riparian areas delineated within the Review Area total 4.53 acres. Of this total, USACE could potentially take jurisdiction up to a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as (a)(2) tributary Waters of the U.S. The USACE would require a § 404 CWA Individual Permit for an activity that will impact an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of Waters of the U.S. Individual Permits require a 30-day Public Notice period, and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The RWQCB could potentially take jurisdiction up to a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and 1.43 acres of riparian as Wetland Waters of the State, and require a § 401 CWA Water Quality Certification (WQC) and mitigation for loss of riparian Waters of the State. Finally, CDFW could potentially take jurisdiction of a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian and require a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement pursuant to §§ 1602- 1617 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC).

Under Mitigation Measure BIO-4, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW would make a determination on jurisdiction over Jurupa Ditch and the storm water channel in the southern portion of the site. In compliance with the no-net-loss policy, impacts to non- wetland waters would likely require mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The CDFW may require 3:1 ratio for impacts to disturbed riparian areas.

Under Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and subsequent USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW permit conditions, impacts to jurisdictional waters and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine areas may require habitat creation or the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank.

The Project may permanently impact 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. and State, under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the RWQCB; and 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian. Impacts of project construction and project operation on non-wetland waters and riparian areas would potentially be significant.

After implementation and completion of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 and compliance with any conditions and measures in any regulatory agency permits, impacts related to wetlands would be reduced to less than significant.

4. Habitat Conservation Plan
Threshold f): The Project could conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.

a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to conflicts with habitat conservation plan. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential biological impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503 and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If vegetation removal activities must occur during this breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of breeding migratory birds, including raptors within the impact footprint. If nests or breeding activities are located on the survey area, an avoidance buffer area would be required around the nesting site. The width of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and biological monitoring would be required during construction until the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional measures would be required (RECON, 2023a, p. 33).

The following measures are recommended to avoid indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive riparian birds, specifically least Bell’s vireo, that could be present in the riparian habitat located within 500 feet of the project site in the adjacent Santa Ana River (RECON, 2023a, pp. 33 and 34).
• Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) L
eq (hourly noise equivalent of 60 A-weighted decibels
[dB(A)] or less) at the edge of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities during the breeding season, areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist; OR
• At least two weeks prior to the commencement of construct ion activities, under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., noise monitoring, installation of berms or walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not exceed 60 dB(A) L eq at
the edge of habitat occupied by least Bell’s vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of necessary attenuation facilities, noise monitoring shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) L eq. If
the noise attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the end of the breeding season (September 16).

Construction noise monitoring shall continue to be monitored at least twice weekly on varying days, or more frequently depending on the construction activity, to verify that noise levels at the edge of occupied habitat are maintained below 60 dB(A) L eq or to the
ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. If not, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) L
eq or to the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: A pre-construction survey shall be required within 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If western burrowing owls are present, one of the following mitigation measures from the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2003) shall also be required:
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site contains or is part of an area that supports less than 35 acres of suitable habitat, or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area support fewer than three pairs of western burrowing owls, the on-site western burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols; or • Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site, including adjacent areas, supports three or more pairs of western burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of suitable habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSCHP Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the area with long- term conservation value and western burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on- site (RECON, 2023a, p. 30).

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the MSHCP, A qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the Project footprint (Riverside County, 2003). • A biological monitor shall monitor activities that result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected species observed during the pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring shall also be conducted periodically during construction activities to ensure no new nests are built during any vegetation removal or building demolition activities between February 1 and September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure that all Best Management Practices (BMPs), avoidance, protection and mitigation measures described in the relevant project permits and reports are in place and are adhered to.
• The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily halt all construction activities and all non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or nesting birds

are identified and would be directly affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary, the biological monitor shall relocate the individual outside of the work area where it shall not be harmed. Work can continue at the location if the applicant and the consulted resource agency determine that the activity will not result in adverse effects to the species.
• The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is located within the Project site. Written notification shall be made within 15 days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and must include; location of the carcass, a photograph, cause of death (if known), and other pertinent information.

Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to City and County approvals, including the issuance of a Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) Encroachment Permit, and prior to ground disturbance and construction of the Project, the applicant shall obtain or provide documentation that an Agency declines jurisdiction of any features and a permit is not required:
d. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section 404 permit is not required (i.e. Army Corps declines jurisdiction or definition of Water of US changes pursuant to Sackett vs. Environmental Protection Agency;
e. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for water quality impacts related to the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction with the USACE 404 permit or a Waste Discharge Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
f. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.

The Project Applicant would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions.

Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, implementation of best management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions, as appropriate. In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory habitat acreage would be based on the functions and values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provided at a ratio of up to 1:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit process if the agencies find that a different ratio is sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat.

If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required,

evidence of that change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and concurrence.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• The construction contractor shall limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high-noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling (no more than 5 minutes) of internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction. • For construction activity within 50 feet or impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction activities that would require the use of heavy construction equipment. The barrier shall be located between the construction zone and all adjacent sensitive receptor land uses. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that shall meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA Lmax as measured at the façade of the sensitive receptor land uses. The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a 0.75-inch-thick plywood wall or (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with

a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher. Temporary barriers would not be necessary if the applicant/developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that construction noise levels would be below 80 dBA Leq threshold at sensitive receptors.
• Impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors shall use an acoustical shroud (i.e., a noise curtain shall be installed on the pile driver or around the pile) to reduce noise by up to approximately 15 dBA. Additionally, foundation pile holes shall be predrilled, or sonic or vibratory pile drives shall be used, as feasible based on geologic conditions, to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. • The construction contractor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., a bad muffler) and shall require that measures be implemented to correct the problem.
• These measures may only be granted an exception if an application for construction-related exception is made to and considered by the Building Official of the City in accordance with Section 11.05.070 of the Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be responsible to implement the following measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed large scale, mixed-use, or master-planned developments shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 1.9 and NE 1.10 of the City’s Noise Element by incorporating acoustic site planning to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that adequately minimizes potential noise impacts to adjacent land uses to meet the City’s standards shown in General Plan Figure 7-3. In addition, such projects shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.1 of the City’s Noise Element, such projects and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval.

The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on- site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code.

Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by

structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
• Any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.3-1: The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Additionally, the following Project Design Feature (PDF) will be included as part of the Project design and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PDF 4.3-1: Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if the Project is in conflict with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

Conflicts with the MSHCP requirements (see PPP 4.3-1), including sections pertaining to Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section

6.1.3), Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface MSHCP Section 6.1.4), and Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) would be significant without mitigation.

Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Typically, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), as addressed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2, would be required. However, during a pre- application meeting on August 10, 2022, to discuss the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) and Joint Project Review processes, representatives from the WRCRCA indicated that Joint Project Review was previously completed in 2005 and because this authorization has no expiration, no additional processing through the MSHCP would be required, including preparation of a DBESP, as long as the Project development footprint was consistent. Wetland permits and mitigation for impacts to these resources would still be required as described in the Biological Technical Report, and as implemented under Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP addresses measures required to ensure protection of narrow endemic species. The Project is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and as discussed in Section 5.2 of the Draft EIR and Attachment 3 of The Biological Technical Report for the District at Jurupa Valley Project Site; narrow endemic species are not expected to occur, based on results of the December, 2021 General Biological Survey. However, no narrow endemic species have moderate or high potential to occur on site. Therefore, no narrow endemic species are expected to be impacted and the Project would be in compliance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP.

Conservation within Criteria Cells
Approximately 93.4 acres of the eastern portion of the Project area falls within the northwestern half of Criteria Cell 187. MSHCP Table 3-7 addresses conservation criteria for the Jurupa Area Plan which includes the approximately 159.4-acre Criteria Cell 187. Conservation criteria for this cell focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan scrub habitat and agriculture along the Santa Ana River within the eastern portion of the cell.

The majority of this cell’s eastern portion falls outside of the Project site. The portion of the criteria cell within the Project site contains heavily disturbed lands and lacks either Riversidean alluvial fan scrub or active agricultural lands. As the MSHCP specifies conserving 15 percent to 25 percent of this cell, and focuses on land types not found within the Project site, project impacts are not anticipated to reduce the conservation criteria for this cell below these conservation thresholds. In addition, no direct impacts are anticipated to the Santa Ana River or its associated habitats, as those are located outside of the Project boundary. Therefore, mitigation for impacts to Criteria Cells are not anticipated.

Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface
MSHCP Section 6.1.4 addresses requirements related to indirect impacts for projects within or adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Area, Criteria Cell, or Conservation Area. A portion of Criteria Cell 187 falls within the Project area. In addition, the Project area’s eastern boundary is adjacent to Public/Quasi-Public Conservation Lands associated with the Santa Ana River channel. As such, the Project would be required to be in compliance with the guidelines described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP.

Drainage
The Project would incorporate measures to ensure that the quality and quantity of runoff into adjacent Bio Clean Modular Wetlands would be installed to capture runoff from the Project site and would filter stormwater via infiltration to remove 80 percent of TDS and 90 percent of hydrocarbons before runoff would enter the municipal storm drain system and/or the Santa Ana River. The Project water quality Operations and Maintenance Plan would include periodic maintenance of the Modular Wetlands as recommended by the manufacturer. MSHCP Conservation Areas are not altered in an adverse way compared to existing conditions. Discharge of untreated surface runoff into MSHCP Conservation Areas would be avoided and a stormwater system would be designed to prevent the release of potentially harmful elements to biological resources to these areas.

Toxics
Any chemicals or bioproducts produced by the Project that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat, or water quality would be handled in such a way as to ensure these chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP Conservation Areas.

In accordance with the December 15, 2022 Standard Voluntary Agreement entered into between the Project Applicant and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), prior to issuance of project grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating DTSC approval of: 1) a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Work Plan; and 2) a Removal Action Work Plan (RAW) or Remedial Action Work Plan (RAP) if removal action is appropriate.

The RAW Plan shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 25323.1 and 25356.1. Potential response actions include soil management, land use controls, cover, capping, and long-term operation and maintenance, as needed. The RAW Plan will include measures to address worker and public safety, air quality, and fugitive dust generated from the earthmoving activities during implementation of the response action.

Lighting
Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design. This also complies with City Municipal Code Section 9.145.050.(14), which requires that all site lighting be shielded to prevent glare and direct illumination on adjoining properties.

In the proposed Specific Plan, Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a; Section 3, p. 20), includes the following requirements that comply with City Municipal Code Section 9.145.050.(14). These are included as PDF 4.1-5, PDF

4.1-6, and PDF 4.1-7, in Section 4.1, Aesthetics.
• Orientation: All exterior lighting fixtures shall be directed downward to illuminate pedestrian pathways and parking areas and avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution. However, up lighting effects to promote nighttime identity and character are allowed provided such exterior lighting features utilize indirect or hidden lighting sources for wall washing, featuring of architectural elements, landscaping, entries, and pedestrian areas.
• Height: Pole-mounted, building-mounted, or tree-mounted lighting fixtures shall be no more than 30 feet in height to minimize direct glare beyond the parking lot or service area. An exception to this maximum height requirement can be approved or modified as part of the Site Development Permit if it is determined that the proposed height will not be contrary to public health and safety.

Shielding: Pole-mounted lights shall be shielded, and the light directed away from the public streets. Pole-mounted lights shall utilize cut-off fixtures and shall not be directed toward residences. Projects shall ensure zero light spill off-site.

Noise
Appropriate noise attenuation strategies would be implemented for this project so that wildlife within the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas is not subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards (RECON, 2023a; p. 37). Measures include installing a temporary noise barrier per during construction and locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.

Invasive Plant Species
Plants used in landscaping for this project would avoid those listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP. Specific Plan Table 4.1, Plant Palette, identifies the acceptable types of plantings that include a variety of groundcovers, shrubs, ornamental grasses, and evergreen and deciduous trees. The plant palette requires plants native to the region.

Barriers
The project would incorporate fencing to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespassing or dumping in the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas.

Grading/Land Development
The Specific Plan requires that grading plans for each phase will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. All grading plans and activities will conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements.

• Grading shall conform to the current California Building Code. • Grading shall conform to City of Jurupa Valley regulations. • Grading shall conform to the Project’s geotechnical investigation report, geotechnical engineer recommendations as approved by the City’s Engineering Department, and specific studies.
• Prior to initial grading activities, a detailed soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to analyze on-site soil conditions and slope stability and shall include appropriate measures to control erosion and dust.. Additionally, manufactured slopes associated with project development would not extend into any MSHCP Conservation Areas.

Additional Survey Requirements
MSHCP Section 6.3.2 addresses survey requirements for covered plant and animal species in order to achieve coverage for these species (WRCRCA 2003). The Project site is not located within the MSHCP Additional Survey Areas for amphibians, mammals, or within any Special Linkage Areas but is within the survey area for western burrowing owl. Therefore, a western burrowing owl habitat assessment (Step I) and subsequent focused burrow (Step II-Part A) and owl surveys (Step II-Part B) were conducted in accordance with County of Riverside survey guidelines. While no western burrowing owl was detected during focused surveys, the survey guidelines require pre- construction surveys, given the presence of suitable habitat. The pre-construction survey would be conducted within the impact area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance as detailed in Mitigation Measure BIO-2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1 provides additional support for MSHCP policies and goals by requiring pre-construction nesting bird surveys to avoid impacts to certain species.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 requires a biological monitor be present to help avoid impacts to species and habitat addressed in the MSHCP. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires compliance with regulatory requirements designed to avoid or reduce impacts in areas addressed under the MSHCP. Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2 require actions to reduce noise impacts that could adversely affect species addressed in the MSHCP.

Taken together, these Mitigation Measures reduce impacts to less than significant and ensure that the Project does not conflict with provisions of the MSHCP.

5. Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts refer to incremental effects of an individual project when assessed with the effects of past, current, and proposed projects. The proposed Project is one of approximately 63 projects in the Project vicinity that are either proposed, are under construction or have been completed within the past five years. Most, if not all, of these projects impact biological resources either directly or indirectly. This cumulative impact analysis for biological resources considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site. The

cumulative impact evaluation also takes into consideration the geographic area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the prevailing habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site.

The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts (CEQA Section 15355) to biological resources within the region of the Project site. Only three vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the Project site: disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land. Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under CEQA and thus impacts to these land cover types would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impacts to disturbed riparian would be considered significant and require mitigation through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4. Per the MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee will be required for the total acreage of project impacts.

The general biological surveys and narrow endemic plant species habitat assessment were conducted concurrently on December 16 and 17, 2021, and a conclusion was made that the Project site does not support special-status or sensitive plant species, or the habitat required for such species. The Project may permanently impact 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. and State, under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the RWQCB; and 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian. However, Project impacts on non-wetland waters and riparian areas would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

As discussed in Section 4.3.3, the MSHCP is a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. It was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the City of Jurupa Valley and other areas of western Riverside County. All projects within the Western Riverside MSHCP Area must comply with the requirements of the MSHCP and all projects must comply with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, Sections 401 and 404 CWA, Sections 1600 – 1617 FGC, and all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances.

With adherence to the PPP 4.3-1, and Mitigation Measure BIO-1 through BIO-4, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The proposed Project has been designed and mitigated to remain in compliance with all MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines and therefore will not result in an adverse cumulative impact.

C. CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Historic Resources
Threshold a) The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects related to historic resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential historic resources impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List, has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written evidence that monitoring was completed shall be provided to the Jurupa valley Planning Department. If any resources(s) are significant, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR‐2 shall apply.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Treatment Plan. A Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The Treatment Plan shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The statement shall identify the date(s) and contact persons involved. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if the Project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a resource as described in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(b).

For purposes of CEQA, a historic resource is any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4852). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.

As part of the Project-specific Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, through a search of existing records, additional background research, and a pedestrian field survey, experts evaluated whether any historic resources exist at the Project site.

A cultural records search for the Project site and the surrounding area within a 0.5-mile radius was conducted at the EIC at UCR. A total of 59 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the 0.5-mile records search radius, including 23 within the Project site boundary (Refer to Table 4.4-1 in the Draft EIR). Resources within the Project area are all historic residential buildings with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch, a large-scale historic agricultural canal. All but one of the previously recorded residential buildings have been demolished since their recordation.

The architectural history survey of the Project site was conducted on January 20, 2021.

The architectural history survey resulted in the identification of 36 built environment resources within the Project area. None were found eligible under CRHR Criterion 3.

Given the evident alterations to many of the buildings, it is likely that most would not retain sufficient integrity to convey any historical significance that would potentially make them eligible under CRHR Criteria 1 and 2, and therefore, unlikely to meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the Jurupa Ditch was resurveyed, reevaluated, and confirmed that it is not eligible due to loss of integrity.

No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey, while four historic period resources consisting of three water infrastructure features (which are combined as one feature), two remnant concrete pads associated with demolished structures, and an oval dirt road, along with a few isolated historic artifacts consisting of broken bottles, chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass,

and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project area along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. The previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5-mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded. The field surveys conducted for this Project observed no prehistoric and only minor historic artifacts and features.

The surveyed area is generally rural with a mixture of large parcels and smaller, subdivided lots containing several structures. All of the buildings were residential with the exception of one church property and a mobile home park with a permanent structure functioning as an office. The oldest property in the survey area dates to 1915 (although it was altered in 1935) and the latest was built in 1965. There was also a significant alteration made to a property in 1970. The majority of the houses were built during the 1940s and 1950s. In total, 36 parcels were included in the reconnaissance- level survey, some with multiple buildings on the parcel (Refer to Table 4.4-2 of the Draft EIR).

The Jurupa Ditch (CA-RIV-5513H), which is located within the Project site boundary, was originally constructed as an open ditch in the mid-nineteenth century, later converted to concrete piping in the 1920s and 1930s. However, it was recommended ineligible for the CRHR due to lack of integrity. An expert consultant resurveyed a portion of the ditch on April 28, 2022 and concurred with the prior evaluation from 2004 that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey that historical significance under any CRHR criteria.

Four newly identified historical period resources were documented as a result of the archaeological survey; these resources are described briefly below and DPR forms were prepared. In addition to the documentation of the newly identified resources (see Table 4.4-2), the locations of all previously documented resources within the Project site boundary (see Table 4.4-1) were field-checked and DPR updates were created.

Three water infrastructure features were identified and recorded together in the northeastern portion of the Project site, in association with a glass bottle base manufactured by the Universal Glass Products Co. between 1930 and 1962. One of the features appears to be an abandoned concrete-encased well, one appears to be a concrete pipe stand, and the other appears to be a brick-lined subsurface cistern or other water storage feature.

Two additional resources are concrete pads with small amounts of associated historical- period refuse. One is a 30 x 15-foot pad likely associated with a former structure that existed sometime between 1938 and 1966. A large, approximately 2,500-foot historic debris scatter is located approximately 100 feet southeast of the concrete pad. The debris represent a secondary deposit and is smeared along a faint 115-foot northeast to southwest-trending dozer-grubbing track. Two isolated artifacts are also present in the area between the structure pad and debris scatter: a small aquamarine glass container fragment, and two small fragments of the same amethyst glass container fragment. The other concrete pad that was documented is partially buried, approximately 12 feet wide

and 2.5 inches deep, and of unknown length. It is in poor condition, chipped and cracked, and is surrounded by non-diagnostic modern and historic debris. Based on historic aerials, the pad is related to a residence constructed by 1966 and demolished between 2005 and 2009.

The fourth newly documented resource consists of a 0.5-mile (approximately 1,200 feet x 500 feet) oval dirt road constructed sometime between 1959 and 1966 based on historic aerials, and first appearing on 1969 topo map. The function of the track is unknown. Today it is used for UTV/ATV racing. In aerials from 1985, the surface appears to have been paved, but the pavement has since been removed. Partially buried segments of a potentially historic east-west pipe alignment are also located within the area surrounded by the dirt oval. The exposed trench containing the pipe is first visible in 1980; it is unknown whether the trench was made to install or to remove the pipe. However, the overall state of corrosion of the pipe, together with the fact that portions appear to have been demolished, points toward the latter.

All prior recorded resources within the Project site are historic residential buildings, with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch, a large-scale historic agricultural canal. All but one (P- 33-014342; 2861 Wallace Street) of the previously recorded buildings have been demolished since their recordation. The historic ditch is no longer eligible for the CRHR.

Historic resources observed and recorded during the pedestrian survey were evaluated and found to be not significant and not eligible for the CRHR. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would have an adverse impact on historic resources.

Still, while it is unlikely that historical resources would be adversely affected by construction of the Project, grading activities associated with development of the Project would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic archeological resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would ensure that impacts on historical resources would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that a qualified professional archaeologist be retained to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program which must detail ground disturbing activities and provide procedures to avoid or reduce impacts. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires the preparation and implementation of a Treatment Plan for archaeological resources that are discovered. Taken together, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 work to avoid impacts to resources and, should resources be discovered, plan for their treatment, including preserving the resources in place if feasible. With the imposition of these two mitigation measures, impacts would be less than significant.

2. Archaeological Resources
Threshold b) The Project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.

a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects related to archaeological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential historic resources impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List, has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written evidence that monitoring was completed shall be provided to the Jurupa valley Planning Department. If any resources(s) are significant, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR‐2 shall apply.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Treatment Plan. A Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The Treatment Plan shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The statement shall identify the date(s) and contact persons involved. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a “historic” or “unique” archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(c).

Archaeological resources refer to surface or buried material remains, buried structures, or other items used or modified by people. The architectural history survey resulted in the identification of 36 built environment resources within the Project site boundary.

None were found eligible under CRHR Criterion 3. There is one shed-style single-family residence in the survey area that was altered in 1970, and thus lacked integrity. Given the evident alterations to many of the buildings, it is likely that most would not retain sufficient integrity to convey any historical significance that would potentially make them eligible under CRHR Criteria 1 and 2, and therefore, unlikely to meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the Jurupa Ditch was resurveyed, reevaluated, and confirmed that it is not eligible due to loss of integrity. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey while four historic period resources consisting of three combined water infrastructure features, two remnant concrete pads associated with demolished structures, and an oval dirt road, along with a few isolated historic artifacts consisting of broken bottles, chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project site along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. The previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5-mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded. The field surveys conducted for this Project observed no prehistoric or historic artifacts and features.

However, grading activities associated with development of the Project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique archeological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are recommended. Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires that a qualified professional archaeologist be retained to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program which must detail ground disturbing activities and provide procedures to avoid or reduce impacts. Mitigation Measure CUL-2 requires the preparation and implementation of a Treatment Plan for archaeological resources that are discovered. Taken together, Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 work to avoid impacts to resources and, should resources be discovered, plan for their treatment, including preserving the resources in place if feasible. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 requiring periodic archaeological monitoring and recovery, identification, and curation of any resources found.

D. GEOLOGY AND SOILS

1. Paleontological Resources
Threshold f): The Project could indirectly or directly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature. a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects related to paleontological resources. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential historic resources impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure PALEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. The following note shall be included on any Grading Plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor.

The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas to be graded or excavated in excess of fifteen feet. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities shall be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as shown on a grading plan. Paleontological monitors will 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. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.”
Mitigation Measure PALEO-2: Paleontological Resource Impact Management Plan. The following note shall be included on any grading plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the area to be graded. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the Project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading pursuant to the recommendations provided in Paleontological Assessment prepared by the San Diego Museum of Natural History on March 30, 2022 (Technical Appendix D12 to the Draft EIR) and the criteria identified below.

Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity (as identified in MM 4.6-1) shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. The performance standards set forth in the PRIMP shall include:
a) If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt construction activities and temporarily redirect work at least 50 away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance.
b) In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed.
c) Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collection of a scientific institution. d) Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. e) At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location.”

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project is identified as "HIGH SENSITIVITY (HIGH A)” for paleontological resources in the Parcel Report available on the Riverside County Map My County website.

No known paleontological resources are present on the Project site. Fossils recovered from construction sites within approximately five miles of the Project site include mastodon and saber-toothed cat.

Taking a conservative approach, Qaf deposits are presumed to be exposed at or near the surface across the largest geographic extent of these deposits indicated by existing geological, and are estimated to be overlain by at least 5 feet of Qya deposits and/or Qaf deposits in the remaining portions of the Project site. Project excavations to depths of less than five feet below ground surface would be unlikely to unearth any paleontological resources. However, portions of the Project site would be excavated to

depths of up to 40 feet; excavations to depths greater than five feet below ground surface could impact paleontological resources. Therefore, the Project impact on paleontological resources is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measure PALEO-1 requires a qualified paleontologist to monitor ground- disturbing activities in areas to be graded or excavated in excess of fifteen feet. The paleontologist will salvage fossils as they are unearthed, and may halt or divert equipment to remove abundant or large specimens. Mitigation Measure PALEO-2 requires the Project applicant/developer to submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for the area to be graded. The PRIMP will include methods to protect paleontological resources, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading. Excavation and grading in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity will be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures PALEO-1 and PALEO-2 would ensure that no unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature on site will be directly or indirectly destroyed due to Project implementation. Thus, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

E. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

1. Hazardous Materials Site
Threshold d): The Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, could create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects related to hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that these impacts remain less than significant.

Mitigation Measure HAZ -1: Site Remediation Management Plan: In accordance with the December 15, 2022 Standard Voluntary Agreement entered into between the Project Applicant and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), prior to issuance of project grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating DTSC approval of: 1) a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Work Plan; and 2) a Removal Action Work Plan (RAW) or Remedial Action Work Plan (RAP) if removal action is appropriate.

The SSI Work Plan will include a Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan which provides protocols for sampling to ensure that on-site soils are fully characterized, to the extent practicable, and to ensure proper classification of on‐site soils for on-site reuse or

for off-site disposal. The SSI Work Plan shall comply with ASTM Standard E -1903 and DTSC requirements, as applicable.

The RAW Plan shall comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 25323.1 and 25356.1. Potential response actions include soil management, land use controls, cover, capping, and long- term operation and maintenance, as needed. The RAW Plan will include measures to address worker and public safety, air quality, and fugitive dust generated from the earthmoving activities during implementation of the response action.

The Removal Action Work Plan will include components such as:
• A Soils Management Plan to ensure safe and appropriate handling of site soils and transport and off-site disposal, if necessary. • Sampling and Analysis Plan with corresponding Quality Assurance Plan to confirm the effectiveness of the RAW , if applicable. • A Contingency Plan for new findings that may occur during site grading. • Dust control measures and an Air Monitoring Plan in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 1156, Rule 1466, and Rule 403, as applicable. • Any other components deemed necessary by the DTSC to protect groundwater, air quality, or human health or as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1.

If the proposed removal action does not meet the requirements of Health and Safety Code section 25356.1(h), Proponent will prepare a Remedial Action Plan (RAP) in accordance with Health and Safety Code section 25356.1(c) for DTSC review and approval.

The RAP summarizes the results of the site characterization, risk evaluation and feasibility study and sets forth in detail appropriate steps to remedy soil, surface water and groundwater contamination at the Site and adjacent areas. In addition, the RAP shall contain a schedule for implementation of all proposed removal and remedial actions
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Post Remediation
Requirements/Restrictions: Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of project buildings on a particular parcel where remediation was required, the Project Applicant shall provide a copy or copies of a deed restriction or land use covenant, if required by the DTSC, which has been recorded over the parcel for which a building permit is sought. The deed restriction or land use covenant shall serve as a land use control to limit the use of the parcel to permissible uses based upon applicable screening levels and shall be in a form approved by the DTSC and recorded pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 25395.99.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Post Remediation Clearance Determination:

Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any project building on a particular

parcel where remedial activities under the oversight of the DTSC occurred, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification from DTSC to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Director demonstrating either: 1) that the parcel has been remediated sufficiently to allow safe occupancy of buildings thereon; or 2) issuance of a “No Further Action” letter or equivalent for the parcel. The written verification shall serve to indicate that the parcel is suitable for the intended development based upon screening levels appropriate for the relevant land use exposure scenario, or other risk methodology required by the DTSC, and that no further investigation or remediation is required other than any long‐term operation and maintenance requirements or monitoring that may be required by DTSC or other regulatory agencies.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to hazardous materials. The following PPPs apply to the Project. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.8-1: Business Emergency Plans. As required by Health and Safety Code § 25507, a business shall establish and implement a business plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the regulations adopted pursuant to § 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one time above the thresholds described in § 25507(a) (1) through (6).

PPP 4.8-2: Regulations Governing Transport of Hazardous materials and Hazardous Wastes. Any project-related hazardous materials and hazardous wastes will be transported to and/or from the Project site in compliance with any applicable state and federal requirements, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of Transportation standards, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.

PPP 4.8-3: Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste Generation, Transportation, Treatment, and Storage. Any project-related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of non- hazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the RCDEH, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP), (4) Above Storage Tank (AST) Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program.

PPP 4.8-4: Regulations governing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Repairs and/or Removals. Any project-related underground storage tank (UST) repairs and/or removals will be conducted in accordance with the California UST Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations). Any unauthorized release of hazardous materials will require release reporting, initial abatement, and corrective actions that will be completed with oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Riverside Fire Department, South Coast Air Quality Management District and/or other regulatory agencies, as necessary.

Any project-related use of existing USTs will also have to be conducted (i.e., used, maintained and monitored) in accordance with the California UST Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations).

PPP 4.8-5: Regulations Governing Asbestos-Containing Materials (ACMs) or Lead-Based Paint (LBP). Any project-related demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) or lead-based paint (LBP) will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 • California Health and Safety Code (§ 39650 et seq.)
• California Code of Regulations (Title 8, § 1529)
• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 1529 [Asbestos] and § 1532.1 [Lead])
• Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part 763 [asbestos], and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead]) PPP 4.8-6: Safety Regulations for Removal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Mercury-Containing Light Ballast, And Mold. The removal of other hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury-containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192.

PPP 4.8-7: Construction Near Utility or Electric Lines. Any project-related new construction, excavations, and/or new utility lines within 10 feet or crossing existing high-pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, or electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts will be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541).

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code section 65962.5.

The Project site is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Impacts before mitigation would be significant.

The Project site is contaminated with lead and benzo(a)pyrene in the southwest quadrant. Using the highest concentrations found on site, the cumulative cancer risk for the entire site is above the threshold risk. The highest concentration of lead detected was identified to be above the DTSC threshold. The Environmental Site Assessment recommends that all appropriate actions should be conducted as set forth by the DTSC (or any other applicable oversight agency) and as a result, the Project Applicant entered into a Standard Voluntary Agreement with the DTSC per Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

The soil contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene and lead is within the area designated for industrial properties under the proposed Project. The environmental screening level (ESL) for benzo(a)pyrene in commercial/industrial soil is well above the concentration identified on the Project site. However, the ESL for lead in commercial/industrial soil is far below the concentration identified on the Project site. Therefore, remediation for lead contamination is required pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

Limited soil sampling was done from agricultural soil in the southwest part of the Project site, two soil stockpiles in the northern part of the site, and two drums next to one of the stockpiles. Testing of the samples from the drum contents and soil next to the drums identified TPH as oil, and lead, at concentrations above the commercial/industrial ESLs.

Remediation of the drum contents and affected soil is required to minimize hazards to future site occupants and to the environment. Based on test results from the samples, experts recommended excavating the discolored soil for disposal at a proper facility and analyzing the samples of contents of the two drums samples for California Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) to determine the type of waste disposal required. A Site Investigation and Remediation is included in the Standard Voluntary Agreement with the DTSC per Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.

The DTSC requested additional sampling to reflect the most current conditions on the Project site. The Project Applicant submitted a Supplemental Site Investigation Workplan, which was approved by DTSC. The results of the Supplemental Site Investigation will govern and define the necessary extent of remediation, which will be subject to DTSC’s review and approval.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 would ensure that impacts relating to hazardous materials on the Project site would be less than significant by requiring the Project applicant to: 1) obtain DTSC approval of a removal action work plan or remedial action plan; 2) provide and record a deed use restriction or land use covenant limiting

the use of the parcel to permissible uses based on screening levels in a form approved by the DTSC; and 3) provide written verification from the DTSC that the parcel is suitable for the intended development, and no further investigation or remediation is required.

Pursuant to PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7, the Project would also be constructed and operated with strict adherence to all business emergency plan requirements under state law; regulations governing hazardous materials and hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment and storage; regulations governing underground storage tanks; regulations governing asbestos-containing materials or lead-based paint; safety regulations for removal of PCBs, mercury-containing light ballast, and mold; and regulations governing construction near utility or electric lines.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 and PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7, impacts related to hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant.

2. Cumulative Impacts Related to Hazardous Materials
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the portions of the cities of Jurupa Valley and Riverside where the Project Traffic Impact Analysis identified related projects; 63 projects are within about 2.5 miles of the proposed Project site. Known hazardous materials sites within 0.5 mile of the proposed Project site are listed in Tables 4.8-1 and

4.8-2 (refer to Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR). Development of related projects would be required to comply with regulatory requirements for assessment and cleanup of hazardous materials sites before either of the two cities would issue certificates of occupancy for those projects. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would be implemented to remediate any remaining lead contamination and provide an analysis of drum contents and soil to determine the type of waste disposal required for contaminated soils onsite. Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 prior to development would reduce the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts from hazards related to known hazardous materials sites to less than significant.

F. NOISE

1. Ambient Noise Levels
Threshold a): The Project would result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to noise. Specifically, Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2, and Mitigation Measure AQ- 5, have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1: Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• The construction contractor shall limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high-noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. • The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine-driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise-generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling (no more than 5 minutes) of internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction. • For construction activity within 50 feet or impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction activities that would require the use of heavy construction equipment. The barrier shall be located between the construction zone and all adjacent sensitive receptor land uses. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that shall meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA Lmax as measured at the façade of the sensitive

receptor land uses. The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a 0.75-inch-thick plywood wall or (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher. Temporary barriers would not be necessary if the applicant/developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that construction noise levels would be below 80 dBA Leq threshold at sensitive receptors.
• Impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors shall use an acoustical shroud (i.e., a noise curtain shall be installed on the pile driver or around the pile) to reduce noise by up to approximately 15 dBA. Additionally, foundation pile holes shall be predrilled, or sonic or vibratory pile drives shall be used, as feasible based on geologic conditions, to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile. • The construction contractor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., a bad muffler) and shall require that measures be implemented to correct the problem.
• These measures may only be granted an exception if an application for construction-related exception is made to and considered by the Building Official of the City in accordance with Section 11.05.070 of the Municipal Code.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2: Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be responsible to implement the following measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed large scale, mixed-use, or master-planned developments shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 1.9 and NE 1.10 of the City’s Noise Element by incorporating acoustic site planning to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that adequately minimizes potential noise impacts to adjacent land uses to meet the City’s standards shown in General Plan Figure 7-3. In addition, such projects shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.1 of the City’s Noise Element, such projects and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval.

The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on- site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise

performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code.

Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
• Any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls)
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All residential and non- residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure does not apply to open space areas that are maintained by the Park’s District or City of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules regulating landscape equipment.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to hazardous materials. The following PPPs apply to the Project. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.12-1: In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE

3.4 Construction Equipment, it shall be required that all construction equipment utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.

PPP 4.12-2: In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE

3.5 Construction Noise, commercial construction activities shall be limited within 200

feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and high noise- generating construction activities shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, construction noise would result in a significant impact if the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5:

Construction Noise, and construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

Development of the proposed Project is expected to result in construction activities within the planned area. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities. As stated in PPP 4.12-1, the proposed Project must comply with General Plan Policy NE 3.4 Construction Equipment, which requires all construction equipment to utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.

Furthermore, as stated in PPP 4.12-2, the proposed Project must comply with General Plan Policy NE 3.5, Construction Noise, which limits commercial construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limits high noise-generating construction activities to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

To ensure compliance with these requirements, Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires the construction contractor to designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would be responsible for responding to complaints and for identifying measures to correct any problem.

There are no site-specific development plans for the proposed Project; however, project development within the Project site could result in a relatively high single-event noise exposure potential, causing a substantial temporary increase that could exceed the City’s significance criteria, an intermittent noise nuisance that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby sensitive receptors. Mitigation is required to reduce this potential impact. Implementation of mitigation requiring use of best management noise reduction techniques and practices and other site-specific noise reduction measures would ensure that construction noise would not result in sleep disturbances at nearby off-site sensitive receptors or expose persons to excessive noise levels limiting construction hours would ensure commercial construction activities would not occur outside the City’s time periods for these activities. In addition, implementation of best management noise reduction measures and requiring implementation of temporary sound barriers with Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or greater would ensure construction activities would also not exceed the FTA’s threshold as measured at residential receptors, or commercial or industrial land use receptors. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-1, the potential short-term construction noise

impacts to noise-sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Long-term noise impacts include project-generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources. Onsite (stationary) noise sources would include operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, landscape and building maintenance, parking and truck activity at loading docks. HVAC equipment serving new development in the Specific Plan area could be located close to existing residences. Although detailed site plans for future development within the Specific Plan area have not yet been developed, HVAC equipment would typically be roof mounted and shielded by parapet walls that would block the line of sight to receivers. Identification of specific mechanical equipment and detailed site plans have not been developed. However, the Specific Plan has identified a minimum building setback of 10 feet. Therefore, the nearest off- and on-site sensitive receptors could be located 10 feet from potential HVAC units on the Project site. At this distance, HVAC noise levels would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard. Therefore, Mitigation Measure NOI-2 shall be implemented to ensure noise- generating stationary source equipment would not exceed noise regulations established by the City of Jurupa Valley. Thus, noise levels generated from mechanical equipment on the Project site would result in a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

The predominant noise source during onsite operations would be from onsite truck movements and idling. Truck loading and unloading areas may be included at the proposed industrial and commercial uses. Truck loading and unloading activities may occur during daytime and nighttime hours as the operational schedule of the proposed industrial and commercial uses is not known at the time of this analysis. The closest receivers to the proposed industrial and commercial uses are a residence within the Project boundary and a church adjacent to the south edge of the western portion of the Project site. Assuming slow-moving trucks could operate up to the Project boundary line, sensitive receivers may experience noise levels associated with slow-moving trucks at a distance of 30 feet. Truck and loading dock noise levels have the potential to exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards at the closest sensitive receivers. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be implemented to ensure that sensitive receivers are not exposed to noise levels above the City’s exterior noise thresholds.

Noise levels generated from trucks and loading docks on the Project site would result in a less than significant impact with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-2.

Development and operation of the proposed Project would introduce new landscaping requiring periodic maintenance. Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires all landscaping equipment used onsite to be 100 percent electrically powered. Impacts associated with landscape maintenance would be less than significant.

Parking activities have the potential to be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receivers.

Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receivers. These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as

residents, visitors, and employees arrive at and leave from the parking areas. As such, noise associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community noise standards. The proposed Project’s parking areas have not yet been identified. The EIR analysis conservatively assumes the parking lots would be located along the Project boundary closest to existing sensitive receivers. The nearest sensitive receivers to potential parking areas on the Project site would be the residence within the Project boundary and the residences to the south. Therefore, parking noise levels have the potential to exceed the City’s daytime and nighttime exterior noise standards at the closest sensitive receivers. Mitigation Measure NOI-2 would be implemented to ensure sensitive receivers are not exposed to noise levels above the City’s exterior noise thresholds.

Mitigation Measure NOI-1 requires contractors to implement measures to limit construction-related noise, including: time limits on construction activities; ensuring all equipment is equipped with mufflers in good condition; locating stationary noise- generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors and such that noise is directed away from sensitive receptors; prohibiting unnecessary idling; locating equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors; installing a temporary noise barrier; use of an acoustical shroud for impact pile driving; and designating a disturbance coordinator.

Mitigation Measure NOI-2 requires the property owner/developer to implement measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise impacts, including demonstrating compliance with the City’s Noise Element and submitting an Operational Noise Reduction Plan with the City.

With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-5, NOI-1, and NOI-2 and PPPs 4.12-1 and 4.12-2, noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant.

2. Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels
Threshold b): The Project would result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects related to noise. Specifically, Mitigation Measure NOI-3 has been included to ensure that the Project’s potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3: Construction Vibrations Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related vibration impacts:

• For any future development projects that would necessitate the use of pile driving within 100 feet of an off-site structure, shall submit a Construction Vibration Reduction Plan that identifies specific techniques, such as the depth and location of temporary trenching, that would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant for the impacted structure.
• For any future development projects that would necessitate the use of large vibratory rollers within 30 feet of an off-site structure, or the use of other heavy construction equipment within 15 feet of an off-site structure, shall submit a Construction Vibration Reduction Plan that identifies specific techniques, such as the depth and location of temporary trenching, that would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant for the impacted structure.
• The individual project owner/developer shall submit the Construction Vibration Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the construction vibration reduction measures shall be incorporated into the construction documents.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if it creates construction or operational vibration in excess of 0.20 PPV inch/second adjacent to or within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors.

Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance.

Buildings in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4.12-8 (refer to Section 4.12 of the Draft EIR) provides approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities.

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, impact pile drivers that could be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels. Impact pile drivers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging between 0.644 to 1.518 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

Construction vibration levels from future development projects could exceed the City’s threshold criteria of 0.20 in/sec PPV. Construction vibration sources can be mitigated to acceptable levels either at the source or on the adjacent property using alternate equipment, adequate setbacks, or by digging temporary trenches between the source and the receptor.

Mitigation Measure NOI-3 requires the property owner/develop to ensure contractors implement the following measures to limit construction-related vibration impacts: if it is necessary to use pile driving within 100-feet of an off-site structure, large vibratory rollers within 30 feet of an off-site structure, or other heavy equipment within 15 feet of an off-site structure, submitting a Construction Vibration Reduction Plan identifying specific techniques to reduce impacts to less than significant; and submitting the Construction Vibration Reduction Plan to the City for review and approval and incorporating the vibration reduction measures into the construction documents.

Therefore, implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI-3 would ensure that the vibration level impacts generated by future development projects would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

G. TRIBAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES

1. Tribal Cultural Resource and Historical Resource
Threshold a): The proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 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 section 5024.1, considering the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant environmental effects to tribal cultural resources and historical resources. Specifically, Mitigation Measures CUL 1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 have been included to ensure that the Project’s potential impacts are reduced to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List, has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all

ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written evidence that monitoring was completed shall be provided to the Jurupa valley Planning Department. If any resources(s) are significant, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR‐2 shall apply.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Treatment Plan. A Treatment Plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The Treatment Plan shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The statement shall identify the date(s) and contact persons involved. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Disposition of Prehistoric and/or Tribal Cultural Resources. One of the following shall be applied:

1. Preservation–in-place, if feasible this is the preferred option.

Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.

2. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall be culturally appropriate as determined through consultation with the consulting Tribe(s)and include, at least, the following: Measures to protect the reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required

cataloguing and recordation have been completed on the cultural resources, with the exception that sacred and ceremonial items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. No cataloguing, analysis, or other studies may occur on human remains grave goods, and sacred and ceremonial items. The designated 10’ x 10’ location for reburial shall be in a predetermined area that is limited in accessibility, not subject to erosion or flooding, and may require the incorporation of natural deterrents such as prickly plants, etc. The final artifact inventory associated DPR forms and location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV Report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with CHRIS System at the Eastern Informational Center, at UC Riverside, under a confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Request. Copies of the Phase IV Report shall also be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.”

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to tribal and cultural resources. The following PPPs apply to the Project. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.4-1: The Project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
Mitigation Measure CUL-1 requires the applicant for a grading permit to provide evidence to the City that an approved qualified professional archaeologist has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program (CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all ground disturbing activities and provide procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be provided to the City to ensure compliance with this measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written evidence that monitoring was completed shall be provided to the City. If any resources(s) are significant, Mitigation Measure CR‐2 shall apply.

Mitigation Measure CR‐2 requires the project archeologist to prepare and implement a Treatment Plan in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical

resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the project archaeologist and submitted to the City and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

Mitigation Measure TCR-1 requires one of the following treatments to be applied: 1) preservation-in-place (the preferred option if feasible), meaning the resources will be avoided and left in place with no development affecting the integrity of the resources; 2) reburial of the resources on the Project property after cataloguing and recordation, with culturally appropriate measures as determined through consultation with Tribes, and must include measures to protect the reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. The artifact inventory and location of reburial shall be included in a report filed with the Eastern Informational Center, at UC Riverside, under a confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Request. Copies of the report shall also be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

Taken together Mitigation Measures CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1 seek to avoid impacts to Tribal Cultural Resources but, if resources are impacted, to provide for their treatment through preservation in place (the preferred option) or reburial in a culturally-appropriate manner in consultation with the consulting Tribe(s). These Mitigation Measures ensure that the impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant.

H. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

1. Electrical Lines and Natural Gas Pipelines
Threshold a): The Project would require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded electric power or natural gas facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.

a. Findings
Changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the potentially significant effects related to the relocation or construction of electrical lines and natural gas pipelines. Specifically, the following measures have been included to ensure that the project’s potential impacts are less than significant.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Renewable Energy Generation. Prior to issuance of each building’s permit for each development phase, the Project shall be required to install solar photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar-ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access, pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and exclude skylight area.

The final PV generation facility size requires approval by Southern California Edison (SCE). SCE’s Rule 21 governs operating and metering requirements for any facility connected to SCE’s distribution system. Should SCE limit the off-site export, the proposed Project may utilize a battery energy storage system (BESS) to lower off-site export while maintaining on-site renewable generation to off-set consumption.

Each building shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage. The schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be updated as needed.

Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Building Energy Efficiency. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application in order to exceed 2023 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent. b. Facts in Support of Findings
Project construction would include installation of underground electric distribution lines and underground natural gas mains and laterals serving the entire Specific Plan area.

Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the Project to install solar PV panels or other source of renewable electricity generation on-site. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 requires the Project to be designed to meet LEED standards or meet or exceed CALGreen standards in order to exceed Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15 percent. With implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2, impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed electric lines and natural gas pipelines would be less than significant.

VII. Environmental Effects that Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation

In the environmental topical areas of Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise (cumulative), and Transportation/Traffic, there are instances where potential environmental impacts would remain significant and unavoidable despite the inclusion of all feasible mitigation, as discussed below:

A. AIR QUALITY

1. Air Quality Plan
Threshold a): The Project could conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
a. Findings
The Project has the potential to exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). The Project’s impacts related to conflicting with or obstructing implementation of an air quality plan will be significant and unavoidable despite the imposition of the all feasible mitigation measures designed to reduce Project impacts, as follows.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Mitigation Measures (applicable to all Specific Plan uses). Minimize Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to incorporate the following measures to minimize construction emissions:

• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. This equipment shall be used when commercial models that meet the construction needs of the proposed Project are commercially available from local suppliers/vendors. The determination of commercial availability of such equipment shall be made by the City, based on applicant-provided evidence from expert sources, such as construction contractors in the region.

• The maximum daily disturbance area (actively graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
• All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three minutes in any one hour.
• Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year 2010 or newer if diesel- fueled.
• Information on ridesharing programs shall be made available to construction employees.
• During construction, lunch options shall be provided onsite. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints per SCAQMD Standards.
• All construction contractors shall be provided information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District Surplus Off-road Opt-In “SOON” funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles. • The Project shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and provide appropriate documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet- power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This

person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the SCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Low VOC Paint. During construction, the Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints. • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints. • Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
• Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
• Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable. • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following measures shall be incorporated into the TDM plan.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.

Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
• The portion of the TDM plan for non-residential uses shall include, but not be limited to the following potential measures: ride-matching assistance, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half-time transportation coordinators, providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities. This list may be updated as new methods become available. Verification of this measure shall occur prior to building permit issuance for the commercial uses.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
• Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant or subsequent property manager shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the vicinity of the development.

The materials shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. The materials shall be provided no later than the time the rental agreement is executed.

This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NOX, particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces used for supplemental heat, or ambiance and does not apply to HVAC systems. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.

Mitigation Measure AQ-5: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language that all landscaping equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All residential and non- residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to accommodate this requirement. This

requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure does not apply to open space areas that are maintained by the Park’s District or City of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules regulating landscape equipment.

Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Warehouse Mitigation Measures (Electrical Rooms). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project is designed to include the following:
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.

Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to tractor trailer parking spaces in a logical location(s) on the site determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check, for the purpose of accommodating the future installation of EV truck charging stations at such time this technology becomes commercially available and the buildings are being served by trucks with electric-powered engines.
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed in the future to supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. Conduit should be installed from the electrical room to the loading docks determined by the Project Applicant during construction document plan check as the logical location(s) to receive trailers with TRUs.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-7: TRUs to be Plug-in-Capable. Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-8: Truck Rule Signage. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted those states the following:

• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. • Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the importance of being a good neighbor by not parking in residential areas.

This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-9: Energy Efficiency for Trucks (Carl Moyer Program). Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications shall include requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include energy efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer Program—including truck modernization, retrofits, and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance tires— to reduce fuel consumption. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit for any residential, commercial, or industrial building, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications for the residential, commercial, and industrial buildings shall include electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and parking spaces at each building for employees and the public to use as required by the CalGreen Code in effect at the time of permit issuance. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Mitigation Measure AQ-11: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications show the following:
• All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity. Each building shall include the necessary charging stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule) Warehouse Actions and
Investments to Reduce Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This mitigation

measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

All standard emergency generators (i.e. non-cold storage generators) shall meet California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification) and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City.

Mitigation Measure AQ-12: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during operations. Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis. Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their reporting process and is required for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 square feet.

Mitigation Measure AQ-13: Residential Mitigation Measures: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that the Project is designed to prohibit natural gas use within residential structures.

Additionally, certain Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) apply the Project and would further minimize or avoid potential air quality impacts. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to air quality impacts. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.2-1: Rule 401 (Visible Emissions). This Rule prohibits discharge into the atmosphere from any single source of emission whatsoever of any air contaminant for a period or periods aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour which is as dark or darker in shade as that designated No. 1 on the Ringelmann Chart, as published by the United States Bureau of Mines.

PPP 4.2-2: Rule 402 (Nuisance). This Rule prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

PPP 4.2-3: Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This Rule is intended to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the ambient air from anthropogenic (manmade) fugitive dust sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or manmade condition capable of generating fugitive dust.

Some specific requirements of Rule 403 that apply to all construction projects, regardless of the size of their disturbed areas, are addressed below:
• No person shall cause or allow emissions of fugitive dust to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the property line of the emission source or to exceed 20 percent opacity if the dust emission is a result of a moving motorized vehicle.
• Apply applicable Best Available Control Measures in Table 1 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust emissions during active operation. • No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed 50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as the difference between upwind and downwind samples collected on high volume PM samplers or other USEPA approved equivalent method for PM10 monitoring at the Project limits for a five hour period during the time of Active Operations. Sampling will only occur if a complaint is reported to the SCAQMD, in which case the decision to conduct sampling will be made by SCAQMD, and SCAQMD will conduct sampling.
• No person shall allow track out to extend 25 feet or more in cumulative length from the point of origin from an active operation, and all track out from an active operation shall be removed at the end of each workday or evening shift.
• No person shall conduct an active operation with a disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of bulk material without at least one of the measures listed under subparagraph (d)(5) of Rule 403 at each vehicle egress.

PPP 4.2-4: Rule 445 (Wood burning Devices). The purpose of this rule is to reduce the emission of PM from wood burning devices. Section (d)(1) requires that no person shall permanently install a wood burning device into any new development.

PPP 4.2-5: Rule 481 (Spray Coating Operations) applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. This rule would apply to the application of architectural coatings to the exterior and interior or of the building walls.

PPP 4.2-6: Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt) governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt used in the SoCAB. This rule would regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during construction of the proposed Project must comply with SCAQMD Rule 1108.

PPP 4.2-7: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC content of architectural coatings used in the District and applies to any person who supplies, sells, markets, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating that is intended to be field applied within the District and any

person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District.

PPP 4.2-8: Rule 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents) governs the manufacture, sale, and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application equipment and other solvent cleaning operations by limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents used during the construction phase must comply with this rule,.

PPP 4.2-9: Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations) limits the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for street sweepers that are under contract to provide sweeping services to any federal, State, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district.

PPP 4.2-10: Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) specifies the work practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions and exposure from building demolition and renovation activities. Requirements include asbestos surveying; notification; asbestos-containing material (ACM) removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste material (ACWM).

PPP 4.2-11: Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and particulate matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles traveled associated with truck trips to and from the warehouse.

These trip miles are used to calculate the warehouse’s WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation. WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction measures and warehouse operators are required to submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences, schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community. Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

PPP 4.2-12: Title 24. The proposed Project is required to comply with Title 24 of the CCR established by the California Energy Commission regarding energy conservation standards.

PPP 4.2-13: Cal Green Code. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2023. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water-efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303 (residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance with §

4.408.1 (residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Additionally, the following Project Design Features (PDF) will be included as part of the Project design and would further minimize or avoid potential impacts related to air quality. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PDF 4.2-1: Industrial Land Use Buffer. Where there are industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any industrial building to any residential building. The buffer area can be used as open space, providing landscape and infrastructure improvements that can include sidewalks, trails, and other passive uses.

PDF 4.2-2: Specific Plan Section 2.6.3 Truck Circulation. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles.

Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses. Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways. The following exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2-4 and 2-5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan).

PDF 4.2-3: Specific Plan Section 2.7.8, Roundabout. A Roundabout will be located at the intersection of Wallace Street, and future A Street and B Street. The Roundabout provides a significant traffic control measure to deter truck traffic, while providing an amenity to the community.

PDF 4.2-5: Landscaped Paseo. Adjacent to Industrial. As shown on Specific Plan Figure 2-2-Open Space Plan, the southern boundary of the Industrial Land

Use Area includes an expansive landscaped paseo to screen and buffer from the adjacent Residential Land Use Area to the south.

PDF 4.2-6: Truck Routes. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses. Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways. The following exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2-4 and 2- 5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan).

PDF 4.2-7: 10 Hour Limit for Construction Equipment. The construction plans and specifications shall prohibit off-road diesel powered construction equipment from being in the "on" position for more than 10 hours per day during Project construction.

PDF 4.2-8: Model Year 2010 Fleet. The Project Applicant/Developer /Tenant shall require that all facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year emissions equivalent engine standards as currently defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025.

Facility operators which own vehicles subject to Section 2025 shall maintain records on- site demonstrating compliance with this requirement and shall make records available for inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.

PDF 4.2-9: ZE Trucks by 2030. The Project Applicant/Developer/Tenant shall require that all heavy-duty trucks entering or operated on the Project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030, if such trucks are widely available and economically feasible.

PDF 4.2-10: LEED Buildings. The Project will be designed to demonstrate equivalency with LEED green building standards as “certified” for the industrial buildings.

PDF 4.2-11: MERV 13 Filters within 500 Feet of TAC Source. Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

PDF 4.2-12: MERV Filters Program. Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.

a. Disclose potential health impacts to prospective sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to freeways or other sources of air pollution and the reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when windows are open or residents are outside.
b. Identify the responsible implementing and enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
c. Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
d. Provide information to residents on where MERV filters can be purchased. e. Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or every six months) for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
f. Identify the responsible entity such as future residents themselves, Homeowners Association, or property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration units are replaced on time.
g. Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
h. Set criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
i. Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.

b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the proposed project would result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the current South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and the project would significantly exceed the growth assumptions used to prepare the current AQMP.

As shown in Table 4.2-16 (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR), depending on the particular scenario, the Project will exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Table 4.2-16 shows that despite the implementation of mitigation measures, ROG, NOx, and CO emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds. Therefore, Project impacts could result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the SCAQMD AQMP. There are no additional,

feasible mitigation measures that can reduce these emissions to a level of less than significant.

Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total Project are summarized in Table 4.2-17 (refer to Section 4.2 of the Draft EIR). As indicated in Table 4.2-17, total operational emissions for the Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX and CO. The majority of the Project’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources and cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold because emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by state and federal standards over which the Project has no control. There are no additional, feasible mitigation measures that can reduce these emissions to a level of less than significant.

Even with the implementation of plans, policies and programs, project design features, and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13, impacts would be significant and avoidable for ROG, NOx, and CO. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant.

2. Net Increase of Criteria Pollutants
Threshold b): The Project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard.
a. Findings
Mitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROB, NOx, and CO. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to the net increase of criteria pollutants will be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures designed to reduce Project impacts, as follows.

Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Mitigation Measures (applicable to all Specific Plan uses). Minimize Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to incorporate the following measures to minimize construction emissions:

• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. This equipment shall be used when commercial

models that meet the construction needs of the proposed Project are commercially available from local suppliers/vendors. The determination of commercial availability of such equipment shall be made by the City, based on applicant-provided evidence from expert sources, such as construction contractors in the region.
• The maximum daily disturbance area (actively graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
• All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three minutes in any one hour.
• Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year 2010 or newer if diesel- fueled.
• Information on ridesharing programs shall be made available to construction employees.
• During construction, lunch options shall be provided onsite. • A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints per SCAQMD Standards.
• All construction contractors shall be provided information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District Surplus Off-road Opt-In “SOON” funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles. • The Project shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and provide appropriate documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley. • All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. • All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet- power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.

• Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the SCAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Low VOC Paint. During construction, the Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints. • Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a household hazardous waste center; do not mix leftover water-based and oil-based paints. • Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only. Whenever possible, do not rinse the cleanup water down the drain or pour it directly into the ground or the storm drain. Set aside the can of cleanup water and take it to the hazardous waste center (www.cleanup.org).
• Use compliant low-VOC cleaning solvents to clean paint application equipment. • Keep all paint- and solvent-laden rags in sealed containers to prevent VOC emissions.
• Contractors shall construct/build with materials that do not require painting and use pre-painted construction materials to the extent practicable. • Use high-pressure/low-volume paint applicators with a minimum transfer efficiency of at least 50 percent or other application techniques with equivalent or higher transfer efficiency.

Mitigation Measure AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of

transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following measures shall be incorporated into the TDM plan.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services.

Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
• The portion of the TDM plan for non-residential uses shall include, but not be limited to the following potential measures: ride-matching assistance, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half-time transportation coordinators, providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities. This list may be updated as new methods become available. Verification of this measure shall occur prior to building permit issuance for the commercial uses.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
• Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant or subsequent property manager shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the vicinity of the development.

The materials shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. The materials shall be provided no later than the time the rental agreement is executed.

This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces shall be prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit emissions of ROG, NOX, particulate matter and visible emissions from wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces used for supplemental heat, or ambiance and does not apply to HVAC systems. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property owners/tenants to obey.