Agenda — Jurupa Valley City Council, September 7, 2023 (part 3 of 9)

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

Page 108 of 152 ends

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:

Page 109 of 152 ends

• 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

Page 110 of 152 ends

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

Page 111 of 152 ends

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

Page 112 of 152 ends

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).

Page 113 of 152 ends

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

Page 114 of 152 ends

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's air emissions exceed the applicable regional significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).

Phase 1 unmitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG, NO
X, and CO as shown on Table 4.2-12 (refer to the Draft EIR). The above-listed Mitigation Measures would be implemented to reduce operational emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation, mitigated operation emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG, NO
X, and CO.

Page 115 of 152 ends

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.

Even with the implementation of plans, policies and programs, project design features, and Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-13, Project operational-source ROG, NOx, and CO emissions exceedances of applicable SCAQMD regional thresholds would be considered significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant.

B. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

1. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Threshold a) The Project would generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
a. Findings
GHG emissions associated with Project operation would exceed the City’s GHG threshold. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through GHG-4 and Air Quality Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13 would help to reduce GHG emissions. All feasible and enforceable mitigation measures have been imposed, and no additional feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce GHG emissions to levels that are less than significant. Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.

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

Page 116 of 152 ends

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: Prohibition of Fireplaces. 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

Page 117 of 152 ends

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 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.

Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Energy Efficient Appliances. For residential projects, all major appliances (e.g., dishwashers, refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, and water heaters) installed shall be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Jurupa Valley shall verify implementation of this requirement.

Page 118 of 152 ends

Mitigation Measure GHG-4: Solid Waste Diversion. The development shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with City standards for recyclable collection and loading areas. The diversion plan shall also comply with the established solid waste and recycling laws including SB 1383, AB 939 and AB 341.

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

PPP 4.7-1: 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.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410 (residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3 (nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

PPP 4.7-2: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, § 2449.

PPP 4.7-3: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 9.283 of the City’s Municipal Code).

Page 119 of 152 ends

PPP 4.7-4: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (§ 110.10(b)1) require all buildings to be designed to have a total area of at least 15 percent (after subtracting any skylights) “solar ready” zone on the roof top that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. The installation of the solar panels is specific to the end use and will be determined at the time the specific projects are developed. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy. b. Facts in Support of Findings
Under the City’s threshold, the Project would have significant effects if the Project exceeds the City’s GHG threshold of 3,000-MTCO
2e-per-year.

GHG emissions associated with Project operation Phase 1, Phase 2 and Project buildout (combination of Phase 1 and Phase 2) are summarized in Table 4.7-4 (refer to Section 4.7 of the Draft EIR). As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project’s total mitigated emissions would exceed the threshold.

The majority of the GHG emissions (65 percent mitigated at project buildout) are associated with non-construction related mobile sources. Emissions of motor vehicles are controlled by State and Federal standards, and the Project has no control over these standards.

The Project includes numerous mitigation measures that would reduce emissions.

Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13 have been identified in the Project’s Air Quality Assessment to reduce operational emissions and would also reduce GHG emissions. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit; Mitigation Measure AQ-4 prohibits the use of any kind of fireplaces; and Mitigation Measure AQ-5 requires all landscaping equipment used onsite to be 100 percent electrically powered. Mitigation Measure AQ-13 would prohibit natural gas use in residential structures.

Additionally, the Project would further reduce GHG emissions through implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through MM GHG-4. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency; GHG-3 requires the residential projects to utilize energy efficient appliances; and GHG-4 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. The Project would also be required to comply with PPP 4.7-1 through PPP 4.7-4 which would be required by local, state, or federal regulations or laws.

Page 120 of 152 ends

As shown in Table 4.7-4, implementation of these mitigation measures and PPPs would reduce GHG emissions to 61,690 MTCO2e for Phase 1, 22,896 MTCO2e for Phase 2, and 84,286 MTCO2e for project buildout operation. However, mitigated GHG emissions associated with Phase 1, Phase 2, and project buildout operation would still exceed the City’s 3,000-MTCO2e-per-year threshold. The majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are generated by mobile sources. The TDM program required by Mitigation Measure AQ-3 would reduce GHG emissions from commuting; however, the number of delivery trips and retail customer trips would not be reduced by a TDM program.

The imposition of additional mitigation measures by the City to control mobile source GHG emissions above and beyond those presented in the Draft EIR are either not feasible or are not necessary because the progression toward clean truck technologies is already occurring as regulated by the State. Compliance with State regulations as well as Mitigation Measures AQ-6 (EV truck charging infrastructure), AQ-7 (TRUs to be plug-in capable), and AQ-9 (energy efficiency for trucks/Carl Moyer Program) assure that the warehouse component of the Project will be highly progressive in attracting clean trucks.

While mitigation measures are included to reduce mobile source emissions from heavy- duty trucks to the extent feasible, it is important to note that both the Project Applicant, future tenants, and the City are limited in their ability to regulate and enforce the types of vehicles that would access the Project site, and current industry practices and technological constraints preclude the inclusion of a mitigation measure that places in broad strokes restrictions on the types of trucks that would access the Project, as discussed in detail in the Final EIR (see Final EIR, pp. II-43 through II-44).

Thus, additional mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile emissions is not feasible due to the limited ability of the City of Jurupa Valley to address emissions resulting from mobile sources and/or emissions generated by cars and trucks outside of the City’s limits. As with all land use projects, the Project’s mobile and transportation related GHG emissions are a function of two parameters: emissions control and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).

Having no regulatory control over emissions control technology, the City has limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with mobile source emissions associated with the Project. However, the proposed Project design includes high density development and alternative transportation infrastructure such as bicycle and pedestrian paths, that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel burning vehicles.

Additional mitigation to further reduce the Project’s non-mobile-source emissions is also not feasible. The Project’s mitigation measures and PPPs address non-mobile emissions to the extent possible, by (i) requiring building designs to provide environmental design features, incorporate energy and water conservation measures, and provide electrical, heating, ventilation, lighting, and power systems that meet CALGreen Standards (GHG-2); and (ii) requiring the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which exceed code requirements. Further, the Project

Page 121 of 152 ends

would divert 75 percent of solid waste from landfills (GHG-4) and require landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric (AQ-5).

The reliance on carbon offsets to reduce either the Project’s mobile or non-mobile emissions is also not feasible, as no local programs are available that would meet CEQA’s criteria for a valid mitigation measure. In addition, the City has no enforcement authority over offset credits that fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City.

Thus, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, Project operational impacts related to greenhouse gas emissions would remain significant and unavoidable.

The Project incorporates all feasible mitigation measures that could be implemented to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions below the 3,000-MTCO2e threshold. There are no additional, feasible, and enforceable measures available that would further reduce emissions below the level of significance.

2. Conflict with Applicable Plan, Policy, and Regulations Adopted to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold b): The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
a. Findings
The Project does not conflict with any plans to reduce GHG emissions and furthers the State’s goals relative to this impact. Therefore, with respect to this particular threshold, the Project does not have a significant impact. However, despite plan consistency, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed the City’s significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO
2e per year despite the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-4, AQ-13, and GHG-1 through GHG-4. Thus the Project could impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2045. A significant and unavoidable impact would therefore occur as a result of the Project.

Page 122 of 152 ends

Page 123 of 152 ends

Page 124 of 152 ends

PPP 4.7-1: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11).

PPP 4.7-2: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, § 2449.

Page 125 of 152 ends

PPP 4.7-4: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These standards are updated, nominally every three years, to incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (§ 110.10(b)1) require all buildings to be designed to have a total area of at least 15 percent (after subtracting any skylights) “solar ready” zone on the roof top that will structurally accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels. The installation of the solar panels is specific to the end use and will be determined at the time the specific projects are developed. If future building operators pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy. b. Facts in Support of Findings
The Project does not conflict with the applicable plans to reduce GHG emissions and therefore, with respect to this particular threshold, the Project does not have a significant impact. However, despite plan consistency, the Project’s long-term operational GHG emissions would exceed the City’s significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO
2e per year despite the implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ- 5, and AQ-13 and Mitigation Measures GHG-1 through MM GHG-4, thus the Project could impede California’s statewide GHG reduction goals for 2030 and 2045.

Page 126 of 152 ends

development and alternative transportation infrastructure such as bicycle and pedestrian paths, that would reduce VMT and reliance on fossil fuel burning vehicles.

A significant and unavoidable impact would therefore occur as a result of the Project.

No additional, feasible, and enforceable mitigation measures exist that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels that are less than significant.

3. Cumulative GHG Impacts
Climate change is a worldwide issue. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and TACs, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. While pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have much longer atmospheric lifetimes of 1 year to several thousand years that allow them to be dispersed around the world.

It is widely recognized that no single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global climate.

The State CEQA Guidelines generally address
GHG emissions as a cumulative impact because of the global nature of climate change As the California Supreme Court explained, “because of the global scale of climate change, any one project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself”.

As such,
GHG impacts are recognized as exclusively cumulative impacts; there are no non- cumulative GHG emission impacts from a climate change perspective. The additional effect of project-related GHGs would not result in a reasonably foreseeable cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. Furthermore, the Project as well as other cumulative related projects would also be subject to all applicable regulatory requirements, which would further reduce GHG emissions. As discussed above in this section in the findings related to GHG emissions (items 1 and 2), the Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO
2e threshold of significance
despite implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-3 , AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13 and GHG-1 through GHG-4 and could impede statewide 2030 and 2045 GHG emission

Page 127 of 152 ends

reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative GHG impact.

C. NOISE

1. Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
a. Findings
No feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce cumulative off-site traffic noise to levels that are less than significant, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
As described in the Acoustical Analysis included in Appendix D18 of the Draft EIR, cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Opening Year Without Project scenarios to the Opening Year Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold.

Feasible mitigation is not available to reduce traffic noise. Typically, feasible mitigation measures for off-site roadway noise impacts include repairing the roads with rubberized asphalt and developing sound walls or attenuation barriers to minimize noise impacts.

However, this mitigation can only be imposed on onsite roadways since the Project applicant would not have authorization or control to make offsite improvements. As summarized above, Project-generated traffic volumes would meet the cumulative noise impact criteria for multiple roadway segments and mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile off-site noise is not feasible. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with Project-specific noise impacts, would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable (Kimley- Horn, 2022f, pp. 37-40).

D. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC

1. VMT
Threshold b): The Project would conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Page 128 of 152 ends

a. Findings
The Project’s Regional Commercial uses exceed the City’s VMT threshold. Therefore, the Project’s impacts related to VMT will be significant and unavoidable despite the implementation of all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures designed to reduce Project impacts, as follows.

Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the Property Owner shall provide assurances that the transportation demand management measures described below, will be perpetually implemented, regardless of property ownership, and a mechanism for informing subsequent property owners of the transportation demand management plan requirements. These requirements may be accomplished through recordation of covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or the formation of a transportation management association which assumes responsibility for implementation and monitoring of the transportation demand management measures or other measures deemed acceptable by the City.

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. • Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any commercial use, future tenants in employment-generating land uses developed pursuant to the proposed Project shall implement measures including, but not be limited to, the following: ride-matching assistance; preferential carpool parking; flexible work schedules for carpools; 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 including bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The measures chosen must achieve a total estimated VMT reduction not less than 8.3 percent. This list may be updated as new methods become available.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:

Page 129 of 152 ends

• 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 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.

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 transportation. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:

PDF 4.16-1: The project shall provide, if approved by the City Engineer, Class III bike route along Crestmore Road from 34th Street to Mission Boulevard by placing bike route signs and optional shared roadway markings (sharrow) along Crestmore Road.

PDF 4.16-2: The County of Riverside, in cooperation with the Cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, proposes to replace the existing Mission Boulevard Bridge over the Santa Ana River near Mount Rubidoux in Riverside County. The proposed County project will accommodate two 12-ft lanes, two 14-ft lanes, two 8-ft shoulders and a 4-ft median. A 12-ft multipurpose trail with barrier separation from vehicular traffic will be located along the south side of the bridge in lieu of standard sidewalks on each side.

This will provide a connection to Santa ana River Trail via Mission Boulevard.

PDF 4.16-3: The project shall provide up to 7,800 linear feet of pedestrian street improvements in coordination with the City. The City Engineer can approve alternative design with future street improvements that provide pedestrian connections as intended in the City of Jurupa Valley Complete Streets Safety Assessment, dated November 2021. Such alternative design can consider using the on-street parking on the north shoulder for a 4-foot pedestrian sidewalk. On the south side between the pavement edge and front yard fence lines, an alternative design could install a standard

Page 130 of 152 ends

4-foot sidewalk protected from traffic with a raised feature such as an intermittent asphalt dike.

PDF 4.16-4: All future projects will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which include, but are not limited to improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes.
b. Facts in Support of Findings
For Regional Retail/Other land sues, a net increase in total VMT within the City would be considered a significant impact. As shown in Table 4.16-5 (refer to Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR), the Project’s Regional Commercial and Other uses results in a net increase Citywide VMT of 0.56 percent under baseline conditions and 0.43 percent under cumulative conditions. As such, regional retail and other land uses exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. Impacts are significant in this regard.

As shown in Table 4.16-6 (refer to Section 4.16 of the Draft EIR), implementation of VMT reduction measures could result in a 14.7 percent reduction, and the 0.56 percent increase in VMT would be rectified. However, the Project is a Specific Plan, which is a planning mechanism to ensure that projects develop in an organized and a cohesive manner.

Although the Specific Plan’s Circulation Plan identifies the necessary improvements required to reduce VMT, the timing of the construction of these improvements is unknown. Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 requires a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program. TDM programs are very tenant- and employer-specific.

For example, providing a shuttle service to office use can vary extensively based on the tenant of that office building. As such, at the time of approval of the Specific Plan, it is very difficult to fully capture the actual VMT reduction associated with implementation of the TDM program.

Given the uncertainty in tenant participation at the site and the uncertainty in the timing of when improvements will be constructed, the ability to achieve the 14.71 percent VMT reduction for the Project cannot be guaranteed.

There are no additional, feasible, and enforceable mitigation measures that can reduce impacts to less than significant. As stated above with respect to the TDM, how an area ultimately is developed under a specific plan is often tenant- and employer-specific, and therefore there are no other feasible mitigation measures that can be imposed and are certain to reduce impacts to less than significant. As a result, even with the implementation of project design features and Mitigation Measure TRANS-1, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the retail component of the Project.

Page 131 of 152 ends

VIII. Project Alternatives
The EIR considered and analyzed five alternatives to the Proposed Project: Alternative 1—No Project/No Development Alternative; Alternative 2—No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative; Alternative 3—Reduced Commercial Uses Alternative; Alternative 4— Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative; and Alternative 5—No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative.

The five alternatives that were analyzed in the EIR are discussed below, including the basis for rejecting each alternative. In addition, comparison of the alternatives is available in Table 5.3-1 of the EIR. Each alternative’s environmental impacts are considered and analyzed, along with an analysis of whether it achieves any of the Project Objectives as shown below.
• Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities.
• Transform the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment.
• Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity and mix of uses through new development standards.
• 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.
• Encourage compatible land uses and interface with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives and/or local streets.
• Facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley. • Capitalize on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues and infrastructure improvements.
• Establish an open space plan that accommodates recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.
• Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, activities and contain vehicular impacts. • 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.

Page 132 of 152 ends

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

A. ALTERNATIVE 1—NO PROJECT/NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE

1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 1 assumes that the Project would not be approved. The 11 single-family residential buildings would remain on site and the site would not be redeveloped.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Alternative 1 is the “No Build” alternative in which no development would occur on the Project Site.

Alternative 1 would eliminate the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts after mitigation regarding air quality and GHG emissions during operation. Alternative 1 would have similar impacts to historic cultural resources since none are located on the Project site and thus no impacts would occur. Impacts associated with the remaining environmental issues would be less than those of the Project. No impacts of this alternative would be considerably greater than those of the Project.

Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new development would occur.

Therefore, this alternative would not meet any of the Project Objectives. Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the Project’s objectives of transforming the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment, including through a Specific Plan that serves both regulatory and planning functions. The No Project/No Development Alternative does not provide any means of guiding the necessary community design, infrastructure, and public service requirements in a coordinated and logical process on the Project site.

Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 1 would not meet any of the Project Objectives. In addition, it is not the environmentally superior alternative.

The City Council hereby finds that each reason set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 1, and by itself, independent of any other reason justifies rejection of Alternative 1. The City Council hereby rejects Alternative 1.

Page 133 of 152 ends

B. ALTERNATIVE 2—NO PROJECT/EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN

ALTERNATIVE

1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, consists of buildout and operation of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (EMRSP), the current General Plan designation for the Project site. The EMRSP permits development of 1,196 residential units, 186,000 square feet of commercial retail space, an elementary school, a church, 15.3 acres of parkland, and related infrastructure such as roadways and streetlights. The residential units would consist of 667 single-family detached residential units, 273 single-family attached townhomes, and 256 multi-family units. Acreage by land use for the EMRSP consists of 178.76 acres residential uses, 20.0 acres commercial uses, 37.0 acres institutional uses (church and elementary school), 17.6 acres parks, and 24.7 acres roadways and rights-of-way (JHA Consulting Inc., 2005).

The EMRSP spans approximately 278.45 acres, that is, approximately 31 acres more than the proposed Project site, as the EMRSP extends to 34 th Street along its entire
southern boundary while parts of the southern boundary of the proposed Project site are north of 34
th Street.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would reduce impacts on energy use, noise, recreation, and transportation compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

Impacts of this alternative on aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would all be similar to those of the proposed Project. This alternative would increase impacts on air quality and slightly increase impacts on biological resources, population and housing, compared to those of the proposed Project.

Construction impacts of Alternative 2 on regional emissions were identified as significant and unavoidable. However, the proposed District at Jurupa Valley project would be less than significant after mitigation. Therefore, Alternative 2 would have greater construction impacts than the proposed Project.

Alternative 2 impacts to biological resources during construction would be less than significant after mitigation. Alternative 2 would involve the same type of ground disturbance, vegetation clearance, and demolition that the proposed Project would, but Alternative 2 is 31 acres larger than the proposed Project. Thus, the impacts of Alternative 2 on biological resources would be greater than the proposed Project, which would also be less than significant after mitigation.

The proposed Project would include approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial and industrial uses on about 161 acres. Alternative 2 would include 57 acres of nonresidential (commercial, church, and elementary school) including 186,000 square

Page 134 of 152 ends

feet of commercial uses. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. As GHG impacts of the proposed Project would be far greater than the 3,000 MTCO
2e significance threshold, this assessment assumes that operational GHG impacts of this alternative would also be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would reduce impacts on energy use, noise, recreation, and transportation compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

Under the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, most of the Project Objectives would be met. However, this alternative would only partially meet facilitating a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley and capitalizing on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues, and infrastructure improvements. In addition, the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative does not provide the same ability as the Project to respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities in the area and region as a whole, which is important.

In addition, Alternative 2 increases some adverse impacts beyond those associated with the Project, as discussed above and in detail in the Draft EIR; is not the environmentally superior alternative; and would generate 950 operational jobs, far fewer than the 3,243 for the proposed Project.

Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 2 would not fully meet the Project Objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; and does not avoid significant environmental impacts.

The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 2, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 2. The City Council hereby rejects Alternative 3.

C. ALTERNATIVE 3—REDUCED COMMERCIAL USES ALTERNATIVE

1. Summary of Alternative
Alternative 3 would eliminate the regional retail uses in the proposed Specific Plan (70.3 acres totaling 1.2 million square feet of building area which would be developed in Phase 1). The 70.3 acres includes 1.1 acre of existing non-conforming use. Commercial uses would be replaced with residential and open space uses in the same proportions as in the proposed Specific Plan, amounting to 56.9 acres residential uses and 14.0

Page 135 of 152 ends

acres of open space. The residential uses would be designated High Density Residential (HDR), permitting single-family attached and detached residences— including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, patio homes, and zero lot line homes—at density of up to 14.0 units per acre. This alternative envisions that the average density in the residential uses added would be about 12.5 units per acre, that is, half of the 25.0 units per acre of the residential uses in the proposed Specific Plan.

The area designated HDR in this alternative would permit development of up to approximately 797 residential units. The residential units are allotted into Phases 1 and 2 in the same proportions as the residential units in the proposed Specific Plan, that is, 25 percent in Phase 1 and 75 percent in Phase 2. This alternative is intended to reduce VMT and air quality impacts of commercial uses in the proposed Specific Plan; see Table 5.6-1 in Section 5.6 of the Draft EIR.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Alternative 3 impacts would be expected to be as follows compared to those of the proposed Project:
• Transportation (VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, and this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts of the proposed Project)
• Utilities (this alternative would decrease water, wastewater, and natural gas demands compared to those of the proposed Project).

This alternative would increase the following impacts compared to those of the proposed Project:
• Population and Housing (the reduction in employment-generating land uses, and increase in residential uses, in this alternative would lead to a more housing- heavy jobs-housing ratio than the proposed Project would).

The impacts that would be similar for this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project include Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use.

Mineral Resources, Noise (construction and onsite operational impacts), Public Services, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

More specifically, impacts of this alternative on scenic vistas would be similar to those of the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site, as would the Specific Plan. Building heights on some portions of the site— those that would be developed with residential uses instead of commercial in this alternative—may be somewhat lower in this alternative, as maximum building heights would be 50 feet for multifamily residential uses and 35 feet for single-family residential uses, compared to 75 feet for most commercial uses in the proposed Specific Plan.

Operational impacts of this alternative on visual character would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Specific Plan. As noted above, building heights in

Page 136 of 152 ends

some portions of the Project site may be reduced somewhat in this alternative compared to the Specific Plan. Signage would be reduced in this alternative, as all of the regional commercial uses proposed in the Specific Plan would be deleted.

Operational light and glare impacts would be reduced in this alternative. The residential uses to be built in this alternative in place of commercial uses in the proposed specific plan would have less outdoor lighting than commercial uses would.

Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 3.796 million square feet, that is, approximately 403,000 square feet, or 9.6 percent, lower than the proposed Project. Therefore, this alternative is estimated to slightly decrease construction air pollutant emissions.

Localized construction emissions impacts depend on the rate of emissions in pounds per day and the distances of sensitive receptors from emissions sources. The total construction effort in this alternative would be slightly less than that of the proposed Project, and the distances from sensitive receptors to emissions sources would be the same in this alternative as in the proposed Project. Therefore, localized emissions impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant after mitigation for both scenarios.

Overall emissions are considered proportional to trip generation. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate approximately 32,368 trips per day, that is, a reduction of 2,648 trips or 7.6 percent compared to the proposed Project. Operational emissions would be slightly reduced by this alternative and would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

Construction impacts of this alternative on biological resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project. Both scenarios would involve development of the entire Project site. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site except for four houses, as would the proposed Project. The proposed Project was found to have no impact on historical resources, as most of such resources identified on the Project site have been demolished or been determined ineligible for the CRHR. Impacts of this alternative on historical resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

No archaeological resources were identified in the field survey of the Project site or in previous cultural resources surveys. However, archaeological resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by project ground-disturbing activities.

Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant after mitigation for the proposed Project and would be similar for this alternative.

Construction energy use, taken to be proportional to total building area, would be approximately 10 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project.

Operation of this alternative would slightly decrease electricity and natural gas demands, as shown below in. This alternative would also slightly decrease operational

Page 137 of 152 ends

transportation fuels use, taken to be proportional to vehicle trip generation. Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be slightly less than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

The propose project and this alternative would each involve development of the entire Project site except for four existing residential properties. In each of the two scenarios, development would not exacerbate existing seismic hazards or hazards related to unstable soils. Impacts would be similar, and less than significant, for each of the two scenarios.

Fossils are likely present in site soils at depths of 15 feet or greater. Each of the two scenarios would involve ground disturbance on nearly the entire Project site to depths up to approximately 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). Impacts of each of the two scenarios on paleontological resources would be similar, and less than significant after mitigation.

Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to total building area, and would be approximately 10 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Nearly 75 percent of Project operational greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks. Thus, operational GHG emissions are considered here to be proportional to trip generation. This alternative would reduce trip generation by approximately 7.6 percent compared to the Project. Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated to be reduced by approximately 7.6 percent in this alternative compared to the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

This alternative and the proposed Project would each involve site clearance and grading of, and construction on, virtually the entire Project site. Therefore, construction hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

This alternative would include industrial, residential, and some commercial uses.

Industrial uses would likely use, store, transport, and dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials. Residential uses would likely utilize small amounts of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The amounts of hazardous materials used by operation of this alternative would be slightly reduced with the deletion of most commercial uses. Hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site, as would the proposed Project. This alternative and the proposed Project would each involve implementation of construction BMPs to minimize construction water quality impacts.

Neither scenario would exacerbate flood hazards.

Page 138 of 152 ends

While the land uses in this alternative would differ from those in the proposed Project, the amounts and types of pollutants that could contaminate stormwater are not expected to differ substantially between the two scenarios. Hydrology and water quality impacts of the two scenarios would be similar and less than significant.

This alternative would also be a Specific Plan; the proposed land use types and intensities in this alternative would conform with City of Jurupa Valley general plan and zoning policies upon approval of the Specific Plan. The same is true of the proposed Project. Land use and planning impacts would be similar and less than significant in both scenarios.

The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (EMRSP) by the County of Riverside.

The California
Geological Survey does not consider land designated for development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. No impact would occur in either scenario.

Onsite construction noise impacts of this alternative would be slightly less than those of the proposed Project, proportional to the 7.6 percent decrease in total building area in this alternative.

Onsite operational noise impacts of this alternative would be somewhat reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. This alternative involves replacing regional retail uses in the proposed Project with residential and open space uses. The residential and open space uses would generate somewhat less noise than would the commercial uses they would replace. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

Trip generation by this alternative would be reduced by approximately 7.6 percent compared to that of the proposed Project. Traffic noise impacts, assumed to be proportional to trip generation, would be slightly reduced by this alternative and would be less than the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable cumulative offsite roadway noise impacts.

This alternative would add 797 additional housing units compared to the proposed Project and would add 2,957 additional residents to the City of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size in the City of 3.71 persons. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate 1,750 jobs. Population and employment from this alterative would each be within regional projections for the City of Jurupa Valley, and impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Page 139 of 152 ends

city of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size of 3.71 persons. This alternative would substitute 797 residential units for 1.2 million square feet of regional retail uses; the difference in total building area would be minor. This alternative would generate slight increases in demands for public services due to the increase in population. As with the proposed Project, with implementation of PPPs 4.14-4 through

4.14-7 and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, impacts to fire, police, parks, and library facilities would be less than significant. Impacts would be similar between the two scenarios.

Regarding impacts to school facilities, student generation is determined by the number of households in an area. This alternative—which would include development 1,993 residential units—of is estimated to generate 1,392 students, that is, 559 more than the 833 students that proposed Project would. As with the proposed Project, payment of school impact fees is considered complete mitigation for impacts to school facilities.

Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Demands for parks are generated by the population within the parks’ service areas.

This alternative would add approximately 7,394 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley. At the City’s standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population, this alternative would generate demand for approximately 22.2 acres of parkland. This alternative would include 22.2 acres of open space, meeting the demand this alternative would create. Impacts would be reduced in this alternative, and would be less than significant for both scenarios.

Construction transportation impacts would vary with grading quantity and total building area. The grading area in this alternative would be virtually the same as for the proposed Project. Total building area for this alternative would be approximately 10 percent less than that of the proposed Project. Construction transportation impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.

This alternative would omit the regional retail uses that would generate the significant and unavoidable VMT impact in the proposed Project. Mitigation measure TRANS-2, required for the proposed Project to reduce VMT impact from regional retail uses, would not be required for this alternative, and VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant.

This alternative, like the proposed Project, would involve grading and construction on nearly the entire Project site. Tribal cultural resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by soil disturbance during construction of this alternative. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant after mitigation for each of the two scenarios..

Page 140 of 152 ends

population, 1,481, is approximately 19.3 percent of that for the proposed Project.

Utilities demands from operation of this alternative, therefore, are estimated at approximately 19 percent greater than those of the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Alternative 3 would meet most of the Project Objectives. However, by deleting commercial uses within the Specific Plan, this alternative would require longer trips for residents to reach commercial uses offsite, most of which would be vehicular trips.

Therefore, this alternative would not meet the objective of facilitating a balance of job-to- housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley.

This alternative would decrease employment-generating uses compared to the proposed Project. The City of Jurupa Valley is already forecast to be housing-rich through the year 2045; development of this alternative would increase this imbalance and would not provide for the creation of as many job opportunities in the City, an important factor for the City.

Thus, the City Council finds that Alternative 3 would not fully meet the Project Objectives; it is not the environmentally superior alternative; does not avoid significant environmental impacts; an increases Population and Housing impacts by furthering an imbalance in job-to-housing ratios.

The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 3, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 3. The City Council hereby rejects Alternative 3.

D. ALTERNATIVE 4—REDUCED INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE

1. Summary of Alternative
In Alternative 4 the industrial uses in the proposed Specific Plan are replaced with residential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses. The type of long- term commercial or industrial storage contemplated by this alternative would include self-storage, including boat, RV and/or heavy equipment storage. Alternative 4 still would include potential warehouse uses. The long-term commercial or industrial storage that would involve fewer truck trips than, for example, fulfillment center use. The proportions of residential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses in the area converted from industrial use in this alternative would be the same as those for the four land use types in the proposed Specific Plan; industrial use in the Specific Plan was used to calculate proportion for storage in this alternative. That is, the 67.3 acres of industrial use in the Specific Plan would be converted to 21.0 acres of residential,

37.0 acres of storage, 10.0 acres of neighborhood commercial, and three acres of open space. The additional residential use in this alternative would be at the same density as the residential uses in the proposed Specific Plan (i.e., 25 units per acre) and would all be developed in Phase 2.

Page 141 of 152 ends

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Implementation of the Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative would slightly reduce impacts to aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and onsite operational noise compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

This alternative would create similar impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, land use, mineral resources, construction noise, population and housing, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

This alternative would generate slightly increased impacts to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, offsite roadway noise, public services, and utilities compared to those of the proposed Project.

More specifically, impacts of this alternative on scenic vistas would be similar to those of the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site, as would the Specific Plan. Building heights on some portions of the site— those that would be developed with residential uses instead of industrial in this alternative—may be somewhat lower in this alternative, as maximum building heights would be 50 feet for multifamily residential uses and 35 feet for single-family residential uses; compared to 75 feet for industrial uses in the proposed Specific Plan.

Operational impacts of this alternative on visual character would be similar to those of the proposed Specific Plan. Building heights in some portions of the Project site may be reduced somewhat in this alternative compared to the Specific Plan (see above).

Operational light and glare impacts would be reduced in this alternative. The industrial uses that would be deleted in this alternative would be expected to operate 24 hours per day. Thus, those uses would have more outdoor lighting than the residential uses that would replace part of the industrial uses in this alternative. Storage uses are assumed to be closed much of the night, and thus are also assumed to have less outdoor lighting than industrial uses would.

Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 4.054 million square feet (i.e., approximately 145,000 square feet or 3.5 percent) less than the proposed Project. This alternative is estimated to very slightly decrease construction air pollutant emissions. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

The total construction effort in this alternative would be slightly less than that of the proposed Project, and the distances from sensitive receptors to emissions sources would be the same in this alternative as in the proposed Project. Therefore, localized construction emissions impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant after mitigation for both scenarios.

Trip generation by the reduced industrial alternative is estimated to be 41,895, an increase of 6,879 trips or approximately 19.7 percent of proposed Project trip generation. Operational air pollutant emissions would be increased by nearly 20 percent

Page 142 of 152 ends

by this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project and would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

This alternative would entail development of virtually the entire Project site, as would the proposed Project. No archaeological resources were identified in the cultural resources investigation. However, archaeological resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by project ground-disturbing activities. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant after mitigation for the proposed Project and would be similar for this alternative.

Operation of this alternative would slightly decrease electricity and natural gas demands. However, this alternative would increase operational transportation fuels use, taken to be proportional to vehicle trip generation. Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be slightly greater than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

The proposed Project and this alternative would each involve development of the entire Project site except for the four existing residences. In each of the two scenarios development would not exacerbate existing seismic hazards or hazards related to unstable soils. Impacts would be similar, and less than significant, for each of the two scenarios.

Fossils are likely present in site soils at depths of 15 feet or greater. Each of the two scenarios would involve ground disturbance to depths up to approximately 40 feet bgs.

Impacts of each of the two scenarios on paleontological resources would be similar, and less than significant after mitigation.

Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to grading area and total building area. Total building area would be approximately 3.5 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project. The area graded would be very slightly less in this alternative than in the proposed Project; thus, grading effort would not differ substantially between the two scenarios. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Nearly 75 percent of project greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks. Thus, operational GHG emissions are considered here to be proportional to trip generation. This alternative would increase trip generation by approximately 20 percent compared to the proposed Project. Thus, operational GHG emissions are

Page 143 of 152 ends

estimated to be increased by approximately 20 percent in this alternative compared to the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

This alternative would include commercial, storage, and residential uses. Storage uses may store substantial amounts of hazardous materials; land use limitations for storage uses are to be determined. However, the use of hazardous materials in storage use areas is expected to be limited to small amounts for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Residential uses would likewise utilize small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The amounts of hazardous materials used by operation of this alternative would be slightly reduced by the deletion of industrial uses. Hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

This alternative and the proposed Project would each involve construction on nearly the entire Project site. Each scenario would involve implementation of construction BMPs to minimize construction water quality impacts. Neither scenario would exacerbate flood hazards. Hydrology and water quality impacts of each of the two scenarios would be similar and less than significant.

The storage uses in this alternative are expected to use fewer hazardous materials than the industrial uses in the proposed Project. Otherwise, the amounts and types of water pollutants are not expected to differ substantially between the two scenarios. Each of the two scenarios would include LID, source control, and treatment control BMPs.

Hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, and less than significant for both scenarios.

This alternative would be a Specific Plan; the proposed land use types and intensities in this alternative would conform with City of Jurupa Valley general plan and zoning policies upon approval of the Specific Plan. The same is true of the proposed Project.

Land use and planning impacts would be similar and less than significant in both scenarios.

The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the EMRSP. The California Geological Survey does not consider land designated for development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley.

Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. Impacts would be similar for both scenarios.

Page 144 of 152 ends

Onsite construction noise impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. The construction effort under this alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project.

Onsite operational noise impacts of this alternative would be somewhat reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. This alternative involves replacing industrial uses in the proposed Project with residential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses. Each of those uses would generate somewhat less noise than would the industrial uses they would replace. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

Operational traffic noise impacts are assumed to be proportional to trip generation. Trip generation by this alternative would be increased by approximately 20 percent compared to that of the proposed Project. Traffic noise impacts would be increased by this alternative beyond the significant and unavoidable cumulative offsite roadway noise impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

This alternative would add 525 additional housing units compared to the proposed Project and would add 1,948 additional residents to the City of Jurupa Valley at the average household size in the City of 3.71 persons. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate 2,994 jobs. Population and employment estimates for this alternative are each within regional projections for the City of Jurupa Valley. Population and housing impacts of this alternative would be similar for this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

Demands for public services are generated by the population in the agencies’ service areas except for police and fire protection, which are generated by the population plus the total building area. This alternative would add approximately 6,385 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size of 3.71 persons. This alternative would substitute 525 residential units, 750,000 square feet of storage uses, and 10 acres of neighborhood commercial uses for 1.5 million square feet of industrial uses; the difference in total building area would be minor. This alternative would generate slight increases in demands for public services due to the increase in population. As with the proposed Project, with implementation of PPPs 4.14-4 through

4.14-7 and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, impacts to fire, police, parks, and library facilities would be less than significant. Impacts would be similar between the two scenarios.

Regarding impacts to school facilities, student generation for this alternative would be proportional to the number of housing units. This alternative is estimated to generate 1,202 students, that is, 369 more than the 833 the proposed Project is estimated to generate. As with the proposed Project, payment of school impact fees is considered complete mitigation for impacts to school facilities. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

This alternative would add approximately 6,385 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley. At the City’s standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population this alternative would

Page 145 of 152 ends

generate demand for approximately 19.2 acres of parkland. This alternative would include 12.2 acres of open space, leaving a remaining need for approximately seven acres of parkland. As with the proposed Project, this alternative would be required to dedicate parkland and/or pay in-lieu fees for acquisition and/or improvement of parkland pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 7.25.020. Impacts would be slightly reduced in this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project, and would be less than significant for both scenarios.

Construction transportation impacts are taken here to vary total building area. Total building area for this alternative would be approximately 3.5 percent less than that of the proposed Project. Construction transportation impacts of this alternative would be very slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.

This alternative would retain the regional retail uses that generate the significant and unavoidable VMT impact of the proposed Project. Therefore, VMT impacts of this alternative would also be significant and unavoidable.

This alternative, as with the proposed Project, would involve grading and construction on nearly the entire Project site. Tribal cultural resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by soil disturbance during construction. Implementation of mitigation measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 would reduce these impacts to less than significant; likewise for the proposed Project. Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

Operational utility demands of this alternative are estimated here based on service population (numbers of residents plus workers) compared to those of the proposed Project. The service population of this alternative would be 6,385 residents plus 2,994 workers for a total of 9,379. The service population of the Project would be 4,422 residents plus 3,241 workers for a total of 7,663. The difference in service population, 1,716, is approximately 22 percent of that for the proposed Project. Utilities demands from operation of this alternative, therefore, are estimated at approximately 22 percent greater than those of the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Alternative 4 would meet Project Objectives. However, it is not the environmentally superior alternative and does not avoid significant environmental impacts of the Project.

Alternative 4 does not provide enough of a decrease in significant, adverse impacts to be selected. Alternative 4 also would be expected to lead to the creation of fewer jobs than the Project, which is an important factor for the City.

The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 4, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 4. The City Council hereby rejects Alternative 4.

Page 146 of 152 ends

D. ALTERNATIVE 5—NO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES

ALTERNATIVE

1. Summary of Alternative
In Alternative 5 all of the commercial, business park, and industrial uses in the Specific Plan (totaling 177 acres) are replaced with open space. The types of open space uses are undetermined but could include passive (natural) open space and/or a sports park.

Commercial open space, such as a golf course, is not envisioned as part of this alternative. All of the open space would be developed in Phase 2 of this alternative, as would the open space in the proposed Specific Plan. This alternative is intended to reduce the significant and unavoidable VMT and air quality impacts of the proposed Project.

2. Reasons for Rejecting Alternative
Development of this alternative, compared to the proposed Project, would reduce impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts of the proposed Project.

This alternative would have similar impacts on land use, mineral resources, and recreation compared to those of the proposed Project.

This alternative would cause slightly greater impacts on population and housing compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

More specifically, impacts of this alternative on scenic vistas would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. In this alternative 75 percent of the Project site would be designated open space. Structures would be limited to the 41.6 acres of residential development and ancillary structures within open space areas.

Impacts of this alternative on visual character would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. This analysis assumes that most of the existing visual resources onsite—such as trees—would remain.

Operational light and glare impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. Approximately 75 percent of the site would be designated as open space. While some of that area may be active recreational facilities that may include field and court lighting, most of the open space is assumed to be natural open space and/or passive recreational areas without night lighting.

Construction emissions depend on construction effort including the proportion of the site graded and the total building area. This alternative would involve grading 63.2 acres, that is, approximately 25 percent of the Project site. Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 1.2 million square feet, that is, approximately 3

Page 147 of 152 ends

million square feet – or 72 percent – less than the proposed Project. This alternative would decrease construction air pollutant emissions.

Overall operational emissions are considered proportional to trip generation. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate approximately 6,829 trips per day, that is, a reduction of 28,187 trips or 80.5 percent compared to the proposed Project. Operational emissions would be reduced by this alternative. The criteria pollutant emission by the proposed Project that is greatest compared to the threshold amount for that pollutant is nitrogen oxides (NOx); mitigated NOx emissions at project buildout would be 290.82 pounds per day compared to the threshold of 55 pounds per day. Emissions would be approximately 5.3 times the threshold. Thus, emissions would need to be reduced by approximately 81 percent to bring mitigated NOx emissions below the significance threshold. The percentage reduction in vehicle trips (80.5 percent) would be sufficient to reduce operational criteria emissions impacts of this alternative to less than significant, and would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

The biological resources impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. Under this alternative 75 percent of the site would be designated open space; it is assumed here that most of that area would be natural open space or passive recreational areas.

Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause impacts on historical resources, and impacts would be similar for both scenarios. This alternative would reduce impacts on archaeological resources compared to those of the proposed Project, as 75 percent of the site would be designated open space and most of that area would not be developed. Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation in each of the two scenarios.

Construction energy use, taken to be proportional to total building area, would be approximately 72 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project.

Operation of this alternative would decrease electricity and natural gas demands. This alternative would also decrease operational transportation fuels use, taken to be proportional to vehicle trip generation, by approximately 80 percent. Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be much lower than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

This alternative consists of development of approximately 25 percent of the Project site.

In each of the two scenarios development would not exacerbate existing seismic hazards or hazards related to unstable soils. Impacts would be similar, and less than significant, for each of the two scenarios.

Regarding impacts on paleontological resources, ground disturbance may be to somewhat shallower depths in this alternative, as the maximum allowable building height for multifamily residences would be 50 feet compared to 75 feet for industrial and some commercial uses. Fossils are likely present in site soils at depths of 15 feet or

Page 148 of 152 ends

greater. Impacts of this alternative on paleontological resources would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, and would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to grading area and to total building area. Total building area would be approximately 72 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project. The area graded would be approximately 75 percent less in this alternative than in the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Nearly 75 percent of project greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks. Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated here to be proportional to trip generation. This alternative would decrease trip generation by approximately 80 percent compared to the proposed Project. Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated to be decreased by approximately 80 percent in this alternative compared to the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Construction hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be reduced in this alternative due to the reduced development footprint compared to the proposed Project.

The residential uses in this alternative would likely utilize hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes and in smaller quantities than would be used by commercial and industrial uses in the proposed Project. Hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

This alternative would involve a much smaller development footprint than the proposed Project would. Each scenario would involve implementation of construction BMPs to minimize construction water quality impacts. Neither scenario would exacerbate flood hazards. Hydrology and water quality impacts would be reduced in this alternative compared to the proposed Project.

Development of this alternative is expected to generate fewer pollutants that could contaminate stormwater due to both the dramatically reduced development footprint and the types of land uses to be developed (residential and open space only in this alternative, whereas the proposed Project would also include commercial and industrial uses that would be expected to generate more pollutants per acre than residential uses would). Hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, and less than significant for both scenarios.

Land use and planning impacts would be similar and less than significant in both scenarios.

The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the EMRSP. The California Geological Survey does not consider land designated for

Page 149 of 152 ends

development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley.

Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. Impacts would be similar for both scenarios.

Onsite construction noise impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project due to the smaller development footprint and reduced development intensity.

Onsite operational noise impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. Proposed project impacts arising from onsite stationary noise sources would require mitigation to reduce impacts to less than significant. It is expected that impacts of this alternative would be less than significant without mitigation due to the deletion of the more noise-intensive uses (industrial and commercial) in the proposed Project.

Operational traffic noise impacts are assumed to be proportional to trip generation. Trip generation by this alternative would be decreased by approximately 80 percent compared to that of the proposed Project. Traffic noise impacts would be decreased by this alternative and would therefore avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulative offsite roadway noise impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

This alternative would consist of development of 1,196 housing units estimated to house 4,422 persons at buildout. This alternative would not generate employment (indirect employment arising from operation of the residences is not addressed here, and we have no generation factor to estimate such employment). The estimated population increase is within the regional projection for the City of Jurupa Valley, and would thus not be a significant impact. Population and housing impacts would be slightly greater for this alternative than for the proposed Project in that this alternative omits employment- generating uses to accompany the proposed residential development. Impacts would be less than significant in both scenarios.

This alternative would generate smaller impacts than the proposed Project would regarding demands for fire and police facilities. Demands for such facilities are generated by the populations and total building area within the agencies’ service areas, and this alternative omits all of the commercial, industrial, and business park uses of the proposed Project (totaling approximately 3 million square feet). This alternative would have the same impacts as the proposed Project on demands for schools, parks, and libraries. Demands for parks and libraries are determined by the population within the facilities’ service areas, and demands for schools are based on the number of households within the schools’ service areas. This alternative would involve development of the same number of residential units—1,196—as would the proposed Project. Public services impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Page 150 of 152 ends

Development of this alternative would cause the same impacts on recreational facilities as the proposed Project would. Such impacts are generated by the populations in the facilities’ service areas, and this alternative would involve development of the same number of residential units, 1,196, as the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Construction transportation impacts would be reduced compared with impacts of the proposed Project due to the greatly reduced grading quantity and total building area.

This alternative would omit the regional retail uses that would generate the significant and unavoidable VMT) impact by the proposed Project. Therefore, VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant. Mitigation measure TRANS-2, required for the proposed Project to reduce VMT impact from regional retail uses, would not be required for this alternative.

Tribal cultural resources impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, as nearly 75 percent of the Project site under this alternative would remain open space. It is assumed that a small, to-be-determined portion of the 185 acres of open space in this alternative would be developed with active recreational uses such as a sports park, and that the remainder would be natural open space. Tribal cultural resources impacts of this alternative and the proposed Project would each be less than significant after mitigation.

Operational utility demands of this alternative are estimated here based on service population (numbers of residents plus workers) compared to those of the proposed Project. The service population of this alternative would be 4,422 residents compared to a service population of 7,663 (4,422 residents plus 3,241 workers) for the proposed Project. Thus, utility demands for this alternative are estimated to be reduced by approximately 42 percent compared to the proposed Project. Utilities demands would be less than significant for both of these scenarios.

Development of Alternative 5 would meet some Project Objectives, including:
• Transform the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment.
• Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity, and mix of uses through new development standards.
• 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.
• Establish an open space plan that accommodates passive recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.

Page 151 of 152 ends

Development of this alternative would only partially meet the following Project Objectives:
• Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities. Alternative 5 does not fully meet this objective due to the decreased areas available for such opportunities.
• Encourage compatible land uses and interface with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives, and/or local streets.
• Capitalize on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues and infrastructure improvements. Alternative 5 does not fully meet this objective due to the decreased areas available for such opportunities. • Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, and activities and contain vehicular impacts. • Provide flexible parking standards to encourage parking facilities that meet the parking demand for all users at all times, avoid excess and unnecessary parking, and ensure no overflow parking on public streets.
• Create a sustainable environment by incorporating strategies that minimize consumption of natural resources, conserve energy and water, incorporate natural systems and minimize the release of pollutants into the environment.

Development of this alternative would not achieve the following Project Objectives:
• Facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley.

Alternative 5 would reduce three significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant: operational air quality impacts, cumulative offsite roadway noise and vehicle miles traveled impacts. Thus, Alternative 5 is the environmentally superior alternative. As such, the EIR identified Alternative 5 as the environmentally superior alternative after it determined that Alternative 1 (No Project/No Development) satisfied none of the Project Objectives.

While Alternative 5 is the environmentally superior alternative and would meet some project objectives in full, it would only partially meet seven of the objectives, including objectives that are important to the economic development of the City. In addition, Alternative 5 would not meet the objective of facilitating a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley. Alternative 5 would not create the same

Page 152 of 152 ends

opportunities as the Project for job creation and growth and, as noted above, would not directly lead to the creation of any jobs or employment opportunities, which is an important factor for the City.

The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above is an independent ground for rejecting Alternative 5, and by itself, independent of any other reason, justifies rejection of Alternative 5. The City Council hereby rejects Alternative 5.

B-1

Exhibit B
Statement of Overriding Considerations

Page 1 of 4 ends

EXHIBIT B

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The following Statement of Overriding Considerations is made in connection with the approval of The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan (the “Project”).

The California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires the decision-making agency to balance the environmental, economic, social, technological, and other benefits of a project against its significant unavoidable environmental effects when determining whether to approve a project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the significant unavoidable environmental effects, then those effects may be considered acceptable. CEQA requires the agency to make written findings supporting the specific reasons for considering a project acceptable when significant environmental effects are unavoidable. The reasons must be based on substantial evidence in the EIR or elsewhere in the administrative record. The reasons for proceeding with this Project, despite the significant unavoidable environmental effects that may result, are provided in this Statement of Overriding Considerations.

Public Resources Code section 21002 provides that, “In the event specific economic, social and other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects can be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.” In addition, Public Resources Code section 21002.1(c) provides that, “In the event that economic, social, or other conditions make it infeasible to mitigate one or more significant effects of a project on the environment, the project may nonetheless be approved or carried out at the discretion of a public agency. . .” Finally, CEQA Guidelines (14 C.C.R.) section 15093 (a) provides that “[i]f the benefits of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered ‘acceptable.’”
The Final EIR for the Project identifies all of the environmental effects of the Project, as well as the mitigation measures that can reduce the effects either to a less than significant level where feasible or to the lowest feasible level. The Final EIR also identifies the environmental effects of the Project that will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures. The Final EIR also presents Project alternatives. As identified in the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, the City Council finds that there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would mitigate the significant and unavoidable environmental effects of the Project to a less-than-significant level or avoid those environmental effects entirely, while still attaining the objectives of the Project.

Page 2 of 4 ends

The City Council has carefully balanced the benefits of the Project against the significant unavoidable environmental effects identified in the EIR that cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less than significant level. Notwithstanding the significant unavoidable environmental effects that are identified in the EIR that cannot feasibly be eliminated, lessened, or mitigated to a less than significant level, the City Council, acting pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 21002 and 21002.1 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15092 and 15093, hereby determines that significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable (Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs), Noise (cumulative off-site traffic noise) and Transportation), are acceptable due to the overriding considerations described herein.

Based on the objectives of the Project identified in the EIR, the City Council has determined that the Project should be approved and that the significant unavoidable environmental effects attributable to the Project are outweighed by the following environmental, economic, social, technological and other overriding considerations, each one being a separate and independent basis upon which to approve the Project.

Substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that approval and implementation of the Project will provide the benefits listed below. The City Council thus finds as follows:

1. As set forth in detail in the Findi ngs and Facts in Support of the Findings, all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce Project environmental effects to the extent feasible. Furthermore, as supported by the Findings and Facts in Support of Findings, the City Council finds that alternatives to the Project are infeasible because they generally have similar impacts, or they do not provide the benefits of the Project, or are otherwise socially or economically infeasible.

2. The Project, and its associated im plementing legislative approvals and actions (including adoption of the General Plan Amendment; repeal of the Emerald Meadows Specific Plan; and adoption of the Development Agreement), will be consistent with and contribute to achieving the goals and objectives established by the General Plan. Furthering and implementing the City’s General Plan is a legal and social prerogative of the City. More specifically, the site is currently underutilized and largely vacant. The City’s General Plan includes policies intended to attract economically and environmentally sustainable development to the area; see, for example, Table 4.10-2 in the EIR. The Project will further these General Plan policies by providing opportunities for development of the area that balance economic development with preservation of natural resources through planned and thoughtful growth.

3. The existing site is vacant exc ept for single-family residences, garages, and the remnants of demolished structures. The Project will transform the area in a manner that is visually attractive and provides for a mix of uses to serve the community.

Page 3 of 4 ends

4. The Project implements the City’ s values of thoughtfully-planned development, local control, quality aesthetics, and meeting community needs. The Project allows the City to regulate development in the area and ensure that it meets the City’s high-quality standards.

5. The Project will provide employment opportunities, both in the short term for construction of the Project and the longer term during operation of the Project. The Project anticipates a range of commercial, industrial, visitor-serving, and business park uses, which will provide for job opportunities across multiple sectors and industries.

The Project will facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City.

6. The Project will attract new empl oyment-generating business to Jurupa Valley, thereby reducing the needs for the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

7. The Project will maintain the City’s ec onomic viability and productivity over the long-term by encouraging an efficient and sustainable pattern of development that is well-planned and carefully balanced. The Project encourages compatible land uses and interfacing with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives, and local streets.

8. The Project will provide beneficial infr astructure improvements to the area which will encourage pedestrian and bicyclist activity, in furtherance of the City’s Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians.

9. The Project provides for 11.1 acre s of open space land uses in an area significantly underserved by parks and open space, and will establish an open space plan that accommodates recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.

10. The Project will allow for future dev elopment opportunities in business and economic sectors with demonstrated market demand, as well as that providing for economic growth in sectors undergoing transformation. These development opportunities will provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues, and infrastructure improvements, which in turn help to maintain and improve City services.

11. The Project will enhance the quality of life of residents in the area by providing nearby and easily accessible retail and dining opportunities that are currently only available at distant locations.

Page 4 of 4 ends

12. The Project will activate a blighted , vacant site, thereby eliminating on- going public safety and nuisance problems such as illegal dumping, fires and homelessness.

13. Community Facilities Districts and community benefit contributions are proposed for the Project to provide on-going funding for the construction of City facilities, maintenance and repair of City infrastructure, and provision of public safety services (e.g., police, fire, emergency medical services).

14. The Project will support and retain local businesses by funding a new Commercial Rehabilitation Program. This funding will be used by the City to provide grants to local businesses for building improvements such as HVAC, roof repairs or façade improvements.

15. The Project will support efforts to address homelessness in the area by funding a Transitional Living Program. This funding will provide support housing services and opportunities for residents.

16. The Project will contribute funds for an Arts, Culture and Community Resources Fund. This fund will be used to support entities serving the City in the cultural arts.

17. The Project will provide a dedicated space within the commercial area of the Project for the City’s exclusive use as a community meeting room.

18. The Project will provide funding fo r the preparation of a Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan that will direct how the downtown area will be designed and developed into a vibrant, walkable town center.

19. Implementation of the Project will provide a range of housing opportunities that will diversify the City’s housing stock, support the City’s efforts to meet the State’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment requirements, and provide affordable housing by complying with the City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

In conclusion, the City Council has balanced the Project’s benefits against the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts. The City Council finds that the Project’s benefits outweigh the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts, and those impacts, therefore, are considered acceptable in light of the Project’s benefits. The City Council finds that each of the benefits described above is an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrants approval of the Project notwithstanding the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts.

C-1

Exhibit C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-3 August 2023

4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold a): Would the
project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic
vista?
PPP 4.1-1: Building height, landscape setback, and
building setback are required to comply with Table 3-3:

Development Standards of the Specific Plan.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold c): (In an
Urbanized Area) Would
the project conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic quality?
PPP 4.1.2: Future development is subject to the Section 3 - Land Use and Development Standards and Section 4 –
Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold d): Would the
project create a new
source of substantial light
or glare which would
adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the
area?
PPP 4.1.3: Outdoor lighting fixtures are required to
comply with Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements, Section

4.5, Lighting, and Section 4.9.2, Lighting and Display
Requirements of the Specific Plan.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design

4.2 Air Quality
Threshold a) Would the
project conflict with or
obstruct implementation
of the applicable air
quality plan?
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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and South
Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
During construction
and operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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 Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
and operation

EXHIBIT C
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-4 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-5 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-6 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
used during the construction phase must comply with this rule,
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP4.2-9: 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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 Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-7 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Project Design
Features:

Threshold a) (Cont’d)
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 Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-8 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
space, providing landscape and infrastructure
improvements that can include sidewalks, trails, and other passive uses.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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)
Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and
construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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
Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-9 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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).

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-10 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-10: LEED Buildings. The Project will achieve certification of compliance or be designed to demonstrate equivalency with LEED green building standards as
“certified” for the industrial buildings.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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, Homeowner’s Association, or
Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
construction and
operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-11 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

4.3 Biological Resources
Threshold a): Would the
project 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?
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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.3-1: Night 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design

4.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold c): Would the
project disturb human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-12 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.5 Energy
Threshold a): Would the
project result in
potentially significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy
resources, during project
construction or
operation?
PPP 4.5-1: The Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen) (Part 11 of
Title 24, California Code of Regulations). CALGreen is
updated on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went
into effect January 1, 2023.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-2: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, § 2449.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-3: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 9.283 of the
City’s Municipal Code).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and
construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-4: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These
standards are updated, nominally every three years, to
incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit.

The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (§ 110.10(b)1) require all buildings to be designed to have a total area of at least 15 percent (after subtracting any skylights) “solar ready” zone on the roof top that will structurally
accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels.

The installation of the solar panels is specific to the end use and will be determined at the time the specific
projects are developed. If future building operators
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-13 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-5: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). 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.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in
readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410
(residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide designated parking for any combination of
low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool
vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking
spaces are required to be designated in accordance
with § 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential), Designated Parking
for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green
Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction
shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential
construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-14 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-6: The Project shall implement sustainable construction and technology concepts (City of Jurupa
Valley, 2022).
• Shade structures and trees that produce large
canopies should be used to reduce heat island effects.

In addition, roof and paving materials should be
utilized that possess a high level of solar reflectivity. • Reduce the ‘heat-island’ effect by incorporating
lighter paving materials where possible and light
roofing materials on all structures.
• Recycled and other environmentally friendly building
materials should be used to the maximum extent
practicable.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design

4.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold a) Would the
project expose people or
structures to potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death
involving:
i) Rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or
based on other
substantial evidence of a
known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and
Geology Special
Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground
shaking?
PPP 4.6-1: Compliance with City of Jurupa Valley
Building Code. As required by Municipal Code Chapter

8.05, project design and construction must comply with
current California Building Code requirements which
address general geologic, seismic, and soil constraints for new buildings, including ground shaking. Prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following note is included on grading and building plans, and project contractors shall be required to ensure
compliance with the note. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction
contractors.
“Construction activities shall occur in accordance with all applicable requirements of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (also known as the California Building Standards Code or the California Building Code) in effect at the time of construction.”
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-15 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
iii) Seismic-related
ground failure, including
liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.6-2: Ensure Implementation of Geotechnical Investigation Recommendations. As required by
Municipal Code § 8.05.010, the Project shall comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code which requires the Project to comply with the approved
recommended seismic design requirements contained in
the Project’s Geotechnical Evaluation, approved by the
City, and be incorporated in the construction of each
structure, to preclude significant adverse effects
associated with seismic hazards.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold b): Would the
project result in
substantial soil erosion or
the loss of topsoil?
PPP 4.6-3: Prepare and Implement Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan. As required by Municipal
Code Chapter 6.05, Strom Water /Urban Runoff
Management, prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Proponent shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Project contractors shall be
required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and
permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm
compliance.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold a): Would the
project generate
greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on
the environment?
PPP 4.7-1: 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
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-16 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
(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.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in
readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410
(residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction
shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential
construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.7-2: Require diesel powered construction equipment to turn off when not in use per Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, § 2449.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.7-3: Install water-efficient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls and sensors for landscaping according to the City’s Water Efficient Landscape requirements (Chapter 9.283 of the
City’s Municipal Code).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and
construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.7-4: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6). These
standards are updated, nominally every three years, to
incorporate improved energy efficiency technologies and methods. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit.

The Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards (§ 110.10(b)1) Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-17 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
require all buildings to be designed to have a total area of at least 15 percent (after subtracting any skylights) “solar ready” zone on the roof top that will structurally
accommodate later installation of rooftop solar panels.

The installation of the solar panels is specific to the end use and will be determined at the time the specific
projects are developed. If future building operators
pursue providing rooftop solar panels, they will submit plans for solar panels prior to occupancy.

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold a): Would the
project create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
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).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-18 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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- Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-19 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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])
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Threshold a): Would the
project violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
PPP 4.9-1: As required by Municipal Code Chapter

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § B (1), any person performing
construction work in the City shall comply with the
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City
Engineer
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-20 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
requirements or
otherwise substantially
degrade surface or
ground water quality?
provisions of this chapter and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment. The City
Engineer shall identify the best management practices
(BMPs) that may be implemented to prevent such
deterioration and shall identify the manner of
implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of
BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants
to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by the City Engineer (T & B
Planning, 2021).

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.9-2: As required by Municipal Code Chapter

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § B (2), any person performing
construction work in the City shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner
pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State
Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-
0009-DWQ. The City may notify the State Board of any
person performing construction work that has a non-
compliant construction site per the General Permit (T & B Planning, 2021).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/State Water
Resources Control Board
and City of Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.9-3: As required by Municipal Code Chapter

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § C, new development or
redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water.

The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be
implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall
identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by
the City Engineer. The BMPs may include, but are not
limited to, the following and may, among other things,
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City
Engineer
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-21 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
require new developments or redevelopments to do any
of the following:
• Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous
soil and low-lying areas undisturbed by:
o Incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open
space into the Project design;
o Using porous materials for or near driveways,
drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads
and walkways; and
o Incorporating detention ponds and infiltration
pits into the Project design (T & B Planning,
2021).
• Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip
filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement
or other approved green infrastructure and French
drains by:
o Installing rain-gutters oriented towards
permeable areas;
o Modifying the grade of the property to divert
flow to permeable areas and minimize the
amount of storm water runoff leaving the
property;
o Designing curbs, berms, or other structures such
that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped
areas;
o Maximize storm water storage for reuse by using
retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns,
or other structures to store storm water runoff
for reuse or slow release;
o Rain gardens may be proposed in-lieu of a water
quality basin when applicable and approved by
the City Engineer (T & B Planning, 2021).

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.9-4: As required by Municipal Code Chapter

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § E, any person, or entity that owns or operates a commercial and/or industrial facility(s) shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. All such
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/State
Water Resources Control
Board and City of Jurupa
Valley
During operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-22 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
facilities shall be subject to a regular program of
inspection as required by this chapter and any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
issued by the State Water Resource Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code Section
13000 et seq.), Title 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act), any applicable state or federal regulations
promulgated thereto, and any related administrative
orders or permits issued in connection therewith (T & B Planning, 2021).

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.9-1: The Project-specific WQMP must be implemented throughout project design, construction,
operation, and maintenance.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/State
Water Resources Control
Board and City of Jurupa
Valley
Project design,
construction,
operation, and
maintenance
PDF 4.9-2: 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
PDF 4.9-4: Sidewalks and paved areas must be swept or
pressure washed regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash-water containing cleaning agents or degreasers would be collected and discharged into the sanitary sewer and not to a storm drain.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-23 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.12 Noise
Threshold a): Would the
project 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?
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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) 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.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction

4.14 Public Services
Threshold a): Would the
project 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?
[Fire]
PPP 4.14-1: The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes,
ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire
prevention and suppression measures relating to water
improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire
extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates,
combustible construction, water availability, and fire
sprinkler systems.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/
Riverside County Fire
Department
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-24 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Fire]
PPP 4.14-2: The Project shall comply with the City’s
Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, which requires payment of a development impact fee to the City to assist in providing revenue that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.

Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever comes first, the Project Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter

3.75. Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of
occupancy or final
inspection
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Fire]
PPP 4.14-3: The proposed Project will be designed and
constructed in accordance with the California Fire Code as adopted, with certain amendments, by the City of Jurupa Valley in Chapter 8.10 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During design and
construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Schools]
PPP 4.14-4: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay required development impact fees to the Jurupa Unified School District following
protocol for impact fee collection as directed by SB 50.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to the issuance
of a certificate of
occupancy or final
inspection
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Parks]
PPP 4.14-5: Funding for Parks Required from New
Development. The Project shall implement City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.5 requiring new development to provide
funding and/or long-term implementation strategies for
the acquisition and improvement of active and passive
parks, open space, and recreational sites, when
appropriate.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Parks]
PPP 4.14-6: Parkland Dedication Required for New
Residential Subdivisions. The Project shall implement
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.6 requiring that parkland or open space dedication and improvement occur prior to, or concurrent with, construction, as a condition of approval of new residential subdivisions.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-25 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Parks]
PPP 4.14-7: Required Dedication and/or Fees. The
Project must dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees for
parks pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code §

7.25.020.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval

4.15 Recreation
Threshold a): Would the
project increase the use of
existing neighborhood
and regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated? Or
Threshold b): Does the
project include
recreational facilities or
require the construction
or expansion of
recreational facilities
which might have an
adverse physical effect on
the environment?
PPP 4.15-1: Funding for Parks Required from New
Development. The Project shall implement City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.5 requiring new development to provide
funding and/or long-term implementation strategies for
the acquisition and improvement of active and passive
parks, open space, and recreational sites, when
appropriate.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Thresholds a or b PPP 4.15-2: Parkland Dedication Required for New Residential Subdivisions. The Project shall implement
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.6 requiring that parkland or open space dedication and improvement occur prior to, or concurrent with, construction, as a condition of approval of new residential subdivisions.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Thresholds a or b PPP 4.15-3: Required Dedication and/or Fees. The Project must dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees for
parks pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code §

7.25.020.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
4,16 Transportation
Threshold b): Would the
project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision?
PDF 4.16-1: The project shall provide, if approved by the City Engineer, Class III bike route along Crestmore Road from 34th Street to Mission Boulevard by placing bike
route signs and optional shared roadway markings
(sharrow) along Crestmore Road.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Threshold b) (Cont’d) PDF 4.16-2: The County of Riverside, in cooperation with the Cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, proposes to
replace the existing Mission Boulevard Bridge over the
Santa Ana River near Mount Rubidoux in Riverside
County. The proposed County project will accommodate
two 12-ft lanes, two 14-ft lanes, two 8-ft shoulders and a 4-ft median. A 12-ft multipurpose trail with barrier
separation from vehicular traffic will be located along the south side of the bridge in lieu of standard sidewalks on each side. This will provide a connection to Santa ana
River Trail via Mission Boulevard.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley, City of
Riverside, and County of
Riverside
Prior to City
approval
Threshold b) (Cont’d) PDF 4.16-3: The project shall provide up to 7,800 linear feet of pedestrian street improvements in coordination
with the City. The City Engineer can approve alternative design with future street improvements that provide
pedestrian connections as intended in the City of Jurupa Valley Complete Streets Safety Assessment, dated
November 2021. Such alternative design can consider
using the on-street parking on the north shoulder for a 4- foot pedestrian sidewalk. On the south side between the pavement edge and front yard fence lines, an alternative design could install a standard 4-foot sidewalk protected from traffic with a raised feature such as an intermittent asphalt dike.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Threshold b) (Cont’d) PDF 4.16-4: All future projects will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which
include, but are not limited to improving streets with
curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi-use pedestrian trails and bike
paths/lanes.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-27 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a): Would the
project 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:
i) Listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources, or in
a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code §
5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion
and supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria
From 4.4 Cultural Resources
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.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American Tribe.

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Threshold a): Would the
project require or result
in the relocation or
construction of new or
expanded water,
wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage,
electric power, natural
gas, or
telecommunications
facilities, the construction
or relocation of which
could cause significant
environmental effects?
PPP 4.18-1 Compliance with Rubidoux Community
Services District Requirements. The Project must
comply with the Rubidoux Community Services District
rules, regulations, conditions, requirements, and fees for commercial and industrial projects regarding water and
sewer services.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During operation
Threshold c): Would the
project result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
PPP 4.18-2: Evidence of Adequate Wastewater
Treatment Capacity. Prior to the issuance of grading
permits for each development project pursuant to the
proposed Specific Plan, the Project Applicant must
provide sufficient evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Engineering Department that the Rubidoux Community
Services District has verified that adequate capacity is available at the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to serve the Project.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.18-1: The Project shall provide a landscaping and irrigation plan for review and approval by City staff. The landscape plan shall be designed for the intended function Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-29 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
of the Project and for the efficient use of water. The
landscape plan shall address conditions of the Specific Plan area such as controlling erosion, filtering
stormwater, screening of unsightly elements, creating
shade, and softening the appearance of walls or
structures. Both the landscaping and irrigation plans shall incorporate water conservation features.

PDF 4.18-2: Proposed landscaping should be in line with the base plant palette established for the Project. The palette features water-efficient, drought-tolerant species native to the region, and includes colorful shrubs and
groundcovers, ornamental grasses and succulents, and
evergreen and deciduous trees. Similar plant materials
which exhibit very low or low water demand may be
substituted for the species included in the plant palette if the alternative plants are climate appropriate and
enhance the thematic setting. Requests to substitute plant material not listed in the plant palette shall require the approval of the Planning Director.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2 Air Quality
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):

Would the Project conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
MM 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
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley City
Engineer; project
architects for projects
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-30 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-31 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Building and Safety
Department; project
architects for projects
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
During Construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-32 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Mobile Sources
Emissions
MM 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:

Significant and
Unavoidable
Project civil engineers;
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to the issuance
of building permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-33 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-34 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational Emissions
MM 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.

Significant and
unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley During preparation
of deeds and lease
agreements
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational Emissions
MM 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.

Significant and
unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
During preparation
of deeds and lease
agreements
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-35 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects
operational emissions
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
for tenant
improvements
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM 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
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-36 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM 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
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-37 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
tires— to reduce fuel consumption. This mitigation
measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-38 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
warehouse project
tenants
During project
operations
Operational emissions:
residential projects
MM 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.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
residential project
proponents
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (b):

Would the project 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?
Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through
AQ-13
Significant and
Unavoidable
See MMs AQ-1 through
AQ-13 above
See MMs AQ-1
through AQ-13 above
Threshold 4.2.8 (c):

Would the project expose
sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1, AQ-2, AQ-
4, AQ-5, and AQ-11.

Less than Significant See MMs AQ-1, AQ-2,
AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-11.

See MMs AQ-1, AQ-2,
AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-

11. 4.3 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):

Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
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
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to
commencement of
project construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-39 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.?
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, 2023, 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) Leq (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
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-40 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat
area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60
dB(A) Leq. 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).
o 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) Leq 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.

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
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
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Within 30 days
before beginning of
construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-41 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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).

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM 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
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
During the
appropriate
blooming season
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-42 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM 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.
• 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.

Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to
commencement of
project construction
and throughout the
duration of
construction
activities involving
tree or vegetation
removal
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-43 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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.

Threshold 4.3.8 (b) and
(c):

MM 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 show documentation that an
Agency declines jurisdiction of any feature:
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
Less than significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-44 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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 3:1 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.

Threshold 4.3.8 (f):

Would the project conflict
with the provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Communities
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 and Mitigation
Measures NOI-1 and NOI-2.

Less than significant See MMs BIO-1 through
BIO-4 above and MMs
NOI-1 and NOI-2 below.

See MMs BIO-1
through BIO-4 above
and MMs NOI-1 and
NOI-2 below.
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-45 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.4.8 (b):

Would the project Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
MM 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.

Less than significant Project proponent and
qualified archaeologist
During project
construction
Threshold 4.4.8 (b):
continued
MM 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
Less than significant Project proponent, tribal
monitor, and/or
qualified archaeologist
During project
construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-46 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

4.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.6.8 (f):

Would the Project directly
or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
MM 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 Less than Significant Project Applicant and
qualified paleontologist
or paleontological
monitor/City of Jurupa
Valley
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
during construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-47 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have a low potential to
contain or yield fossil resources.”
Threshold 4.6.8 (f)
(Cont’d)
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 this 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

❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-48 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.”

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):

Would the project
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
Implementation of MMs AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13
described above
Significant and
unavoidable
See MMs AQ-3, AQ-4,
and AQ-5
See MMs AQ-3, AQ-4,
and AQ-5
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM 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,
Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-49 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

The schedule of photovoltaic system locations may be
updated as needed.

Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM 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.

Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM GHG-3: Energy Efficient Appliances. For residential
projects, all major appliances (e.g., dishwashers,
refrigerators, clothes washers and dryers, and water
heaters) installed shall be Energy Star certified or of equivalent energy efficiency where applicable. Prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, the City of Jurupa Valley shall verify implementation of this requirement.

Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-50 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM GHG-3: Solid Waste Diversion. The development
shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste.

Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in
compliance with City standards for recyclable collection and loading areas. The diversion plan shall also comply with the established solid waste and recycling laws
including SB 1383, AB 939 and AB 341.

Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.8.8 (d):

Would the project be
located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code §
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment;
MM 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:

Less than Significant Project Applicant and
qualified environmental
remediation contractor/
City of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-51 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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.

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM 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 Less than Significant Project Applicant / City
of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
construction of
project buildings on
a particular parcel
where remediation
was required
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-52 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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.

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM HAZ-3: Post Remediation Clearance
Determination:, 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.

Less than Significant Project Applicant / City
of Jurupa Valley
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

4.12 Noise
Threshold 4.12-8 (a):

Would the project 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?
MM 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.

Less than Significant Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-53 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• 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 ❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-54 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

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.

Threshold 4.12-8 (a):
continued
MM NOI-2: Stationary Source Operational Noise
Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be responsible to
Less than Significant Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-55 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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 MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-56 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.12-8 (a):
continued
Implementation of MM AQ-5 above. Less than Significant See MM AQ-5 See MM AQ-5 Threshold 4.12-8(b):

Would the project result
in generation of
excessive groundborne
vibration or
groundborne noise
levels?
MM NOI-3: Construction Vibration 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.

Less than Significant Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building and/or
grading permits

4.16 Transportation
Threshold 4.16 (a):

Would the Project conflict
MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management
Program. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the
Less than significant General contractor and
construction manager
Prior to construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-57 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
with a program plan,
ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation
system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
Property Owner shall provide assurances that the
transportation demand management measures described
below, will be perpetually implemented, regardless of
property ownership, and a mechanism for informing
subsequent property owners of the transportation
demand management plan requirements. These
requirements may be accomplished through recordation
of covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or the
formation of a transportation management association
which assumes responsibility for implementation and
monitoring of the transportation demand management
measures or other measures deemed acceptable by the
City.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
phase, the Project Applicant shall consult with the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) on the need to
provide infrastructure to connect the Project with
transit services and to relocate the existing bus stop
on northbound Rubidoux Boulevard at Frontage
Road southward to the intersection of Rubidoux
Boulevard and proposed A Street. The applicant shall
fund such relocation. The Project Applicant shall fund
a study on behalf of RTA to determine whether
adding bus service along proposed A Street in the
Project site would be warranted by potential
ridership and be practicable for RTA. 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.
• Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any
commercial use, future tenants in employment-
generating land uses developed pursuant to the
proposed Project shall implement measures
including, but not be limited to, the following: ride-
matching assistance; preferential carpool parking;
flexible work schedules for carpools; transportation
coordinators; providing a web site or message board
for each project
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-58 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
for coordinating rides; designating adequate
passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas
for ride-sharing vehicles; and including bicycle end of trip facilities including bike parking, bike lockers,
showers, and personal lockers. The measures chosen
must achieve a total estimated VMT reduction not
less than 8.3 percent. This list may be updated as new
methods become available.

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 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.

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.17.8 (a):

Would the project cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
Implementation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 Less than significant Construction manager/ Qualified Archaeologist
and local Native
American representative
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-59 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
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:
i) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code §
5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c)
of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the
significance of the
resource to a California
Native American Tribe.

MM TCR-1: Disposition of Prehistoric and/or Tribal
Cultural Resources. One of the following treatments 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.

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.”
Less than significant Project Applicant and
Project Archaeologist/
and local Native
American representative
Prior to issuance of
grading permit, prior
to ground-disturbing
activities

ATTACHMENT NO. 2

Resolution Approving Master Application (MA) No. 21269
(General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21010, Specific Plan (SP) No. 21001,
and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38318)
Exhibit A. General Plan Land Use Map Amendment
Exhibit B. General Plan Land Use Element Amendment
Exhibit C. The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan
Exhibit D. Conditions of Approval

-1-

RESOLUTION NO. 2023-78

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDME NT NO. 21010, SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP21001), AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38318
TO ALLOW FOR THE DEV ELOPMENT OF UP TO 1, 192
NEW RESIDENTIAL UNIT S; APPROXIMATELY 3

MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL AND

INDUSTRIAL LAND USES (INCLUDING WAREHOUSE
AND LOGISTIC USES) ; A HOTEL WITH CONFER ENCE
AND HOSPITALITY AREA ; AND APPROXIMATELY 11

ACRES OF PARKS AND O PEN SPACE ON AN
APPROXIMATELY 248 .3-ACRE PROJECT SITE
GENERALLY BOUNDED BY SR-60 TO THE NORTH, THE
SANTA ANA RIVER TO THE EAST, 34TH STREET TO THE

SOUTH, AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD TO THE WEST
(THE DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY)

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Project. EM Ranch Owner LLC (the “Applicant”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21001, the adoption of a Specific Plan (SP21001), a Development Agreement, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38318, (collectively, Master Application No. 21269 or MA No. 21269) 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 generally bounded by SR-60 to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, 34th street to the south, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west (the “Project”).

The City is adopting the Development Agreement pursuant to an ordinance.

Section 2. General Plan Amendment.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21010 to do the following:
1) Change the General Plan land use designation of the subject parcels (APNs: 175-252-003, and 004; 178-261-001 and 002; 178-262-001 through 008; 178-290-005 and 009; 178-300-001 through 008; 178-310-001 through 009, 011 through 015, 017, 018; 023 through 026; 028, 030 through 034, 039 through 047, 049, and 051; 179-130-003, 004, 006 through 008 ; 179-170-001, 003 through 005, 007, 008, 015, 016, 018 , 020; 179 -230-010; 179 -270-00, 011 through 018, 024, 033; 179 -310-001, 004, 005; and 179-340-001, 002, 005 ) from Commercial Retail, Very High Density Residential, High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, and Medium High Density Residential to Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, Light Industrial, Hig h Density Residential, Public Facilities, and Open Space-Recreation as depicted in Exhibit “A.”;
-2-

2) Establish the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlay on the Industrial/Logistics Planning Area of the proposed Specific Plan as depicted in Exhibit “A”;
3) Establish the Commercial Retail -Integrated Use Overlay on a portion of the Project site as depicted in Exhibit “A”; and 4) Amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to add a new General Plan Overlay known as the “Commercial Retail-Integrated Use Overlay to General Plan Section LUE 5 –“Land Use Overlays” and add the Overlay to Land Use Summary Table on

Page 2 ends

Jurupa Valley City CouncilSeptember 7, 2023

Jurupa Valley City Council
September 7, 2023