14 Source: SCAG Connect SoCal, DEMOGRAPHICS AND GROWTH FORECAST, https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. 15 Connect SoCal, Demographic and Growth Forecast, Technical Report, September 3, 2020. https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579l. Accessed on January 3, 2023.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-24 June 2023
SCAG then classified the Place Types into three LDCs. The agency used these categories to describe the general conditions that exist and/or are likely to exist within a specific area. They reflect the varied conditions of buildings and roadways, transportation options, and the mi x of housing and employment throughout the region. The three LDCs that SCAG used are:
1. Urban: These areas are often found within and directly adjacent to moderate and high -density urban centers. Nearly all urban growth in these areas would be considered infill or redevelopment.
The majority of housing is multifamily and attached single -family (townhome), which tend to consume less water and energy than the larger types found in greater proportion in less urban locations. These areas are supported by high levels of regional and local transit service. They have well-connected street networks, and the mix and intensity of uses result in a highly walkable environment. These areas offer enhanced access and connectivity for people who choose not to drive or do not have access to a vehicle.
2. Compact: These areas are less dense than those in the Urban LDC, but they are highly walkable with a rich mix of retail, commercial, residential and civic uses. These areas are most likely to occur as new growth on the urban edge, or as large-scale redevelopment. They have a rich mix of housing, from multifamily and attached single -family (townhome) to small - and medium lot single- family homes. These areas are well served by regional and local transit service, but they may not benefit from as much service as urban growth areas and are less likely to occur around major multimodal hubs. Streets in these areas are well connected and walkable, and destinations such as schools, shopping and entertainment areas can typically be reached by walking, biking, taking transit, or with a short auto trip.
3. Standard: These areas comprise the majority of separate -use, auto-oriented developments that have characterized the American suburban landscape for decades. Densities in these areas tend to be lower than those in the Compact LDC, and they are generally not highly mixed. Medium- and larger- lot single -family homes comprise the majority of this development form. Standard areas are not typically well served by regional transit service, and most trips are made by automobile.
According to Exhibit 29, Forecasted Regional Development Types by Land Development Categories (2012)-Western Riverside County, the City of Jurupa Valley is classified as being within the Standard LDC.
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment to change the underlying land use designations to accommodate the proposed multi -use project which differs from the existing land use designations envisioned by the current General Plan. Table 4.2-7 below compares the magnitude of the proposed changes.
Table 4.2-7
COMPARISON OF EXISTING APPROVED EMERALD RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (EMR)
AND PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN (DJV) LAND USE SUMMARY Land Use
Gross Acreage1 Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)2
Hotel
Rooms
3 Dwelling
Units
EMR DJV EMR DJV DJV
Only EMR DJV
COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood --- 20.4 --- 160,000 --- ---
Retail 20.4 70.3 186,000 1,200,000 --- ---
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-25 June 2023
Land Use
Gross Acreage1 Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)2
Hotel
Rooms
3 Dwelling
Units
EMR DJV EMR DJV DJV
Only EMR DJV
Existing Non-Conforming --- 1.1 --- ---
Tourist4 --- 5.9 112,500 160 ---
Commercial Sub-Total 97.7 1,472,500 160 ---
RESIDENTIAL
Medium Density Residential (4.5
du/acre) 107.3 --- 483 ---
Medium High Density Residential
(5.2 du/acre) 36.1 --- 189 ---
High Density Residential (12
du/acre) 22.76 --- 272 ---
Very High Density (20 du/acre) 12.60 --- 252 ---
High Density Residential2 (up to 30
du/acre) --- 42.0 --- --- --- 1,196
Residential Sub-Total 42.0 --- --- 1,19
6 1,196
OTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL
Church 25.0 ---
Elementary School 12.0 ---
Other Non-Residential Sub-Total
BUSINESS PARK
Business Park4 --- 6.8 30,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming --- 1.0 --- ---
Business Park Sub-Total --- 7.8 30,000 --- ---
INDUSTRIAL/LOGISTICS
Industrial --- 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---
Industrial Sub-total --- 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---
OPEN SPACE
Public Park/Open Space 17.55 11.1 --- --- --- ---
Public Park/Open Space Sub-Total 17.55 11.1 --- --- --- ---
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Public Streets 24.74 15.8 --- --- --- ---
Public Parkway --- --- --- --- --- ---
Public Facility (Stormwater Basin) --- 6.6 --- --- --- --- Public Imp Sub-Total 22.4 --- --- --- ---
TOTALS 278.45 248.3
acres
186.00 3,002,500
SF
160
Rooms
1,19
6 Units
1,196
Units
Sources: JHA Consulting, Inc., 2005, Table III-1, p. III-8, and p. IV-6. City of Jurupa Valley, 2023, Table 2-1, Section 2, p. 5.
Notes:
1. Gross Acreage includes Existing Non-Conforming properties. Future redevelopment of the non-conforming properties would default to the respective Specific Plan land use designation. Gross Acreages are rounded to the nearest tenths based on the Tentative Tract Map.
2. Hotel Square Feet is estimated for purpose of floor area ratio (FAR) calculation only. Subsequent development applications may exceed the total square feet, provided that the maximum Land Use FAR is not exceeded.
3. Hotel Rooms are the basis of trip generation for technical study purpose and represents the maximum number of hotel rooms within the Land Use area.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-26 June 2023
Land Use
Gross Acreage1 Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)2
Hotel
Rooms
3 Dwelling
Units
EMR DJV EMR DJV DJV
Only EMR DJV
4. Adjustments to Commercial Tourist and Business Park total square feet can be made if the maximum FAR is maintained and in accordance with Section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 as appropriate, and Section 5.5.2.
EMR = Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (JHA Consulting, Inc., 2005) DJV = District at Jurupa Valley Draft Specific Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2023) As shown in Table 4.2-7 , the number of dwelling units (1,196) remains the same, but the non- residential land uses (commercial, business park, and industrial) would increase by 2,842,500 square feet. Although the Proposed Project increases the non- residential land uses on the Project site acreage, it does not result in the entire City area being reclassified from the Standard LDC category to the Compact LDC category, because the Project site only represents 0.08 percent of the City’s total land area and the Project would not change the development characteristics of the entire City from a suburban-rural area to a more compact, urbanized area.
Additionally, Project development would not cause growth in population or housing exceeding regional forecasts for the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project proposes the development of 1,192 residential units that are estimated to house 4,422 persons at the average household size in the city of Jurupa Valley in 2022 of 3.71 persons. The population of the City of Jurupa Valley is forecast to increase by 17,700, or approximately 18 percent, between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). The number of households in the City is estimated to increase by approximately 6,500, or 26 percent, between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). The operational population and housing impac ts of the proposed Project would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation:
Criterion 1 (Result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions).
As shown in Table 4.2-16, Summary of Air Quality Impacts, depending on the particular scenario, the Project will exceed SCAQMD thresholds for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO). Impacts are potentially significant for Criterion No. 1.
Criterion 2: (Exceed the growth assumptions used to prepare the current South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Air Quality Management Plan).
Based on the analysis above, the Project is consistent with the growth assumptions in the 2022 AQMP. Impacts are less than significant for Criterion No. 2.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures AQ-1 through AQ-13 apply.
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 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-27 June 2023
that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to incorporate the following measures to minimize construction emissions.
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off -road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).
Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equip ment. 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 Dist rict Surplus Off -road Opt -In “SOON” funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles. • The Project shall demonstrate compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and provide appropriate documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-28 June 2023
• 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 poste d 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.
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. • 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.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-29 June 2023
• 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.
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 pla n 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 alter native 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 se rvice 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 carp ools, 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 Projec t. 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 Unit s. 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 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-30 June 2023
Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
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 a greements for future property owners/tenants to obey
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 Cit y of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules regulating landscape equipment.
MM AQ-6 Warehouse Mitigation Measures (Electrical Rooms). Prior to the issuance o f 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 powe r 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 duri ng 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.
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 Refrige ration 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 pl ug in any onboard auxiliary equipment SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-31 June 2023
and power refrigeration units while their truck is stopped. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
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.
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 tires— to reduce fuel consumption. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.
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.
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 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-32 June 2023
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.
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 require d for all warehouse projects greater than 100,000 square feet.
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.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Even with implementation of all regulatory requirements, voluntary measures and Mitigation Measures (described above, impacts would be significant and unavoidable for Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Nitrogen oxides (NOx) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).
Threshold 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? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's air emissions exceed the applicable regional significance thresh olds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
NOTE: According to the SCAQMD, individual projects that do not generate operational or construction emissions that exceed the SCAQM D's recommended daily thresholds for project specific impacts would also not cause a cumulatively considerable increase in emissions for those pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment, and, therefore, would not be considered to have a significant, adverse air quality impact.
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans Policies and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.2-1 through PPP 4.2-13 apply.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-33 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.2-1 through PDF 4.2-12 apply.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Construction - Phase I
The violations to which Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers are CAAQS and NAAQS. As shown in Table
4.2-10, the Project’s Phase 1 unmitigated construction emissions would exceed SCAQMD’s standards for ROG and NO x. However, mitigated construction emissions for all criteria air pollutants would remain below the thresholds with implementation of MM AQ -1 and MM AQ-2. MM AQ-1 requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and MM AQ -2 requires the use of “Super -Compliant” low VOC paints. MM AQ -1 and MM AQ -2 would reduce Phase 1 construction emissions to less than significant levels.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-34 June 2023
Table 4.2-10
PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS1
Unmitigated Emissions
Year 2023 2.92 27.44 24.52 0.03 1.40 1.15
Year 2024 8.48 78.57 102.67 0.31 22.26 7.03
Year 2025 220.61 35.98 142.78 0.13 25.71 6.68
Maximum
Emissions 220.61 78.57 142.78 0.31 25.71 7.03
SCAQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds
Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2023 2.92 27.44 24.52 0.03 1.40 1.15
Year 2024 8.48 78.57 102.67 0.31 22.26 7.03
Year 2025 31.44 35.98 142.78 0.13 25.71 6.68
Maximum
Emissions 31.44 78.57 142.78 0.31 25.71 7.03
SCAQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1 which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and MM AQ-2 which requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Construction – Phase 2
Predicted maximum daily mitigated and unmitigated construction- generated emissions for the Project during phase 2 are summarized in Table 4.2- 11 which shows that the Project ’s Phase 2 unmitigated and mitigated construction emissions would remain below the SCAQMD’s thresholds for all criteria air pollutants, and impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-35 June 2023
Table 4.2-11
PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EMISSIONS
Source
Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS1
Unmitigated Emissions
Year 2026 4.12 61.90 54.81 0.28 14.04 5.49
Year 2027 4.09 16.83 63.59 0.05 11.30 2.98
Year 2028 70.24 17.53 70.51 0.06 13.22 3.41
Maximum
Emissions 70.24 61.90 70.51 0.28 14.04 5.49
SCAQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2026 4.12 61.90 54.81 0.28 14.04 5.49
Year 2027 4.09 16.83 63.59 0.05 11.30 2.98
Year 2028 23.44 17.53 70.51 0.06 13.22 3.41
Maximum
Emissions 23.44 61.90 70.51 0.28 14.04 5.49
SCAQMD
Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Exceeds
Threshold? No No No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NOX = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI-A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-1 which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and MM AQ-2 which requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Operation – Phase 1
Phase 1 unmitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG, NOX, and CO as shown on Table 4.2-12. MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-13 would be implemented to reduce operational emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, despite the implementation of all feasible mitigation, as shown in Table 4.2-10, mitigated operation emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG, NO X, and CO.
Table 4.2-12
PHASE 1 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 94.37 5.37 137.92 0.03 0.51 0.56
Energy Emissions 0.83 14.96 12.04 0.09 1.14 1.14
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars1 85.81 74.11 752.01 1.71 60.93 11.56 SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-36 June 2023
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Off-Road Emissions2 7.30 68.56 116.80 0.17 3.32 3.05
Emergency Generators 6.91 49.21 20.80 0.08 1.39 1.39
Total Emissions 197.04 299.19 1,073.90 2.92 82.17 22.02 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass -by trips.
2. Unmitigated emissions assume diesel off-road equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard trucks).
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Table 4.2-13
PHASE 1 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions3 73.28 4.20 1.79 0.03 0.34 0.34
Energy Emissions5 0.75 13.66 11.47 0.08 1.04 1.04
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars 1,4 83.56 72.15 730.27 1.66 59.15 11.23 Off-Road Emissions 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators 2 0.49 32.08 20.80 0.08 0.47 0.47
Total Emissions 159.90 209.05 798.66 2.69 75.87 17.38
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass-by trips.
2. Off-road emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to MM AQ-11.
3. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
4. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -3.
5. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Operation – Phase 2
Phase 2 unmitigated operational emissions would exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG, NOX, and CO, as shown in Table 4.2 -12. MM AQ-3 through MM AQ-5, and MM AQ -13 would reduce operational emissions to the greatest amount feasible. However, as shown in Table 4.2-14 , mitigated operation emissions would still exceed the SCAQMD’s operational standard for ROG and NO
X. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-37 June 2023
Table 4.2.14
PHASE 2 UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions 35.61 13.19 68.02 0.08 1.05 1.06
Energy Emissions 0.29 5.10 2.70 0.03 0.41 0.41
Mobile – Passenger Cars1 62.73 54.33 479.64 1.24 44.56 8.56 Total Emissions 98.63 72.62 550.36 1.35 46.02 10.03
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass-by trips.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Table 4.2-15
PHASE 2 MITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
Area Source Emissions2 29.24 12.61 5.36 0.08 1.02 1.02
Energy Emissions4 0.26 4.60 2.47 0.03 0.37 0.37
Mobile – Passenger Cars1,3 61.69 53.41 471.55 1.22 43.80 8.41 Total Emissions 91.19 70.61 479.38 1.32 45.19 9.80
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes No No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass-by trips.
2. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of natural gas and wood burning fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
3. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -3.
4. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1for model outputs.
Overlapping Emissions (Phase 2 Construction + Phase 1 Operations) As the Project would be constructed in phases, Phase 1 has the potential to be operational during Phase 2 construction. The overlapping emissions of Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction are shown in Table 4.2 -14, which shows that total mitigated overlapping emissions would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO X, and CO. The majority of the Project ’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources and cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD thresholds. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by state and feder al standards over which the Project has no control.
However, numerous mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible.
Mitigation Measures MM AQ -1 through AQ-13 would be implemented. Table 4.2-16 shows that despite the implementation of mitigation measures, ROG, NO X, and CO emissions would remain above
the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts from potential overlapping emissions from Phase 2 construction and Phase 1 operations would be significant and unavoidable.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-38 June 2023
Table 4.2-16
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (PHASE 2) + OPERATIONS (PHASE 1) Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (PHASE 2) + OPERATIONS (PHASE 1) Unmitigated Emissions1
Year 2026 4.12 61.90 54.81 0.28 14.04 5.49
Year 2027 4.09 16.83 63.59 0.05 11.30 2.98
Year 2028 70.24 17.53 70.51 0.06 13.22 3.41
Maximum Construction
Emissions
70.24 61.90 70.51 0.28 14.04 5.49
Area Source Emissions 94.37 5.37 137.92 0.03 0.51 0.56
Energy Emissions 0.83 14.96 12.04 0.09 1.14 1.14
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars3 85.81 74.11 752.01 1.71 60.93 11.56 Off-Road Emissions4 7.30 68.56 116.80 0.17 3.32 3.05
Emergency Generators 6.91 49.21 20.80 0.08 1.39 1.39
Total Operations Emissions 197.04 299.19 1,073.90 2.92 82.17 22.02 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION +
OPERATIONS
267.28 361.09 1,144.41 3.20 96.21 27.51
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mitigated Emissions2
Year 2026 4.12 61.90 54.81 0.28 14.04 5.49
Year 2027 4.09 16.83 63.59 0.05 11.30 2.98
Year 2028 23.44 17.53 70.51 0.06 13.22 3.41
Maximum Construction
Emissions
23.44 61.90 70.51 0.28 14.04 5.49
Area Source Emissions5 73.28 4.20 1.79 0.03 0.34 0.34
Energy Emissions7 0.75 13.66 11.47 0.08 1.04 1.04
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars3,6 83.56 72.15 730.27 1.66 59.15 11.23 Off-Road Emissions4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators4 0.49 32.08 20.80 0.08 0.47 0.47
Total Operations Emissions 159.90 209.05 798.66 2.69 75.87 17.38 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION +
OPERATIONS
183.35 270.95 869.18 2.96 89.91 22.88
SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-39 June 2023
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
2. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ -1 which requires the use of Tier 4 construction equipment and MM AQ -2 which requires the use of “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints.
3. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass-by trips.
4. Unmitigated emissions assume diesel off -road equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard trucks). Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to MM AQ-11.
5. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
6. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -3.
7. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix A for model outputs.
Project Buildout (Phase 1 Operation + Phase 2 Operation) Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total project are summarized in Table 4.2-17 .
As indicated in the table, total operational emissions for the Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX and CO. The majority of the Pro ject’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.
Table 4.2-17
PROJECT BUILDOUT OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Source Emissions (Maximum Pounds Per Day)
ROG NOX CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5
OPERATIONS (PHASE 1 + PHASE 2)
Unmitigated Emissions
Area Source Emissions 129.98 18.56 205.94 0.12 1.56 1.62 Energy Emissions 1.12 20.07 14.74 0.12 1.55 1.55
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars1 148.55 128.44 1,231.65 2.94 105.49 20.12 Off-Road Emissions2 7.30 68.56 116.80 0.17 3.32 3.05
Emergency Generators 6.91 49.21 20.80 0.08 1.39 1.39
Total Emissions 295.67 353.25 1,418.32 4.16 126.63 30.42 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
Mitigated Emissions
Area Source Emissions3 102.52 16.81 7.15 0.11 1.36 1.36 Energy Emissions5 1.02 18.25 13.94 0.11 1.40 1.40
Mobile – Trucks 1.82 86.97 34.33 0.84 14.88 4.31
Mobile – Passenger Cars1,4 145.25 125.56 1,201.82 2.87 102.95 19.64 Off-Road Emissions2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Emergency Generators2 0.49 32.08 20.80 0.08 0.47 0.47
Total Emissions 251.10 262.86 1,270.89 3.91 119.70 25.82 SCAQMD Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-40 June 2023
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes Yes No No No
ROG = Reactive Organic Gases; NO X = Nitrogen Oxides; CO = Carbon Monoxide; SO 2 = Sulfur Dioxide; PM 10 = Particulate Matter 10 microns in diameter or less; PM2.5 = Particulate Matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less
1. Mobile source emissions conservatively do not account for pass-by trips.
2. Unmitigated emissions assume diesel off -road equipment (i.e., forklifts and yard trucks). Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to MM AQ-11.
3. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
4. Incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program pursuant to MM AQ -3.
5. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 through MM AQ-13 apply.
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of MM AQ -1 through MM AQ-13, impacts would still remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mit igation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant.
Threshold c): Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project would exceed the SCAQMD Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) which were developed in response to environmental justice and health concerns raised by the public regarding exposure of individuals to criteria pollutants in local communities; • The project would create a Maximum Incremental Cancer Risk: of 10 in 1 million at the nearest sensitive receptor or off-site worker; or a Hazard Index (project increment) 1.0 or greater at the nearest sensitive receptor or off-site worker. • The project emissions would contribute traffic volumes to an intersection in the vicinity of the project site which exceeds 100,000 vehicles per hour.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans Policies and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.2-1 through PPP 4.2-13 apply.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.2-1 to PDF 4.2-12 apply.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-41 June 2023
C.2 Impact Analysis
The analysis for impacts to sensitive receptors is addressed at both a local level and a site specific level described as follows:
• Localized Level: Source Receptor Area 23 includes Jurupa and Riverside. • Site Specific Level: Project site and its immediate surroundings.
Localized Construction Impacts (Criteria Pollutants)
The Project is a Specific Plan, and no development proposals are included at this time. Buildout of the Specific Plan would occur in two phases over several years. F or analysis purposes , construction phases were modeled starting in 202316 for Phase 1 and 2026 for Phase 2. The nearest receptors are adjacent residences to the south of the Project site and a residential building within the Project boundary. To identify impacts to sensitive receptors, the SCAQMD recommends addressing LSTs for construction. LSTs were developed in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Enhancement Initiative (I- 4). SCAQMD staff prepar ed the Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (dated June 2003 [revised 2008]) for guidance. The LST methodology assists lead agencies in analyzing localized impact s associated with project-specific emissions. It should be noted that LSTs were developed for small typical projects and generally are not applicable to regional projects, such as the proposed Project. Notwithstanding, LSTs were conservatively applied in t his analysis (Kimley-Horn, 2023a, p. 45).
Since CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily soil disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment, Table 4.2-17 was used to determine the maximum daily disturbed acreage for comparison to LSTs. The appropriate SRA for the localized significance thresholds is Metropolitan Riverside ( SRA 23), since this area includes the Project. LSTs apply to NO
2, CO, PM 10, and PM 2.5. The SCAQMD produced look -up tables for projects that disturb areas less than or equal to 5 acres. CalEEMod construction modeling for Phase 1 and Phase 2 anticipates that both phases will use similar equipment. Project construction during both Phase 1 and Phase 2 is anticipated to disturb a maximum of 4 acres in a single day. As the LST guidance provides thresholds for projects disturbing 1, 2, and 5 acres and the thresholds increase with size of the site, the LSTs for a 4-acre threshold were determined by interpolation.
Table 4.2-18
EQUIPMENT-SPECIFIC GRADING RATES
Construction
Phase
Equipment
Type
Equipment
Quantity
Acres Graded
per 8-Hour
Day
Operating
Hours
per Day
Acres
Graded
per Day
Phase 1 Grading
Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Phase 2 Grading Tractors 2 0.5 8 1.0
16 Emissions in future years (i.e., due to a later construction start date or operational opening year) would be lower due to phased-in emissions standards, inspection and maintenance requirements, and fleet turnover). SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-42 June 2023
Graders 1 0.5 8 0.5
Dozers 1 0.5 8 0.5
Scrapers 2 1 8 2.0
Total Acres Graded per Day 4.0
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Phase 1
The SCAQMD’s methodology states that “off -site mobile emissions from the Project should not be included in the emissions compared to LSTs.” Therefore, only emissions included in the CalEEMod “on-site” emissions outputs were considered. The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 1 construction area is a residential building adjacent t o the south of the Project boundary. LST thresholds are provided for distances to sensitive receptors of 25, 50, 100, 200, and 500 meters.
Therefore, 25-meter LSTs for receptors located adjacent to the construction zone were utilized in this analysis. Table 4.2-19 presents the results of the unmitigated localized emissions analysis during each construction activity during Phase 1 after incorporating the mitigation measures required for the regional criteria pollutant emissions . In addition, building constr uction and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4. 2-19 shows that emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 1 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2-19
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF PHASE 1 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Construction Activity1 Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Demolition (2023) 27.34 23.49 1.20 1.10
Demolition (2024) 24.89 21.74 1.06 0.98
Site Preparation (2024) 35.95 32.93 9.27 5.41
Grading (2024) 34.29 30.17 5.11 2.77
Paving (2024) 7.81 10.03 0.39 0.36
Building Construction (2024) 11.22 13.12 0.50 0.46
Building Construction (2025) 10.44 13.04 0.43 0.40
Architectural Coating (2025) 0.88 1.14 0.03 0.03
Combined Building Construction and
Architectural Coating (2025) 11.33 14.18 0.46 0.42
Maximum 35.95 32.93 9.27 5.41
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25
meters)
237 1,346 11 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-43 June 2023
Phase 2
The nearest sensitive receptor to the Phase 2 construction area is a residential building adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. Table 4.2- 20 presents the results of the localized emissions analysis during each construction activity during Phase 2 . In addition, building construction and architectural coating emissions were also combined since these phases of construction are anticipated to overlap. Table 4.2-20 shows that unmitigated localized emissions of these pollutants on the peak day of Phase 2 construction would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2-20
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF PHASE 2 CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Construction Activity1 Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide (CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Grading (2026) 27.23 27.57 4.78 2.47
Paving (2026) 7.12 9.94 0.32 0.29
Building Construction (2026) 9.85 12.97 0.38 0.35
Building Construction (2027) 9.39 12.94 0.34 0.31
Building Construction (2028) 8.92 12.94 0.30 0.28
Architectural Coating (2028) 0.81 1.12 0.02 0.01
Combined Building Construction and
Architectural Coating (2028) 9.73 14.05 0.32 0.29
Maximum 27.23 27.57 4.78 2.47
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold (adjusted for 4.0 acres at 25
meters)
237 1,346 11 7
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
1. SCAQMD Rule 403 Fugitive Dust applied. The Rule 403 reduction/credits include the following: properly maintain mobile and other construction equipment; water exposed surfaces three times daily; and limit speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.
Reductions percentages from the SCAQMD CEQA Handbook (Tables XI -A through XI-E) were applied. No mitigation was applied to construction equipment.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
As shown in Table 4.2-19 and Table 4.2-20, construction emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Project are below SCAQMD LSTs with implementation of mitigation measures prescribed for regional criteria pollutant emissions. Impacts would be less than significant.
Localized Operational Significance Analysis
According to the SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project only if it includes stationary sources or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site (e.g. , warehouse or transfer facilities). Since the Project includes warehouses, the operational phase LST protocol is conservatively applied to both the area source and a portion of the mobile source emissions for both Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 operations. It should be noted that LSTs were developed for small typical projects and generally are not applicable to regional projects, such as the proposed Project.
17 Notwithstanding, LSTs were conservatively applied in this analysis. The SCAQMD recommends that projects which exceed the LST emission levels found in the
17 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-44 June 2023
LST lookup tables conduct air dispersion modeling to demonstrate that pollutant concentrations are below localized significance levels (Kimley-Horn, 2023a, p. 48).18 Phase 1
LST thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 23 were utilized in this analysis for Phase 1 operations because the closest receptor to the Phase 1 area is a residential building to the south of the Project boundary. Although the Phase 1 area of the Project site is approximately 178 acres, the 5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project, as the LSTs increase with the size of the site.
Table 4.2-21 shows the results of the Phase 1 operations LST analysis. The analysis only includes onsite sources. However, the CalEEMod model outputs do not separate on- and offsite emissions for mobile sources. For a worst -case scenario assessment, the emissions shown in Table 4. 2-21 conservatively include all onsite project-related stationary sources and three percent of the Phase 1- related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling onsite 19. It should be noted that analysis incorporated mitigation measures prescribed for the regional criteria pollutant emis sions. M itigated maximum daily emissions of these pollutants during Phase 1 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors.
Table 4.2-21
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF PHASE 1 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Activity Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source
Emissions1,2,3, 4 52.55 35.09 2.29 1.98
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters)
270 1,577 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1. Includes all onsite and three percent of mobile source emissions.
2.Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks, as well as Tier 4 certified standard emergency generators, pursuant to MM AQ-11.
3. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
4. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Phase 2
LST thresholds for receptors located at 25 meters or less in SRA 23 were utilized in this Phase 2 operations analysis because the closest receptors to the Phase 2 area are located adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. Although the Phase 2 area of the Project site is approximately 70 acres, the
18 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, Page 3-1, July 2008. 19 The on-site one-way trip length is conservatively anticipated to be up to one mile, which is approximately three percent of the 33.2-mile truck trip length modeled in CalEEMod. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-45 June 2023
5-acre LST threshold was conservatively used for the Project , as the LSTs increase with the size of the site due to dispersion over a greater area.
For a worst-case scenario assessment, the mitigated emissions shown in Table 4.2-21 conservatively include all onsite project-related stationary sources and three percent of the Phase 2-related mobile sources, since a portion of mobile sources could include trucks idling onsite20. It should be noted that the analysis incorporated mitigation measures prescribed for the regional criteria pollutant emissions. Table 4.2-21 shows that the maximum daily emissions of these pollutants dur ing Phase 2 operations would not result in significant concentrations of pollutants at nearby sensitive receptors (Kimley-Horn, 2023a, p. 49).
Table 4.2-2 2
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF PHASE 2 OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Activity Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source
Emissions1,2,3, 17.20 7.83 1.38 1.38
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25 meters)
270 1,577 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No No
Notes:
1. Includes all on-site and three percent of mobile source emissions.
2. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
3. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
Project Buildout (Phase 1 Operations Plus Phase 2 Operations) Table 4.2-19 and Table 4.2-20 show that emissions for Phase 1 and Phase 2 individually do not exceed operational LSTs. Table 4.2-21 shows the combined mitigated operational emissions for the entire project. Table 4.2-22, Localized Significance of Operational Emissions at Project Build out shows the combined mitigated operational emissions for the entire Project. For project buildout, the nearest receptors are located adjacent to the south of the Project boundary. As noted above, LSTs are screening thresholds and are therefore conservative. The operational LST acreage is based on a maximum 5-acre site. Although the Project site is greater than five acres, the 5-acre operational LSTs are conservatively used as a screening evaluation. Project operations would occur over an approximately 248.3-acre site. Therefore, on-site emissions would disperse over a larger area, which would decrease the concentrations.
20 Ibid.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-46 June 2023
Table 4.2-23
LOCALIZED SIGNIFICANCE OF OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS AT PROJECT BUILDOUT (MAXIMUM POUNDS PER DAY)
Activity Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter
(PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
On-Site and Mobile Source
Emissions1,2,3, 4 69.75 42.92 3.68 3.36
SCAQMD Localized Screening
Threshold
(adjusted for 5 acres at 25
meters)
270 1,577 4 2
Exceed SCAQMD Threshold? No No No Yes
Notes:
1. Includes all on-site and three percent of mobile source emissions.
2. Mitigated emissions include operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks pursuant to MM AQ-11.
3. Incorporates implementation of electric landscape equipment and prohibition of fireplaces pursuant to MM AQ-4 and MM AQ-5.
4. Mitigation includes the incorporation of MM AQ-13 which prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1.6. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs.
As shown in Table 4.2-22, combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 operational e missions generated on-site by the Project would not exceed LSTs at the nearest sensitive receptors, with the exception of PM2.5.
Therefore, PM2.5 dispersion modeling has been conducted to determine if Project operations would result in significant PM2.5 concentrations at nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with SCAQMD LST methodology. Localized construction emissions were estimated using the USEPA AERSCREEN model to determine the worst-case PM
2.5 concentrations. Table 4.2-23: Project Buildout Operational Dispersion Modeling shows on-site operational PM2.5 emissions would not exceed the SCAQMD’s 24- hour average PM 2.5 operational standar d21. Therefore, the Project would result in a less than significant localized operational impact (Kimley-Horn, 2023a, p. 50).
Table 4.2-24
PROJECT BUILDOUT OPERATIONAL DISPERSION MODELING
Emissions Source PM2.5 (24-hour) (μg/m3)
Phase 1 Operations 0.0193
Phase 2 Operations 0.0327
Total Concentration 0.0520
Threshold1 2.5
Threshold Exceeded? No
1. The PM2.5 threshold is from South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds , April 2019. The PM2.5 threshold is an incremental threshold; therefore, the incremental concentration without background is compared to the threshold.
Source: USEPA AERSCREEN. Refer to Appendix D1 for model outputs. Kimley-Horn, 2023a.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots
An analysis of CO “hot spots” is needed to determine whether the change in the level of service of an intersection resulting from the Project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS. It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are c aused by vehicular emissions, primarily when vehicles are idling at intersections. Vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly stringent in the last 20 years. Currently, the CO standard in California is a
21 South Coast Air Quality Management District, Air Quality Significance Thresholds, April 2019. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-47 June 2023
maximum of 3.4 grams per mile for passenge r cars (requirements for certain vehicles are more stringent). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels, and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations have steadily declined. Accordingly, with the steadily decreasing CO emissions from vehicles, even very busy intersections do not result in exceedances of the CO standard.
The SCAB was re -designated as attainment for CO in 2007 and is no longer addressed in the SCAQMD’s AQMP. The 2003 AQMP is the most recent version that addresses CO concentrations. As part of the SCAQMD CO Hotspot Analysis , the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection, one of the most congested intersections in Southern California with an average da ily traffic (ADT) volume of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day, was modeled for CO concentrations. This modeling effort identified a CO concentration high of 4.6 ppm, which is well below the 35 -ppm Federal standard. The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. As the CO hotspots were not experienced at the Wilshire Boulevard and Veteran Avenue intersection even as it accommodates 100,000 vehicles daily, it can be reasonably inferred that CO hotspots would not be experienced at any vicinity intersections resulting from 39,402 additional vehicle trips attributable to the Project and distributed throughout the roadway network. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Toxic Air Contaminant Impact Analysis
The primary source of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) generated by the Project would be from Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) as a result of heavy- duty diesel trucks accessing the site. OEHHA. CARB estimates that about 70 percent of the cancer risk that the average Californian faces from breathing toxic air pollutants stems from diesel exhaust particles. Exposure to diesel exhaust can have immediate health effects. Diesel exhaust can irritate the eyes, nose, throat, and lungs, and it can cause coughs, headaches, lightheadedness, and nausea. In studies with human volunteers, diesel exhaust particles made people with allergies more susceptible to the materials to which they are allergic, such as dus t and pollen. Exposure to diesel exhaust also causes inflammation in the lungs, which may aggravate chronic respiratory symptoms and increase the frequency or intensity of asthma attacks.
The elderly and people with emphysema, asthma, and chronic heart and lung disease are especially sensitive to fine -particle pollution. Numerous studies have linked elevated particle levels in the air to increased hospital admissions, emergency room visits, asthma attacks, and premature deaths among those suffering from respiratory problems. Because children’s lungs and respiratory systems are still developing, they are also more susceptible than healthy adults to fine particles. Exposure to fine particles is associated with increased frequency of childhood illnesses and can also reduce lung function in children.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Generating Land Uses
The following uses are allowed in the Industrial- Logistics(I-L) and Commercial -Retail (with Integrated Use), as shown in Figure 3.4-1 and Figure 4.2-2 below, subject to the approval of a Site Development Permit:
Trucking and Trailer Facilities: On-site trailer storage yard, or trailer parking lots and/or structures are permitted, provided the use is affiliated with and serves a principal use.3 Warehousing: Cold storage warehouse , Cross-Dock Facilities, E-Commerce (Internet Fulfillment) , High-Cube Warehouse (See Note 1), Logistics Center, Parcel Delivery Services. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-48 June 2023
Figure 4.2-2
WAREHOUSE/TRUCK PARKING PERMITTED BY LAND USE PLAN
Warehouse/Truck
Parking Permitted Warehouse/Truck
Parking Permitted
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-49 June 2023
Industrial/Logistics
The Industrial/Logistics (“Industrial”) Land Use Area is intended to provide a wide range of industrial uses including research and development; light manufacturing, assembly and processing of manufactured goods and materials; warehousing and distribution including e -commerce, high - cube logistics and cross-dock facilities. Ancillary uses include, office, employee services, and property management facilities. This Land Use implements and is consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation. The Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Overlay Zone is applied to the Industrial Land Use Area of the Specific Plan. The Industrial Land Use Area is at th e eastern portion of the Specific Plan boundary, adjacent to the Santa Ana River. 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.
Commercial Retail
The Commercial Retail Land Use Area encourages regional shopping centers with large major anchor/big-box retail tenants supported by smaller retail establishments, grocery stores, restaurants, drug stores, entertainment, and personal service uses in multi -tenant buildings and/or freestanding commercial pads. The Commercial Retail General Land Use area would implement the Commercial Retail (CR) General Plan land use designation. The Commercial Retail Land Use area is located in the center of the Specific Plan area and serves as one of the commercial core areas for the Specific Plan. The area serves as a transition to commercial Neighborhood Land Use area. Primary access and identification signage for major retail tenants are located along Street A and integrated with adjacent Land Use areas through secondary access points. This land use designation allows a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.50.
Commercial Retail-Integrated Use Boundary
Commercial Retail - Integrated Use is a business or b usinesses that combine their business operations into a single building. A Commercial Retail -Integrated Use shall have a traditional “brick and mortar” retail showroom for display and sale of products to the public and shall include product assembly/light manufacturing, warehousing, customer pick -up and shipping/receiving. The retail showroom shall be a minimum of 10 percent of the total space/building occupied by the Use. The area dedicated to manufacturing, assembly and warehousing of the User’s product will vary by the User and verification that these components are incorporated in the use/building will occur as part of the Site Development Permit. Where a building has been constructed for the Commercial Retail - Integrated Use pursuant to this section, that building may be subdivided or partitioned to allow for multiple businesses so long as those business are permitted under this Specific Plan and the size of the retail showroom of the original building is not reduced in size.
Need for Health Risk Assessment
It is standard City practice to require that DPM emissions from warehouse projects be assessed through a Health Risk Assessment. During the Notice of Preparation period for the EIR, the SCAQMD also recommended that because the Proposed Project generates diesel emissions from long -term construction and attracts diesel-fueled vehicular trips, especially heavy -duty diesel-fueled vehicles, it was recommended that the City perform a mobile source health risk assessment to disclose the potential health ris ks. Accordingly, The purpose of the following analysis is to evaluate potential health risks associated with Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) including Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project. This analysis was prepared in SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-50 June 2023
accordance with the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and guidance from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) to determine if health risks are likely to occur from the Project (Appendix D2 of this DEIR).
Environmental Setting
Existing Sensitive Receptors
Sensitive populations are more susceptible to the effects of air pollution than is the general population. Sensitive receptors that are in proximity to localized sources of TACs are of particular concern. Land uses considered sensitive receptors include re sidences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, long -term health care facilities, rehabilitation centers, convalescent centers, and retirement homes. The Project site is mainly surrounded by residential and commercial land uses to the north, west, and s outh. Furthermore, there are scattered undeveloped land uses around the Project site mostly to the north, east, and southeast. Sensitive land uses nearest to the Project are shown in Figure 4.2-3, Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations . Descriptions of the existing sensitive receptors are found in Table 4.2-25.
Table 4.2-25
EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project1 Single-family residence Within the Project boundary
Single-family Residences Adjacent to the south and southwest Life Church of God in Christ South of the Project site
Single-family Residences 110 feet to the northwest
Ina Arbuckle Elementary School 470 feet to the southwest Mission Middle School 3,500 feet to the west
Fairmount Park 2,300 feet to the east
Health Risk Analysis Thresholds
Project health risks are determined by examining the types and levels of air toxics generated and the associated impacts on factors that affect air quality. While the final determination of significance thresholds is within the purview of the lead agency pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, the SCAQMD recommends that the following air pollution thresholds be used by lead agencies in determining whether the impacts from the Project are significant. If the lead agency finds that the Project has the potential to exceed the air pollution thresholds, the Project should be considered significant. The thresholds for air toxic emissions are as follows.
The SCAQMD’s CEQA risk thresholds for toxic air contaminants are (SCAQMD, 2019):
• Maximum incremental cancer risk ≥ 10 in 1 million
• Maximum incremental chronic or acute hazard index ≥ 1.0 The hazard index is calculated by dividing the modeled pollutant concentration by a reference exposure level (REL) established by the California Office of Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). The REL for DPM is 5 micrograms per cubic meter and the target organ is the respiratory system (OEHHA, 2020).
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-51 June 2023
Figure 4.2-3
EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-52 June 2023
Methodology
This analysis evaluates potential health risks associated with the emission of diesel particulate matter resulting from the implementation of the proposed Project. Construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic generate diesel exhaust, which is a known TAC. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
Operational activities would also include the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks. d less than significant.
Construction Sources
Construction would generate DPM emissions from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for demolition, grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. For construc tion activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On- road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment were included in the analysis, although they are typically less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site potentially poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors. The closest sensitive receptors are within and immediately adjacent to the southwest of the Project site.
Health-related risks associated with diesel-exhaust emissions are primarily linked to long -term exposure and the associated risk of contracting cancer. The use of diesel -powered construction equipment would be episodic and would occur throughout the Project site. Construction activities would limit idling to no more than five minutes, which would further reduce nearby sensitive receptors’ exposure to temporary and variable DPM emissions. Furthermore, even during the most intense period of construction, emissions of DPM would be generated from different locations on the Project Site rather than in a single location because different types of construction activities (e.g., site preparation and building construction) would not occur at the same place at the same time.
Construction emissions rates for PM10 (DPM) were calculated from the CalEEMod construction emissions modeling conducted for the Project Air Quality Assessment. It is anticipated that Project construction would occur over two development phases (Phase 1 starting in 20238 and Phase 2 starting in 2026). The duration of construction activities for Phase 1 and Phase 2 are anticipated to occur less than three years for each phase. However, the analysis conservatively assumes a 3 -year exposure duration for each phase.
Mobile Sources
The Project is located near existing residential uses. Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could result in pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors. Average daily trips from truck traffic to the Project were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis for District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by Kimley-Horn ( July 2022). An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC)9 model run for Riverside County; refer to Appendix A.
EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type. The model was run for heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating the Project site, and idling at proposed loading docks.
The Project’s off -site truck route is along Hall Avenue, 26 th Street, and Rubidoux Boulevard.
Inbound/outbound trucks going to or coming from the north would utilize Hall Avenue and Market Street. On- site, inbound trucks would access the internal road (30 th Street) via Frontage Roa d.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-53 June 2023
Outbound trucks would access SR- 60 east via the internal road. This analysis evaluates concentrations at the receptors along these roadways. The concentrations at the closest receptors along Hall Avenue and Rubidoux Boulevard are representative of conditions along each of the off-site roadways described above. Figures 4.2-4 and 4.2-5 Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation plans, respectively.
Cancer Risk Analysis
Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of DPM from the exhaust of off -road, heavy -duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., clearing, grading); paving; application of architectural coatings; on -road truck travel; and other miscellaneous activities. For construction activity, DPM is the primary toxic air contaminant of concern. On- road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they would not stay on the site for long durations. Diesel exhaust from construction equipment operating at the site poses a health risk to nearby sensitive receptors.
Operational Impacts
Mobile Sources
The Project is located near existing residential uses. Due to the increased truck traffic from the Project, the resulting emissions could result in pollutant concentrations at existing sensitive receptors. Average daily trips from truck traffic to the Project were obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis for District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by Kimley-Horn ( July 2022). An emission rate for PM10 (DPM) was calculated using trip data and a CARB 2021 EMission FACtor model (EMFAC)9 model run for Riverside County; refer to Appendix A.
EMFAC generates emission factors in terms of grams of pollutant emitted per vehicle activity and can calculate a matrix of emission factors at specific values of vehicle speed and type. The model was run for heavy-duty diesel vehicles traveling along off-site roads, circulating the Project site, and idling at proposed loading docks as depicted in Figure 3.2-5 Operational Truck Circulation Plan.
The Project’s off- site truck route is along Hall Avenue, 26th Street, and Rubidoux Boulevard.
Inbound/outbound trucks going to or coming from the north would utilize Hall Avenue and Market Street. On-site, inbound trucks would access the internal road (30th Street) via Frontage Road.
Outbound trucks would access SR-60 east via the internal road (see Figure 4.2-6).
This analysis evaluates concentrations at the receptors along these roadways. The concentrations at the closest receptors along Hall Avenue and Rubidoux Boulevard are representative of conditions along each of the off-site roadways described above.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-54 June 2023
Figure 4.2-4
INBOUND TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-55 June 2023
Figure 4.2-5
OUTBOUND TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-56 June 2023
Figure 4.2-6
OPERATIONAL TRUCK CIRCULATION PLAN
Source: Kimley Horn, 2023b. Appendix A.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-57 June 2023
Health Risk Assessment Results
Tables 4.2-26 and 4.2-27 summarize the results of the health risk assessment (Kimley- Horn, 2023b).
Table 4.2-26
RESULTS OF CARCINOGENIC RISK ASSESSMENT
Exposure Scenario Cancer Risk1 per 106 Significance
Threshold
(Risk per 106)
Threshold
Exceeded? Unmitigated Mitigated2
Residential Receptors – Along the
northwest side of Rubidoux Boulevard,
about 350 feet south of SR-60 ramps
9.73 1.80 10 No
Residential Receptors – along Wallace
Street, about 660 feet north of 34th Street
23.6 1.55 10 No
Residential Receptors – along Hall
Avenue, about 270 feet west of the
roadway
31.4 1.49 10 No
Residential Receptor – Onsite receptors
that would be constructed during Phase 1
and occupied during Phase 2 construction
and Phase 1 operations
33.4 1.87 10 No
Source: Appendix D2, Kimley-Horn, 2023b, Table 4.
1 The reported risk value is at the closed maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the Project site for each area. 2 Includes incorporation of MM AQ -1 (Tier 4 construction equipment) and MM AQ -11 (zero emission cargo handling equipment).
Table 4.2-27
RESULTS OF CHRONIC HAZARD ASSESSMENT
Scenario
Annual
Concentration1,2
(µg/m3)
Chronic Hazard Index
Unmitigated Emissions 0.221 0.044
Mitigated Emissions 0.004 0.001
SCAQMD Threshold N/A 1.0
Threshold Exceeded? N/A No
Source: Appendix D2, Kimley-Horn, 2023b, Table 5.
1 The reported hazard index is for the closed maximally exposed individual resident (MEIR) to the Project site for each area.
2 Includes incorporation of MM AQ -1 (Tier 4 construction equipment) and MM AQ- 11 (zero emission cargo handling equipment).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Potentially significant.
C.3 Mitigation Measures
MM AQ-1 and MM AQ-11 apply.
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-58 June 2023
Threshold d): Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Screening Criteria: If the project is not any of the following, it may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. • Agricultural uses (livestock and farming)
• Wastewater treatment plants
• Food processing plants
• Chemical plants
• Composting operations
• Refineries
• Landfills
• Dairies
• Fiberglass molding facilities
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoy ance to any considerable number of
persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans Policies and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.2-1 through PPP 4.2-13 apply.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF-4.2-1 to PDF-4.2-12 apply.
D.2 Impact Analysis
Construction
Odors that could be generated by construction activities are required to follow SCAQMD Rule 402 to prevent odor nuisances on sensitive land uses. SCAQMD Rule 402, Nuisance, states:
A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property. SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-59 June 2023
During construction, emissions from construction equipment, such as diesel exhaust, and volatile organic compounds from architectural coatings and paving activities may generate odors. However, these odors would be temporary, are not expected to affect a substantial number of people and would disperse rapidly. Therefore, impacts related to odors associated with the Project ’s construction - related activities would be less than significant.
Operation
The SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook identifies certain land uses as sources of odors. These land uses include agriculture (farming and livestock), wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting facilities, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources. Therefore, the Project would not create objectionable odors.
Level of Significance Before Mitiga tion: Project impacts regarding odors would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
D.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts related to odors associated with the Project’s construction-and operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Summary of Impacts
Table 4.2-27 summarizes the overall level of impacts as a result of construction and operations of the Project.
Table 4.2-28
SUMMARY OF AIR QUALITY IMPACTS
Phase Maximum Pounds Per Day by Source
Reactive
Organic
Gases
(ROG)
Nitrogen
Oxides
(NOx)
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO)
Sulfur
Dioxide
(SO2)
Coarse
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine
Particulate
Matter
(PM2.5)
M= Mitigated
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
Construction
Phase 1 M M M M M M
Phase 2 M M M M M M
Operations
Phase 1 SU SU SU M M M
Phase 2 SU SU M M M M
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-60 June 2023
Overlapping Scenario
Construction
Emissions
(Phase 2) +
Operations
(Phase 1)
SU SU SU M M M
Project Buildout Operational
Operations
(Phase 1) +
(Phase 2)
SU SU SU M M M
Source: The analysis in this EIR.
As shown in Table 4.2 -28, the Project will exceed thresholds for ROG, NO X and CO. Even with the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures as described below and mandatory compliance with SCAQMD rules and regulations, impacts are significant and unavoidable.
4.2.7 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area for this analysis is the SCAB. As shown on Table 4.2 -2, the Project area is designated as an extreme non- attainment area for ozone, and a non- attainment area for PM 10 and PM2.5. The SCAQMD guidance fo r determining a project’s potential contribution to cumulative impacts be assessed using the same significance criteria as for project specific impacts. Therefore, individual projects that do not generate construction or operations emissions that exceed th e SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project specific impacts would not cause cumulatively considerable increase in emissions. Conversely, projects that do generate construction or operations emissions that exceed the SCAQMD’s daily thresholds for project speci fic impacts would cause cumulatively considerable increase in emissions. 22
Construction
The Project would contribute criteria pollutants to the area during construction of the Project . As discussed under threshold b) , the Project is a Specific Plan that would consist of individual smaller development projects and specific development projects are not proposed at this time. Construction and operation of the planning areas would be project-specific and future development would be subject to project-specific City discretionary review and approval. Several individual projects in the area may be under construction simultaneously with the proposed Project . Depending on construction schedules and actual implementation of projects in the area, generation of fugitive dust and pollutant emissions during construction could result in substantial short -term increases in air pollutants; however, each project would be required to comply with SCAQMD’s standard construction measures. After mitigatio n, the proposed Project ’s short-term construction emissions of each phase would not exceed the significance thresholds. Therefore, it would not have a significant short-term cumulative air quality impact if the phases were constructed separately.
Table 4.2-14 shows that despite implementation of mitigation measures, the overlapping emissions of Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NOX, and
22 South Coast Air Quality Management District, White Paper on Potential Control Strategies to Address Cumulative Impacts from Air Pollution, August 2003.
SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-61 June 2023
CO. Therefore, Phase 2 construction emissions when overlapped with Phase 1 operations , would be cumulatively considerable but short-term during the Phase 2 construction.
Operations
As discussed under Threshold b), p roject-generated emissions would be primari ly associated with motor vehicle use and area sources, such as the use of landscape maintenance equipment and architectural coatings.
The Project would not be consistent with South Coast AQMD’s 2022 AQMP because the Project’s long- term operational NOx emissions would exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD regional thresholds.
Because the South Coast AQMD considers all impacts that are significant and direct to also be cumulatively considerable, the Project ’s potential to conflict with the 2022 AQMP is a cu mulatively considerable impact. For operational air quality emissions, any project that does not exceed or can be mitigated to less than the daily regional threshold values is not considered by South Coast AQMD to be a substantial source of air pollution and does not add significantly to a cumulative impact. As presented under thresholds b, operation of the Project after incorporation of mitigation measures would still result in emissions in excess of the South Coast AQMD regional emissions thresholds for NO
X. Therefore, the air pollutant emissions associated with the Project would be cumulatively considerable and, therefore, significant and unavoidable.
As discussed, and shown under thresholds a and b above, Phase 1 operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NO
X and CO. Phase 2 operational emissions would
remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds for ROG. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable and the air pollutant emissions associated with the Project Phase I and P hase II operations would be cumulatively considerable.
Project Buildout (Phase 1 Operation + Phase 2 Operation) Long-term operational emissions attributable to the total project are summarized in Table 4.2-15 .
As indicated in the table, total operational emissions for the Project at buildout would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for ROG, NO X and CO. The majority of the Project’s emission exceedances are from mobile sources and cannot feasibly be reduced below the SCAQMD threshold. Emissions from motor vehicles are controlled by state and federal standards over which the Project has no control.
Although, numerous mitigation measures have been included to reduce emissions to the maximum extent feasible, ROG, NO
X and CO emissions under full project buildout would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds; therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable and thus cumulatively considerable.
For project buildout, the nearest receptors are a residential building within the Project boundary and adjacent residences to the south of the Project site. As shown in Table 4.2-22, combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 operational emissions generated onsite by the Project would not exceed the LSTs at the nearest sensitive receptors. Therefore, impacts associated with localized operational emissions during project buildout would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Health Effects
Due to the uncertainty in the relationship between project -level mass emissions and regional ozone formation as well as limitations with currently available technical tools, the resulting health effects associated with the Project cannot be identified. CEQA does not allow speculative findings; therefore, SECTION 4.2 – AIR QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.2-62 June 2023
no meaningful conclusion can be drawn with respect to potential health effects from the criteria pollutant emissions of the proposed Project.
The Project considered herein would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO hot spot in the context of SCAQMD’s CO Hotspot Analysis. Impacts concerning CO hotspots would be less than significant. Also, the Project does not generate anywhere near 6,620 pounds per day of NO X or 89,190 pounds per day of ROG (VOC) emissions, which SCAQMD stated was a large enough emission to quantify O
3-related health impacts. The Project’s emissions are not sufficiently high enough to use regional modeling program to correlate health effects on a basin -wide level. As seen in the HRA results tables, estimated cancer an d noncancer risks due to the Project are below the SCAQMD’s significance thresholds and no mitigation for air toxics health risk is necessary. Therefore, impacts regarding health effects would be less than significant and would also not be cumulatively considerable.
Odors
Mandatory compliance with applicable regulatory requirements (e. g., SCAQMD Rule 402) would ensure that operational -related odors would be minimized. Construction -related odors would be temporary, short -term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than cumulatively- considerable. The Project would not include any of the land uses that have been identified by the SCAQMD as odor sources and this the Project would not create objectionable odors. The Project and cumulative developments in the surrounding areas would all also be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which would ensure that long -term operational odor impacts would be less than cumulatively - considerable.
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-1 June 2023
4.3 Biological Resources
The following discussion addresses existing environmental conditions related to biological resources within the Project study area. Additionally, existing laws, regulations and standards relevant to biological resources are described. The information prese nted in this section and used for this analysis is based on the following technical studies:
• Biological Technical Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Project Site , Jurupa Valley, California (RECON, 2023 a). C ompleted by RECON Environmental, Inc. on June 13 , 2023 ; a complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D3 to this DEIR. • Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Results for The District at Jurupa Valley Project (RECON, 2022). Completed by RECON Environmental, Inc. on September 27, 2022; a complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D4 to this DEIR.
• Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for the District at Jurupa Valley Project Site (RECON, 2023b). Completed by RECON Environmental, Inc. on June 9, 2023 . A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D5 to this DEIR.
• The District at Jurupa Valley Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment (ELMT and Bruyea, 202 3). Prepared by ELMT Consulting, Inc. and Bruyea Biological Consulting on June 13, 2023. A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D6 to this DEIR.
4.3.1 Existing Conditions
The Project is located within the City of Jurupa Valley in the County of Riverside, California. The Project area is located within a portion of t he Jurupa (Rubidoux) Land Grant area on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical maps Fontana and Riverside West, California quadrangles. The Project lies to the south of State Route 60 (SR -60), north of 34 th Street, east of
Rubidoux Boulevard, and west of the Santa Ana River. The Project is located at approximately 34.0 decimal degrees latitude and -117.39 decimal degrees longitude.
Topography and Soils
A total of eight soil types are mapped within the Project site by the U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Delhi fine sand, Dello loamy sand, Grangeville loamy fine sand, Greenfield sandy loam, Ramona sandy loam, Tujunga loamy sand and gravelly loamy sand, terrace escarpments, and riverwash. See Figure
4.3-1. Three of these soil types appear on the hydric soils list when special conditions exist, Delhi fine sand, Dello loamy sand, and riverwash; however, none of these special conditions are present on-site and thus no hydric soils are considered to be present (see RECON , 2023a for a more detailed discussion). Delhi fine sand soil series is identified as the soil type associated with the Delhi sands flower-loving fly (RECON, 2023a, p. 9).
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-2 June 2023
Figure 4.3-1
SOILS MAP
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-3 June 2023
Land Cover Types
The majority of the Project area has been cleared and is devoid of significant vegetation. Areas that have the most vegetation are associated with the lower portion of the Jurupa Ditch and the plant species are comprised of predominantly non-native annual and perennial species (RECON, 2023a; p. 6). Three vegetation communities/land cover types were observed: disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land (RECON, 2023a; p. 11). See Figure 4.3-2.
Disturbed Land
Disturbed land occurs throughout almost the entirety of the Project area. The majority of these areas appear to have been historically graded and/or developed and show signs of being recently mowed or disked. Currently, there is low overall vegetation cover consisting mostly of bare ground, nonnative weeds, and scattered trees. Historic aerials indicate that the property has been subject to a variety of past land uses including livestock paddocks, horse racing, irrigated agriculture, residential, flood control, and dumping. Dominant plant species vary between areas of the disturbed land but include short- pod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana ), tumbleweed ( Salsola tragus), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), and non-native grasses. Several medium to large trees can be found either individually or in small stands scattered throughout the Project area. These trees are comprised of a mix of both native and non-native species such as Fremont cottonwood ( Populus fremontii ssp. fremontii) and Athel (Tamarix aphylla); (RECON, 2023a, p. 11).
Disturbed Riparian
A small strip of disturbed riparian vegetation occurs along the southern portion of the Jurupa Ditch.
This vegetation is primarily composed of non-native plant species such as giant reed (Arundo donax) and castor bean (Ricinus communis), with native species such as arroyo willow ( Salix laevigata) and patches of desert wild grape ( Vitis girdiana). This vegetation is managed along the Jurupa Ditch as evidenced by cut back shrubs and grubbing, and would normally be dominated by native species without vegetation management (RECON, 2023a, p. 11).
Developed Land
Developed land (identified in the MSHCP as residential/urban/exotic) within the Project area consists of existing paved roads and a private residence. Vegetation within the developed land consists of ornamental and exotic species associated with the four residences (RECON, 2023a, p. 11).
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-4 June 2023
Figure 4.3-2
VEGETATION COMMUNITIES AND LAND COVER TYPES
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-5 June 2023
The Project is located within the Jurupa Plan Area of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). A portion of Criteria Cell 187 and Subunit 1 -Santa Ana River North is located onsite and continues off-site to the southeast along the Santa Ana River. The Project area is also adjacent to Public/Quasi -Public Conserved Lands designated along the Santa Ana River to the southeast. In order to comply with the requirements of the MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee is required for the total acreage of project impacts (RECON, 2023a; p. 6).
4.3.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for local public review on March 31, 2022 with the comment period ending on April 29, 2022 and State Clearinghouse Review beginning on April 1, 2022 with the comment period ending April 30, 2022. An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on April 20, 2022. No comments related to biological resources were received.
4.3.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) regulates project activities within waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
Wetlands are defined by the CWA as:
“…those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 230.3 and, 33 CFR 328.3).
Wetlands are delineated using three parameters, which include hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. According to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), indicators for all three parameters must be present to qualify an area as a wetland. The discharge of any pollutan t from a point source into navigable waters is illegal unless a permit under the CWA’s provisions is acquired. Permitting for projects that include both permanent and temporary dredging and filling in wetlands and waters of the U.S. is overseen by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. Projects can be permitted on an individual basis or be covered by one of several approved nationwide or regional general permits.
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction.
Actions that jeopardize endangered or threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely are considered “take” under the ESA. Section 9(a) of the ESA defines “take” as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The ESA is administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-6 June 2023
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA)
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (MBTA) was established to provide protection to the breeding activities of migratory birds throughout the U.S. The MBTA, which is enforced by USFWS, makes it unlawful “by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, [or] kill” any migratory bird, or attempt such actions, except as permitted by regulation. The take, possession, import, export, transport, sale, purchase, barter, or offering of these activities is prohibited, except under a valid permit or as permitted in the implementing regulations (RECON, 2023a, p. 17).
State
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires an environmental review for projects with potentially adverse impacts on the environment. Adverse environmental impac ts are typically mitigated in accordance with state laws and regulations.
California ESA
The California ESA is similar to the federal ESA in that it provides the legal framework for the listing and protection of species (and their habitats) that are identified as being endangered or threatened with extinction.
California Fish and Game Code (CFGC)
CFGC Section 1600 through 1603 regulates project activities within wetlands and riparian habitats.
The CDFW can issue a Streambed Alteration Agreement for project s affecting riparian and wetland habitats.
Under Section 3503 of the CFGC, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation made pursuant thereto.
Section 3503.5 of the CFGC prohibits take, possession, or destruction of any birds in the orders Falconiformes (raptors) or Strigiformes (owls) or of their nests and eggs.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Project activities that fill or dredge within wetland Waters of the State and non- wetland Waters of the State, including isolated waters such as vernal pools and other waters showing lack of connectivity to a Traditional Navigable Waters, require a Water Quality Certification by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13000 et seq. of the California Water Code under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (RECON, 2023a, p. 16).
Regional
Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) The MSHCP is a comprehensive multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. It is one of several large multi- jurisdictional habitat-planning efforts in southern California with the overall goal of SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-7 June 2023
maintaining biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The MSHCP allows the County of Riverside and its cities to better control local land use decisions and maintain a strong economic climate in the region while addressing the requirements of the federal ESA. The MSHCP plan area encompasses 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles), including all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, Menifee, and San Jacinto (RECON, 2023a, p. 17).
The MSHCP serves as a habitat conservation plan pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal ESA of 1973, as amended, as well as a Natural Community Conservation Plan under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 2001. The jurisdictions participating in the MS HCP assemble and manage habitat within the coordinated MSHCP Criteria Area. In exchange for this preservation, the USFWS and CDFW have granted these jurisdictions "Take Authorization" for otherwise lawful actions, such as public and private development, th at incidentally take or harm species or their habitat outside the MSHCP Criteria Area (RECON, 2023a, p. 18).
A total of 146 sensitive plant and wildlife species receive some level of coverage under the MSHCP.
Of that total, the majority of these species have no additional survey/conservation requirements, and 16 plant species are classified as “narrow endemic species” based on their limited distributions in the region. These narrow endemics are sensitive biological resources; some are also federally- or state-listed as threatened or endangered. The habitat that supports a narrow endemic species is also considered a sensitive biological resource (RECON, 2023a, p. 18).
Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan identifies policies that relate to biological resources within the City. The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to biological resources and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in a General Plan Consistency Analysis table i n Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
4.3.4 Methodology
As discussed previously, the following documents are relied upon for the preparation of this section:
• The Biological Technical Report for the District at Jurupa Valley Project Site (RECON, 2023a) (Appendix D3);
• Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Results for The District at Jurupa Valley Project ( RECON, 2022) (Appendix D4);
• Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for the District at Jurupa Valley Project Site (RECON, 2023b) (Appendix D5), and
• The District at Jurupa Valley Delhi Sands Flower -Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment (ELMT and Bruyea, 2023) (Appendix D6).
4.3.4.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting field investigations, RECON conducted a review of the WRCRCA MSHCP Information Map (WRCRCA, 2021) for information on required biological investigations for the SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-8 June 2023
Project site. In addition, RECON performed a literature and database review for potentially occurring sensitive plant and animal species within ten miles of the Project site . Databases reviewed include the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CDFW 2022), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) All Species Occurrences Database (USFWS, 2021), Consortium of California Herbaria (2022), and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Online database (CNPS, 2021a). A 10- mile radius search area was used for each of the databases and th e species returned were filtered based on sensitivity level (e.g., federally and state listed), known presence within a 1 -mile radius, and presence of general habitat parameters (e.g., elevation range, presence of vegetation/habitat such as vernal pools, marsh, or riparian forest). In addition, an Information for Planning and Consultation resource list was generated for federally listed species’ evaluation purposes (RECON, 2023a, p. 6).
4.3.4.2 Surveys
RECON Environmental, Inc. conducted a general biological survey, western burrowing owl habitat assessment, and jurisdictional assessment for the Project on December 16 and 17, 2021. Additional assessments and surveys were conducted in June, July, and August 2022. All surveys were conducted following applicable protocols. These surveys are discussed in detail below.
Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
A western burrowing owl habitat assessment was conducted in accordance with Step I of the guidelines developed by the County of Riverside and was performed concurrently with the general biological survey.
As required by the survey guidelines, the burrowing owl survey area in the habitat assessment included all areas identified as MSHCP western burrowing owl survey area within the impact footprint, or Project site , and within 150 meters (approximately 500 feet) buffer area around the Project site . The habitat assessment area was surveyed on foot, and using binoculars to inspect areas on inaccessible private property. RECON biologists made notes of avian and mammal activity and evidence of owls, natural burrows, or manufactured structures suitable for western burrowing owl during the habitat assessment. (RECON, 2023a; p. 8; RECON, 2022) Focused Burrow and Burrowing Owl Surveys
A focused burrow survey was conducted concurrently with the first focused burrowing owl survey in accordance with Step II-Part A of the survey guidelines. Parallel transects were walked through all suitable habitat identified within the Project area to locate and map suitable burrows. Areas within a 500- foot buffer around the Project site that were inaccessible were surveyed using binoculars.
Small-mammal burrows were present throughout the Project area. The majority of these burrows are likely from California ground squirrel ( Spermophilus beechyi ), which was observed during the focused burrow survey and subsequent burrowing owl surveys (RECON, 2023a, p. 7).
Four focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted in accordance with Step II–Part B of the survey guidelines. All surveys were conducted between two ho urs before sunset and one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise and two hours after sunrise. Parallel transects were walked through all suitable habitat identified within the Project area and burrows were inspected for sign (e.g., pellets, whitewash, and/or feathers). Areas within a 500-foot buffer of the Project area that were inaccessible were surveyed using binoculars (RECON 2022, pp. 1 – 2). SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-9 June 2023
Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Assessment
A Delhi sands flower-loving fly habitat assessment was conducted on August 19 and September 11, 2022 (RECON, 2023a, p. 7). The assessment focused on the 44 acres previously mapped as containing Delhi sands soils. RECON biologists searched for the presence of suitable open, sandy soil, noted the level of soil disturbance, and also reviewed historical aerial photography for past evidence of significant disturbance within the assessment area. A subsequent habitat assessment was conducted by qualified biologist s, including a USFWS permitted biologist, in August and September 2022 (RECON, 2023a; p. 8 – 9; also see Appendix D6, The District at Jurupa Valley Delhi Sands Flower - Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment).
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Habitat Assessment
A habitat assessment for three potentially occurring narrow endemic plant species – Brand’s star phacelia, San Diego ambrosia, and San Miguel savory – was conducted concurrently with the general biological surveys on December 16 and 17, 2021, focusing on the survey areas identified by the MSHCP. The entire project area, or Project site, was assessed for suitability for each individual species (RECON, 2023a; pp. 7 and 9).
Jurisdictional Assessment
RECON conducted a jurisdictional waters/wetland assessmen t within the Project site on December 17, 2021, concurrently with the general biological survey, according to the guidelines set forth by the USACE (USACE; 1987 and 2008) and the updated datasheet for delineation of the ordinary high - water mark (USACE, 2010). Sample soil pits were dug within potential wetland habitats such as the disturbed riparian, and area along the drainage ditches (RECON, 2023a, 2023b). The extent of potential wetlands and/or waters under the jurisdiction of USACE, RWQCB, and/or CDFW is presented in Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Project Site (RECON 2023b) and analyzed in Section 4.3.6, and is based on the results of the delineation and on vegetation mapping (RECON, 2023b; pp. 9 - 10).
4.3.5 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with § 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley adopted local CEQA Guidelines. The City’s local CEQA Guidelines are based on the CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. “Signifi cance Criteria” may be included in a Threshold of Significance to provide local context. The City of Jurupa Valley Guidelines recognizes the following significance thresholds and criteria related to biological resources. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact to biological resources if it:
a) Would 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; or Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project that has a substantial ad verse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-10 June 2023
local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
b) Would h ave a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; or Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. c) Would have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; or
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to state or federally protected wetlands. d) Would Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; or Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites or conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. e) Would conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological r esources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies:
• COS 1.2 -Protection of Significant Trees;
• COS 1.3 - Other Significant Vegetation.
f) Would conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is in conflict with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-11 June 2023
4.3.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
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? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project that has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the Califo rnia Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) include existing City of Jurupa Valley regulatory requirements, such as municipal codes, that would apply to the proposed Project. These PPPs are intended to work in conjunction with existing federal, state, and regional regulations and plans to further minimize or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relat ed to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project ’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.3-1 The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
This PDF will be included as part of the Project design and are intended to work in conjunction with existing federal, state, and regional regulations and plans to further minimize or avoid potential impacts to biological resources. The following PDF applies to the P roject and would reduce impacts related to biological resources. This PDF is included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
PDF 4.3-1 Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design.
A.2 Impact Analysis
The literature review discovered records of three sensitive plant species which required biological investigation (RECON, 2023a, p.8):
• Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris; CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP FC) • San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila; FE, CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP FE) SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-12 June 2023
• San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri; CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP) The literature review also revealed records of four sensitive wildlife species which required biological investigation (RECON 2023a, pp. 19 and 228):
• western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia; SSC, MSHCP) • Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii; WL, MSHCP)
• monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus; FC)
• Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis; FE, MSHCP) Cooper’s hawk and monarch were incidentally observed within the survey area during the burrowing owl focused surveys. No other federal or state listed endangered, threatened, candidate, or wildlife or rare plant species were observed within the Project site during the habitat assessment. A total of 25 wildlife species were identified within the Project site . The wildlife observed on- site are typical species found in developed sites and adjacent natural or naturalized habitats. Species detected include red harvester ant (Pogonomyrmex barbatus), western side blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana elegans), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common raven (Corvus corax), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), California ground squirrel (Otopermophilus beecheyi), and coyote (Canis latrans) (RECON, 2023a; p. 17). See Figure 4.3-2.
See Appendix D3 , Biological Technical Report (RECON, 2023a), Attachment 1, Plant Species Observed; Attachment 2, Wildlife Species Observed; Attachment 3, Sensitive Plant Species Observed or with Potential to Occur for complete lists of all species observed during the field survey , and for lists of Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species Observed or with the Potential to Occur. The habit at assessment for Brand’s star phacelia, San Diego ambrosia, and San Miguel savory was completed concurrently with the December 2021 general biological surveys. No suitable habitat for these species was identified within the Project site during these surveys; therefore, no additional surveys are recommended (RECON, 2023a, p. 28).
A Delhi sands flower-loving fly (DSF) habitat assessment was conducted on August 19 and September 11, 2022 (RECON, 2023a, p. 7). The assessment determined that the agricultural history of the Project site, in combination with the presence of the Jurupa Ditch, compacted, mixed and contaminated the adjacent Delhi Sand soils and the Project site no longer supports the clean, unconsolidated Delhi Sands soils needed to support a DSF population. In addition, given the unsuitable rating of Delhi sand soils, the general lack of DSF sightings in this area of Jurupa Valley north of the Santa Ana River, the recognized adverse changes in soil chemistry of Delhi Sand soils in areas subjected to agricultural activities, it is highly unlikely that the Project site is occupied or that the site can become occupied by DSF in future. A focused protocol survey for DSF is not recommended for the site based on current conditions and the lack of unconsolidated clean Delhi series soils (ELMT and Bruyea, 2023, p. 13).
One Monarch butterfly was observed during western burrowing owl surveys in the vicinity of the Jurupa Ditch. While this species has a moderate potential to nectar within the Project area, it is not expected to breed within the Project site due to a lack of suitable overwintering habitat and absence of its host plant, milkweed (Asclepias sp.) (RECON, 202 3a, p. 24). No impacts to Monarch butterfly are anticipated (RECON, 2023a, p. 29), and no mitigation would be required. SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-13 June 2023
Nesting Migratory Birds
The Project has potential to result in direct impacts to migratory or nesting birds protected by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503 if vegetation removal and/or project grading occurs during the bird breeding season (February 1 to September 15). Direct impacts to nesting and migratory birds would be considered significant without mitigation (RECON, 202 3a, p. 29). See mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
Burrowing Owl
Based on a review of federal, state, and local databases and evaluation of the biological resources on- site, the western burrowing owl has a moderate potential to nest/occur within the survey area and could be directly impacted (RECON, 2023a). The habitat assessment for western burrowing owl was completed in accordance with Step I of the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority, 2006) and suitable habitat was identified in the Project area. Based on the results of the habitat assessment, focused surveys for burrows and burrowing owl in accordance with Step II -Part A and Step II -Part B were conducted in June and July 2022, and no burrowing owl were detected ( RECON, 2022). The disturbed land within the Project site provides suitable nesting and foraging habitat for western burrowing owl. Additionally, during the habitat assessment potentially suitable burrows were identified. As suitable habitat was identified, a focused burrow survey as well as burrowing owl surveys were conducted. No burrowing owls were detected, and no active burrows were identified ( RECON, 2022). However, when suitable habitat is present , the survey guidelines require pre -construction surveys to be conducted within the impact area within 30 days prior to ground disturban ce, to ensure avoidance of any individuals, as detailed in mitigation measure BIO-2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey.
Cooper’s Hawk and Other Tree-Nesting Raptors
The Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), was incidentally detected in the survey area. Cooper’s hawk has a moderate potential to nest on- site. Several trees found scattered throughout the Project area are large enough to potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for Cooper’s hawk and other tr ee- nesting raptors. These species are considered adequately covered by the MSHCP (RECON 202 3a, p. 29) and no high -quality riparian habitat within the portions of the Criteria Cell existing within the survey area would be impacted. Indirect impacts would include loss of foraging habitat and potential noise impacts from construction activities as well as during operations after development. However, trees are to be installed as a part of the final landscaping plan for the Project and the adjacent suitable nesting habitat within the Santa Ana River would not be impacted. Therefore, impacts to these species would be considered less than significant under the MSHCP. However, these species are protected by the MBTA and CFGC Section 3503.5, and direct impacts to nesting individuals would be significant without mitigation (RECON, 202 3a, p. 29) as discussed above under nesting migratory birds and in mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to any sensitive wildlife in the adjacent San ta Ana River corridor as a result of construction-related erosion, contaminated runoff, or generation and deposition of dust are anticipated to be avoided with adherence to proper Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. No nighttime lighting is proposed during construction activities. SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-14 June 2023
Based on the presence of riparian habitat in the Santa Ana River adjacent to and within 500 feet of the proposed Project construction footprint and database records there is a potential for noise from construction activities to impact least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belllii pusillus). Avoidance measures to avoid significant indirect impacts to least Bell’s vireo and any other sensitive riparian birds are included in mitigation measure BIO-1.
Level of Significance Befor e Mitigation: Even after implementation of PPPs 4.3 -1, construction - related impacts to nesting migratory birds and raptors, western burrowing owl, and protected plants due to vegetation removal, ground disturbance, or any substantial noise or vibration dur ing all phases of construction, especially during the nesting bird season (generally February 1 – September 15), would be significant without mitigation.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503 and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If vegetation removal activities must occur during this breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of breeding migratory birds, including raptors within the impact footprint. If nests or breeding activities are located on the survey area, an avoidance buffer area would be required around the nesting site. The width of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and biological monitoring would be required during construction until the young have fledged . If no nesting birds are detected during the pre - construction survey, no additional measures would be required (RECON, 2023a, p. 33).
The following measures are recommended to avoid indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive riparian birds, specifically least Bell’s vireo, that could be present in the riparian habitat located within 500 feet of the project site in the adjacent Santa Ana River (RECON, 2023a, pp. 33 and 34).
• Between March 15 and September 15, no construction activities shall occur within any portion of the site where construction activities would result in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) L
eq (hourly noise equivalent of 60 A -weighted decibels [dB(A)] or less) at the edge of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities during the breeding season, areas restricted from such activities shall be staked or fenced under the supervision of a qualified biologist; OR
• At least two weeks prior to the commencement of construct ion activities, under the direction of a qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures (e.g., noise monitoring, installation of berms or walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels resulting from construction activities will not exceed 60 dB(A) L eq at the edge of habitat oc cupied by least Bell’s vireo.
Concurrent with the commencement of construction activities and the construction of necessary attenuation facilities, noise monitoring shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60 dB(A) L eq. If the noise
attenuation techniques implemented are determined to be inadequate by the qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is a chieved or until the end of the breeding season (September 16).
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-15 June 2023
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) L eq. If not, other measures shall be implemented in consultation with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to reduce noise level s to below 60 dB(A) L
eq or to the ambient noise level if it already
exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, limitations on the placement of construction equipment and the simultaneous use of equipment.
MM BIO-2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: A pre-construction survey shall be required within 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If western burrowing owls are present, one of the following mitigation measures from the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2003) shall also be required:
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site contains or is part of an area that supports less than 35 acres of suitable habitat, or the survey reveals that the site and surrounding area support fewer than three pairs of western burrowing owls, the on-site western burrowing owls shall be passively or actively relocated following accepted protocols; or
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey , i f the site, including adjacent areas, supports t hree 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).
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 spe cial-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 di rectly 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.
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-16 June 2023
• 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.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of mitigation measures BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Surveys, BIO- 2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Surveys, and BIO- 3 Biological Monitor, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Threshold b): Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
These include existing regulatory requirements such as PPPs applied to the Project based on federal, State, or local law currently in place which effectively reduce impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. PPPs 4.3-1 as described in Section 4.3.6, A.1, would apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to biological resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the Project related to the topic of riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Direct Impacts
As discussed and described in Section 4.3.1, three vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land (RECON, 2023 a, p. 11).
The Project would cause permanent, direct impacts to these three vegetation communities/land cover types as shown on Table 4.3-1 (see Figure 4.3-2) (RECON, 2023a, p. 28). Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under CEQA based on lack of sensitive vegetative resources; however, to comply with the requirements of the MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee is required for the total acreage of project impacts (RECON, 2023a, p. 1 and 28). SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-17 June 2023
The disturbed riparian habitat along the Jurupa Ditch would be impacted. These areas would be considered riparian/riverine areas and impacts would be considered significant and require mitigation in accordance with the MSHCP and wetland regulatory agencies (RECON, 2023a, p. 28).
Table 4.3-1
IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES/LAND COVER TYPES WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA (acres)
Land Cover Types Impact Acres in Project Area
Disturbed land 235.1
Disturbed riparian 1.4
Developed land 11.8
TOTAL 248.3
Source: RECON, 2023a June 13, 2023, Table 4, p. 28.
Indirect Impacts
Indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive vegetation communities, primarily within the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor due to fugitive runoff (erosion) are not anticipated , as BMPs, such as silt fencing, straw wattle, and sandbags, would be installed around the perimeter of the grading limits. During construction indirect impacts from fugitive dust would be prevented by watering of haul roads and areas actively being used by equipment.
Additional discussion regarding avoidance of indirect impacts specific to adjacent MSHCP open space lands is provided in Section 4.3.6, A3. Implementation of these measures will reduce indirect impacts to adjacent vegetation and sensitive plants, if present, to less than significant (RECON, 2023a, p. 32).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Disturbed land and developed land recorded on the Project site are not considered sensitive habitat or sensitive natural communities. Impacts would be less than significant. Disturbed ripari an habitat would be considered sensitive and impacts would be considered significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
Impacts to disturbed riparian would require implementation of MM BIO-4 and compliance with any conditions and measures in any regulatory agency permits would be required.
Implementation of MM BIO-4 and compliance with any conditions and measures in the following permits would be required.
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 provide documentation that an Agency declines jurisdiction of any features and a permit is not required:
D. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section 404 permit is not required (i.e.
Army Corps declines jurisdiction or definition of Water of US changes pursuant to Sackett vs.
Environmental Protection Agency;
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-18 June 2023
E. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB for wa ter quality impacts related to the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction with the USACE 404 permit or a Waste Discharge Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
F. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.
The Project Applicant would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, implementation of best management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions, as appropriate.
In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory habitat acreage would be based on the functions and values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provid ed at a ratio of up to 1:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit process if the agencies find that a different ratio is sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required, evidence of that change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and concurrence.
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation and completion of MM BIO-4, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold c): Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to state or federally protected wetlands.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs applicable to the Project that would reduce potential impacts relating to state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the Project related to the topic of state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.). SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-19 June 2023
C.2 Impact Analysis
The Aquatic Resources Delineation Report determined that two non- wetland water features are within the jurisdiction of the USACE, the RWQCB, and CDFW pursuant to Sections 401 and 401 CWA and Sections 1600 - 1617 FGC. Jurupa Ditch appears to contain perennial flow based on the presence of algae and sediment sorting. It flows out of the Review Area to the northwest and eventually into the Santa Ana River, a Traditional Na vigable Water. However, the source of the water is pumped groundwater along the Jurupa Ditch and is subject to sudden cessation of flow. Because the Jurupa Ditch appears to have been excavated in a historic upland area and conveys water used for agricultural purposes, it may be exempt as a water of the U.S. upon review by the USACE (RECON 2023b, pp. 9-10). Figure 4.3-3 below shows locations of Aquatic Resources on the Project site.
No areas were identified on the site that meet the three criteria for a wetl and per the USACE guidelines. Two non- wetland water features were delineated within the Review Area: the reach of the Jurupa Ditch that is exposed on the ground surface and an unnamed drainage channel within the eastern portion of the site. Both of these f eatures exhibited an ordinary high-water mark (OHWM), which indicates some level of water flow recurring on a regular interval. The Jurupa Ditch can be characterized as perennial due to the consistent flows provided by well water pumped from off -site to the north. The eastern drainage channel appears to be ephemeral, flowing only after seasonal precipitation events. This drainage has a physical connection to the Santa Ana River at the southeastern edge of the site. Indicators of hydrology observed included sediment deposits and drift deposits (RECON, 2023b, p. 7).
The eastern drainage may be a tributary to the Santa Ana River and exhibits ephemeral water flow.
This feature flows out of the Review Area south and eastward and into the Santa Ana River (RECON 2023b, p. 10).
Non-wetland waters and riparian areas delineated within the Review Area total 4.53 acres. Of this total, USACE could potentially take jurisdiction up to a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as (a)(2) tributary Waters of the U.S. The USACE would require a § 404 CWA Individual Permit for an activity that will impact an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of Waters of the U.S. Individual Permits require a 30-day Public Notice period, and review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The RWQCB could potentially take jurisdiction up to a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as Non-wetland Waters of the U.S. and 1.43 acres of riparian as Wetland Waters of the State, and require a § 401 CWA Water Quality Certification (WQC) and mitigation for loss of riparian Waters of the State. Finally, CDFW could potentially take jurisdiction of a total of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian and require a Lake or Strea mbed Alteration Agreement pursuant to §§ 1602-1617 of the California Fish and Game Code ([FGC] (RECON 2023b, pp. 9 - 10; see Appendix D5, Aquatic Resources Delineation Report). SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-20 June 2023
Figure 4.3-3
LOCATIONS OF AQUATIC RESOURCES
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-21 June 2023
Under MM BIO-4, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW would make a determination on jurisdiction over Jurupa Ditch and the storm water channel in the southern portion of the site. In compliance with the no-net-loss policy, impacts to non-wetland waters would likely require mitigation at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The CDFW may require 3:1 ratio for impacts to disturbed riparian areas.
Under MM BIO -4 and subsequent USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW permit conditions, impacts to jurisdictional waters and MSHCP Riparian/Riverine areas may require habitat creation or the purchase of credits from an approved mitigation bank.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation. The Project may permanently impact 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. and State, under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the RWQCB; and
3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian. Impacts of project construction and project operation on non-wetland waters and riparian areas would potentially be significant.
C.3 Mitigation Measures
Impacts to protected wetlands would require implementation of MM BIO-4 and compliance with any conditions and measures in any regulatory agency permits would be required.
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation and completion of MM BIO-4, impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold d): Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project results in a direct or an indirect physical change to the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or to established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of native wildlife nursery sites or conflicts with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs for the Project applicable to threshold d).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the Project related to threshold d).
D.2 Impact Analysis
As discussed on page 30 of the Biological Technical Report (RECON, 202 3a) included as Appendix D3,. The Project site as a highly disturbed parcel, the survey area supports little in terms of native cover or sensitive biological resources. The Jurupa Ditch does provide some open water and SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-22 June 2023
disturbed riparian vegetation; however, this is isolated and variable, given that this is a water delivery channel and subject to water control and maintenance. While the site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and may serve as an extension of open space available to local wildlife for foraging, it is highly constrained as a wildlife movement corridor to any other habitat areas for the following reasons:
• The site is fenced by 6- foot chain link. While the fencing does have some periodic gaps, it largely serves as a barrier to movement for medium to large mammals. • The site is bounded by residential development to the southeast and west and SR -60 along the northern border. The only viable paths north of the site and across the freeway are either through a single box culvert under SR -60 in the northeastern portion of the site or over the freeway along Hall Road, which is also fenced along both sides, or Rubidoux Road, a busy multi-lane road that is also separated from the site by chain link fencing. • The land north of SR-60 is also fairly developed along both Rubidoux Road and along the west side of Hall Road. There is no direct corridor of open space connecting the Project site with the larger open space areas north and northwest of the site. The site immediately north of the Project site is an inactive landfill and is currently undeveloped, with the exception of a solar development in the northwest corner of the site.
• The MSHCP evaluated preserve design within the plan area and did not identify any proposed linkages or constrained linkages that connects the Santa Ana River corridor linkage with the Jurupa Mountains (WRCRCA 2003). The MSHCP identifies the Jurupa Mountains as a non- contiguous habitat block, further indicating the isolation of the habitat from other open space areas and linkages and corridors.
Therefore, impacts to the Project area would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or impact any wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites and impacts would be less than significant; (RECON, 2023a, p. 30).
Level of Significance before Mitigation. The Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, with established migratory wildlife corridors, or with the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
D.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold e): Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with the following General Plan Policies:
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-23 June 2023
• COS 1.2 -Protection of Significant Trees;
• COS 1.3 - Other Significant Vegetation.
E.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs for the Project applicable to threshold e).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the Project related to threshold e).
E.2 Impact Analysis
As discussed in Section 4.10 , Land Use and Planning, the Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources including Conservation and Open Space Policies COS 1.2 (Protection of Significant Trees), 1.3 (Other Significant Vegetation), 2.1 (MSHCP Implementation), and 2.3 (Biological Reports). In particular, COS 1.2 calls for the protection of significant trees. Significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. In par ticular, California native trees should be protected . No native trees or oak species occur onsite and the removal of primarily Peruvian pepper trees would not conflict with any City of Jurupa Valley protected tree ordinance or oak tree management guidelines. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation. Impacts would be less than significant.
E.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
E.4 L evel of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold f): Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is in conflict with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
F.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-24 June 2023
PPP 4.3-1, as described in Section 4.3.6.A.1, would apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to threshold f).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.3-1, as described in Section 4.3.6.A.1, would apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to Threshold f).
F.2 Impact Analysis
This section demonstr ates the compliance of the Project with respect to biological aspects of the MSHCP.
The Project was evaluated with regard to Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section 6.1.3), Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section 6.1.4), and Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2); (RECON, 2023a; p. 33).
Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Typically, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP), as addressed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2, would be required (WRCRCA , 2003). However, during a pre- application meeting on August 10, 2022, to discuss the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) and Joint Project Review processes, representatives fr om the WRCRCA indicated that Joint Project Review was previously completed in 2005 and because this authorization has no expiration, no additional processing through the MSHCP would be required , including preparation of a DBESP , as long as the Project development footprint was consistent (personal comm. T. Campbell; RECON 2023a, p. 35). Wetland permits and mitigation for impacts to these resources would still be required as described in the Biological Technical Report (RECON 2023a, p. 35), and as implemented under MM BIO-4.
Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species
Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP addresses measures required to ensure protection of narrow endemic species. The Project is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and as discussed in Section 5.2 and Attachment 3 of The Biological Technical Report for the District at Jurupa Valley Project Site (RECON, 2023a); narrow endemic species are not expected to occur, based on results of the December, 2021 General Biological Survey. However, no narrow endemic species have moderate or high potential to occur on site. Therefore, no narrow endemic species are expected to be impacted and the Project would be in compliance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP (RECON, 2023a, p. 35).
Conservation within Criteria Cells
Approximately 93.4 acres of the eastern portion of the Project area falls within the northwestern half of Criteria Cell 187. MSHCP Table 3-7 addresses conservation criteria for the Jurupa Area Plan which includes the approximately 159.4-acre Criteria Cell 187. Conservation criteria for this cell focuses on Riversidean alluvial fan scrub habitat and agriculture along the Santa Ana River within the eastern portion of the cell. The majority of this cell’s eastern portion falls outside of the Project site . The portion of the criteria cell within the Project site contains heavily disturbed lands and lacks either Riversidean alluvial fan scrub or active agricultural lands. As the MSHCP specifies conserving 15 SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-25 June 2023
percent to 25 percent of this cell, and focuses on land types not found within the Project site, project impacts are not anticipated to reduce the conservation criteria for this cell below these conservation thresholds. In addition, no direct impacts are anticipated to the Santa Ana River or its associated habitats, as those are located outside of the Project boundary. Therefore, mitigation for impacts to Criteria Cells are not anticipated (RECON, 2023a; pp. 35-36).
Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildland Interface
MSHCP Section 6.1.4 addresses requirements related to indirect impacts for projects within or adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Area, Criteria Cell, or Conservation Area. A portion of Criteria Cell 187 falls within the Project area. In addition, the Project area’s eastern boundary is adjacent to Public/Quasi-Public Conservation Lands associated with the Sant a Ana River channel. As such, the Project would be required to be in compliance with the guidelines described in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP (RECON, 2023a; pp. 36-37).
Drainage
The project would incorporate measures to ensure that the quality and quantity of runoff into adjacent Bio Clean Modular Wetlands would be installed to capture runoff from the Project site and would filter stormwater via infiltration to remove 80 percent of TDS and 90 percent of hydrocarbons before runoff would enter the municipal storm drain system and/or the Santa Ana River. The Project water quality Operations and Maintenance Plan would include periodic maintenance of the Modular Wetlands as recommended by the manufacturer. MSHCP Conservation Areas are not altered in an adverse way compared to existing conditions. Discharge of untrea ted surface runoff into MSHCP Conservation Areas would be avoided and a stormwater system would be designed to prevent the release of potentially harmful elements to biological resources to these areas (RECON, 2023a; p. 36).
Toxics
Any chemicals or bioproducts produced by the Project that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, hab itat, or water quality would be handled in such a way as to ensure these chemicals are not discharged into MSHCP Conservation Areas (RECON, 2023a; p. 36). 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.
T
he 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
-s
ite 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.
T
he 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:
SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-26 June 2023
• 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. • 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.
Lighting
Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design. This also complies with City Municipal Code Section 9.145.050.(14), which requires that all site lighting be shielded to prevent glare and direct illumination on adjoining properties (RECON, 2023a, p. 37).
In the proposed Specific Plan, Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a; Section 3, p. 20), includes the following requirements that comply with City Municipal Code Section
9.145.050.(14). These are included as PDF 4.1-5, PDF 4.1-6, and PDF 4.1-7, in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. • Orientation: All exterior lighting fixtures shall be directed downward to illuminate pedestrian pathways and parking areas and avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution. However, up lighting effects to promote nighttime identity and character are allowed provided such exterior lighting features utilize indirect or hidden lighting sources for wall washing, featuring of architectural elements, landscaping, entries, and pedestrian areas. • Height: Pole-mounted, building-mounted, or tree-mounted lighting fixtures shall be no more than 30 feet in height to minimize direct glare beyond the parking lot or service area. An exception to this maximum height requirement can be approved or modified as part of the Site Development Permit if it is determined that the proposed height will not be contrary to public health and safety.
Shielding: Pole-mounted lights shall be shielded, and the light directed away from the public streets.
Pole-mounted lights shall utilize cut-off fixtures and shall not be directed toward residences. Projects shall ensure zero light spill off-site.
Noise
Appropriate noise attenuation strategies would be implemented for this project so that wildlife within the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas is not subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards (RECON, 2023a; p. 37). Measures include installing a temporary noise barrier per during construction and locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
Invasive Plant Species
Plants used in landscaping for this project would avoid those listed in Table 6-2 of the MSHCP. Specific Plan Table 4.1, Plant Palette, identifies the acceptable types of plantings that include a variety of groundcovers, SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-27 June 2023
shrubs, ornamental grasses, and evergreen and deciduous trees. The plant palette requires plants native to the region.
Barriers
The project would incorporate fencing to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespassing or dumping in the adjacent MSHCP Conservation Areas (RECON, 2023a; p. 37).
Grading/Land Development
The Specific Plan requires that grading plans for each phase will be reviewed and approved by the City prior to the issuance of grading permits. All grading plans and activities will conform to the City’s grading ordinance and dust and erosion control requirements. • Grading shall conform to the current California Building Code. • Grading shall conform to City of Jurupa Valley regulations. • Grading shall conform to the Project’s geotechnical investigation report, geotechnical engineer recommendations as approved by the City’s Engineering Department, and specific studies. • Prior to initial grading activities, a detailed soils report and geotechnical study shall be prepared to analyze on-site soil conditions and slope stability and shall include appropriate measures to control erosion and dust.. Additionally, manufactured slopes associated with project development would not extend into any MSHCP Conservation Areas (RECON, 2023a; p. 37).
Additional Survey Requirements
MSHCP Section 6.3.2 addresses survey requirements for covered plant and animal species in order to achieve cove rage for these species (WRCRCA 2003). The Project site is not located within the MSHCP Additional Survey Areas for amphibians, mammals, or within any Special Linkage Areas but is within the survey area for western burrowing owl. Therefore, a western burrowing owl habitat assessment (Step I) and subsequent focused burrow (Step II-Part A) and owl surveys (Step II-Part B) were conducted in accordance with County of Riverside survey guidelines. While no western burrowing owl was detected during focused surveys, the survey guidelines require pre-construction surveys, given the presence of suitable habitat. The pre -construction survey would be conducted within the impact area within 30 days prior to ground disturbance as detailed in mitigation measure BIO-2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey (RECON, 2023a; pp. 37).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation . Conflicts with the MSHCP requirements (see PPP 4.3 -1), including sections pertaining to Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Section
6.1.3), Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface MSHCP Section 6.1.4), and Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP Section 6.3.2) would be significant without mitigation. SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-28 June 2023
F.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-3 included under section 4.3,6 A.3 above, MM BIO-4 under section 4.3.6 C.3 above, and Mitigation Measures NOI -1 and NOI- 2 from Section 4.12, Noise, would apply to threshold f).
F.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
4.3.7 Cumulative Impacts
The Project site is located in the City of Jurupa Valley, on the west/northwest bank of the Santa Ana River. With the exception of the Pedley Hills to the west, Jurupa Mountains to the northwest and the Box Spring Mountains to the east, the Project site is the last remaining large open space area within approximately eight miles. Land use of the site has been primarily that of agricultural and vacant/undeveloped land since at least 1938, with the exceptions of a few residences, small commercial buildings, and a horse race track (AEI, 2022, p. 6). With the proximity of the Santa Ana River and the presence of a soft -bottom portion of the Jurupa Ditch, this site is likely to have been used by sensitive and non-sensitive wildlife species, as well as a local movement corridor for wildlife accustomed to human activity and as a foraging and hunting area for local wildlife species.
Cumulative impacts refer to incremental effects of an individual project when assessed with the effects of past, current, and proposed projects. The proposed Project is one of approximately 63 projects in the Project vicinity that are either proposed, are under construction or have been completed within the past five years. Most, if not all, of these project s impact biological resources either dire ctly or indirectly . This cumulative impact analysis for biological resources considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site . The cumulative impact evaluation also takes into consideration the geographic area covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which is the prevailing habitat conservation plan applicable to the Project site.
The temporary direct and/or indirect impacts of the Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts (CEQA Section 15355) to biological resources within the region of the Project site. Only t hree vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the Project site:
disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land (RECON, 2023a, p. 11). Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under CEQA and thus impacts to these land cover types would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts to disturbed riparian would be considered significant and require mitigation through implementation of MM BIO-4. Per the MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee will be required for the total acreage of project impacts. T he general biological sur veys and narrow endemic plant species habitat assessment were conducted concurrently on December 16 and 17, 2021, and a conclusion was made that the Project site does not support special-status or sensitive plant species, or the habitat required for such species (RECON, 2023a). The Project may permanently impact 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. and State, under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the RWQCB; and 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and 1.43 acres as CDFW Ri parian. However, project i mpacts on n on-wetland waters and riparian areas would be less than significant after implementation of MM BIO-4.
As discussed in Section 4.3.3, the MSHCP is a comprehensive multi -jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in western SECTION 4.3 – BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.3-29 June 2023
Riverside County. It was developed to address the comprehensive regional planning effort and anticipated growth in the City of Jurupa Valley and other areas of western Riverside County. A ll projects within the Western Riverside MSHCP Area must comply with the requirements of the MSHCP and all projects must comply with the requirements of the federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, Sections 401 and 404 CWA, Sections 1600 – 1617 FGC, and all applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations, policies, and ordinances.
With adherence to the PPP 4.3 -1, and MMs BIO-1 through BIO-4, project impacts would be reduced to less than significant. The proposed P roject has been designed and mitigated to remain in compliance with all MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines and therefore will not result in an adverse cumulative impact.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-1 June 2023
4.4 Cultural Resources
This section provides an overview of cultural resources that may be present within the study area, defined in the Cultural Resources study prepared by ASM Affiliates, Inc. (ASM) (Figure 4. 4-1) (see Appendix D7 - Constraints-Level Cultural Resources Technical Report [ASM, 2022]).
Cultural resources are artifacts of human activity, occupation, or use. They include expressio ns of human culture and history in the physical environment, such as archaeological sites, historic buildings and structures, or other culturally significant places. This section also provides an analysis of the Project’s potential impacts on historic resources that could result from development of the proposed Project. The analysis is based on investigations of the Project site by cultural resources and historical resources specialists. This section is also based on record searches and other investigation methods provided in Appendix D7. In the following discussion, “Project site” and “Project site boundary” refers to the Project area depicted in Figure 4.4-1; “Project area” refers to the Project site and a half mile radius as well as the general area surrounding the Project site.
4.4.1 Existing Conditions
Natural Setting
The Project site lies within the City of Jurupa Valley, which is defined by the riparian corridor of the Santa Ana River, slightly undulating flatlands of Mira Loma, rolling terrain of the Pedley Hills, and rugged outcroppings of the Jurupa Mountains. Elevations at the Project site range from approximately 800 to 820 feet above mean sea level at the north edge to 780 feet at the south, sloping gradually to the south- southeast. The Project site currently contains a small number of residences along Wallace Road, which bisects it, but is otherwise largely vacant.
The geology underlaying the Project area is predominantly modified alluvium derived from granite.
The soils comprising the Project site include DaD2 Delhi fine sand (38.2 acres), GoB Grangeville loamy fine sand (23.9 acres), GyC2 Greenfield sandy loam (4.8 acres), RaB3 Ramona sandy loam (10.6 acres), RcC2 Ramona sandy loam (14.0 acres), TeG Terrace escarpments (9.5 acres), and TwC Tujunga gravelly loamy sand (8.4 acres) (USDA, 2022).
The geographical center of the Jurupa Mountains is about 44 miles east of Los Angeles and seven miles northwest of Riverside. Crystalline rocks comprise the bulk of the Jurupa Mountains and probably are the northernmost exposures of the rocks typical of the Southern California batholith.
The oldest roc ks in the Jurupa Mountains are a series of pre -batholithic metasedimentary rocks which are questionably Triassic in age (MacKevett, 1950).
The Project site is located at the eastern edge of the City of Jurupa Valley, previously an unincorporated community in Riverside County northwest of downtown Riverside, which is shown on the Fontana, California , 2018 USGS quadrangle map. Jurupa Valley is bordered by the cities of Norco and Ontario to the west, the City of Fontana to the north, and the City of Riverside to the south and east. The City is served by the Riverside Freeway (State Route [SR] 91) and Interstate 15 to the east, and SR 60 to the north.
The Project site is bounded by SR 60 and Frontage Road to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, 34 th Street and Water Street to the south, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west. Bordering the Project site to the south is a mix of single and multiple family residences. SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-2 June 2023
Figure 4.4-1
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF THE STUDY AREA
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-3 June 2023
Archaeological Setting
Archaeological investigations in Riverside County and elsewhere in southern California have documented a diverse range of prehistoric human occupations, extending from the terminal Pleistocene down to the time of European contact (Koerper and Drover, 1983; Mason, 1984; McKenna, 1986; Wallace, 1955; Warren, 1968).
Prehistoric Overview
The term "prehistoric period" refers to the period of pre -contact Native California lifeways and traditions prior to the arrival of Euro-Americans.
It is widely acknowledged that human occupation in the Americas began about 13,000 or more years ago (all dates presented here are calibrated radiocarbon ages or calendar dates). However, recent discoveries in regions outside of California have pushed that age back several thousand years more to about 15,000 or even perhaps up to nearly 20,000 years ago.
To describe and understand the cultural processes that occurred during prehistory, archaeologists have routinely developed chronological frameworks to correlate technological and cult ural changes recognized in the archaeological record. These summaries bracket certain time spans into distinct archaeological horizons, traditions, complexes, and phases.
There are many such models even for the various sub- regions of Southern California. Given the variety of environments and the mosaic of diverse cultures within California, prehistory is typically divided into specific sub -regions that include the interior of Southeastern California and Mojave Desert; and San Diego and the Colorado Desert.
Many archaeologists tend to follow the regional syntheses adapted from a scheme developed by William J. Wallace in 1955 and modified by others. Although the beginning and ending dates vary, the general framework of prehistory in the Southern California region consists of the following four periods:
• Paleoindian and Lake Mojave Periods [terminal Pleistocene and Early Holocene] (ca. 11000 B.C. to 6000 B.C.). This time period is characterized by highly mobile foraging strategies and a broad spectrum of subsistence pursuits. These earliest expressions of aboriginal occupation in America were marked by the use of large dart or spear points (Fluted and Concave Base Points) that are an element of the Western Clovis expression. Following the earliest portions of this time span there was a change in climate coincident with the retreat of the glaciers. Large bodies of water existed and lakeside aboriginal adaptations were common. Large stemmed points (Western Stemmed Series – Lake Mojave and Silver Lake point types) were accompanied by a wide variety of formalized stone tools and were employed with the aid of atlatls (dart throwing boards). The latter archaeological materials are thought to be representative of an adaptation that was in part focused on lacustrine and riverine environments.
• Millingstone Horizon [Middle Holocene] (ca. 6000 B.C. to A.D. 1000). During this time span mobile hunter-gatherers evolved and became more sedentary. Certain plant foods and small game animals came to the forefront of indigenous subs istence strategies. This prehistoric cultural expression is often notable for its large assemblage of millingstones. These are especially well-made, deep-basin metates accompanied by formalized, portable handstones SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-4 June 2023
(manos). Additionally, the prehistoric cu ltural assemblage of this time period is dominated by an abundance of scraping tools (including scraper planes and pounding/pulping implements), with only a slight representation of dart -tipped - projectile points (Pinto, Elko and Gypsum types).
• Late Prehistoric Period (ca. A.D. 1000 to 1500). Following the Millingstone Horizon were cultures that appeared to have a much more complex sociopolitical organization, more diversified subsistence base and exhibited an extensive use of the bow and arrow. Small, light arrow points (ex. Rose Spring Series), and, later, pottery mark this period along with the full development of regional Native cultures and tribal territories. • Protohistoric Period (ca. A.D. 1500 to 1700s). This final cultural period ushered in long-distance contacts with Europeans, and thereby led to the Historic Period (ca. A.D. 1700 to contemporary times). Small arrow points recognized as Desert Side- notched and Cottonwood forms are a hallmark of this time period.
Ethnohistoric Overview
Ethnohistoric Period (Post A.D. 1750)
The Native American Heritage Commission has stated in past CEQA documents that there are a number of tribes that may be traditionally and culturally affiliated with Jurupa Valley. This topic is discussed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources.
Historic-Period Overview
Spanish/Mexican Era
Spanish occupation of California began in 1769, in San Diego. Prior to that, the first Europeans to explore the region that would become the state of California were members of the A.D. 1542 expedition of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. Cabrillo sailed along the coast of California but did not explore the interior.
Spanish contact in the vicinity of the Project area did not take place until the 1770s when Father Garces traveled across the Mojave Desert and entered coastal southern California through the Cajon Pass (Walker, 1986) into the San Bernardino Valley and on to the San Gabriel.
The Mission San Gabriel de Archangel was established in 1771 and claimed what are now the San Gabriel and San Bernardino valleys. In 1819, a mission outpost, or asistencia, was established in the area of present -day Redlands (Dumke, 1944; Hanna, 1951; McWilliams, 1973; Scott , 1977). This outpost, part of Mission San Gabriel’s Rancho San Bernardino, was established to expand the agricultural holdings of Mission San Gabriel. The asistencia was later moved to its current location, where construction began in 1830; it was abandoned soon after in 1834 (Lugo, 1950).
Mexico rebelled against Spain in 1810, and by 1821, Mexico, incl uding California, achieved independence. The Mexican Republic began to grant private land to citizens to encourage emigration to California. Huge land grant ranchos took up large sections of land in California. Ranchos surrounded the mission lands in all d irections. Except for those large tracts of land, the Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Fernando lands were used for the support of the mission and provided for the large population of Tongva Native Americans. The mission lands were held in trust for Nat ive SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-5 June 2023
peoples by the Franciscan missionaries for eventual redistribution; this intended plan was thwarted by the secularization act. In 1838, Juan Bandini was granted 32,000 acres of land by the Mexican government called the Rancho Jurupa, within which the Project site is situated.
The Mexican-American War of 1846 saw the invasion of California by the United States from both land and sea. Following several skirmishes in the San Diego and Los Angeles areas, and the capture of the territorial capital in Monterey, the United States rule was firmly established. After a rapid influx of Americans to the north because of the Gold Rush of 1849, California was made a state in 1850. The economic and social order was slow to change in the southern portion of the state, and rancheros were left in control of their vast estates through the 1860s. Los Angeles was a part of the “Cow Counties” and had little representation in the state legislature because of the sparse population. This allowed the predominantly Anglo population of the north to pass laws aimed at breaking up the ranches for settlement by Eastern farmers. Coupled with devastating droughts in the early 1860s that crippled many livestock raisers, dismemberment of the ranchos soon came. This helped pave the way for the “Boom of the Eighties” (Dumke, 1944) which saw an influx of people from the eastern United States and the beginning of many of the towns we see today in Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
Much of the plains between these areas came to be filled with farms and orchards.
The American Period to the Founding of Jurupa Valley
In 1838, the area of the Jurupa Valley was granted to Juan Bandini by Governor Alvarado (Guinn , 1902; Johnson, 2005, 2012). Rancho Jurupa spanned 32,000 acres and included a portion of the Santa Ana River within its boundaries. Portions of the Rancho Jurupa were later sold in 1843 to Benjamin Wilson who sold his portion to Louis Rubidoux (b. Robidoux) in 1849. Rubidoux’s grandfather was a fur trader who migrated from Quebec to St. Louis, Missouri, where he founded what became the family business. After 1803, when St. Louis officially became part of the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase, Rubidoux and his brothers became citizens, though he was also a naturalized Mexican citizen who had served as Alcalde of Santa Fe, New Mexico. Rubidoux, who arrived in California in 1844, used his land for cattle raising, orchards, vineyards, and operated one of the first wineries in the area. A large irrigation canal, the Jurupa Ditch, wa s built at some time during either Wilson or Rubidoux’s ownership of the Rancho (Guinn, 1902; Johnson, 2005). Before he died in 1868, Rubidoux sold portions of his land as small ranches to many different settlers, including the retired sea captain, Cornelius Jensen. Shortly after marrying Mercedes Alvarado in 1854, whose family had lived in California since the 1770s, Jensen became a prominent member of a community known as the La Placita de los Trujillos, or Agua Mansa. After a great flood washed away the city in the 1860s, Cornelius and Mercedes moved to the Rubidoux ranch in 1870 and built the first non-adobe house in the area, where members of the Jensen- Alvarado family farmed the land for the next century until the 1970s. The town of Rubidoux was eventually sited on part of the Rubidoux rancho and the original adobe house, first constructed by Benjamin Wilson and later sold to Rubidoux was designated California Historic Landmark No. 102 at 5575 Mission Boulevard. The adobe no longer exists, while the Jen sen Alvarado Historic Ranch (California Historic Landmark #943), located approximately one -quarter mile west -southwest of the Project site, serves as a historic park and museum.
By the 1880s, settlers began to populate the region of what would become Jurupa Valley. In 1870, the town of Riverside was founded. Rancho Jurupa was part of San Bernardino County until March 11, 1893, when Riverside County was formed from territory originally belonging to San Bernardino and San Diego Counties (Kyle et al., 2002; Salley, 1991: p. 92), making the City of Riverside its county seat.
The City of Riverside became a central trading center for the region, drawing settlers to the area SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-6 June 2023
through the turn of the twentieth century. By that time, several small agricultural communities called Etiwanda, Sansevain, and Bloomington had formed in the Juru pa Valley area. The Pleasant Valley School District was formed in 1886 and later became a voting district that encompassed communities such as Rubidoux, Mira Loma, Pedley, and Glen Avon (Lord, 2014; Kyle et al., 2002).
The late 1800s were a time of agricultural pursuits for most of the residents of the area that would become the City of Jurupa Valley. The expansion of the Southern Pacific Railroad into s outhern California meant a growing number of immigrants to the area. However, unlike the City of Riverside, the City of Jurupa Valley did not grow quickly into a larger metropolitan area, and the population remained relatively small with a more rural and agricultural base.
Approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site lies the Flabob Airport, which was fo unded in 1925 and is one of the oldest continuously operated airports in California. Today, the airport is known as the home of Experimental Aircraft Association (EAA) Chapter One of the Antique Airplane Association, and the ground facilities cater to a variety of aircraft restoration and vintage specialists.
On July 1, 2011, the community of Rubidoux and the adjoining towns of Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, Glen Avon, and Sunnyslope were incorporated in the new City of Jurupa Valley. The largest industries in Jurupa Valley are construction, retail trade, and manufacturing. In 2019, the median household income in Jurupa Valley was $70,642, which is higher than the national average, and the median age is 32.1 with a total population of 105,653 (DATA USA, 2022).
History of the Project Site
The earliest U.S. Geological Survey topographic map (Southern California Sheet No. 1) shows Rubidoux Boulevard already in place, as well as the Santa Ana River channel in 1901. One structure is depicted in the northern portion within the Project site boundary. Additional roads and structures appear on the 1901 map, with little change until the 1943 map which depicts Wallace Street and many structures flanking it. Increased development of the Project area is evident in the 1957 Fontana Quad map, while maps from 1973 onward show fewer structures within the area. The aerial images provide greater detail regarding use of the Project site. Wallace Street appears on the 1938 image which also shows much of the area under cu ltivation or exhibiting a relatively uniform open space land surface with a more natural landscape to the east along the riverfront. Additional structures appear in the 1948 image, but it not until the 1966 aerial that the easternmost area within the Project site boundary also appears to be under cultivation and the large “racetrack” shaped feature is visible.
According to the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment produced by Leighton and Associates in 1989 for the proposed Emerald Meadows Ranch development , the property at 2950 Wallace Street was developed as the Riverside Thoroughbred Farm, which operated from approximately 1971 to 1983 (Leighton, 2006). The training facility consisted of pastureland, a horse coral, horse stalls, a trailer and vehicle stor age area, and a racetrack. Some additional buildings are present in the northern and central portions of the Project site by 1980. Sometime between 2005 and 2009, many of the structures in the northern part of the Project had been removed and the Project site appears vacant much as it does today.
Identified Cultural Resources
A total of 59 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the 0.5 -mile records search radius, including 23 within the Project site boundary (Table 4.4-1). All resources within the Project site are historic residential buildings with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch, a large -scale historic SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-7 June 2023
agricultural canal. All but one (P - 33-014342; 2861 Wallace Street) of the previously recorded buildings have been demolished since their recordation.
Table 4.4-1
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE (APE) Primary
Number (P-
33)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV)
Date / Recorded By Site Type Description Status
005648 5513H 1995 (J. A. Keller, Consulting
Archaeologist); 2004 (J.
Smallwood, CRM TECH)
Historic Jurupa Ditch Present
011193 -- 2001 (D. Van Horn,
Archaeological Associates)
Historic 3200 Rubidoux
Blvd
Destroyed
014329 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 5477 30th Street
Destroyed
014330 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2991 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014331 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2993 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014332 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2995 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
01433 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2997 Hall
Avenue
Destroyed
01434 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2975 Hall
Avenue
Destroyed
014335 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2917 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014336 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2913 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014337 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2970 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014338 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2960 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014339 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2936 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014340 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2914 Hall Avenue
Destroyed
014341 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2839 Wallace Avenue
Destroyed
014342 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2861 Wallace Street
Present
014343 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 3081 Wallace Street
Destroyed
014344 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 2950 Wallace Street
Destroyed
014345 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 3121 Wallace Street
Destroyed
014346 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 3082 Wallace Street
Destroyed
014347 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 3078 & 3082 ½ Wallace Street
Destroyed
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-8 June 2023
Primary
Number (P-
33)
Trinomial
(CA-RIV)
Date / Recorded By Site Type Description Status
014348 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 3182 Rubidoux Blvd.
Destroyed
014351 -- 2004 (C. Tibbet, CRM TECH) Historic 5003 34th Street
Destroyed
Source: ASM, 2022. See Appendix D71F
Architectural History Survey
The architectural history survey of the Project site was conducted by ASM Architectural Historian Lisa Demarais, M.A., and Laura Taylor Kung, M.A., on January 20, 2021. Buildings were recorded from the public right-of-way using hand-held tablets. Digital photographs were taken of each building and field notes recorded architectural features and condition. The survey area included both sides of Wallace Street north of 34th Street, and the north side of 34th Street from Rubidoux Boulevard east to the end of the street. Information from the Riverside County Assessor’s Office was used to determine which parcels contained buildings older than 50 years old. These records were then verified using historic aerial photographs.
The architectural history survey resulted in the identification of 36 built environment resources within the Project area (see Table 4.4-2). None were found eligible under CRHR Criterion 3. Given the evident alterations to many of the buildings, it is likely that most would not retain sufficient integrity to convey any historical significance that would potentially make them eligible under CRHR Criteria 1 and 2, and therefore, unlikely to meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the Jurupa Ditch was resurveyed, reevaluated, and confirmed that it is not eligible due to loss of integrity. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey, while four historic period resources consi sting of three water infrastructure features (which are combined as one feature), two remnant concrete pads associated with demolished structures, and an oval dirt road, along with a few isolated historic artifacts consisting of broken bottles, chunks of c oncrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project area along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. The previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5 -mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded. The field surveys conducted for this Project observed no prehistoric and only minor historic artifacts and features.
The surveyed area is generally rural with a mixture of large parcels and smaller, subdivided lots containing several structures. All of the buildings were residential with the exception of one church property and a mobile home park with a permanent structure functioning as an office. The oldest property in the survey area dates to 1915 (although it was altered in 1935) and the latest was built in 1965. There was also a significant alteration made to a property in 1970. The majority of the houses were built during the 1940s and 1950s. In total, 36 parcels were included in the reconnaissance-level survey, some with multiple buildings on the parcel. SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-9 June 2023
Table 4.4-2.
BUILDINGS IDENTIFIED IN THE PROJECT SITE GREATER THAN 50 YEARS OLD APN Address Year Built CRHR Style
178-310-003 2861 Wallace St. 1959 N Minimal Traditional 178-310-014 3167 Wallace St 1924 N Late Craftsman
178-310-033 3152 Wallace St. 1938 N Minimal Traditional 179-140-005 5557, 5565, 5567
34th St.
1945,1934/1944,
1930/1940
N Minimal Traditional
179-140-006 5553 34th St. 1940 N Minimal Traditional
179-140-007 5545 34th St. 1946,1958 N Minimal Traditional 179-170-019 5455 34th St. 1965 N Ranch
179-180-011 5421 34th St. 1934 N Minimal Traditional
179-180-010 5413 34th St. c.1930 c.1960 N Craftsman, Ranch 179-180-015 3377 Wallace St. 1947 N Minimal Traditional 179-180-008 3345 Wallace St. 1957 N Ranch
179-180-007 3343 Wallace St. 1947 N English Cottage
179-180-006 3333 Wallace St. 1951 N Minimal Traditional 179-180-005 3327 Wallace St. 1951 N NA
179-180-004 3317 Wallace St. 1920/1952 N Late Craftsman 179-180-003 3309 Wallace St. 1952 N Ranch
179-230-013 5337 34th St. 1949 N Minimal Traditional
179-180-001 3295 Wallace St 1947 N Minimal Traditional
179-230-014 5325 34th St. 1950 N Minimal Traditional
179-230-018 5311 34th St. 1935 N Spanish Colonial
Revival
179-230-015 5297 34th St. 1948,1950 N Minimal Traditional 179-230-017 5281 34th St. 1944,1958 N Spanish Colonial
Revival Minimal
Traditional
179-270-035 5225 34th St. 1930 N Spanish Colonial
Revival
179-270-020 5219 34th St. 1915,1935 N Minimal Traditional 179-270-034 5163 34th St. 1935 N Minimal Traditional
178-310-018 3166 Wallace St. 1930 N Late Craftsman
178-310-034 3156 Wallace St. 1938 N Ranch
178-310-030 3150 Wallace St. 1946/70 N Modern Shed
178-310-039 3112 Wallace St. 1951 N Minimal Traditional 178-310-047 3120 Wallace St. 1938 N None
178-310-040 3126 Wallace St. 1930 N Late Craftsman
178-310-049 3110 Wallace St. 1952 N Ranch
179-140-009 5479 34th St. c.1930 N Craftsman
178-310-017 3140 Wallace St. c.1930 N Minimal Traditional 179-270-018 5231 34th St. 1947 N Minimal Traditional
179-239-015 5305 34th St. 1930 N Late Craftsman
Source: ASM, 2022. See Appendix D71F
Recorded Archaeological Sites
ASM requested a records search from the Eastern Information Center (EIC ) at the University of California, Riverside to identify any previous studies conducted or previously recorded sites located within a 0.5-mile radius of the Project site. The search included review of all maps and files housed at the EIC related to the Project area. The search identified 40 previous cultural resource studies that SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-10 June 2023
had been conducted within the 0.5-mile radius. Full lists of reports and resources created by the EIC are provided as Attachment B in Appendix D7. The records search did not identif y any prehistoric sites within the Project site boundary.
The Jurupa Ditch (CA- RIV-5513H), located within the Project site, was originally constructed as an open ditch in the mid-nineteenth century, later converted to concrete piping in the 1920s and 1930s.
It was originally recorded in 1995 by J. Keller, as a primarily underground irrigation channel with sections dating to as early as 1843. It was noted at that time that the ditch was primarily composed of two subsurface parallel concrete pipes. The ditch was re -surveyed and evaluated in 2004 by B.
Tang et al. of CRM TECH. The ditch was noted to be important to development of the area during the mid-to-late nineteenth century. However, it was recommended ineligible for the CRHR due to lack of integrity. ASM resurveyed a portion of the ditch on April 28, 2022. ASM concurs with the prior evaluation from 2004 that although the ditch is associated with significant development of the Jurupa Valley, it no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey that historical significance under any CRHR criteria.
Previous Archaeological Investigations
Previous archaeological investigations requested from the EIC at the University of Riverside identified 36 residential properties older than 50 years, and the Jurupa Ditch (CA-RIV-5513H), which was recommended ineligible for the CRHR due to lack of integrity based on an evaluation by B. Tang et al. of CRM TECH in 2004 (see Table 4.4-1 above). The prior surveys did not identify any prehistoric sites in the Project site boundary.
Pedestrian Survey
A reconnaissance survey was conducted by ASM Senior Archaeologist Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA, on January 20, 2022, to assess the Project site and evaluate current conditions to inform the subsequent pedestrian survey. On April 28 and 29, 2022, a pedestrian archaeological survey of approximately 30 percent of open space within the Project site was conducted by ASM Associate Archaeologists Holly Drake, M.A., RPA, and Zaira Marquez, M.A. The 30-percent sample was selected to exclude the limited areas that had been subject to earlier survey (Gust , 2004) in order to maximize coverage within the sampling size constraint.
The majority of the Project site was found to be disturbed with evidence of both prior agricultural use and residential development that has since been demolished. The Project site, much of which appears to have been previously plowed and bulldozed, was found to contain scatters of broken and displaced building materials and residential refuse. Chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project site along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. Dumping within the Project site appears to be ongoing. Ground surface visibility was variable throughout the Project site due to the presence of dense patches of invasive grasses, but where ground surface was visible, soils appeared disturbed as a result of previous construction and agricultural activities.
Three water infrastructure features were identified in the northeastern portion of the Project site boundary, in association with a glass bottle base manuf actured by the Universal Glass Products Co. 1930-1962 (Toulouse, 1971). One of the features appears to be an abandoned concrete-encased well, one appears to be a concrete pipe stand, and the other appears to be a brick-lined subsurface cistern or other water storage feature.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-11 June 2023
Throughout the remainder of the Project site, two isolated historic bottles were identified including an intact Bayer prescription bottle manufactured by Owens -Illinois in 1936 and the base of a bottle manufactured by the Glass Containers Corp. between 1945 and 1968 (Toulouse , 1971). All of the identified artifacts were found in a disturbed context and were likely to have been relocated and/or damaged by post-depositional processes.
The archaeological pedestrian survey of a 30- percent sample of the current open space within the Project site boundary did not result in the identification of any prehistoric cultural resources and only a few isolated historic artifacts. These results were similar to those reported in the cultural study that was undertaken in support of the earlier Emerald Meadows Ranch Project (Gust, 2004), during which another smaller, partial pedestrian survey within the Project site boundary was undertaken.
In both cases, much of the Project site was unavailable for direct survey due to imported fill, residential development, and dense vegetation.
4.4.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
No written comments pertaining to Project impacts on cultural resources were received during the EIR scoping phase. Two emails relevant to tribal cultural resources were received and are described in Section 4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources, of this DEIR.
4.4.3 Regulatory Framework
The treatment of cultural resources is governed by federal, state, and local laws and guidelines. There are specific criteria for determining whether prehistoric sites or objects are significant and thus protected by law. Federal and state significance criteria generally focus on the integrity and uniqueness of the resource, its relationship to similar resources, and its potential to contribute information important to scholarly research. Some resources that do not meet federal si gnificance criteria may be considered significant by state criteria. The laws and regulations seek to mitigate Project impacts on significant prehistoric and historical-period resources.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966
The NHPA of 1966 authorized the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and coordinates public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect the Nation’s historic and archaeological resources. The NRHP includes districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. Section 106 (Protection of Historic Properties) of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects on historic properties.
National Register of Historic Places
The NRHP is “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’s cultural resources and to indicate what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment.” (Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 60.2.)
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-12 June 2023
Criteria
The NHPA, enacted in 1966, established the National Register program under the Secretary of the Interior. The National Register established four crit eria to evaluate significance and eligibility for listing. They are:
1. Property is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
2. Property is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.
3. Property embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values, or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components lack individual distinction.
4. Property has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Context
To qualify for the National Register, “a property must be significant; that is, it must represent a significant part of the history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture of an area, and it must have the characteristics that make it a good representative of properties associated with that aspect of the past.” (National Park Service [NPS], 1995: p. 7). Additionally, National Register Bulletin #15 states that the significance of a historic property can be judged and explained only when it is evaluated within its historic context. The Bulletin defines Historic contexts as:
“…historical patterns that can be identified through considerat ion of the history of the property and the history of the surrounding area” (NPS, 1995: p. 7).
Integrity
In addition to context, a property must have integrity, which is defined as: “…the ability of a property to convey its significance” ( NPS, 1995: p. 44). The seven aspects of integrity include location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. “To retain historic integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of the aspects” ( NPS, 1995: p. 44).
Historic Districts
A Historic District “…possesses a significant concentration, linkage, or continuity of sites, buildings, structures, or objects united historically or aesthetically by plan or physical development. A district derives its importance from being a unified entity, even though it is often composed of a wide variety of resources. The identity of a district results from the interrelationship of its resources, which can convey a visual sense of the overall historic environment or be an arrangement of historically or functionally related properties” (NPS, 1995:
p. 5).
These same criteria are detailed in Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 60.3(d). SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-13 June 2023
State
California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resource Code § 5024.10 et seq.) State law protects cultural resource s by requiring evaluations of the significance of historical resources in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents. A cultural resource is an important historical resource if it meets any of the criteria found in § 15064.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. These criteria are similar to those used in federal law. The California Register of Historical Resources ( CRHR) is maintained by the state Office of Historic Preservation. Properties listed, or formally designated eligible for listing, on the NRHP are automatically listed on the CRHR, as are state historical landmarks and points of interest. The CRHR also includes properties designated under local ordinances or identified through local historical resource surveys.
As detailed in Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the California Register is an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.
For purposes of CEQA, a historical resource is any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR (California Public Resource s Code [ PRC] § 21084.1). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
2. Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
4. Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Properties formally determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR.
The California Code of Regulations (CCR) further provides that cultural resources of local significance are CRHR-eligible (Title 14 CCR, § 4852).
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
CEQA requires the lead agency to consider whether the Project will have a significant effect on unique archaeological resources and to avoid unique archaeological resources when feasible or mitigate any effects to less-than-significant levels per PRC § 21083.2. In PRC § 21083.2(g), CEQA defines a unique archaeological resource as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-14 June 2023
2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
CEQA Guidelines (Title 14 of the CCR § 15064.5) states that historical resources include:
1. A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resource s PCR § 5024.1, Title 14 CCR, § 4850 et seq.);
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in § 5020.1(k) of the PRC or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC; and
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered an historic resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not included in a local register of histo rical resources, or identified in an historical resources survey does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC §§ 5020.12(j) or 5024.1.
A significant impact would occur under CEQA if the Project results in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5(a). A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, per CEQA Guidelines, means: “…physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alternation of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired. “ The significance of an historical resource is materially impaired when a project:
(A) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of an historical resources that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for, inclusion in the CRHR; or
(B) Demolishes or materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that account for its inclusion in a local register of historical resources pursuant to § 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in an historical resources survey meeting the requirements of § 5024.1(g) of the PRC, unless the public agency reviewing the effects of the Project establishes by a preponderance of evidence that the resource is not historically or culturally significant; or
(C) Demolishes or material ly alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of a historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its eligibility for inclusion in the CRHR as determined by a lead agency for purposes of CEQA. SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-15 June 2023
Section 15064.5(b)(3) of CEQA states that:
“Generally, a project that follows the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings or the Secreta ry of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), Weeks and Grim mer, shall be considered as mitigated to a level of less than a significant impact on the historical resource.”
Human Remains
According to § 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, all human remains are a significant resource. § 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are disco vered. These procedures are discussed within PRC § 5097. Per PRC § 5.97.98(a): Whenever the commission receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner pursuant to subdivision (c) of § 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, it shall immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The decedents may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treating or disposing, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation within 24 hours of their notification by the Native American Heritage Commission. The recommendation may include the scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
California Health and Safety Code
The California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 states that if human remains are discovered during construction on a project’s site, no further disturbance shall occur until a county coroner ma kes a determination of origin and disposition of the remains. If the county coroner determines the remains are not subject to his or her authority and recognizes the remains to be those of Native American, the county coroner must contact the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
4.4.4 Methodology
ASM Affiliates searched for the presence of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) through background research, desktop visual inspections of the APE, and pedestrian survey.
Specific identification efforts for this undertaking are discussed below. The APE ( Figure 4.4-1) includes the Project footprint. Ground disturbance has occurred in areas that have been affected by imported fill, residential development, and agricultural use. Based on the proximity of the Project site boundary to the Santa Ana River, there is a heightened potential for prehistoric resources.
The EIC is the regional repository for the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS). A cultural resource records and literature search was conducted by EIC staff utilizing a half-mile buffer beyond the APE. The record search there included archaeological site records and reports, California Points of Historical Interest, California Historical Landmarks, the CRHR, the NRHP, the California Historical Resources Inventory, and the Caltrans Historic Bridge Inventory. The record search only includes the results of previous archaeological or historical surveys and other investigations.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-16 June 2023
As noted earlier, a reconnaissance survey was conducted on January 20, 2022. A pedestrian survey was conducted on April 28 and 29, 2022. The p edestrian survey consisted of walking, visually inspecting, and photographing the exposed ground surface and landscaped areas throughout the Project site using standard archaeological procedures and techniques.
4.4.5 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance wit h § 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley adopted local CEQA Guidelines. The City’s local CEQA Guidelines are based on the CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. “Significance Criteria” may be included in a Threshold of Significance to provide local context.
The City of Jurupa Valley Guidelines recognizes the following significance thresholds related to tribal cultural resources. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact to tribal cultural resources if it would:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant § 15064.5 .
• Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a resource as described in CEQA Guidelines §15064.S(b).
• The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a resource as identified in General Plan Table 4.1: Designated Historic Structures in Jurupa Valley as amended from time to time.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource according to §15064.5.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a "historic" or "unique" archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.S(c). c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
4.4.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
• Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a resource as described in CEQA Guidelines §15064.S(b).
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-17 June 2023
• The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a resource as identified in General Plan Table 4.1: Designated Historic Structures in Jurupa Valley as amended from time to time.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs that are related to historical resources.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
The are no PDFs applicable to historical resources.
A.2 Impact Analysis
For purposes of CEQA, a historic resource is any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR (PRC §5024.1, Title 14 CCR, §4852). A resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR if it meets any of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
As part of the Project-specific Phase I Cultural Resource Survey, through a search of existing records, additional background research, and a pedestrian field survey, ASM evaluated whether any historic resources exist at the Project site.
EIC Records Search
As noted, a cultural records search for the Project site and the surrounding area within a 0.5 -mile radius was conducted at the EIC at UCR. A total of 59 cultural resources have been previously recorded within the 0.5-mile records search radius, including 23 within the Project site boundary (Table 4.4-1 ). Resources within the Project area are all historic residential buildings with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch, a large -scale historic agricultural canal. All but one of the previously recorded residential buildings (P-33-014342; 2861 Wallace Street) have been demolished since their recordation.
Architectural History Survey
The architectural history survey of the Project site was conducted on January 20, 2021. The survey area included both sides of Wallace Street north of 34th Street, and the north side of 34th Street from Rubidoux Boulevard east to the end of the street. Information from the Riverside County Assessor’s SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-18 June 2023
Office was used to determine which parce ls contained buildings older than 50 years old. These records were then verified using historic aerial photographs.
The architectural history survey resulted in the identification of 36 built environment resources within the Project area. None were found eligible under CRHR Criterion 3. Given the evident alterations to many of the buildings, it is likely that most would not retain sufficient integrity to convey any historical significance that would potentially make them eligible under CRHR Criteria 1 and 2, and therefore, unlikely to meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
Additionally, the Jurupa Ditch was resurveyed, reevaluated, and confirmed that it is not eligible due to loss of integrity. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey, while four historic period resources consisting of three water infrastructure features (which are combined as one feature) , two remnant concrete pads associated with demolished structures, and an oval dirt road, along with a few isolated historic artifacts consisting of broken bottles, chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project area along with recently discarded furniture, clothin g, and other residential items. The previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5 -mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded. The field surveys conducted for this Project observed no prehistoric and only minor historic artifacts and features.
The survey ed area is generally rural with a mixture of large parcels and smaller, subdivided lots containing several structures. All of the buildings were residential with the exception of one church property and a mobile home park with a permanent structure functioning as an office. The oldest property in the survey area dates to 1915 (although it was altered in 1935) and the latest was built in 1965. There was also a significant alteration made to a property in 19 70. The majority of the houses were built during the 1940s and 1950s. In total, 36 parcels were included in the reconnaissance-level survey, some with multiple buildings on the parcel (Table 4.4-2).
The Jurupa Ditch (CA-RIV-5513H), which is located within the Project site boundary, was originally constructed as an open ditch in the mid-nineteenth century, later converted to concrete piping in the 1920s and 1930s. It was originally recorded in 1995 by J. Keller and described as a primarily underground irrigation channel with sections dating to as early as 1843. It was noted at that time that the ditch was primarily composed of two subsurface parallel concrete pipes. The ditch was re - surveyed and evaluated in 2004 by B. Tang et al. of CRM TECH , who noted that the ditch was important to development of the area during the mid -to-late nineteenth century. However, it was recommended ineligible for the CRHR due to lack of integrity. ASM resurveyed a portion of the ditch on April 28, 2022. ASM concurs with the prior evaluation from 2004 that it no longer retains sufficient integrity to convey that historical significance under any CRHR criteria.
Archaeological Survey
As noted earlier, a brief reconnaissance was conducted by ASM on January 20, 2022, to assess the Project site and evaluate current conditions to inform the logistics of the subsequent survey. All open space within the Project site boundary was subjected to intensive archaeological pedestrian survey.
On April 28 and 29, 2022, a pedestrian archaeological sur vey of approximately 30 percent of open space within the Project site boundary was conducted by ASM, and the remainder of the Project site was surveyed July 10-13, 2022.
The majority of the Project site was found to be disturbed with evidence of both prior agricultural and residential development that has since been demolished. SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-19 June 2023
Four newly identified historical period resources were documented as a result of the archaeological survey; these resources are described briefly below and DPR forms were prepared. In addition to the documentation of the newly identified resources (see Table 4.4-2), the locations of all previously documented resources within the Project site boundary (see Table 4.4-1) were field -checked and DPR updates were created.
Three water infrastructure features were identified and recorded together in the northeastern portion of the Project site, in association with a glass bottle base manufactured by the Universal Glass Products Co. between 1930 and 1962. One of the features appears to be an abandoned concrete - encased well, one appears to be a concrete pipe stand, and the other appears to be a brick -lined subsurface cistern or other water storage feature.
Two additional resources are concret e pads with small amounts of associated historical- period refuse. One is a 30 x 15-foot pad likely associated with a former structure that existed sometime between 1938 and 1966. A large, approximately 2,500- foot historic debris scatter is located approximately 100 feet southeast of the concrete pad. The debris represent a secondary deposit and is smeared along a faint 115- foot northeast to southwest -trending dozer -grubbing track. Two isolated artifacts are also present in the area between the structure pad and debris scatter: a small aquamarine glass container fragment, and two small fragments of the same amethyst glass container fragment. The other concrete pad that was documented is partially buried, approximately 12 feet wide and 2.5 inches deep, and of unknown length. It is in poor condition, chipped and cracked, and is surrounded by non- diagnostic modern and historic debris. Based on historic aerials, the pad is related to a residence constructed by 1966 and demolished between 2005 and 2009.
The fourth newly documented resource consists of a 0.5 -mile (approximately 1,200 feet x 500 feet) oval dirt road constructed sometime between 1959 and 1966 based on historic aerials, and first appearing on 1969 topo map. The function of the track is unknown. Today i t is used for UTV/ATV racing. In aerials from 1985, the surface appears to have been paved, but the pavement has since been removed. Partially buried segments of a potentially historic east -west pipe alignment are also located within the area surrounded by the dirt oval. The exposed trench containing the pipe is first visible in 1980; it is unknown whether the trench was made to install or to remove the pipe. However, the overall state of corrosion of the pipe, together with the fact that portions appear to have been demolished, points toward the latter.
All prior recorded resources within the Project site are historic residential buildings, with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch, a large -scale historic agricultural canal. All but one (P - 33-014342; 2861 Wallace Street) of the previously recorded buildings have been demolished since their recordation. The historic ditch is no longer eligible for the CRHR. Historic resources observed and recorded during the pedestrian survey were evaluated and found to be not significant and not eligible for the CRHR. Therefore, the Project would have no adverse impact to historic resources.
While it is unlikely that historical resources would be adversely affected by construction of the Project, grading activities associated with development of the Project would cause new subsurface disturbance and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic archeological resources.
In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 and CUL-2 described below would ensure that impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on historical resources could potentially be significant.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-20 June 2023
A.3 Mitigation Measures
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, , 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.
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 resou rces and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, 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 inv olved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
Threshold b): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-21 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters a "historic" or "unique" archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.S(c).
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs for this Project related to archaeological resources.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
The are no PDFs applicable to archaeological resources.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Archaeological resources refer to surface or buried material remains, buried structures, or other items used or modified by people. Prehistoric archaeological resources predate European presence in the western Riverside County region, and can include villages or campsites, food remains, basketry fragments, shell and stone tools and tool making debris. Ethnohistoric or protohistoric archaeological resources are those that can be attributed to native cultures, but include evidence of European contact, such as trade beads or other goods in a site that otherwise appear to be prehistoric. Historic archaeological sites are those deposits that postdate European contact.
The architectural history survey resulted in the identification o f 36 built environment resources within the Project site boundary. None were found eligible under CRHR Criterion 3. There is one shed-style single -family residence in the survey area that was altered in 1970, and thus lacked integrity. Given the evident alterations to many of the buildings, it is likely that most would not retain sufficient integrity to convey any historical significance that would potentially make them eligible under CRHR Criteria 1 and 2, and therefore, unlikely to meet the definition of a historical resource as defined by CEQA. Additionally, the Jurupa Ditch was resurveyed, reevaluated, and confirmed that it is not eligible due to loss of integrity. No prehistoric archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey w hile four historic period resources consisting of three combined water infrastructure features, two remnant concrete pads associated with demolished structures, and an oval dirt road, along with a few isolated historic artifacts consisting of broken bottle s, chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials were distributed throughout the Project site along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. The previous cultural resources surveys within th e 0.5-mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded. The field surveys conducted for this Project observed no prehistoric or historic artifacts and features.
However, grading activities associated with development of the Project would cause new subsurface disturbance and could result in the unanticipated discovery of unique archeological resources.
Therefore, mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 are recommended.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on archaeological resources would be significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 apply.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-22 June 2023
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
Threshold c): Would the project disturb human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project disturbs any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
These include existing regulatory requirements, such as plans, policies, or programs which effectively reduce impacts regarding human remains . These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
The are no PDFs applicable to human remains.
C.2 Impact Analysis
The Project is proposed on a site that has been graded and in use since 1929. The fully built environment of the Project site and elevation relative to adjacent roads and parcels suggests that there was significant cut-and-fill of the ground surface here for construction, with no native surface soil remaining. During previous ground disturbance activities, no human remains were identified or recorded onsite. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered during precise grading or construction activities, the Project would be subject to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5, CEQA § 15064.5, and California Public Resources Code § 5097.98.
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 identifies procedures for the unlikely discovery of human remains. California Public Resources Code § 5097.98 stipulates the notification process during the discovery of Native American human remains, descendants, disposition of human remains, and associated artifacts.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP 4.4 -1, Comp liance with Selected California Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code sections, impacts on human remains would be less than significant.
C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
SECTION 4.4 – CULTURAL RESOURCES
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.4-23 June 2023
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
4.4.7 Cumulative Impacts
No prehistoric or historic archaeological resources were observed during the pedestrian field survey.
The previous cultural resources surveys within the 0.5 -mile buffer zone resulted in no prehistoric archaeological sites or isolates being recorded at the Project site or within the 0.5 -mile buffer zone.
However, the previous development of the property for agricultural (ranching) and residential use (recently demolished) suggests that unidentified historic resources could be present. The fully-built environment of the Project site and elevation relative to adjacent roads suggests that ground here has been significantly cut and filled, with no original surface soil remaining.
Grading operations could uncover subsurface cultural resources and result in a potentially significant impact to cultural resources; therefore, mitigation measures have been developed to reduce impacts to less than significant. Impacts to archaeological resources and human remains identified within the Project site and implementation of mitigation measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level; implementation of the proposed Project would not create or contribute to a cumulative impact on cultural resources.
Additional projects in the area or region would also involve grading and excavation activities and could significantly impact historical or archaeological resources that may be on or buried in soil under those sites. Each Project would be evaluated under CEQA for potential impacts to cultural resources. If warranted, each Project would be required to implement mitigation measures, to reduce potential impacts. Therefore, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects, the Project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact with respect to cultural resources.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-1 June 2023
4.5 Energy
4.5.1 Existing Conditions
Electricity Consumption
Southern California Edison Company (SCE) will provide electricity to the Project site from existing electrical service lines. The utility obtained 30.9 percent of its power supply from renewable sources in 2020 and includes 50 percent and 100 percent renewable Green Rate options. Therefore, the utility would provide power when needed onsite that is derived from a greater percentage of renewable sources.
Natural Gas Consumption
The Project site is located within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company (SoCalGas), which is regulated by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC regulates natural gas utility service for approximately 11 million customers and o versees utility purchases and transmission of natural gas to ensure reliable and affordable natural gas deliveries to existing and new consumers throughout the State of California.
More than 90 percent of the natural gas used in California is produced from basins in Texas and New Mexico. SoCalGas has a "network of transmission pipelines and four interconnected storage fields to deliver natural gas to nearly six million residential and business customers. The gas transmission system extends from the Colorado River on the east of the SoCalGas approximately 20,000- square- mile service territory, to the Pacific Coast on the west, and from Tulare County to the north, to the United States/Mexico border to the south supporting 21 million consumers in Southern California.
SoCalGas operates four storage facilities that interconnect with its gas transmission system. These storage facilities - Aliso Canyon, Honor Rancho, La Goleta, and Playa del Rey - are located near the primary load centers of the SoCalGas system" (SoCalGas, 2022b).
Transportation Energy
According to the Unites States Energy Information Administration (USEIA, 2021), transportation accounted for nearly 28 percent of California's total energy consumption in 2021. Petroleum- based fuels currently account f or 90 percent of California's transportation energy sources. However, as discussed in previous sections, the state has been working for over a decade on developing strategies and regulations for reducing petroleum use, such as use of alternative fuels and reducing vehicle miles traveled. The CEC predicts that the demand for gasoline will continue to decline over the next ten years, and that there will be an increase in the use of alternative fuels.
4.5.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review on March 31, 2022, and a public scoping meeting was held April 20, 2022 at the City of Jurupa Valley City Hall. No energy-related comments were made during the EIR Scoping Meeting. SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-2 June 2023
4.5.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards
Enacted in 1975, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards aim to reduce energy consumption by improving the fuel economy of cars and light trucks. CAFE standards are regulated by the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration (NHTSA).
NHTSA sets and enforces CAFE standards under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( USEPA) calculates average fuel economy levels and sets GHG standards under the Clean Air Act. On April 1, 2022, the NHTSA announced new, landmark fuel economy standards which follow President Biden’s executive order to drive American leadership forward on clean cars. The new standards will make vehicle miles per gallon more efficient, save consumers money at the pump, and reduce transportation emissions. The new CAFE standards for model year 2024-26 will reduce fuel use by more than 200 billion gallons through 2050, as compared to continuing under the old standards (USDOT, 2022).
Energy Independence and Security Act
Enacted in 2007, the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) reinforces energy reduction goals by aiming to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, improve efficiency of products, and promote research on GHG capture options. Additionally, the EISA aims to protect American consumers by moving the United States toward increased energy independence and security. Three primary provisions of the EIS A are (1) the CAFE standards, (2) the Renewable Fuel Standard, and (3) the appliance/lighting efficiency standards (USEPA, 2022).
State
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 6
CCR Title 24, Part 6: California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24) were first established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to reduce California’s energy consumption. The standards are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods.
The Title 24 standards are updated on a three-year schedule, with the most current 2022 standards adopted on August 11, 2021. In December , 2021 , it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code. The Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Energy Code) apply to newly constructed buildings, additions, and alterations.
They are a vital pillar of California’s climate action plan. The 2022 Energy Code will produce benefits to support the state’s public health, climate, and clean energy goals. The 2022 Energy Code encourages efficient electric heat pumps, establishes electric -ready requirements for new homes, expands solar photovoltaic and battery storage standards, strengthens ventilation standards, and more. The latest version of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations (Title 24) became effective on January 1, 2023. Building permit applications submitted after January 1, 2023 must compl y with the 2022 Energy Code. Public Resources Code § 25402 subdivisions (a)-(b) and § 25402.1 emphasize the importance of building design and construction flexibility by requiring the CEC to establish performance standards, in the form of an “energy budget” in terms of the energy consumption per square foot of floor space (CEC, 2022).
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-3 June 2023
The 2022 Energy Code reorganizes low-rise (three or fewer habitable stories) and high-rise (four or more habitable stories) multifamily buildings into one building type, updates the multifamily buildings definition, and moves all requirements for multifamily buildings to their own subchapters under §§ 160.0 -180.4. Major changes to nonresidential and hotel/motel building requirements include new photovoltaic (PV) and energy storage system requirements, a prescriptive heat pump space-conditioning baseline for certain climate zones, requirements for dedicated outdoor air systems (DOAS), and the addition of new covered processes, including controlled environment horticulture spaces. A definition for “Multifamily Building” was added, and multifamily buildings now have their own sections, beginning with §160.0 (State of California, 2023).
On November 17, 2022, the City Council of the Jurupa Valley adopted an amendment to the Chapter
8.05 – Adoption of Construction Codes to Title 8 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. This amendment includes the adoption of the California Energy Code 2022 edition ( CCR Title 24, Part 6 ) under Municipal Code § 8.05.010(7) (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022d).
California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 24, Part 11
CCR Title 24, Part 11: California Green Building Standards (Title 24) was developed in response to continued efforts to reduce energy, water, and material consumption. The most current version is the 2 022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen), which became effective on January 1, 2023 (DGS, 2022). One focus of CCR Title 24, Part 11 is on clean air vehicles and increasing requirements for electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure, which would reduce pollutant emissions. For new multi-family dwelling units, the residential mandatory measures were revised to provide additional EV charging space requirements, including quantity, location, size, single EV space, multiple EV spaces, and identification.
As discussed earlier, the Jurupa Valley City Council adopted an amendment that includes the California Green Building Standards 2022 edition ( CCR Title 24, Part 11 ) under Municipal Code §
8.05.010(8) (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022d).
California Renewable Portfolio Standard
Senate Bill 1078 (SB 1078), enacted in 2002, required retail sellers of electricity, including investor-owned utilities and community choice aggregators, to provide at least 20 percent of their supply from renewable sources by 2017. In 2006, Senate Bill 107 (SB 107) changed the target date to 2010. Executive Order S-14-08, signed on November 2008, changed the State’s Renewable Energy Standard to 33 percent renewable energy by 2020. The executive order was codified by Senate Bill X1-2. Finally, Executive Order S-21-09 directed the Air Resources Board ( ARB) to adopt regulations by July 31, 2010 to enforce S-14-08.
Senate Bill 350
Senate Bill 350 (SB 350), the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act, was enacted in 2015 and includes aggressive clean energy goals in an effort to address climate change. The law creates new clean energy, clean air, and greenhouse gas ( GHG) reduction goals for 2030. SB 350 adopts a GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by setting targets for efficiency and renewable electricity, primarily in the energy and transportation sectors. The Act is part of a larger effort to reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. To implement SB 350, the Energy Commission is working closely alongside the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and the SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-4 June 2023
ARB. Additionally, SB 350 tasks state agencies with studying and identifying barriers to, and opportunities for, utilizing clean, renewable energy in low-income communities (CEC, 2022a).
Senate Bill 100
Senate Bill 100 (SB 100), officially known as “The 100 Percent Clean Energy Act of 2018,” requires that public utilities, including electric corporations, must design renewable energy portfolios so that all retail sales by 2045 a re generated from renewable and zero- carbon energy sources. SB 100 updates the state’s Renewables Portfolio Standard to ensure that by 2030 at least 60 percent of California’s electricity is renewable (CEC, 2022b).
Assembly Bill 32
In 2006, the California State Legislature adopted Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 required ARB to adopt rules and regulations that would achieve GHG emissions equivalent to statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 through an enforceable statewide emission cap which will be phased in starting in 2012. Emission reductions shall include carbon sequestration projects that would remove carbon from the atmosphere and best management practices that are technologically feasible and cost effective.
ARB’s AB 32 Scoping Plan, which was adopted in 2009, proposes a variety of measures including strengthening energy efficiency and building standards; targeted fees on water and energy use; a market-based cap -and-trade system; achieving a 33 percent renewable energy mix; and a fee regulation to fund the program. The 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, builds upon the former Scoping Plans and Updates by outlining priorities and recommendations for the State to achieve its long-term climate objectives. This Plan establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet the climate target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements of the framework proposed are enhancements of the Renewables Portfolio Standard and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short- Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post -2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan (ARB, 2017).
On December 15, 2022, ARB approved the final proposed 2022 Scoping Plan, a world -leading roadmap to address climate change that cuts greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent and achieves carbon neutrality in 2045. The 2022 Scoping Plan provides a detailed sector -by-sector roadmap to guide the world’s fourth-largest economy away from its current dependence on petroleum and fossil gas to clean and renewable energy resources and zero-emission vehicles (ARB, 2022).
Low Carbon Fuel Standard
The Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS), adopted in 2009 and implemented in 2011, is designed pursuant to California AB 32 and Executive Order S -01-07. The LCFS is one of nine action measures to reduce California’s GHG emissions and emissions that cause climate change and smog -forming pollutants by improving vehicle technology, improving fuel efficiency, and increasing alternative transportation options. The LCFSs encourage pr oduction and use of clean low -carbon fuels across the state and establish a ten percent reduction in carbon intensity of fuel products by 2020. Moreover, providers of transportation fuels in the state must meet LCFS carbon intensity standards for each annual compliance period. The ARB administers the LCFS (ARB, 2022a). SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-5 June 2023
California Air Resources Board (ARB) Advanced Clean Cars Regulation The Advanced Clean Cars regulation was adopted in 2012 by the ARB in an effort to reduce emissions from passenger vehicles. Regulations were developed in coordination with the USEPA and NHTSA, and aim to control criteria pollutants and GHG emissions. The program aims to promote the development of environmentally advanced cars that promote high performance while also reducing smog-forming pollution and GHG emissions (ARB, 2022b).
ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel-Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling The ARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling 23 was adopted to reduce public exposure to particulate matter and associated toxic air contaminants by establishing restrictions, emissions standards, and other requirements for heavy- duty diesel engines. The regulation applies to any person, business, or a gency that operates diesel -fueled vehicles within the State of California. A primary requirement is that drivers may not idle diesel engines for greater than five minutes at any location (California Code of Regulations Title 13 Section 2485), which would also serve to reduce fuel energy consumption.
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 - SB 375 SB 375 promotes the State’s climate goals by helping reduce GHG emissions through coordinated transportation, housing, and land use planning. U nder SB 375, the ARB creates regional targets for GHG reductions from passenger vehicles for 2020 and 2035 for the 18 metropolitan planning regions.
The targets were last updated in 2018. In accordance with SB 375, each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) must develop a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) that would allow the region to meet the ARB’s targets. Additionally, SB 375 provides incentives to encourage sustainable development, including CEQA exemptions § 65583 (8) requires housing elements to include an analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect to residential development., (ARB, 2022c; California Legislative Information, 2008).
Assembly Bill 758
Assembly Bill 758 (AB 758), adopted in 2009, requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to develop a comprehensive program to achieve greater energy savings in the state’s residential and nonresidential buildings. AB 758 requires publicly -owned electric utilities to implement energy efficiency programs that encourage energy savings in GHG reductions and report its implementation status to the state. Programs may include, but are not limited to, upgrading infrastructure or providing consumers with information on energy usage (California Legislative Information, 2021).
Senate Bill 1389
Senate Bill 1389 (SB 1389), adopted in 2002, requires the CEC to develop an integrated energy policy report on or before November 2003, and every two years thereafter. The bill requires the commission to conduct assessments and forecasts to evaluate energy supply, production, distribution, demand and price (California Legislative Information, 2002 ). The Final 2022 IEPR Update was published on February 3, 2023, and provides updates on historical data, economic and demographic projections, and electricity rates, as well as an update to the hourly forecast to consider the September 2022 heat event. These issues will require action if the state is to meet its climate, energy, air quality, and other
23 13 C alifornia Code of Regulations § 2485.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-6 June 2023
environmental goals while maintaining reliability and controlling costs. It incorporates a new approach to assessing the transportation sector, given the rapid advancements in transportation electrification. Also, a new framework has been created that better aligns with how the forecast is used — it includes a baseline forecast, a planning forecast, and a local reliability scenario (CEC, 2022c).
California Environmental Quality Act
Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, titled Energy Conservation, identifies the state’s goals of conserving energy and presents means of achieving the goal, including decreased per capita energy consumption, decreased reliance on natural gas, and increasing reliance on renewable energy. To ensure that energy implications are considered when assessing proposed projects, CEQA requires that EIRs discuss potential energy impacts with an emphasis on reducing inefficient consumption of energy. Appendix F details the manner in which impacts to energy must be addressed in various parts of an EIR, including, but not limited to, the Project description, mitigation measures, and alternatives.
Assembly Bill 1109
California Assembly Bill 1109 (AB 1109), also known as the Lighting Efficiency and Toxics Reduction Act, required reductions in energy usage for lighting and is structured to reduce lighting electrical consumption by (1) at least 50 percent from 2007 levels for indoor residential lighting, and (2) at least 25 percent from 2007 levels for indoor commercial and all outdoor lighting by 2018.
Regional
2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy In compliance with SB 375, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted its Connect SoCal (2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [RTP/SCS]) in September 2020. A primary goal of the plan is to promote mobility and transportation services across the SCAG region, and in turn meet goals set by the ARB. The RTP/SCS applies to six counties under SCAG’s jurisdiction : Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. The plan charts a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making key connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can make plans a reality. The goals of Connect SoCal fall into four core categories: economy; mobility; environment; and healthy/complete communities. The plan explicitly lays out goals related to housing, transportation technologies including opportunities for energy conservation, equity and resilience in order to adequately reflect the increasing importance of these topics in the region (SCAG, 2020a; California Legislative Information, 2008).
The main focus of the SCS is to plan for growth in a fashion that will ultimately reduce GHG emissions, but the strategy is also part of a larger effort to address other development issues, including transit and vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which influence the consumption of petroleum-based fuels.
The Federal Transportation Improvement Program (FTIP) is a listing of multi -modal transportation projects proposed over a six- year period for the SCAG region. The Projects include highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, active transportation, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, etc. The FTIP is prepared to implement projects and programs listed in the RTP/SCS and is developed in compliance with state SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-7 June 2023
and federal requirements. For the year 2023, Riverside County has received $7,961 million in FTIP funding from SCAG (SCAG, 2022a).
Western Regional Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan In 2014, the Western Regional Council of Governments (WRCOG) adopted a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) for Western Riverside County. The Subregional CAP establishes policies and priorities to enable member jurisdictions, including Jurupa Valley, to implement strategies that successfully address AB 32 and SB 375. The CAP addresses the overall GHG emissions in Western Riverside County by preparing GHG inventories, identifying emissions reduction targets, and developing and evaluating GHG emissions reduction measures or strategies. These measures or strategies relevant to energy include reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing energy efficiency. Actions in this CAP will help reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. Energy measures include increasing community- wide building and equipment efficiency and renewable energy use and promoting energy efficiency and renewable energy generation throughout our communities and municipal operations. (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017; WRCOG, 2014).
Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan contains goals and policies that address energy conservation within the City (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) . The specific policies outlined in the City's General Plan that are related to ener gy conservation and that apply to the proposed Project are listed below in Section 4.5.8.
4.5.4 Methodology
The information in this section is based on the air quality assessment and greenhouse gas emissions technical reports prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associa tes, Inc. (Kimley- Horn, 2023a and 2023c).
These reports are included as Appendix D1 and Appendix D13 to this DEIR.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) was used to calculate natural gas, electricity (used onsite and for water conveyance), and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) after project buildout. 24 Calculations are shown in Appendix D8.
For mobile sources, CalEEMod calculated VMT and vehicle fleet mix for existing conditions and project buildout. Conversion of results to energy values is shown in Appendix D8.
4.5.5 Thresholds of Significance
In accordance with § 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley adopted local CEQA Guidelines. The City’s local CEQA Guidelines are based, in part, on the CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The City of Jurupa Valley Guidelines recognize the following significance thresholds and Significance Criteria related to air quality. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact on air quality if it would:
24 CalEEMod runs used for this analysis are in Appendix D1 and Appendix D13. SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-8 June 2023
a) Result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project:: may have a significant impact if it:
• Does not meet state or federal energy standards.
• Causes wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation.
• Results in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Does not utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.
• Does not include features
that encourage advanced energy conservation techniques
and the incorporation of energy -efficient design elements for private and public developments, including appropriate site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumpti on for heating and cooling, and offer incentives, as appropriate.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Under the City’s local significance threshold: The project may have a significant impact if it:
• Does not meet the requirements of Title 24, Building Standards Code and California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code.
• Does not meet the following General Plan Policies (if applicable):
• COS 5.1 - Best Available Practices.
• COS 5.5- Energy Efficiency and Green Building
• COS 5.8- Reduce "Heat Island" Effect
4.5.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
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?
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-9 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project:: may have a significant impact if it:
• Does not meet state or federal energy standards.
• Causes wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy during construction or operation.
• Results in an increase in demand for electricity or natural gas that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects.
• Does not utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills.
• Does not include features that encourage advanced energy conservation techniques and the incorporation of energy -efficient design elements for private and public developments, including appropriate site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumpt ion for heating and cooling, and offer incentives, as appropriate.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
The following include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs, based on federal, state, or local law, including existing City of Jurupa Valley municipal codes, that are applied to the Project to reduce energy use or waste. The se requirements are also included in the Project 's MMRP to ensure compliance.
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 latest 2022 CALGreen became effective January 1, 2023.
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.
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).
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 SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-10 June 2023
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.
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. 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.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-11 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features pertain to energy resources impacts.
A.2 Impact Analysis
Construction
The following forms of energy would be expended during construction:
• Diesel fuel for offroad equipment (gallons).
• Electricity to deliver water for use in dust control (kWh). • Motor vehicle fuel for worker commuting, materials delivery and waste disposal (gallons).
Natural gas is not typically consumed during project construction. It was therefore omitted from this analysis.
Transportation Fuel Use
Petroleum based fuels (i.e., gasoline and diesel fuel) would be consumed during the construction phase of the proposed Project. Petroleum based fuels would be consumed by offroad construction vehicles and equipment. Gasoline would be consumed by construction workers traveling to and from the Project site, as well as equipment delivery and hauling of building material to the site. Onroad VMT for each construction subphase and each of the three trip types were calculated from results of the CalEEMod modeling. It was assumed that worker commuter vehicles were gasoline powered and the remainder of vehicles were diesel -powered. Composite fuel efficiencies (in miles per gallon) for gasoline and diesel vehicles in the South Coast Air Basin were calculated with the ARB EMFAC2021 model. Finally, VMT values were divided by fuel efficiencies to obtain fuel volumes used for construction. Transportation fuel use for workers, vendors, and haulers is shown in Table 4.5-1.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-12 June 2023
Table 4.5-1
ESTIMATED PROJECT CONSTRUCTION ENERGY USE
Category Units Quantity
(Phase 1)
Quantity
(Phase 2)
Total
(Phase 1+Phase 2)
Off-road Equipment Gallons Diesel Fuel 233,394 223,614 457,008 Workers Gallons Gasoline
Fuel 464,745 346,137 810,882
Vendors Gallons Diesel Fuel 254,347 137,752 392,099
Haulers Gallons Diesel Fuel 8,025,000 10,695,000 18,720,000 Electricity for Water
Conveyance Kilowatt-hours 6,660,026 1,407,009 8,067,035 Source: Calculated by Kimley-Horn with CalEEMod (2022.1.1.6) (BREEZE Software, 2022) (Kimley-Horn, 2023g); see Appendix D13.
The number of horsepower-hours of each off-road equipment type was calculated using equipment characteristics and scheduling generated by CalEEMod for the air quality and greenhouse gas emissions analyses (see Section 4.2 and Section 4.7). Horsepower hours were multiplied by a fuel use rate of 0.05 gallon of diesel fuel per horsepower hour (CAPCOA, 2019). For analysis purposes, construction is divided into two phases. Phase 1 construction is from the year 2023 to 2025 , and Phase 2 construction is from 2026 to 2028 (Kimley-Horn, 2023g).
As
seen in Table 4. 5-1, the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 19,569,107 gallons of diesel fuel, and 810,882 gallons of gasoline fuel, 8,067,035 kilowatt -hours of electricity for water conveyance, during the construction phase. Project construction vendor and hauler trips would represent a “single-e
vent” diesel fuel demand and would not require on
-g
oing or
permanent commitment of diesel fuel resources for this purpose.
D
uring project construction, trucks and construction equipment would be required to comply with the ARB's anti-idling regulations (ARB, 2004). ARB's In-Use Off-Road Diesel Fueled Fleets regulation would also apply. Vehicles driven to or from the Project site (delivery trucks, construction employee vehicles, etc.) are subject to fuel efficiency standards established by the Federal Government.
Therefore, project construction activities regarding fuel use would not result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy and have less than significant impact.
Operations
During project operations, energy would also be required for water transport, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips. Estimated project operation total energy usage, which was estimated by CalEEMod as part of the greenhouse gas emissions analysis, are shown in Table 4.5-2. Note that the table does not include energy use by existing buildings and activities; to obtain a conservative estimate of energy use impact, existing use was assumed to be zero.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-13 June 2023
Table 4.5-2
ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL ENERGY USE
Energy Type Units Value Per Capitaa
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 1 Phase 2
Onroad Motor
Vehicle Travel
(Fuelb)
Gallons gasoline/year 2,020,826 1,525,020 325 256
Gallons diesel/year 1,700,709 215,989 0.60 0.47
Natural Gas Use kBTU per year 56,013,679 19,915,340 12,667 4,504 Electricity Use Kilowatt-hours per year 19,565,816 10,387,657 4,425 2,349 a Based upon estimated range of residential population of 4,422; see Section 4.13. b Onroad Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption calculated by UltraSystems using EMFAC2021(v1.0.2) emissions inventory web platform tool (ARB, 2022) and CalEEMod (2022.1.1.6 ) (BREEZE Software, 2022) (Kimley -Horn, 202 3g); see Appendix D13.
The per capita value for the onroad motor vehicle fuel consumption is calculated from the passenger vehicles fuel consumption.
Natural Gas Use and Electricity Use calculated by Kimley-Horn with CalEEMod (2022.1.1.6) (Kimley-Horn, 2023g).
The following forms of energy would be expended during project operation:
• Electricity for the proposed commercial uses, street lighting, space and water heating, and conveyance and treatment of water.
• Gasoline for onroad motor vehicles.
Energy would be consumed during project operation for lighting, electric appliance use, space and water heating, water conveyance, landscaping maintenance, solid waste disposal, and vehicle trips by residents. visitors, delivery vehicles and employees. Estimated annual p roject fuel and electricity use is shown in Table 4.5-2. The Project shall be designed in compliance with PPP 4.5-5 and would utilize source reduction, recycling, and other appropriate measures to reduce the amount of solid waste disposed of in landfills. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact.
As shown in the Table 4.5-2 , the Project would consume approximately 5,462,544 gallons of petroleum-based fuel per year during operation. By comparison, approximately 22 billion gallons of petroleum were consumed in California in 2020 (EIA, 2022). The anticipated increase in consumption associated with one year of project operation is 0.025 percent of the statewide use.
Although implementation of the Project would result in an increase in petroleum use during operation, over time, vehicles would use less petroleum due to advances in fuel economy.
By implementing the PPP 4.5-1 through PPP 4.5-6, the Project would meet the City of Jurupa Valley general policies: COS 5.1 - Best Available Practices, COS 5.5 - Energy Efficiency and Green Building, COS 5.8- Reduce "Heat Island" Effect. Additionally, the Project would be designed in compliance with the state and federal energy standards. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
Energy Use
During project construction, energy would be consumed in the form of electricity associated with the conveyance and treatment of water used for dust control and, on a limited basis, powering lights, SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-14 June 2023
electronic equipment, or other construction activities necessitating electrical power. Due to the fact that electricity usage associated with lighting and construction equipment that utilizes electricity is not easily quantifiable or readily available, the estimated electricity usage during project construction is speculative. Lighting used during project construction would comply with Title 24 standards/requirements (such as wattage limitations). This compliance would ensure that electricity use during project construction would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy.
A relatively small amoun t of electricity would be used for power drills and other equipment during construction. This analysis assumes that an onsite portable diesel -fueled generator will supply the electricity. Air emissions from the generator have been evaluated in Section 4.2.
Electricity for water conveyance is estimated above in Table 4.5-1.
The Project would comply with all applicable regulations and codes that require achievement of various levels of energy efficiency in building operation. These include (1) CCR Title 24, P art 6:
California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Nonresidential Buildings (Title 24), and (2) the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CalGreen; California Code of Regulations Title 24 Part 11), which took effect January 1, 2023. As discussed in PPP 4.5-4 and PPP 4.5-5, the Project will include features that encourage advanced energy conservation techniques and the incorporation of energy- efficient design elements, including appropriate site orientation and the use of shade and windbreak trees to reduce fuel consumption for heating and cooling, and offer incentives, as appropriate.
The Project would consume approximately 29,953,473 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year and 75,929,019 thousand British thermal units (kBTU) of natural gas per year. By comparison, in 2022, approximately 290,234,096 kilowatt hours of electricity were consumed by SCE commercial residential and industrial customers in the 92509 zip code area where the Project is located (SCE, 2022). The SoCalGas produced approximately 301,000,000 million British thermal units (MMBtu) in 2021 for the commercial and residential customer service area (SoCalGas et al., 2022b). The increase in electricity and natural gas demand at the Project site would be negligible relative to the use in SCE and SoCalGas’s service area.
Continued use of energy resources is consistent with the anticipated growth within the City and the general vicinity and would not result in energy consumption requiring a significant increase in energy production for the energy provider. Hence, the Project would not r esult in an increase in demand for electricity that exceeds available supply or distribution infrastructure capabilities that could result in the construction of new energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities.
Based on the information provided above, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project construction or operati on. The Project would also have a less than significant impact regarding conflict with or obstruction of a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation : With implementation of PPP 4.5 -1 through PPP 4.5-6, impacts would be less than significant.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-15 June 2023
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold b): Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Under the City’s local significance threshold: The project may have a significant impact if it:
• Does not meet the requirements of Title 24, Building Standards Code and California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code.
• Does not meet the following General Plan Policies (if applicable):
• COS 5.1 - Best Available Practices.
• COS 5.5- Energy Efficiency and Green Building
• COS 5.8- Reduce "Heat Island" Effect
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.5-1 through 4.5-6, set forth in Section 4.5.6.A above, also apply to project conformance with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features pertain to energy resources impacts.
B.2 Impact Analysis
The analysis of threshold (a) above also applies to project conformance with renewable energy and energy efficiency plans.
As discussed in Section 4.5.6, the Project would be required to comply with regulations imposed by the federal and state agencies that regulate energy use and consumption through various means and programs. The consistency with the applicable regulations is discussed below:
Consistency with Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Transportation and access to the Project site is provided by the local and regional roadway systems.
The proposed Project would not interfere with, nor otherwise obstruct intermodal transportation SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-16 June 2023
plans or projects that may be realized pursuant to the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act25 (ISTEA) because SCAG is not planning for intermodal facilities on or through the Project site.
Consistency with Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy As discussed earlier, the County of Riverside has received $7,961 million FTIP Funding from SCAG for the year 2023 (SCAG, 2022a). The funding will be used for highway improvements, transit, rail and bus facilities, high occupancy vehicle lanes, active transportation, signal synchronization, intersection improvements, freeway ramps, etc. Once implemented, the 2023 FTIP funded projects will reduce the VMT and energy consumed by the Project generated traffic. The Project is therefore consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of 2023 FTIP projects.
Consistency with Western Regional Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan
The Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) completed a Subregional Climate Action Plan (CAP) in June 2014. Twelve cities in Western Riverside County, including Jurupa Valley, joined efforts to develop this Subregional CAP, which sets forth a subregional emissions reduction target, emissions reduction measures, and suggested action steps that the City might take to implement a CAP of its own, as presented in Threshold b, below. Consistency with the WRCOG CAP is not required, but following the recommended reduction measures will assist the City in doing its part in reducing GHG emissions until such time the City adopts a CAP.
Consistency with Integrated Energy Policy Report
Electricity will b e provided to the Project by SCE. SCE’s Clean Power and Electrification Path way (CPEP) builds on existing state programs and policies. As such, the Project is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the goals presented in the 2022 IEPR Update.
Consistency with State of California Energy Plan
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is responsible for preparing the State of California Energy Plan, which identifies emerging trends related to energy supply, demand, conservation, public health and safety, and the maintenance of a healthy economy. The p lan calls for the state to assist in the transformation of the transportation system to improve air quality, reduce congestion, and increase the efficient use of fuel supplies with the least environmental and energy costs. To further this policy, the plan identifies several strategies, including assistance to public agencies and fleet operators and encouragement of urban designs that reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and accommodate pedestrian and bicycle access.
The Project site is located along major transportation corridors with proximate access to the interstate freeway system. The site selected for the Project facilitates access and takes advantage of existing infrastructure systems. The Project therefore supports urban design and planning processes
25 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 was signed into a law on December 18, 1991 by President George H.W. Bush. The purpose of the act is to develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, and move people and goods in an energy efficient manner (U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1991).
SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-17 June 2023
identified under the S tate of California Energy Plan, is consistent with, and would not otherwise interfere with, nor obstruct implementation of the State of California Energy Plan.
Consistency with California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard California’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) is not applicable to the Project as it is a statewide measure that establishes a renewable energy mix. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of the requirements under RPS.
Consistency with SB 350
The proposed Project would use energy from SCE, which has committed to diversifying its portfolio of energy sources by increasing energy from wind and solar sources. No feature of the Project would interfere with implementation of SB 350. Additionally, the Project would be designed and constructed to implement the energy efficiency measures for new developments.
As shown above, the Project would not conflict with any of the state or local plans. Therefore , a less than significant impact is expected.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be less than significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
HE 5.3 Site and Neighborhood Design. Residential
site, subdivision, and neighborhood designs should
consider sustainability.
Consistent: The Project is required to submit
building plans and is required to meet CALGreen
Codes, CA Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standar ds
included in PPP 4.5 -4. Therefore, the Project is
consistent with General Plan Policy HE 5.3.
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2017
4.5.7 Cumulative Impacts
The population of the City of Jurupa Valley is forecast to increase by 31,080, or approximately 30 percent of its 2022 population , between 2022 and 20 35. The number of households in the City is forecast to increase by 6,030, or about 21 percent of the number of households in 2022, in that same period. Employment in the City is forecast to increase by approximately 12,438, or about 33 percent of the 2020 projection (CDF, 2022; SCAG, 2020; LSA, 2017); see Table 3.4-2.
Other projects would be required to comply with federal, state, and local energy efficiency laws and regulations. Energy e fficiency requirements grow more stringent with the passing of time; for example, see the descriptions of CCR Title 24 Part 11 (CALGreen) and SB 100 in Section 4.5.3 above.
Other projects would comply with energy conservation requirements in the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 8.05.010, which apply to commercial and public-use buildings. SECTION 4.5 – ENERGY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.5-18 June 2023
Future projects would be subject to CEQA and would require an energy analysis, con sistency with existing plans and policies for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and implementation of control measures and mitigation, if necessary to avoid wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. The Project would result in an increase in electricity consumption and would be designed to maximize energy performance. Over the lifetime of the Project, the fuel efficiency of the vehicles used by the employees and commercial vehicles are expected to increase.
ARB adopted the Advanced Clean Cars II regulations in 2022, imposing the next level of low-emission and zero-emission vehicle standards for model years 2026 -2035 that contribute to meeting federal ambient air quality ozone standards and California’s carbon neutrality tar gets (ARB, 2022b).
Additionally, ARB approved its first in -nation zero- emission vehicle regulation that requires 100 percent of new cars and light trucks sold in California to be zero-emission vehicles, including plug-in hybrid electric vehicles by 2035 (A RB, 2022d). As such, operation of the Project is expected to use decreasing amounts of petroleum over time due to advances in fuel economy, and the amount of petroleum consumed as a result of vehicular trips to and from the Project site during operation would decrease over time. In summary, although the Project would increase petroleum use during operation as a result of employee s, visitors and residents commuting to the site, the use would be a small fraction of the statewide use and due to efficiency incr eases, would diminish over time.
Therefore, the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable and cumulative impacts to energy use would be less than significant. Furthermore, the Project would minimize construction and operational activities through energy reduction strategies pursuant to the Project’s MM-GHG-1 through MM-GHG-3 (see Section 4.7).
Therefore, other projects in the City of Jurupa Valley combined with the proposed Project would not involve wasteful, ineff icient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, and would not conflict with a state or local plan for energy efficiency or renewable energy. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-1 June 2023
4.6 Geology and Soils
The information presented in this section and used for this analysis is based on the following technical studies:
• Updated Geotechnical Report, The District at Jurupa Valley Project, City of Jurupa Valley, California, completed by Alta California Geotechnical Inc. (Alta) dated October 7, 2022; a complete copy of this report (Alta, 2022) is included as Appendix D9 to this DEIR. • Updated Geotechnical Recommendations, The District at Jurupa Valley Project, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Completed by Alta on October 24, 2019; a complete copy of this report (Alta, 2019) is included as Appendix D10 to this DEIR.
• Updated Geotechnical Report, Emerald Meadows Ranch Project, Rubidoux area of the County of Riverside, California. Completed by Alta on June 22, 2015; a complete copy of this report (Alta, 2015) is included as Appendix D11 to this DEIR.
• Paleontological Resources Technical Report, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, Prepared by: Department of PaleoServices San Diego Natural History Museum (SDNHM)(Katie M. McComas, M.S., Paleontological Report Writer & GIS Specialist Thomas A. Deméré, Ph.D., Principal Paleontologist ) May 18, 2022. A complete copy of this report (SDNHM, 2022) is included as Appendix D12 to this DEIR.
The Updated Geotechnical Report (Alta, 2022a; Appendix D9 to this DEIR) summarizes recent geotechnical investigations conducted by Alta in 2022 and previous geotechnical investigations of the Project site consisting of borings, cone penetrometer tests, and backhoe test pits, in addition to laboratory testing, and addresses the applicability of those investigations –conducted for a somewhat different previous project that was not developed – to the current proposed Project (Alta, 2022, p. 2).
4.6.1 Existing Conditions
Regional Geology
The Project site is located in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province, a northwest -trending series of mountain ranges and valleys. The Project site is in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, one of the valleys in the Peninsular Ranges Province. The Peninsular Ranges province is composed of plutonic and metamorphic rock, lesser amounts of Tertiary volcanic and sedimentary rock, and Quaternary drainage in -f
ills and sedimentary veneers. The proposed Project is located in the Riverside sub
-bl
ock, which is bounded by the Elsinore fault zone to the west and by the San Jacinto fault zone to the east (Alta, 2022, p.4).
Faults and Seismic Hazards
Southern California is a highly seismically active area. The California Geological Survey classifies active faults as those that have shown evidence of surface displacement within the past 11,700 years before present (ybp; that is, within the Holocene epoch). The known faults near the Project site are discussed below.
The energy released by an earthquake is measured as moment magnitude (Mw). The moment magnitude scale is logarithmic, so that each one -point increase in magnitude represents a tenfold 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-2 June 2023
increase in amplitude of the waves and a 32-fold increase in energy as measured at a specific location.
For example, a magnitude 7 earthquake produces 100 times (10 x 10) the ground motion amplitude of a magnitude 5 earthquake.
Active faults in the Project region include the San Jacinto Fault Zone approximately 7.3 miles to the northeast, the San Andreas Fault Zone approximately 14 miles to the northeast, the Cucamonga Fault approximately 13 miles to the north, and the Elsinore Fault Zone approximately 16 miles to the southwest (CGS, 2022), as shown on Figure 4.6-1.
The San Jacinto Fault Zone is considered capable of generating earthquakes of magnitudes as high as
6.5 to 7.5, the San Andreas Fault Zone 6.8 to 8.0, the Cucamonga Fault 6.0 to 7.0, and the Elsinore Fault Zone 6.5 to 7.5 (SCEDC, 2022).
Faults which have direct evidence of surface displacement within the last 11,000 years are required to be zoned under the Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. The earthquake fault zones generally extend 200 to 500 feet from each side of a known active fault and identify areas where potential surface fault rupture along an active fault could prove hazardous. If a s ite lies within an Earthquake Fault Zone on an official California Geological Survey map, then a geologic fault rupture investigation must be performed before issuance of building permits to demonstrate that the proposed development is not threatened by surface displacement from the fault.
Earthquake Fault Zones in the Project region are designated along all four of the above -mentioned faults (CGS, 2022); such zones along three of the four faults are shown on Figure 4.6-2.
Local Geology and Soils
Geologic Units and Soil Conditions
The Project site is underlain by Pleistocene -a ge older alluvium deposits and Holocene- age younger alluvium. Alta’s site mapping also indicate that discrete prisms of undocumented artificial fill are present onsite. These geologic units are briefly described below (Alta, 2022, p. 4). Their approximate distribution is shown in Figures 4.6-3 through 4.6-10.
A
rtificial fill – Undocumented: The undocumented artificial fills are comprised of berm/levee fills and agriculture fills. It consists of dark brown and yellow brown, fine grained silty sands to poorly graded sands with rocks and gravel. It consists of dark brown and yellow brown, fine -grained silty sands to poorly graded sands with rocks and gravel (Alta, 2022, p. 5).
Younger Alluvium: Younger alluvium deposits consist of silty, clayey, and poorly-graded sands with gravel and sandy silts; ranging from one to over 50 feet in thickness. These deposits are associated with the modern Santa Ana River and are found chiefly southeast of the Jurupa Ditch. These deposits generally increase in thickness towards the Santa Ana River (Alta, 2022, p. 5). 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-3 June 2023
Figure 4.6-1
REGIONALLY ACTIVE FAULTS
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-4 June 2023
Figure 4.6-2
ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONES
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-5 June 2023
Figure 4.6-3
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (1 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-6 June 2023
Figure 4.6-4
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (2 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-7 June 2023
Figure 4.6-5
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (3 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-8 June 2023
Figure 4.6-6
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (4 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-9 June 2023
Figure 4.6-7
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (5 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-10 June 2023
Figure 4.6-8
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (6 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-11 June 2023
Figure 4.6-9
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (7 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-12 June 2023
Figure 4.6-10
GEOTECHNICAL BORING LOCATIONS AND GEOLOGIC UNITS (8 OF 8)
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-13 June 2023
Older Alluvium consists of silty, clayey, and poorly graded sands with gravel and sandy silts and are moist and medium to very dense. These deposits are associated with the ancient Santa Ana River.
They are exposed on the ground surface northwest of the Jurupa Ditch and underlie the younger alluvium east of the Jurupa Ditch. The Jurupa Ditch itself appears to be a man-m ade drainage feature
that has been carved along the distinct geomorphic break in slope which originally formed by the down cutting and dissection of the older alluvium. (Alta, 2022, p. 5).
T
hese geologic units onsite are mapped on the Grading Plans shown on Sheets C7.1 through C7.8 of the Updated Geotechnical Report (see Appendix D9). Two cross sections through the northern part of the Project site are shown on Plate 9 of the Updated Geotechnical Report.
Soils
As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, a total of eight soil types are mapped within the Project site by the U.S. Department of Agriculture: Delhi fine sand, Dello loamy sand, Grangeville loamy fine sand, Greenfield sandy loam, Ramona sandy loam, Tujunga loamy sand and gravelly loamy sand, terrace escarpments, and riverwash. See Figure 4.3-2; (RECON 2022a, pp. 9-10).
Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered during the subsurface investigatio n conducted by Alta in 2022 as shallow as sixteen feet below the existing ground surface (bgs) (Alta, 2022, p. 7) . The shallowest groundwater was found in boring no. B -6 near the north site boundary shown on Sheet C7.3 in the Updated Geotechnical Report ( Appendix D9 ). The Project site is over the Riverside -Arlington Subbasin of the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin (DWR, 2022). Groundwater depths generally increase with distance away from the Santa Ana River.
Local Seismic Hazards
Ground Shaking
Ground shaking hazards caused by earthquakes along the San Jacinto fault and other active regional faults do exist. Periodic ground shaking caused by movement along faults is likely to be felt onsite during the design life of the Project (Alta, 2022, p. 7). Peak acceleration is a measure of the maximum force experienced by a small mass located at the surface of the ground during an earthquake. It is an index to hazard for short stiff structures (USGS, 2019). The peak ground acceleration onsite is estimated at 0.59g (Alta, 2022, p. 38) where g is the acceleration of gravity. Ground acceleration of
0.59g correlates with intensity VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale (Wald et. al. ,1999), a subjective scale of how earthquakes are felt by people and the effects of earthquakes on buildings.
The MMI Scale is a 12- point scale where Intensity I earthquakes are generally not felt by people; in Intensity XII earthquakes damage is total, and objects are thrown into the air (USGS , 2022). In an intensity VIII earthquake, damage is slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage occurs in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS, 2022).
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-14 June 2023
Surface Rupture
Active faults are not known to exist within the Project and a review of Special Publication 42 indicates the site is not within a California State designated Earthquake Fault Zone. Accordingly, the potential for fault surface rupture on the subject site is very low (Alta, 2022, p. 8).
Liquefaction
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load- supporting capability whe n strongly shaken. Loose granular soils and silts that are saturated by relatively shallow groundwater are susceptible to liquefaction. Portions of the younger alluvium underlying most of the site have been determined to be potentially liquefiable. The older Quaternary alluvium underlying the northwest part of the site is considered resistant to liquefaction (Alta, 2022, p. 8).
Landslides
Landslides are not considered a hazard affecting the Project site due to the lack of slopes on or abutting the site (Alta, 2015, p. 16; Alta, 2022, p. 11).
Other Geologic Hazards
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the rapid downslope movement of surface sediment, in a fluid -like flow, due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Lateral spreading could occur onsite, as p ortions of the younger alluvium onsite have been determined to be potentially liquefiable. Younger alluvium is present on most of the Project site, as shown on the grading plans (Sheets C7.1 through C7.8 of the geotechnical investigation report [Alta, 2022]).
Subsidence
The major cause of ground subsidence is the excessive withdrawal of groundwater. The Project site is not in an area of land subsidence mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2022).
Collapsible Soils/Hydro-consolidation
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load; shrinkage of saturated soils is also termed hydro -consolidation. The artificial fill and upper portions of both the younger and older alluvium onsite are considered compressible (Alta, 2022, p. 12).
Expansive Soils
Expansive soils contain substantial amounts of clay that swells when wetted and shrinks when dried; the swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Most soils onsite are expected to have low to very low expansion potential; some soils with medium expansion potential may be present (Alta , 2022, p. 13).
4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-15 June 2023
Paleontological Resources
The north and northwestern areas of the proposed Project site are located atop older surficial deposits of Pleistocene or early Holocene age (Qoa).26 These are potentially-fossiliferous and weakly indurated alluvial sediments, composed mostly of tan to light red sand with a minor gravel component. Qoa alluvial sediments were deposited between ~1.8 million to ~11,000 years ago. Such older alluvial deposits have been found to be highly fossiliferous in the local area, yielding the remains of mastodons, mammoths, Smilodon, camels, horses, bison, and ground sloths, as well as microfossils including rodents (SBCM, 2022, p.1).
No paleontological resources have been discovered within the proposed Project site. The nearest fossil locality, SBCM locality 5.1.22, is approximately 0.6 mile north. Permineralized mastodon (Mammut pacificus) bones were discovered at site 5.1.22, within a ditch filled with the same older alluvial sediments as found on the proposed Project site. The bones were unearthed from sand approximately 25 feet below the surface. The next closest fossil locality, SBCM 5.1.11, is approximately five miles west- northwest of the proposed Project site. Permineralized bones of the saber-toothed cat Smilodon sp. were unearthed there, from five feet below the surface at an elevation of 1,000 feet, during the excavation of a pipeline trench. SBCM 5.1.11 is covered with recent alluvial sediment at the surface, overlaying older alluvium (where the Smilodon was found) by only a few feet, similar to the conditions at much of the proposed Project site (SBCM, 2022, pp. 1-2).
According to the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) , the middle Pleistocene-age old alluvial-fan deposits (Qof1) exposed in the northern and northwestern portions of the Project site are assigned a high paleontological sensitivity. See Figure 4.6-11. This rating is supported by the k nown occurrence of scientifically significant fossils from similar deposits elsewhere in western Riverside County. In contrast, the primarily Holocene-age young axial-channel deposits (Qya) present in the southern and northeastern portions of the Project site are assigned a low paleontological sensitivity rating, based on the relatively young geologic age of these deposits.
Finally, mapped artificial fill deposits (Qaf) present along the Santa Ana River channel, as well as any unmapped artificial fill depos its present elsewhere within the Project site, are also assigned a low paleontological sensitivity rating because any contained fossil remains will have lost their original stratigraphic and/or geographic context (SDNHM, 2022, p. 9).
4.6.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
No comments pertaining to project geology and soils impacts were received during the EIR scoping phase.
26 The Quaternary Period extends from the present to approximately 2.58 million years before present; and the Holocene Epoch extends from the present to approximately 11,700 years before present. 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-16 June 2023
Figure 4.6-11
PALEONTOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY MAP
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-17 June 2023
4.6.3 Regulatory Framework
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Public Resources Code 2, Division 2, Chapter 7.5 §§ 2625-2630)
The Alquist- Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was enacted to prevent construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The law requires the State of California geologist to establish regulatory zones around the surface traces of active faults. Before a new project is permitted, cities and counties require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that proposed buildings will not be constructed on active faults (CGS, 2018a, p. 24).
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 directs the California Geological Survey to identify and map areas prone to earthquake hazards of liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides and amplified ground shaking in order to reduce the threat to public safety and to minimize the loss of life and property by identifying and mitigating these seismic hazards. Zones of Required Investigation are designated for liquefaction and earthquake- induced landslides in addition to Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones (CGS, 2021).
California Building Code
The California Building Code (CBC; 24 CCR Part 2) contains the regulations that govern the construction of buildings in California. The CBC contains general building design and construction requirements relating to fire and life safety, structural safety, and access compliance (California Building Standards Commission [CBSC, 2022). CBC § 1613 contains provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability at the site. CBC §§ 1801 – 1803.7 require soil investigations, geotechnical reports, and geohazard reports conducted on soils that may be classified as questionable, critically expansive subjected to seismic hazards including expansive soils, or prone to other seismic hazards (CBC § 1803.7). The provisions of CBC Chapter 33 govern safety during construction and the protection of adjacent public and private properties. It includes safety standards for (but is not limited to) the following: excavation and trenching, demolition, site work, and protection of pedestrians (ICC, 2022).
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations
Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations addresses industrial relations. It sets forth regulations and requirements for California Occupational Safety and Health Regulations (Cal/OSHA) and the Division of Industrial Safety (Thomson Reuters Westlaw, 2023). These would be applicable during construction and also operation of the businesses and industrial uses.
Public Resources Code § 5097.5
Public Resources Code § 5097.5. (a) states, “ A person shall not knowingly and willfully excavat e upon, or remove, destroy, injure, or deface, any historic or prehistoric ruins, burial grounds, archaeological or vertebrate paleontological site, including fossilized footprints, inscriptions made by human agency, rock art, or any other archaeological, paleontological or historical feature, situated SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-18 June 2023
on public lands, except with the express permission of the public agency having jurisdiction over the lands (California Legislative Information, 2011).
Public Resources Code § 30244
Public Resources Code § 30 244 states that w here development would adversely impact archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required (California Legislative Information, 1976).
Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element identifies the City as susceptible to strong ground shaking in addition to other seismic hazards including liquefaction, landslides, and rock falls, and contains maps of areas susceptible to liquefaction and landslides.
Relevant General Plan policies are specified in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section
4.10, Land Use and Planning.
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) Conservation and Open Space (COS) Element identifies the occurrence of important historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources within the City, and generally addresses paleontological resources under the umbrella of cultural resources, in accordance with the Riverside County General Plan. In addition, Figure 4 -18 (Paleontological Sensitivity in Jurupa Valley) included in the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan provides an overview of paleontological sensitivity within the City’s boundaries. The COS Element contains goals and policies relevant to paleontological resources; Goal COS 7 ensures the preservation of cultural, historical, archaeological, and paleontological, and resources; and Policy COS 7.1 includes identifying, protecting, archiving and preserving significant paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources ( SDNHM, 2022, p. 4; City of Jurupa Valley, 2017). The Project’s consistency with these policies is detailed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
City of Jurupa Valley Building Code
The City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.05. incorporates by reference the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), with City amendments for additional requirements, as the City of Jurupa Valley Building Code. The City Council adopted the 2022 Code on November 17, 2022 and it became effective on January 1, 2023.
4.6.4 Methodology
Geotechnical Investigation
The Updated Geotechnical Report (Alta, 2022) (Appendix D 9 to this DEIR) included subsurface exploration consisting of eight hollow -stem augur borings and 23 cone penetrometer tests; laboratory tests of soil samples from the exploration; incorporating data from previous investigations; developing recommendations based on geologic and laboratory data; a liquefaction analysis. This report also summarizes previous geotechnical investigations of the Project site consisting of borings, cone penetrometer tests, and backhoe test pits, in addition to laboratory SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-19 June 2023
testing, and addresses the applicability of those investigations –conducted for a somewhat different previous project that was not developed – to the current proposed Project (Alta, 2022, p. 2).
Paleontological Records Searches and Literature Review
Paleontological records searches were conducted at the SBCM, SDNHM, and WSC in order to determine if any documented fossil collection localities occur within the Project site or immediate surrounding area. The SDNHM records search involved examination of the paleontological data base for any records of known fossil collection localities from sedimentary deposits similar to those underlying the Project site within an approximately one-mile radius. Formal records searches of the paleontological collections at SBCM and WSC were reque sted from these institutions (SBCM, 2022; Appendix A; WSC, 2022; Appendix B) (SDNHM, 2022, p. 5).
Additionally, a review was conducted of relevant published geologic mapping, published geological and paleontological reports, and other relevant literature (e.g., unpublished paleontological mitigation reports). This approach was followed in recognition of the direct relationship between paleontological resources and the geologic units within which they are entombed. Knowing the geologic history of a particula r area and the fossil productivity of geologic units that occur in that area makes it possible to predict where fossils may, or may not, be encountered (SDNHM, 2022, p. 5).
4.6.5 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist , and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, August 20, 2020, sets forth the following significance thresholds and criteria for geology and soils impacts: Note: There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones located in Jurupa Valley, therefore, this topic is not addressed in the DEIR. In accordance with § 15064.7 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley adopted local CEQA Guidelines. The City’s local CEQA Guidelines are based on the CEQA checklist included in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The Project would have a significant impact related to geology and soils if it would:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Strong seismic ground shaking.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located within a seismic hazard area as identified by the State of California, Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones and Required Investigations Map. ii) Liquefaction.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within an area susceptible to liquefaction as shown on General Plan Figure 8 -5- Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley or identified as being susceptible to liquefaction or based on a project specific geotechnical report.
iii) Landslides.
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-20 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: T he project is located within the High or Very High zone per General Plan Figure 8 -6: Landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05 - Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located with the following areas:
• General Plan Figure 8-6: landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley. • General Plan Figure 8-5- Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley. • An area susceptible to subsidence as identified in the Parcel Report available on the Riverside County Map My County website.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located on soil that has an EI Expansion Potential >91 according to the results of the laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
Under the City’s local significance threshol d, the project would have significant effects if: The project's proposed septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system do not meet the regulatory requirement of the Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) applicable to Jurupa Valley. f) Directly or i ndirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is identified as "HIGH SENSITIVITY (HIGH A) for paleontologica l resources in the Parcel Report available on the Riverside County Map My County website.
NOTE: Unique geologic features in this document are those that are unique to the field of geology. There are no unique geologic features identified in the General Plan. SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-21 June 2023
4.6.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
The project site is located within a seismic hazard area as identified by the State of California, Department of Conservation, Earthquake Zones and Required Investigations Map. ii) Seismic-r elated ground failure, including liquefaction? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
The project is located within an area susceptible to liquefaction as shown on General Plan Figure 8-5- Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley or identified as being susceptible to liquefaction or based on a project specific geotechnical report.
iii) Landslides?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
The project is located within the High or Very High zone per General Plan Figure 8 -6: Landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
These are existing regulatory requirements applied to the Project based on existing federal, state, or local laws which effectively reduce impacts to geology and soils. The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts on geology and soil resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.6-1 Compliance with City of Jurupa Valley Building Code. As required by Municipal Code Chapter 8.05, p roject 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.”
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-22 June 2023
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.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
A.2 Impact Analysis
i) Surface Fault Rupture
No active fault is mapped in or next to the Project site, and the Project site is not in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (CGS, 2022; see Figure 4.6 -2). The nearest known active fault to the Project site is the San Jacinto Fault Zone approximately 7.3 miles to the northeast. Project development would not expose people or structures to substantial risks arising from surf ace rupture of a known active fault, and no impact would occur.
ii) Ground Shaking
The Project site is in the Upper Santa Ana River Valley, which is a seismically active region. Several active faults are mapped in the region. It is very likely that strong ground shaking will occur during the design lifetime of the Project . The geotechnical engineering report contains seismic design parameters for use in project design (Alta, 2022). Structures for human occupancy must be designed to meet or exceed 20 22 CBC standards for earthquake resistance. The CBC §§ 1613 et seq. contain provisions for earthquake safety based on factors including occupancy type, the types of soil and rock onsite, and the strength of ground motion with a specified probability of occurring at the site (CBSC, 2022). The CBC is updated once every three years; the 2022 edition took effect on January 1, 2023.
As noted earlier, the peak ground acceleration onsite is estimated at 0.59g where g is the acceleration of gravity. Ground accel eration of 0.59g correlates with intensity VIII on the Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale (Wald et. al. , 1999), a subjective scale of how earthquakes are felt by people and the effects of earthquakes on buildings. The MMI Scale is a 12- point scale whe re Intensity I earthquakes are generally not felt by people; in Intensity XII earthquakes damage is total, and objects are thrown into the air (USGS, 2022).
In an intensity VIII earthquake, damage is slight in specially designed structures; considerable damage occurs in ordinary substantial buildings with partial collapse; and damage is great in poorly built structures. Chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls fall, and heavy furniture is overturned (USGS, 2022).
Compliance with geotechnical engineering report recommendations would be a condition of the building permit that would be issued by the City of Jurupa Valley and enforced by the City Building Department per PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2. Project development would not expose people or structures to substantial risks from strong ground shaking, and impacts would be less than significant. SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-23 June 2023
iii) Liquefaction
Liquefaction refers to loose, saturated sand or silt deposits that behave as a liquid and lose their load- supporting capability when strongly shaken. The geotechnical report determined that soils under most of the Project site are potentially liquefiable.
Portions of the younger alluvium have been determined to be potentially liquefiable, while the older alluvium is generally resistant to liquefaction. Alta performed fourteen CPT-soundings in the subject area in order to supplement the previous subsurface i nformation onsite and refine the liquefaction calculations, in addition to the seven soundings performed for the previous report by Alta in 2015.
The liquefaction analysis assumed that groundwater will be encountered at five feet below the existing ground surface. Liquefiable soils range in depth from five to 50 feet below ground surface (bgs). The geotechnical investigation also assumed the upper five feet of the existing soil shall be removed and recompacted, or otherwise mitigated (Alta, 2022, p. 9).
The 2022 geotechnical report update sets forth the following recommendations for minimizing hazards from liquefaction:
i) Remove and recompact younger alluvium which covers the majority of the Project site, except for the western boundary of the Project up to SR-60 EB to depths of 10 feet below existing grade. This recommendation applies only to building pads for lightly loaded structures that may be built on post-tensioned or mat slab foundations designed for two inches of dynamic settlement in a horizontal distance of 40 feet (Alta, 2022, p. 5). ii) For larger structures (1.5- million square foot industrial building and 1 -million square foot warehouse and retail building) with higher design loading and less tolerance for settlement, other methods of minimizing the li quefaction hazard may be more suitable.
These methods may include stone columns, dynamic compaction, or rammed aggregate piers.
a. For industrial/logistics and residential uses in the east part of the Project site it is assumed that measures for liquefiable soils will need to extend to a depth of 20 to 30 feet below ground surface (bgs).
b. The retail/commercial, residential (east) and park and recreation areas are sited over a transition between older alluvium and younger alluvium. Thus, in addition to minimizin g the liquefaction potential in the younger alluvium, the potential differential settlement between the portions of the structure founded on older alluvium and younger alluvium will need to be addressed. This may include over- excavation of the older alluvi um which is on the western boarder of the Project site, up to SR -60 EB and replacement with compacted fill, or deep foundations that extend to the older alluvium in the younger alluvial areas (Alta, 2022, pp. 5 - 6).
As discussed in PPP 4.6 -2, implementation of the Geotechnical Investigation r ecommendations, as required by Municipal Code § 8.05.010, the Project is required to comply with the approved recommended seismic design requirements contained in the Project ’s Geotechnical Evaluation, approved by the C ity, and be incorporated in the construction of each structure, to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. Therefore, project development would not cause substantial risks to people or structures arising from liquefaction afte r implementation of SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-24 June 2023
the recommendations in the 2022 updated geotechnical report, and impacts would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides
Landslide hazards are not considered to be present onsite due to the lack of slopes on or next to the site (Alta, 2022) . As presented in PPP 4.6-2 , compliance with recommendations of the updated geotechnical report would be a condition of issuing grading permits. All PPPs will be included in the MMRP to ensure compliance. Project development would not exacerbate landslides hazards.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.6 -1 and 4.6- 2, i mpacts would be less than significant.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold b): Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05 - Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.6-3 Prepare and Implement Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, 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.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Project construction would involve disturbance, exposure and excavation of large amounts of soil and thus could cause severe erosion if effective erosion control measures were not used.
Construction projects of one acre or more are regulated under the Statewide General Construction Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, issued by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) in SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-25 June 2023
2009. Projects obtain coverage by developing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) estimating sediment risk from construction activities to receiving waters and specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be used by the Project to minimize pollution of stormwat er. Categories of BMPs used in SWPPPs are described below in Table 4.6-2.
Each development project undertaken in accordance with the Specific Plan would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP. Erosion impacts from project construction would be less t han significant after preparation and implementation of each of the development project SWPPPs.
During Operation all roads will be paved and vehicles would not be operating or permitted on any unpaved surfaces. In addition, the Specific Plan requires landscaping be integrated into each development Project along with soil stabilization in the form of mulch or rock to prevent soil erosion and dust from the Project.
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-0 June 2023
Table 4.6-2
CONSTRUCTION BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Category Purpose Examples
Erosion
Controls
Consists of using project scheduling and
planning to reduce soil or vegetation
disturbance (particularly during the
rainy season), preventing or reducing
erosion potential by diverting or
controlling drainage, as well as preparing
and stabilizing disturbed soil areas.
Scheduling, preservation of existing vegetation,
hydraulic mulch, hydroseeding, soil binders,
straw mulch, geotextile and mats, wood
mulching, earth dikes and drainage swales,
velocity dissipation devices, slope drains,
streambank stabilization, compost blankets,
soil preparation/roughening, and non-
vegetative stabilization
Sediment
Controls
Filter out soil particles that have been
detached and transported in water.
Silt fence, sediment basin, sediment trap, check
dam, fiber rolls, gravel bag berm, street
sweeping and vacuuming, sandbag barrier,
straw bale barrier, storm drain inlet protection,
manufactured linear sediment controls,
compost socks and berms, and biofilter bags
Wind Erosion
Controls
Applying water or other dust palliatives
to prevent or minimize dust nuisance.
Soil binders , chemical dust suppressants,
covering stockpiles, permanent vegetation,
mulching, watering, synthetic covers, and
minimization of disturbed area
Tracking
Controls
Minimize the tracking of soil offsite by
vehicles.
Stabilized construction roadways and
construction entrances/exits, and
entrance/outlet tire wash.
Non-Storm
Water
Management
Controls
Prohibit discharge of materials other than
stormwater, such as discharges from the
cleaning, maintenance, and fueling of
vehicles and equipment. Conduct various
construction operations, including
paving, grinding, and concrete curing and
finishing, in ways that minimize non -
stormwater discharges and
contamination of any such discharges.
Water conservation practices, temporary
stream crossings, clear water diversi ons,
potable and irrigation water management, and
the proper management of the following
operations: paving and grinding; dewatering;
vehicle and equipment cleaning; fueling and
maintenance; pile driving; concrete curing;
concrete finishing; demolition adj acent to
water; material over water; and temporary
batch plants.
Waste
Management
and Controls
(i.e., good
housekeeping
practices)
Management of materials and wastes to
avoid contamination of stormwater.
Stockpile management, spill prevention and
control, solid waste management, hazardous
waste management, contaminated soil
management, concrete waste management,
sanitary/septic waste management, liquid
waste management, and management of
material delivery storage and use.
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA), 2019.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP 4.6- 3, impacts would be less than significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-1 June 2023
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold c): Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on - or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located with the following areas:
• General Plan Figure 8-6: landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley. • General Plan Figure 8-5- Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley. • An ar ea susceptible to subsidence as identified in the Parcel Report available on the Riverside County Map My County website.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2, set forth above in Section 4.6.6.A, also apply to hazards from unstable soils.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
C.2 Impact Analysis
Project impacts respecting landslide and liquefaction hazards are addressed in Section 4.6.6.A.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is the downslope movement of surface sediment due to liquefaction in a subsurface layer. Lateral spreading could occur onsite due to the presence of potentially liqu efiable soils.
Hazards arising from liquefiable soils would be less than significant after compliance with recommendations of the updated geotechnical report for minimizing liquefaction hazards summarized in Section 4.6.A.2.iii above.
Subsidence
The Project site is not in an area of land subsidence mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2022). Project development would not cause soil instability relating to ground subsidence, and impacts would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-2 June 2023
Collapsible Soils/Hydro-consolidation
Collapsible soils shrink upon being wetted and/or being subject to a load. The updated geotechnical report determined that shallow site soils – to depths of at least 10 feet below ground surface – are unsuitable for supporting the proposed structures and other improvements, and recommended several measures for adequately supporting the proposed structures and improvements, described above in Section 4. 6.A.2.iii. Project development would not cause soil instability arising from collapsible soils after i mplementation of recommendations in the geotechnical report, and impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2, impacts arising from lateral spreading, ground subsidence, and collapsible soils would be less than significant.
C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold d): Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1 B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located on soil that has an EI Expansion Potential >91 according to the results of the laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829.
D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.6-1 through 4.6-3, set forth above in Section 4.6.6.a and b, also applies to risks of building on expansive soils.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
D.2 Impact Analysis
Expansive soils swell when wetted and shrink when dried; the swelling or shrinking can shift, crack, or break structures built on such soils. Onsite soils are expected to have low to very low expansion potentials, and some soils with medium expansion potential may be present. Soils with medium expansion potential are expected to be present throughout the Project site. The Updated Geotechnical Report provides recommendations (on pp. 28-45; see Appendix D9) addressing expansion hazards in soils with very low, low, and medium expansion potentials (Alta, 2022 pp. 28-45; Alta, 2022, pp. 6- 7). The updated geotechnical report recommends further geotechnical investigation after specific SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-3 June 2023
development proposals have been submitted to the City. It is expected that soils will be wetted during construction; such wetting during construction is not anticipated to contribute to expansive soils hazard (Alta, 2022). Impacts arising from expansive soils would be less than significant after mandatory compliance with recommendations of the updated geotechnical report.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.6-1, and 4.6-2, impacts arising from expansive soils would be less than significant.
D.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold e): Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's proposed septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system do not meet the regulatory requirement of the Local Agency Management Program (LAMP) applicable to Jurupa Valley.
E.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No plans, policies, or programs are relevant to project impacts respecting alternative wastewater disposal systems.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
E.2 Impact Analysis
Project development would involve construction of a system of sewers that would connect to an existing sewer main at the intersection of Wallace Street and 34th Street; all wastewater from the Project would be conveyed to that existing main. All proposed on-site mains are sized to meet project requirements. Therefore, no septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems would be required and no impact would occur.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
E.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-4 June 2023
E.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
Threshold f): Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is identified as "HIGH SENSITIVITY (HIGH A) for paleontological resources in the Parcel Report available on the Riverside County Map My County website.
NOTE: Unique geologic features in this document are those that are unique to the field of geology. There are no unique geologic features identified in the General Plan.
F.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No plans, programs, or policies are relevant to project impacts on paleontological resources.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project geology and soils impacts.
F.2 Impact Analysis
No known paleontological resources are present on the Project site . Fossils recovered from construction sites within approximately five miles of the Project site include mastodon and saber - toothed cat (SDNHM, 2022, p. 7).
Taking a conservative approach, Qaf deposits are presumed to be exposed at or near the surface across the largest geographic extent of these deposits indicated by existing geological, and are estimated to be overlain by at least 5 feet of Qya deposits and/or Qaf deposits in the remaining portions of the Project site (Figure 4.6-11). Project excavations to depths of less than five feet bgs would be unlikely to unearth any paleontological resources (SDNHM, 2022, p. 11). However, portions of the Project site would be excavated to depths of up to 40 feet; excavations to depths greater than five feet bgs could impact paleontological resources (SDNHM, 2022, p. 11); therefore, the Project impact on paleontological resources is potentially significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts to paleontological resources would be potentially significant before mitigation.
F.3 Mitigation Measures
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 SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-5 June 2023
qualified paleontologist s hall 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 reduc ed if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.” MM PALEO-2 Paleontological Resource Impact Management Plan. The following note shall be included on any grading plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground- disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot -holing or aug uring, 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 purs uant 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 du ring 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 pale ontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed. c) Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collection of a scientific institution.
d) Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl SECTION 4.6 – GEOLOGY AND SOILS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.6-6 June 2023
Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should i nclude 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 re covered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location.”
F.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation.
4.6.7 Cumulative Impacts
Geology and Soils
Geology and soils impacts are si te specific and generally do not combine to result in cumulative impacts. Similar to the proposed Project , future development projects would be required to comply with applicable state and local building regulations including the CBC and City of Jurupa Val ley Municipal Code § 8.05.010 et seq. Site-specific geologic hazards would be addressed in each project’s geotechnical investigation. As with the proposed Project, compliance with recommendations of each project’s geotechnical investigation report would be a condition of issuance of the building permit for each respective project. Therefore, no significant cumulative impact would occur.
Paleontological Resources
The area considered for cumulative impacts to paleontological resources is the Upper San ta Ana River Valley, which spans approximately 550 square miles in southwestern San Bernardino County, western Riverside County, and the east edge of Los Angeles County. The paleontological resources technical report for the proposed Project identified numerous fossil localities in western Riverside County (San Diego Natural History Museum, 2022). Many other projects would disturb soil and/or rock that could contain fossils. Each project disturbing such soil or rock would be required, as part of the CEQA pr ocess for that respective project, to have a paleontological resources investigation and/or a paleontological resources records search conducted for its Project site . Each project that could damage fossils during project construction would be required to i mplement mitigation requiring recovery, evaluation, and curation of any fossils discovered. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after implementation of mitigation, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-1 June 2023
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
This section is based in large part on information obtained from the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan , prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn, 2023c), which is provided in Appendix D13.
This section discusses the main GHG species of interest, regulations pertaining to climate change, the Project’s consistency with plans for reducing GHG emissions, existing and predicted future GHG emissions from the Project site, and their significance under CEQA.
4.7.1 Existing Conditions
A discussed in Section 3.3, t he Project site is vacant and undeveloped except for 11 single -family residences (some of which are currently unoccupied) in the central part of the site, three roadways (Wallace Street, Hall Avenue, and 30th Avenue), and two garages on the southeast site boundary at 5231 and 5225 34th Street. Remnants of demolished structures are present near Wallace Street in the middle of the site and near 30th Street and Hall Avenue in the north part of the site (AEI, 2019).
Greenhouse Gases
Gases that trap heat in the atmosphere are called greenhouse gases (GHGs), since they have effects that are analogous to the way in which a greenhouse retains heat. GHGs are emitted by bot h natural processes and human activities. The accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere regulates the earth’s temperature. The State of California has undertaken initiatives designed to address the effects of GHG emissions, and to establish targets and emission reduction strategies for GHG emissions in California.
Activities associated with the Project , including construction and operational activities, would have the potential to generate GHG emissions.
The primary GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect a re CO2, CH4, and N2O. Fluorinated gases also make up a small fraction of the GHGs that contribute to climate change. Examples of fluorinated gases include chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride ( SF6), and nitrogen trifluoride (NF3); however, it is noted that these gases are not associated with typical land use development. Human- caused emissions of GHGs exceeding natural ambient concentrations are believed to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the Earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming (Kimley-Horn, 2023c; p. 7). CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. To accou nt for the varying warming potential of different GHGs, GHG emissions are often quantified and reported as CO 2 equivalent (CO2e). CO 2e emissions are calculated as the sum of the products of each species’ emissions and its global warming potential (GWP). The GWP is based upon the heat-absorbing ability of a GHG compound relative to that of CO2, as well as the persistence in the atmosphere relative to that of CO 2, referred to as CO 2 equivalent (CO2e). The lifetime and GWP of selected GHG are summarized in Table 4.7-1. As shown in the table, GWP for a 100-year time horizon from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) second assessment report (SAR), fourth assessment report (AR4) and the fifth assessment report (AR5) ranges from one (carbon dioxide) to 23,500 (sulfur hexafluoride). The 100-year GWP values for CO2, SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-2 June 2023
CH4 and N2O were assumed in this evaluation to be 1, 25 and 298, respectively (BREEZE Software, 2022, p. 48).27
Table 4.7-1
GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL (GWP) VALUES RELATIVE TO CO2
Gas Name Formula Lifetime (years) SAR GWP AR4 GWP AR5 GWP Carbon Dioxide CO2 1 1 1
Methane CH4 12 21 25 28
Nitrous Oxide N2O 114 310 298 265
Sulphur Hexafluoride SF6 3200 23,900 22,800 23,500
Nitrogen Trifluoride NF3 740 n/a 17,200 16,100
Hexafluoroethane (PFC-116) C2F6 10,000 9,200 12,200 11,100 Octafluoropropane (PFC-218) C3F8 2,600 7,000 8,830 8,900 Octafluorocyclobutane (PFC-318) C4F8 3,200 8,700 10,300 9,540 Tetrafluoromethane (PFC-14) CF4 50,000 6,500 7,390 6,630 Hydrofluorocarbon 125 HFC-125 29 2,800 3,500 12,400
Hydrofluorocarbon 134a HFC-134a 14 1,300 1,430 1,300
Hydrofluorocarbon 143a HFC-143a 52 3,800 4,470 4,800
Hydrofluorocarbon 152a HFC-152a 1 140 124 138
Hydrofluorocarbon 227ea HFC-227ea 34 2,900 3,220 3,350
Hydrofluorocarbon 23 HFC-23 270 11,700 14,800 12,400
Hydrofluorocarbon 236fa HFC-236fa 240 6,300 9,810 8.060 Hydrofluorocarbon 245fa HFC-245fa 8 n/a 1,030 858
Hydrofluorocarbon 32 HFC-32 5 650 675 677
Source: 1) California Air Resources Board (CARB) GHG Global Warming Potentials: https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-gwps 2) Greenhouse Gas Pr otocol, Global Warming Potential Values:
https://www.ghgprotocol.org/sites/default/files/ghgp/Global-Warming-Potential- Values%20%28Feb%2016%202016%29_1.pdf
GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants (TACs), which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have
27 Other values of GWP have been published. The values used here are incorporated in the widely used CalEEMod software and so the results of this analysis may readily be compared with those of other projects. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-3 June 2023
relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about one day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (one to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of a GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, more CO
2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, or other forms of carbon sequestration. Of the total annual human- caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is sequestered through ocean and land uptakes every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO 2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere 28. Table 4.7-2: Description of Greenhouse Gases describes the primary GHGs attributed to global climate change, including their physical properties (Kimley-Horn, pp. 7-8).
Table 4.7-2
DESCRIPTION OF GREENHOUSE GASES
Greenhouse Gas Description
Carbon Dioxide
(CO2)
CO2 is a colorless, odorless gas that is emitted naturally and through human activities.
Natural sources include decomposition of dead organic matter; respiration of bacteria, plants, animals, and fungus; evaporation from oceans; and volcanic outgassing.
Anthropogenic sources are from burning coal, oil, natural gas, and wood. The largest source of CO2 emissions globally is the combustion of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and gas in power plants, automobiles, and industrial facilities. The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is variable because it is readily exchanged in the atmosphere. CO 2 is the most widely emitted GHG and is the reference gas (Global Warming Potential of 1) for determining Global Warming Potentials for other GHGs.
Nitrous Oxide
(N2O)
N2O is largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Primary human-related sources of N 2O include agricultural soil management, sewage treatment, combustion of fossil fuels, and adipic and nitric acid production. N 2O is produced from biological sources in soil and water, particularly microbial action in wet tropical forests. The atmospheric lifetime of N 2O is approximately 120 years. The Global Warming Potential of N2O is 298.
Methane (CH4) CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off -gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices and landfills. Methane is the major component of natural gas, about 87 percent by volume. Human-related sources include fossil fuel production, animal husbandry, rice cultivation, biomass burning, and waste management. Natural sources of CH4 include wetlands, gas hydrates, termites, oceans, freshwater bodies, non-wetland soils, and wildfires. The atmospheric lifetime of CH4 is about 12 years and the Global Warming Potential is 25.
Hydrofluorocarbon
s (HFCs)
HFCs are typically used as refrigerants for both stationary refrigeration and mobile air conditioning. The use of HFCs for cooling and foam blowing is increasing, as the continued phase out of CFCs and HCFCs gains momentum. The 100- year Global
Warming Potential of HFCs range from 124 for HFC-152 to 14,800 for HFC-23.
Perfluorocarbons
(PFCs)
PFCs have stable molecular structures and only break down by ultraviolet rays about 60 kilometers above Earth’s surface. Because of this, they have long lifetimes, between 10,000 and 50,000 years. Two main sources of PFCs are primary aluminum production
28 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013. http://www.climatechange2013.org/ images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-4 June 2023
Greenhouse Gas Description
and semiconductor manufacturing. Global Warming Potentials rang e from 6,500 to 9,200.
Chlorofluorocarbo
ns (CFCs)
CFCs are gases formed synthetically by replacing all hydrogen atoms in methane or ethane with chlorine and/or fluorine atoms. They are nontoxic, nonflammable, insoluble, and chemically unreactive in the tr oposphere (the level of air at the earth’s surface). CFCs were synthesized in 1928 for use as refrigerants, aerosol propellants, and cleaning solvents. The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer prohibited their production in 1987. Gl obal Warming Potentials for CFCs range from 3,800 to 14,400.
Sulfur
Hexafluoride (SF6)
SF6 is an inorganic, odorless, colorless, and nontoxic, nonflammable gas. It has a lifetime of 3,200 years. This gas is manmade and used for insulation in electric power transmission equipment, in the magnesium industry, in semiconductor manufacturing, and as a tracer gas. The Global Warming Potential of SF6 is 23,900.
Hydrochlorofluoro
-carbons (HCFCs)
HCFCs are solvents, similar in use and chemical composition to CFCs. The main uses of HCFCs are for refrigerant products and air conditioning systems. As part of the Montreal Protocol, HCFCs are subject to a consumption cap and gradual phase out. The United States is scheduled to achieve a 100 percent reduction to the cap by 2030. The 100-year Global Warming Potentials of HCFCs range from 90 for HCFC-123 to 1,800 for HCFC-142b.
Nitrogen
Trifluoride
(NF3)
NF3 was added to Health and Safety Code section 38505(g)(7) as a GHG of concern. This gas is used in electronics manufacture for semiconductors and liquid crystal displays.
It has a high global warming potential of 17,200.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023c, pp. 7-8. Compiled from U.S. EPA, Overview of Greenhouse Gases, (https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases), accessed February 2023; U.S. EPA, Inventory of U.S.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2016, 2018; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 2007; National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010; U.S.
EPA, Methane and Nitrous Oxide Emission from Natural Sources, April 2010.
4.7.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review on March 31, 2022, and a public scoping meeting was held April 20, 2022 at the City of Jurupa Valley City Hall. No comments were made during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to GHG emissions, but two sets of comments related to greenhouse gas emissions were received later:
• In a letter dated April 27, 2022, Dr. Frank Wen of the Southern California Association of Governments, mentions that Connect SoCal, also known as the 2020 –2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), contains strategies that help to reduce GHG emissions from automobiles and light trucks. • Representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Mitchell M. Tsai submitted a letter dated April 29, 2022 stating that requiring the use of local workers for construction “can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits.”
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-5 June 2023
4.7.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding The authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to regulate GHG emissions stems from the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA (2007). The Supreme Court ruled that GHGs meet the definition of air pollutants under the existing Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) and must be regulated if these gases could be reasonably anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.
Responding to the Court’s ruling, the USEPA finalized an endangerment finding in December 2009.
In light of scientific evidence, it found that six GHGs —carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride ( SF6) — constitute a threat to public health and welfare. Thus, it is the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the existing FCAA and the US EPA’s assessm ent of the scientific evidence that forms the basis for the agency’s regulatory actions (Kimley -Horn, 202 3c). The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses , and the USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and increasing efficiency.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 ( Public Law 110- 140), among other key measures, requires the following, which would aid in the reduction of national GHG emissions:
• Increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022. • Set a target of 35 miles per gallon for the combined fleet of cars and light trucks by model year 2020 and direct the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to establish a fuel economy program for medium- and heavy-duty trucks and create a separate fuel economy standard for work trucks.
• Prescribe or revise standards affecting regional efficiency for heating and cooling products and procedures for new or amended standards, energy conservation, energy efficiency labeling for consumer electronic products, residential boiler efficiency, electric motor efficiency, and home appliances (Kimley-Horn, 2023c).
The federal government is taking several common- sense steps to address the challenge of climate change. The USEPA collects several types of GHG emissions data. These data help policy makers, businesses, and USEPA track GHG emissions trends and identify opportunities for reducing emissions and increasing efficiency. USEPA has been collecting a national inventory of GHG emissions since 1990, and in 2009 established mandatory reporting of GHG emissions from large GHG emissions sources.
Until January 19, 2017 the USEPA’s regulatory initiatives included USEPA's vehicle GHG rules and Clean Power Plan , partnering with the private sector through voluntary energy and climate programs, and reducing USEPA's carbon footprint with the federal GHG requirements and USEPA's Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. The recently concluded Trump administration had a different strategy in relation to climate change and took the USEPA in a new direction . President SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-6 June 2023
Trump’s Executive Order 13783, “Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth,” 29 specifically addressed revisions in the Clean Power Plan and standards of performance for GHGs for new stationary sources , CH 4 standards for the oil and gas sector , and light -duty vehicle GHG standards. On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 30 which rescinded the Executive Order on Energy Independence, along with several other executive orders concerning energy, climate, and environmental protection. Among the stated goals of Executive Order 13990 are “to reduce greenhouse gas emissions” and “to bolster resilience t o the impacts of climate change.” Various federal agencies are restoring prior regulations and developing new ones to further these policies.
State
Through several pieces of legislation, gubernatorial executive orders, and administrative regulations that relate to GHG emissions and climate change, California has set aggressive goals for GHG reductions within the state. Per Senate Bill (SB) 97, the California Natural Resources Agency adopted amendments to the CEQA Guidelines, which address the specific obligations of public agencies when analyzing GHG emissions under CEQA to determine a project’s effects on the environment. However, neither a threshold of significance nor any specific mitigation measures are included or provided in these CEQA Guideline amendments. The major state provisions for reducing GHG emissions include the following.
Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32)
The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, widely known as AB 32, requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and enforce regulations for the reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions.
31 The ARB was directed to set a statewide GHG emission limit, based on 1990 levels, to be achieved by 2020. The bill set a timeline for adopting a scoping plan for achieving GHG reductions in a technologically and economically feasible manner. The heart of the bill was the requirement that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020.
The first AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2008) contain ed the main strategies to achieve the 2020 emissions cap. The plan was developed by the ARB with input from the Climate Action Team and proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall carbon emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce oil dependency, diversify energy sources, and enhance public health while creating new jobs and improving the state’s economy. The GHG reduction strategies contained in the AB 32 Scoping Plan included direct regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and market-based mechanisms such as a cap-and-trade system.
In May 2014, the ARB adopted the First Update to the AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2014). This update identified the next steps for California’s leadership on climate change. It described progress made to meet the near -term objectives of AB 32 and defined California’s climate change priorities and
29 Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth . March 31, 2017. URL:
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/31/2017-06576/promoting-energy-independence-and- economic-growth.
30 Executive Order 13990. Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis. January 20, 2021. URL:
31 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-7 June 2023
activities for the next several years. It also framed activities and issues facing the state as it develops an integrated framework for achieving both air quality and climate goals in California beyond 2020.
In the original AB 32 Scoping Plan, the ARB approved a total statewide GHG 1990 emissions level and 2020 emissions limit of 427 million metric tons (MT) of CO2e. As part of the update, the ARB revised the 2020 Statewide limit to 431 million MT of CO2e, an approximately one percent increase from the original estimate. The 2020 business -as-usual forecast in the update is 509 million MT of CO 2e. The state would need to reduce those emissions by 15.3 percent to meet the 431 million MT of CO2e 2020 limit.
In November 2017, the ARB published the 2017 AB 32 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2017), which buil t upon the former AB 32 Scoping Plan and Updates by outlining priorities and recommendations for the state to achieve its 2030 GHG target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
The major elements of the framework proposed are : enhancement of the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) ; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short -Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector; and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan.
Adopted December 15, 2022, ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, ARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates for comp liance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 (Kimley- Horn, 2023c, pp. 13-14).
The key elements of the 2022 ARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Pl an aims to rapidly move towards zero- emission transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by ARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, pp. 13-14).
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan (ARB, 2022) is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the state in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D to the 2022 Scoping Plan includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, ARB identifies several recommendations and strategies tha t should be considered for new development in order to determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on residential and mixed -use projects. ARB specifically states SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-8 June 2023
that Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). However, ARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, pp. 13-14).
As such, it would be inappropriate to apply the requirements contained in Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan to any land use types other than residential or mixed -use residential development (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, pp. 13-14).
Executive Order B-30-15
On April 29, 2015, Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. issued an executive order to establish a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. This new emission reduction target is a step toward the ultimate goal of reducing emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The executive order also specifically addresses the need for climate adaptation and directs state government to:
• Incorporate climate change impacts into the state’s Five-Year Infrastructure Plan. • Update the Safeguarding California Plan – the state climate adaption strategy – to identify how climate change will affect California infrastructure an d industry, and what actions the state can take to reduce the risks posed by climate change. • Factor climate change into state agencies' planning and investment decisions. • Implement measures under existing agency and departmental authority to reduce GHG emissions.
California Senate Bills 1078, 107, 2, 100 and 350; Renewables Portfolio Standard Established in 2002 under California SB 1078 and accelerated in 2006 under California SB 107, California’s renewable portfolio standard ( RPS) required retail suppliers of electric services to increase procurement from eligible renewable energy resources by at least one percent of their retail sales annually, until they reached 20 percent by 2010.
On April 2, 2011, Governor Brown signed California SB 2 to increase California’s RPS to 33 percent by 2020. This new standard also require d regulated sellers of electricity to procure 25 percent of their energy supply from certified renewable resources by 2016. In October 2015, Governor Brown signed into law SB 350, which requir es retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from eligible renewable energy resources by 2030. Under SB 100, signed by Governor Brown on September 10, 2018, the renewables requirement was increased to 60 percent.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS)
California Executive Order S-01-07 (January 18, 2007) requires a 10 percent or greater reduction in the average carbon intensity for transportation fuels in California regulated by the ARB. The ARB identified the LCFS as a Discrete Early Action item under AB 32, and the final resolution (09-31) was issued on April 23, 2009.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-9 June 2023
Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) California’s Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act, also referred to as SB 375, became effective January 1, 2009. The goal of SB 375 is to help achieve AB 32’s GHG emissions reduction goals by aligning the planning processes for regional transportation, housing, and land use. SB 375 requires the ARB to develop regional reduction targets for GHGs and prompts the creation of regional plans to reduce emissions from vehicle use throughout the state. California’s 18 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) have been tasked with creating Sustainable Community Strategies in an effort to reduce the region’s vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in order to help meet AB 32 targets through integrated transportation, land use, housing and environmental planning. Pursuant to SB 375, the ARB set per-capita GHG emissions reduction targets from passenger vehicles for each of the state’s 18 MPOs. In May 2022, the ARB issued a regional VMT per capita reduced 12 percent below 2019 levels by 2030 and 22 percent below 2019 levels by 2045 (ARB, 2022).
California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CCR Title 24, Part 11 code) commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is a statewide mandatory construction code developed and adopted by the California Building Standards Commission and the Department of Housing and Community Development. The CALGreen standards require new residential and commercial buildings to comply with m andatory measures under the topics of planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency/conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality.
CALGreen also provides voluntary tiers and measures that local government s may adopt that encourage or require additional measures in the five green building topics. The most recent update to the CALGreen Code went into effect January 1, 20 23 (2022 CALGreen) . The 2022 CALGreen standards continue to improve upon the existing standards for new construction of, and additions and alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 18).
Regional
South Coast Air Quality Management District
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is respons ible for regional planning to achieve attainment of ambient air quality standards in the South Coast Air Basin, in which the Project is located. 32 It also enforces federal and state emission regulations through a system of source- specific rules and by requ iring permits for building and operating facilities that emit criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The SCAQMD does not have rules limiting GHG emissions, nor does it issue permits specifically for emissions of GHG species. However, some of its rules and permit conditions, by limiting fossil fuel combustion, have a side benefit of reducing GHG emissions.
One SCAQMD rule that could potentially reduce GHG emissions is Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule), which was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing Board on May 7, 2021 to reduce NO x 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 23 05 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 warehouses WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions) Points
32 For more detailed information on the SCAQMD, refer to Section 4.2.2. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-10 June 2023
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 acquiring zero emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks, requiring ZE/NZE truck visits, requiring ZE yard trucks, installing onsite ZE charging/fueling infrastructure, and installing onsite energy systems.
Warehouse operators that do not e arn 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 infrastructur e in communities nearby (Kimley-Horn, 2023c).
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the federally-designated metropolitan planning agency for Ventura, Los Angeles, Riverside, San Bernardino and Imperial Counties. It works together with the SCAQMD to prepare the triennial Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). It is also responsible for quadrennial updates of the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), the latest of which guides transportation developments between 2020 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020a).
The RTP/SCS charts a course closely integrating land use and transportation so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. The strategy was prepared through a collaborative, continuous and comprehensive process with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, non -profit organizations, businesses and local stakeholders within SCAG’s member counties. The RTP/SCS is a long-range vision plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The SCAG region strives toward sustainability through integrated land use and transportation planning. The SCAG region must achieve speci fic federal air quality standards and is required by state law to lower regional GHG emissions (Kimley-Horn, 2023c).
Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan contains goals and policies that address greenhouse gas emissions (Kimley-Horn, 2023c) within the City. The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to greenhouse gas emissions and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
4.7.4 Methodology
CalEEMod, Version 2022.1.1, the same software that was used for the criteria air pollutant analysis, was used to estimate carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide emissions for project construction and operation. Modeling inputs and results are provided in the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment by Kimley Horn (Kimley- Horn, 2023c). The model calculates the CO 2e emissions from
the emissions and global warming potentials of the three aforementioned species. Project-generated vehicle emissions are based on the trip generation within the Traffic Impact Analysis for District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley (Traffic Impact Analysis) prepared by Kimley -Horn (July 2022) and incorporated into CalEEMod as recommended by the SCAQMD. ARB’s EMission FACtor Model (EMFAC 2021) was used for emissions rates in CalEEMod . Total construction emissions were SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-11 June 2023
“amortized” over 30 years and added to the operational emissions (Kimley-Horn, 2023c). Further information about the analytical approach is presented in Section 4.7.6 and Appendix D13.
4.7.5 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist , and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guidelines an d Thresholds of Significance, August 20, 2020, sets forth the following significance thresholds and criteria for Greenhouse Gas Emissions impacts. The project would have a significant impact related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions if it would:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project exceeds the thresholds per General Plan Policy below:
• AQ 9.5 GHG Thresholds. Utilize the SCAQMD Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action Plan (CAP). b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project is inconsistent with the following: The Climate Change Scoping Plan first approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARE) in 2008 and updated every 5 years. • Western Riverside County Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan (WRCOG Subregional CAP).
According to the CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency shall have the discretion to determine, for a specific project, whether to quantify GHG emissions and/or to rely on a qualitative analysis or performance - based standards.
33 A lead agency should consider the following factors, among others, when determining the significance of GHG emissions on the environment:34 • The extent to which the Project would increase or decrease GHG emission with reference to existing environmental conditions.
• Whether the Project’s GHG emissions would exceed a numeric threshold of significance that the lead agency determines to apply to the Project.
• The extent to which the Project complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for reducing or mitigating GHG emissions.
33 CEQA Guidelines § 15064.4(a).
34 Ibid., § 15064.4(b).
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-12 June 2023
Currently, there is no Statewide GHG emissions threshold that has been used to determine the potential GHG emissions impacts of a project. Threshold methodology and thresholds are still being developed and revised by air districts in the State. As discussed above under Section 3.3, Regional , the SCAQMD convened a Working Group to provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG emissions in their CEQA documents . This Working Group proposed a tiered approach for evaluating GHG emissions for development projects where SCAQMD is not the lead agency. The applicable tier for the proposed Project is Tier 3, which states that if GHG emissions are less than 3,000 MTCO
2e per year, project -l evel and cumulative GHG emissions would be less than significant (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 23).
Es
timation of GHG emissions in the future does not account for all changes in technology that may reduce such emissions; therefore, the estimates are based on past performance and represent a scenario that is likely to improve in the future after energy -e
fficient technologies have been
implemented. Although information is presented below to assist the public and decision -ma
kers in
understanding the Project’s potential contribution to G HG impacts, the information available to the City is not sufficiently detailed to allow a direct comparison between particular project characteristics and particular climate change impacts or between any particular proposed mitigation measure and any reduction in global climate change impacts (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 23)..
In
addition, the Project’s significance was evaluated by considering the extent to which it complies with regulations or requirements adopted to implement a statewide, regional or local plan for reducing or mitigating GHG emissions. The City of Jurupa Valley’s Envi ronmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance (City of Jurupa Valley, 2020) recommends that this analysis determine whether a project is consistent with the latest AB 32 climate change scoping plan, which is ARB ’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan), Adopted December 15, 2022, and the Western Riverside County Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan (WRCOG, 2014).
4.7.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project generate greenhouse gas emiss ions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project exceeds the thresholds per General Plan Policy below:
• AQ 9.5 GHG Thresholds. Utilize the SCAQMD Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action Plan (CAP).
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
The following include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs, based on federal, state, or local law, applied to the Project to reduce GHG emissions and potential impacts relating to GHG emissions. These requirements are also included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-13 June 2023
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).
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. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-14 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.2-7 to 4.2-10.
A.2 Impact Analysis
Short-Term Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The Project would result in direct emissions of CO 2, N2O, and CH4 from construction equipment and the transport of materials and construction workers to and from the Project site. The GHG emissions only occur during temporary construction activities and would cease once construction is complete.
The total GHG emissions (in CO2e) generated during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of construction are shown in Table 4.7-3 (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 27).
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-15 June 2023
Table 4.7-3
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Category MTCO2e
Phase 1 Construction
Construction Year 1 (2023) 37
Construction Year 2 (2024) 3,919
Construction Year 3 (2025) 4,424
Total Phase 1 Construction Emissions 8,380
Phase 1: 30-Year Amortized Construction
Emissions
279
Phase 2 Construction
Construction Year 4 (2026) 2,088
Construction Year 5 (2027) 1,918
Construction Year 6 (2028) 1,219
Total Phase 2 Construction Emissions 5,225
Phase 2: 30-Year Amortized Construction
Emissions
174
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D13 for model outputs in Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment by Kimley Horn (2023c)
As shown in Table 4.7-3, Phase 1 of the Project would result in the generation of approximately 8,380 MTCO2e over the course of construction and Phase 2 would generate approximately 5,225 MTCO2e over the course of construction. Construction GHG emissions are typically summed and amortized over a 30 year period and then added to the operational emissions 35. The amortized project Phase 1 construction emissions would be 279 MTCO2e per year while the amortized project Phase 2 construction emissions would be 174 MTCO 2e per year. Total amortized emissions for project buildout would be 453 MTCO2e per year. Once construction is complete, the generation of these GHG emissions would cease (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 27).
Long-Term Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the Project. GHG emissions would result from direct emissions such as project- generated vehicular traffic, on-site combustion of natural gas, and operation of any landscaping equipment utilized within the Project site. Operational GHG emissions would also result from indirect sources, such as off-site generation of electrical power, the energy required to convey water to, and wastewater from, the Project, the emissions associated with solid waste generated from the Project, and any fugitive refrigerants from air conditioning or refrigerators (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 32).
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley would review and verify that the Project plans demonstrate compliance with the current version of the Building and Energy Efficiency Standards. The Project would also be required to adhere to the provisions of CALGreen,
35 The project lifetime is based on the standard 30-year assumption of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (South Coast Air Quality Management District, Minutes for the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholder Working Group #13, August 26, 2009).
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-16 June 2023
which establishes planning and design standards for sustainable site development and energy efficiency. Construction activities would be required to monitor air quality emissions using applicable regulatory guidance such as the SCAQMD Rules (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 28).
Operational Emissions
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. As shown in Table 4.7-4, the Project’s total unmitigated emissions would be approximately 67,796 MTCO2e for Phase 1, 24,265 MTCO2e for Phase 2, and 92,061 MTCO 2e for project buildout operation. Therefore, unmitigated GHG emissions associated with Phase 1, Phase 2, and project buildout would exceed the C ity’s 3,000-MTCO2e-per- year threshold (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 28-29).
Table 4.7-4
OPERATIONAL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
PHASE 1
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 279 279
Area Sources1 122 61
Energy2 7,720 7,180
Mobile - Passenger Cars3 22,896 22,226
Mobile – Trucks3 15,528 15,528
Off-Road - Forklifts4 1,848 428
Off-Road - Yard Trucks4 1,189 385
Backup Generators 2,530 2,530
Transport Refrigeration Units 382 368
Waste5 1,238 310
Water and Wastewater 1,801 1,801
Refrigerants 10,593 10,593
Total 66,126 61,690
Jurupa Valley GHG Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
PHASE 2
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 174 174
Area Sources1 203 182
Energy2 3,576 3,293
Mobile - Passenger Cars3 17,539 17,265
Mobile - Trucks3 0 0
Off-Road – Forklifts4 0 0
Off-Road - Yard Trucks4 0 0
Backup Generators 0 0
Transport Refrigeration Units 0 0
Waste5 466 116
Water and Wastewater 163 163
Refrigerants 1,403 1,403
Total 23,524 22,596
Jurupa Valley GHG Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
PROJECT BUILDOUT
Construction Amortized Over 30 Years 453 453
Area Sources1 325 243
Energy2 11,296 10,473
Mobile - Passenger Cars3 40,435 39,491
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-17 June 2023
Emissions Source
MTCO2e per Year
Unmitigated Mitigated
Mobile – Trucks3 15,528 15,528
Off-Road - Forklifts4 1,848 1,848
Off-Road - Yard Trucks4 1,189 1,189
Backup Generators 2,530 2,530
Transport Refrigeration Units 382 368
Waste5 1,704 426
Water and Wastewater 1,964 1,964
Refrigerants 11,996 11,996
Total 89,650 84,286
Jurupa Valley GHG Threshold 3,000 3,000
Exceeds Threshold? Yes Yes
Notes:
1. Mitigation Measure AQ -4 and AQ -5 (refer to the Project’s Air Quality Assessment) prohibits installation of natural gas or wood burning fireplaces and requires electric landscaping equipment, which would reduce area source emissions. Additionally Mitiga tion Measure AQ-13 prohibits natural gas use in residential structures.
2. Mitigation Measure GHG-2 and GHG-3 require building energy efficiency and energy efficient appliances.
3. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 (refer to the Project’s Air Quality Assessment) requires implementation of a TDM program.
4. Mitigation Measure AQ-11 (refer to the Project’s Air Quality Assessment) requires operation of electric forklifts and yard trucks.
5. Mitigation Measure GHG-4 requires a minimum of 75 percent solid waste diversion.
Source: CalEEMod version 2022.1.1. Refer to Appendix D13 for model outputs.
The GHG assessment (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 30) shows that the majority of the GHG emissions (63 percent unmitigated and 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. MM AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and MM AQ-13 have been identified in the Project ’s Air Quality Assessment to reduce operational emissions and would also reduce GHG emissions. MM AQ-3 requires the implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage transit; MM AQ-4 prohibits the use of any kind of fireplaces; and MM AQ -5 requires all landscaping equipment used onsite to be 100 percent electrically powered. MM AQ-13 would prohibit natural gas use in residential structures.
Additionally, the Project would further reduce GHG emissions through implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4 . MM GHG -1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. It should be noted that GHG emissions shown in Table 4 do not account for GHG reductions associated with MM GHG -1. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency; MM GHG-3 requires the residential projects to utilize energy efficient appliances; and MM 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.
As shown in T able 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. As previously discussed, and depicted in Table 4.7-4, the majority of the Project’s GHG emissions are generated by mobile sources . The TDM program required by MM 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.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-18 June 2023
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 emissi ons 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 technology and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
The ARB is directly responsible for regulating mobile and transportation source emissions in the State. Regarding the first parameter, California addresses emissions control technology through a variety of legislative and regulatory schemes, including the state’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (Executive Order S -01-07), a regulatory program designed to encourage the use of cleaner low - carbon transportation fuels in California, encourage the production of those fuels, and therefore, reduce GHG emissions and decrease petroleum dependence in the transportation sector. The regulatory standards are expressed in terms of the “carbon intensity” of gasoline and diesel fuel and their substitutes. Different types o f fuels are evaluated to determine their “life cycle emissions,” which include the emissions associated wi th producing, transporting, and using the fuels. Each fuel is then given a carbon intensity score and compared against a declining carbon intensity benchmark for each year. Providers of transportation fuels must demonstrate that the mix of fuels they supply for use in California meets these declining benchmarks for each annual compliance period.
In 2018, ARB approved amendments to the LCFS that strengthened the carbon intensity benchmarks through 2030 to ensure that they are in line with California’s 2030 GHG emission reduction target enacted through SB 32. This ensures that the transportation sector is meeting its obligations to achieve California’s GHG reduction targets. The state is also implementing legislation and regulations to address the second parameter affecting transportation-related GHG emissions by controlling VMT.
Examples of this include SB 375, which links land use and transportation fund ing and provides one incentive for regions to achieve reductions in VMT, and SB 743, which discourages VMT increases for passenger car trips above a region-specific benchmark.
Having no regulatory control over emissions control technology (e.g., LCFS), the City of Jurupa Valley has limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with mobile source emissions associated with this 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 (MM GHG-2); and (ii) requiring the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards, which exceed code requirements. Further, the Project would divert 75 percent of solid waste from landfills (MM GHG-4) and require landscape equipment to be 100 percent electric (MM 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. To reduce emissions, purchased offset credits must be genuine, quantifiable, additional, and verifiable.
There are currently three ARB -approved offset registries: Climate Action Reserve (CAR), American Carbon Registry (ACR), and Verra (formerly Verified Carbon Standard). However, even offset credits purchased from ARB -approved offset project regis tries have been determined in certain SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-19 June 2023
circumstances to not adequately assure that purchased offset credits accurately and reliably represent actual emissions reductions, or to not guarantee that such reductions are not already required by law.
This is due to the fact that “over-crediting” can occur based on the generation of credits from actions that would have happened regardless of the offset program. “Additionality” is inherent to the fundamental idea of carbon offse ts and is critical to their functioning. There are several methodologies available for registries to determine additionality, but they all depend on predictions about future factors (such as about future fuel, timber, or electricity prices) and any such an alysis is therefore speculative.36 An offset program permits an emitter to emit more than an emissions cap or target in exchange for reducing emissions elsewhere. Accordingly, the offset program must actually cause emissions to be reduced, but this is not always the case. For example, a pair of studies published in 2019 and 2021 examined California’s forest carbon offsets program and found that it was likely to have overstated its total emission reductions by 80 percent or more.37,38 If an offset program generates credits from reductions that would have happened regardless of the offset program, and this causes the protocols to generate more credits than actual reductions in emissions, the emitter’s emissions are not truly offset, 39 and therefore would not be considered adequate mitigation under CEQA. The high rates of over -crediting documented by the offset programs and protocols that have been studied, and the failure of the methods used by offset programs to ensure offset quality, means that offset credits cannot be assumed to be high -quality based solely on their being listed by a certain registry, or to necessarily result in quantified verified tons of emissions reductions.40
In addition, the City of Jurupa Valley, the lead agency for the Project and the entity responsible for enforcing any mitigation measures incorporated into the Project to potentially reduce impacts, has no enforcement authority over offset credits that fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City.
Therefore, as a conservative me asure, the use of carbon offsets has not been considered for the Project (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 32).
Thus, despite the incorporation of all feasible mitigation measures, the remaining mobile emissions cannot feasibly be mitigated because neither the Project nor the City has the regulatory authority to control tailpipe emissions.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Implementation of PPPs 4.7-1 through 4.7-4 would reduce construction impacts from GHG emissions to less than significant. However, alt hough
36 Stockholm Environment Institute and Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. Carbon Offset Guide. Additionality.
Website: https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality-offsets/additionality/. 37 Haya, Barbara. POLICY BRIEF: The California Air Resources Board’s U.S. Forest offset protocol underestimates leakage. May 2019. Website: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/Policy_Brief- US_Forest_Projects-Leakage-Haya_4.pdf.
38 Badgley, G., Freeman, J., Hamman, J. J., Haya, B., Trugman, A. T., Anderegg, W. R. L., & Cullenward, D. (2022).
Systematic over-crediting in California's forest carbon offsets program. Global Change Biology, 28, 1433– 1445.
Website: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15943.
39 Stockholm Environment Institute and Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. Carbon Offset Guide. How Carbon Offset Programs Address Additionality. Website: https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality- offsets/additionality/high-quality-offsets-additionality-how-carbon-offset-programs-address-additionality/. 40 Haya, B., Cullenward, D., Strong, A., Grubert, E., Heilmayr, R., Sivas, D. & Wara, M. (2020) Managing uncertainty in carbon offsets: insights from California’s standardized approach, Climate Policy, 20:9, 1112-1126. https://doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2020.1781035.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-20 June 2023
implementation of PPPs 4.7-1 through 4.7 -4 would reduce project operational impacts from GHG emissions, impacts from project operation would still remain significant before mitigation.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
The Project includes numerous mitigation measures that would reduce emissions. MM AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and MM AQ -13 have been identified in the Project ’s Air Quality Assessment to reduce operational emissions and would also reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project would further reduce GHG emissions through implementation of MM GHG-1 through MM GHG-4.
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, 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 accommod ate 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.
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 exc eed 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.
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 Val ley shall verify implementation of this requirement.
MM 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 co nstructed 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. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-21 June 2023
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant. As explained above, 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 measures available that would further reduce emissions because the majority of the Project’s emissions come from mobile sources which are regulated by the State and not the City of Jurupa Valley (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, 34).
Threshold b): Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project is inconsistent with the following: The Climate Change Scoping Plan first approved by the California Air Resources Board (CARE) in 2008 and updated every 5 years. • Western Riverside County Council of Governments Subregional Climate Action Plan (WRCOG Subregional CAP).
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
See discussion under A.1 above. PPP 4.7-1 through PPP 4.7-4 also apply to this threshold.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No specific project design features apply to the Project for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Western Riverside Council of Governments Climate Action Plan Consistency In 2014, the City of Jurupa Valley was one of 12 cities that collaborated with the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) on a Subregional Climate Action Plan (Subregional CAP) that includes 36 measures to guide GHG reduction efforts through 2020. However, the City of Jurupa Valley has not adopted the Subregional CAP because it did not go through formal CEQA review by WRCOG, which intended it to be a framework for cities to implement AB 32 and for cities to develop their own CAPs. The 2017 General Plan contains the following policy relative to a CAP (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 35):
“AQ 9.1.1. Climate Action Plan. Within 2 years of General Plan adoption, prepare and adapt a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the City, including a 2030 and 2035 reduction target and local emissions inventory. The CAP will be consistent with the WRCOG SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-22 June 2023
Subregional CAP but will identify specific additional measures for the reduction of future GHG emissions. The CAP shall demonstrate how the City will reduce its GHG emissions to 50% below 1990 levels by 2030 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, consistent with state law and current guidance on GHG reduction planning. Specific actions that may be included in the City CAP to help keep Citywide emissions below the SCAQMD service population significance threshold include, but not limited to, requiring the installation of electric conduit improvements to support the installation of future roof-mounted photovoltaic solar systems and electric vehicle charging st ation for individual homes and businesses.” (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 35).
Until the City formally adopts a CAP, local development is not required to be consistent on a project- by-project evaluation of GHG emissions identified in the WRCOG Subregional CAP. Additionally, the GHG reduction targets within the WRCOG Subregional CAP and 2017 General Plan Policy AQ 9.1.1 have been superseded by SB 32 (40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and AB 1279 (85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045). The 2022 Scoping Plan reflects SB 32 and AB 1279 GHG reduction targets anis further analyzed below (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 35).
Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS]). The RTP/SCS is a long - range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS embodies a collective vision for the region’s future and is developed with input from local governments, county transportation commissions, tribal governments, nonprofit organizations, businesses, and local stakeholders in the counties of Imperial, Los An geles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura. SCAG’s RTP/SCS establishes GHG emissions goals for automobiles and light -duty trucks for 2020 and 2035 as well as an overall GHG target for the Project region consistent with both the target date of AB 32 and the post -2020 GHG reduction goals of Executive Orders 5-03-05 and B-30-15.
The RTP/SCS contains over 4,000 transportation projects, incorporating highway improvements, railroad grade separations, bicycle lanes, new transit hubs and replacement bridges. These future investments were included in county plans developed by the six-county transportation commissions and seek to reduce traffic bottlenecks, improve the efficiency of the region’s network, and expand mobility choices for everyone. The RTP/SCS is an important planning document for the region, allowing project sponsors to qualify for federal funding.
The plan accounts for operations and maintenance costs to ensure reliability, longevity, and cost effectiveness. The RTP/SCS is also supported by a combination of transportation and land use strategies that help the region achieve state GHG emissions reduction goals and Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) requirements, preserve open space areas, improve public health and roadway safety, support our vital goods movement industry, and utilize resources more efficiently. GHG emissions resulting from development-related mobile sources are the most potent source of emissions, and therefore project comparison to the RTP/SCS is an appropriate indicator of whether t he Project would inhibit the post -2020 GHG reduction goals promulgated by the state. The Project ’s consistency with the RTP/SCS goals is analyzed in detail in Table 4.7-5.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-23 June 2023
Table 4.7-5
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN/SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES STRATEGY CONSISTENCY SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 1
Encourage regional economic
prosperity and global
competitiveness.
N/A
This is not a project-specific policy and is
therefore not applicable. However, the
Project is located on a vacant site and
development of the site would contribute
to regional economic prosperity.
GOAL 2
Improve mobility, accessibility,
reliability, and travel safety for
people and goods.
Consistent
Although this project is not a
transportation improvement project, the
Project is located near existing transit
routes of I-215, I-10, I-15, and SR-60.
GOAL 3
Enhance the preservation, security,
and resilience of the regional
transportation system.
N/A This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 4
Increase person and goods movement
and travel choices within the
transportation system.
N/A This is not a transportation improvement
project and is therefore not applicable.
GOAL 5 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
and improve air quality. Consistent
The Project site is currently characterized
as predominantly underutilized vacant
disturbed land, with limited previous
development of older residential
properties. The Project site is located
within an urban area in proximity to
existing transit routes, freeways, an d
residential development. In addition, the
Project site is located 2 miles from the
Riverside City Center. Although project -
related GHG emissions exceed numeric
thresholds, the location of the Project
within a developed area would place an
employment center adjacent to existing
and future residential uses. Locating an
employment center in close proximity to
existing residential uses would potentially
reduce trip lengths required for existing
residents
to travel to work and/or
commercial services. Reduction of trip
lengths would result in reduced GHG and
air quality emissions. It should be noted
that the GHG emissions depicted in Table
4.7-3 conservatively do not account for
internal capture and pass- by trips, which
would further reduce mobile emissions.
Additionally, mobile emissions would be
reduced through implementation of a TDM
program, as required by MM AQ-3.
The Project would reduce air quality and
GHG emissions through additional
mitigation measu res such as electrifying
development and improving energy
efficiency (MM AQ-5, MM AQ-13, MM GHG-
1, MM GHG-2, and MM GHG -3), as well as
waste reduction (MM GHG-4).
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-24 June 2023
SCAG Goals Compliance
GOAL 6 Support healthy and equitable
communities Consistent
Although the Project exceeds reg ional
thresholds for criteria pollutants based on
the Air Quality Assessment, the Project
does not exceed localized thresholds.
Based on the Friant Ranch decision,
projects that do not exceed the SCAQMD’s
LSTs would not violate any air quality
standards or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation
and result in no criteria pollutant health
impacts.
GOAL 7
Adapt to a changing climate and
support an integrated regional
development pattern and
transportation network.
N/A This is not a project -specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.
GOAL 8
Leverage new transportation
technologies and data- driven
solutions that result in more efficient
travel.
N/A This is not a project -specific policy and is
therefore not applicable.
GOAL 9
Encourage development of diverse
housing types in areas that are
supported by multiple transportation
options.
N/A
The Project is a specific plan and involves
development of a mix of uses (residential,
open space, commercial, business p ark,
and industrial) that would provide diverse
housing options that would be served by
Metrolink trains and Route 29 Riverside
Transit Agency (RTA).
Specifically, future
residential uses would be located
approximately 2.6 miles from the
Metrolink Riversid e Downtown Station
and approximately 940 feet from the
nearest bus stop along Rubidoux
Boulevard (Rubidoux FS 34th stop).
GOAL 10
Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of
habitats.
N/A
This project is located within an urban
area and is not located on agricultural
lands. Specifically, the Project site is
characterized as predominantly
underutilized vacant disturbed land, with
limited previous development of older
residential properties. T here are no
natural lands onsite.
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023c , Table 5, pp. 36-37. Southern California Association of Governments, Connect SoCal (2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2020. (Cited in Kimley-Horn, 2023c.) As shown in Table 4. 7-5, the Project would be in compliance with the 2020 - 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy [2020 RTP/SCS] and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant in this regard.
California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan Consistency Adopted December 15, 2022, ARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) sets a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic GHG emissions SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-25 June 2023
by 85 percent below 1990 levels by 2045 in accordance with AB 1279. To achieve the targets of AB 1279, the 2022 Scoping Plan relies on existing and emerging fossil fuel alternatives and clean technologies, as well as carbon capture and storage. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan focuses on zero-emission transportation; phasing out use of fossil gas use for heating homes and buildings; reducing chemical and refrigerants with high GWP; providing communities with sustainable options for walking, biking, and public transit; displacement of fossil-fuel fired electrical generation through use of renewable energy alternatives (e.g., solar arrays and wind turbines); and scaling up new options such as green hydrogen. The 2022 Scoping Plan sets one of the most aggressive approaches to reach carbon neutrality in the world. Unlike the 2017 Scoping Plan, ARB no longer includes a numeric per capita threshold and instead advocates f or compliance with a local GHG reduction strategy (i.e., Climate Action Plan) consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15183.5 (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 38).
The key elements of the 2022 ARB Scoping Plan focus on transportation. Specifically, the 2022 Scoping Plan aims to rapidly move towards zero-emission (ZE) transportation (i.e., electrifying cars, buses, trains, and trucks), which constitutes California’s single largest source of GHGs. The regulations that impact the transportation sector are adopted and enforced by ARB on vehicle manufacturers and are outside the jurisdiction and control of local governments. The 2022 Scoping Plan accelerates development of new regulations as well as amendments to strengthen regulations and programs already in place. Statewide strategies to reduce GHG emissions in the latest 2022 Scoping Plan include (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 38):
• Implementing SB 100 (achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045); • Achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 through Advanced Cl ean Cars II; and
• Implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation to deploy zero- emission vehicle (ZEV) buses and trucks.
Other transportation policies include the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, and Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation.
The 2022 Scoping Plan would continue to implement SB 375. GHGs would be further reduced through the Cap-and-Trade Program carbon pricing and SB 905. SB 905 requires ARB to create the Carbon Capture, Removal, Utilization, and Storage Program to evaluate, demonstrate, and regulate carbon dioxide removal projects and technology (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 38).
As indicated above, GHG reductions are also achieved as a result of State of California energy and water efficiency requirements for new residential developments. These efficiency improvements correspond to reductions in secondary GHG emissions. For example, in California, most of the electricity that powers homes is derived from natural gas combustion. Therefore, energy saving measures, such as Title 24, reduces GHG emissions from the power generation facilities by reducing load demand (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 38).
Scoping Plan Appendix D, Local Actions
Included in the 2022 Scoping Plan is a set of Local Actions (2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D) aimed at providing local jurisdictions with tools to reduce GHGs and assist the State in meeting the ambitious targets set forth in the 2022 Scoping Plan. That appen dix includes a section on evaluating plan-level and project-level alignment with the State’s Climate Goals in CEQA GHG analyses. In this section, ARB SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-26 June 2023
identifies several recommendations and strategies that should be considered for new development in order t o determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Notably, this section is focused on residential and mixed-use projects.41 ARB specifically states that 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D does not address other land uses (e.g., industrial). 42 However, ARB plans to explore new approaches for other land use types in the future (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 38-39).43 ARB Scoping Plan Appendix D lists potential actions that support the State’s climate goals. However, the Scoping Plan notes that the appl icability and performance of the actions may vary across the regions. The document is organized into two categories (A) examples of plan- level GHG reduction actions that could be implemented by local governments and (B) examples of on- site project design features, mitigation measures, that could be required of individual projects under CEQA, if feasible, when the local jurisdiction is the lead agency (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39).
The proposed Project would include a number of the potential mitigation measures for construction and operation. For example, the 2022 Scoping Plan’s construction measures include enforcing idling time restrictions on construction vehicles, requiring construction vehicles to operate highest tier engines commercially available, diver ting and recycling construction waste, minimizing tree removal, and increased use of electric and renewable fuel powered construction equipment and required renewable diesel fuel where commercially available. These measures are consistent with the requirements in MM AQ-1 which requires the minimization of idling and the use of clean off-road engines (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39).
ARB Scoping Plan Appendix D recommends the following three priority areas and identifies these as residential and mixed -use project attributes to qualitatively determine consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39):
1. Transportation electrification
2. VMT reduction
3. Building decarbonization
The 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D notes that projects that have all of the key project attributes should accommodate growth in a manner consistent with State GHG reduction and equity prioritization goals (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39).
Transportation Electrification . Table 3 in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, notes that to be clearly consistent with the State’s goals, projects should provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the CALGreen code. The Project is consistent with this attribute as MM GHG -2 requires project EV charging to meet CALGreen Tier 2 standards (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39).
VMT Reduction. The Scoping Plan notes that to be consistent with the VMT reduction attribute, projects should be locate d on sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land; do not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands; and consist of transit-supportive densities (minimum of 20 re sidential
41 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022.
42 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 4, November 2022.
43 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 21, November 2022.
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-27 June 2023
dwelling units per acre). The proposed Project is surrounded by existing urban uses, does not result in the loss of natural and working lands (i.e., it would redevelop underutilized vacant disturbed land, with limited previous development of olde r residential properties ), and has a density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. Additionally , the Project site is located in close proximity to existing transit routes and the Riverside City Center. Furthermore, MM AQ-3 (see the Project Air Quality Assessment) would reduce mobile source emissions through the implementation of a TDM program (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39-40).
Building Decarbonization. Building decarbonization involves maximizing energy efficiency and eliminating use of fossil fuel ener gy. MM GHG -1 requires the Project to include renewable solar energy, MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency standards, MM AQ-5 requires the use of electric landscape equipment, MM GHG -3 requires electric Energy Star rated appliances, and MM AQ-13 prohibits natural gas use in residential structures (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40).
The proposed Project would include the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D key residential and mixed-use project attributes as design features or mitigation (refer to MM GHG-1 through MM GHG- 4). As noted above, these measures include EV charging stations, TDM measures, transit -supportive densities, and building decarbo nization, as well as prohibiting wood -burning fireplaces, requiring solar panels, requiring energy conserving appliances, and requiring low -flow toilets and faucets (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40).
Conclusion
The proposed Project would be consistent with the SCAG’s RTP/SCS and the ARB Scoping Plan, and would be required to comply with existing regulations, including applicable measures from the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017). The Project would be directly affected by the outcomes (vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards). As such, the Project would not conflict with any other State-level regulations pertaining to GHGs (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40).
As shown in Table 4.7-4, approximately 80 percent of the Project’s buildout GHG emissions are from energy and mobile sources which would be further reduced by the 2022 Scoping Plan goals described above (including achieve 100 percent clean electricity by 2045 [SB 100], achieving 100 percent zero emission vehicle sales in 2035 [Advanced Clean Cars II], and implementing the Advanced Clean Fleets regulation [ZEV buses and trucks ]). The City has no control over vehicle emissions (approximately 64 percent of the Project’s total emissions), with the exception of land use decisions that could reduce VMT. However , these emissions would decline in t he future due to statewide measures discussed above (including the reduction in fuels’ carbon content, ARB ’s Advanced Clean Car Program, ARB ’s Mobile Source Strategy, fuel efficiency standards, etc.), as well as cleaner technology and fleet turnover. SCAG’ s 2020 RTP/SCS is also expected to help California reach its GHG reduction goals, with reductions in per capita transportation emissions of 19 percent by 2035. 44 The Project includes
a mix of residential, commercial, business park, open space, and industri al land uses that would potentially reduce the need to travel long distances for some residents and reduc e associated GHG emissions (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40).
44 California Air Resources Board, SB 375 Regional Plan Climate Targets, https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-targets. SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-28 June 2023
Presently, it is not possible to quantify the emissions savings from future regulatory measures that have not yet been developed; nonetheless, it can be anticipated that project operations would benefit from applicable measures are enacted to meet State GHG reduction goals. The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements specified through the 2022 Scoping Plan (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40-41).
As discussed above, MM AQ-3 as identified in the Project ’s Air Quality Assessment, would reduce mobile source emissions through the implementation of a TDM program. PPP 4.7-1 through PPP 4.7- 4, as required by the California Building Code, would provide designated parking to promote the use of alternative fuels and clean fleets, water -efficient irrigation systems and devices, recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste, facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment, and limit idling times. Furthermore, MM GHG-1 requires the Project to install solar photovoltaic systems, MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency; MM GHG -3 requires the residential pr ojects to utilize energy efficient appliances; and MM GHG-4 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 41).
In conclusion, the Project does not conflict with the applicable plans that are discussed above 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 MM AQ-3 ,
MM AQ-4, MM AQ-5, and MM AQ-13 in the Air Quality Assessment and MM GHG-1 through MM 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 proposed project (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 41).
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be significant before mitigation.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
See discussion under A.3 above. MM AQ -3 , MM AQ-4, MM AQ-5, and MM AQ-13 in the Air Quality Assessment and MM GHG -1 through MM GHG -4, described above, apply to this project (Kimley - Horn, 2023c, p. 41).
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Significant and unavoidable impact. No additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 41).
4.7.7 Cumulative Impacts
Climate change is a worldwide issue. GHGs are global pollutants, u nlike 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 (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 41).
SECTION 4.7 – GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.7-29 June 2023
It is widely recognized that no single project could generate enough GHG emissions to noticeably change the global climate. 45 The State CEQA Guidelines generally address GHG emissions as a cumulative impact because of the global nature of climate change.46 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”.
47 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 reasona bly 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, the Project-related GHG emissions would exceed the City’s 3,000 MTCO
2e threshold of significance despite implementation of MM AQ-3 , MM AQ-4, MM AQ-5, and MM AQ-13 from the Air Quality Assessment and MM GHG-1 through MM GHG- 4 and could impede statewide 2030 and 20 45 GHG emission reduction targets. As such, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative GHG impact (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 41- 42).
45 California Air Pollution Control Officers Association, CEQA and Climate Change White Paper, 2008. 46 Pub. Resources Code, § 21083, subd. (b)(2)
47 Cleveland National Forest Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 512. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-1 June 2023
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This s ection describes the existing hazards and hazardous materials setting and potential effects from project implementation on the site and surrounding areas. A hazardous material is defined as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present of potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment if released into the workplace or environment. (Health and Safety Code §25501(o) ) This section considers the nature and range of foreseeable hazardous materials and physical hazards/impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed Project. It identifies the ways that hazardous materials and other types of hazards could expose people and the environment to various health and safety risks during construction and operational activities of the proposed Project. This section also addresses airport-related hazards; impacts to emergency response and emergency evacuation plans; and hazards arising from wildland fires.
The information in this section is based on the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan (General Plan), the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (Municipal Code), the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, and the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Approximately 244 Acres of Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California 92509 prepared by AEI Consultants (AEI) and dated July 15, 2022 (revised August 24, 2022). A complete copy of this Report is included as Appendix D14 to this DEIR.
This Phase I ESA also summarizes reports of previous investigations at the site. The following are previous reports that this Phase I ESA includes in an appendix. • Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Emerald Meadows; 237 Acres of Vacant Land), prepared by AEI Consultants (April 27, 2015)
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley), prepared by AEI Consultants (October 18, 2019)
The Phase I ESA (AEI, 2022) also references and summarizes the previous Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Jurupa Unified School District K-8 #1, Formerly known as Emerald Meadows Elementary, 2950 Wallace Street, Rubidoux, California prepared by Leighton Consulting Inc. (April 18, 2006) for the Jurupa Unified School District (“School District”). This previous school project was ultimately not pursued by the School District, and a school is not proposed as part of the Project.
Other information used includes the following (also in Appendix D14):
• Limited Soil Sampling Investigation (SSI) at Emerald Meadows, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 (the Site) prepared by AEI on November 2, 2022 (in Appendix D14). • Subsequent Soil Sampling Results to Riverside County Department of Environmental Health’s Comments AEI Project No. 464653
• Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) Concurrence Letter (December 2022).
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-2 June 2023
4.8.1 Existing Conditions
Recognized Environmental Conditions
A recognized environmental condition (REC) is defined by the current American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM International or ASTM) Standard E1527 -21 as : “the (1) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release to the environment; (2) the likely presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property due to a release or likely release to the environment; or (3) the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products in, on, or at the subject property under conditions that pose a material threat of a future release to the environment." (ASTM, 2021) Approximately 12 acres of land in the eastern portion of the Project site, identified as Proposed K- 8 No. 1 at 2950 Wallace Street, were identified as an inactive site in the Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC) Envirostor hazardous materials sites database . Envirostor is the DTSC’s data management system for tracking cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination or site where additional investigation may be necessary. This portion of the Project site was historically associated with a horse racetrack and associated buildings. According to the DTSC Envirostor summary, this area is reportedly contaminated with metals, petroleum, and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) from historical equipment repair. The specified Envirostor listing is shown as inactive as of 2008 (AEI, 2022, p. 8).
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, prepared by Le ighton Consulting Inc. in 2006 for the School District, indicated the presence of two adjacent up -gradient above-ground storage tanks containing gasoline and diesel and drums containing solvents. During the 2006 reconnaissance, surficial soil staining and general debris throughout the site was observed. In addition, two up - gradient landfills, West Riverside Landfill and Belltown Landfill, were identified as potential environmental concerns (AEI, 2022, p. 8).
On September 12, 2007, the School District entered into a Voluntary Cleanup Program (VCP) Agreement with the California Department of Toxic Substances Control ( DTSC). The DTSC oversaw the implementation of a Preliminary Endangerment Assessment (PEA) and as sociated subsequent activities. During the PEA several issues were identified , including the potential for groundwater impact beneath the Project site from two up-gradient landfills, the potential impact from an adjacent maintenance barn, the potential impact from an on-site truck storage area, and potential impact from on-site manure/manure straw piles (AEI, 2022, p. 8).
Based upon the identification of concerns in the PEA, the DTSC requested that a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) be conducted onsit e; the SSI was conducted in July 2008. The results of the SSI indicated that 14 Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons ( PAHs) were detected in soil samples collected from the proposed school site (AEI, 2022, p. 8). Some PAHs are known to contribute to cancer. Others are associated with respiratory diseases like asthma, or damage to the immune and reproductive systems (OSU, 2023). One soil sample (U-4), had a benzo(a)pyrene concentration of 4.12 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), greater than the California background concentration of 0.9 mg/kg at the time of the investigation. Using the highest concentrations found on site, the cumulative cancer risk for the entire site is 1.17 x 10-4, which is above the threshold risk of 1.0 x 10-6. The highest concentration of lead detected was 11,300 mg/kg and was identified to be above the DTSC threshold of 255 mg/kg (AEI, 2022, p. 8). The locations of borings are shown in Figure 4. 8-1 below. Thus, a removal action work plan (RAW) was recommended by the DTSC in October 2008. How ever, the School District SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-3 June 2023
abandoned their plans for this site and the RAW was not completed. On December 15, 2022, the Project Applicant entered into a new VCP Agreement with the DTSC for the Project s ite and has assumed responsibility for bringing the r emediation process to completion (Envirostor ID # 60003427).
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-4 June 2023
Figure 4.8-1
LOCATIONS OF SSI BORINGS
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-5 June 2023
Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
An Historical Recognized Environmental Condition (HREC) is defined by the ASTM Standard E1527 as a previous release of hazardous substances or petroleum products affecting the subject property that has been addressed to the satisfaction of the applicable regulatory authority or au thorities and meeting unrestricted use criteria established by the applicable regulatory authority or authorities without subjecting the subject property to any controls (for example, activity and use limitations or other property use limitations).
The site was historically occupied by a gas station at 3070 Rubidoux Boulevard from approximately 1966 until at least 2007. Four underground storage tanks (USTs) were removed from this site in 1994, consisting of two 7,000 -gallon and one 3,000- gallon gasoline tan k and one 550 -gallon waste oil tank. Sampling performed at the time indicated 3,400 parts per million (ppm) of TPHg, 31,800 ppm of TRPH, 2.06 ppm of benzo(a)pyrene, 12.8 ppm of toluene, 71.3 ppm of xylene and 3.22 ppm of ethylbenzene. According to a 1996 c ase closure summary, the majority of the contamination was removed via excavation. It appeared as though the majority of the contamination had been in the fill material which had been excavated out. There was 3,400 ppm TPH -G still in place at 15 feet below ground surface (bgs) in the former gas tank excavation. A vapor extraction well was installed in the former central portion of the contamination and a vapor extraction test was conducted. The test showed low concentrations of TPH -G (49–110 parts per million volume [ ppmv]) with no benzene, toluene, or ethylbenzene. There were trace amounts of total xylenes (1.6 -2.8 ppmv) detected. It was determined concentrations appeared to be isolated to 15 feet bgs. Three USTs were removed in May 2007. According to the UST closure report, sampling performed at the time was non- detect (ND) for all constituents tested. Groundwater in the vicinity is expected to be at 50 feet bgs. No sampling data for groundwater monitoring wells was provided. The Regional Water Quality Cont rol Board (RWQCB) classified the case as a soils- only incident. Based on the current closed regulatory status, the fact that the USTs are no longer onsite, analysis performed with ND levels for all constituents tested and time elapsed, the former presence of the USTs is considered a HREC.
Other Environmental Considerations
Other Environmental Considerations are conditions warranting discussion, but do not qualify as RECs. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report (ESA) prepared by AEI in July 2022 (updated in August 2022) discusses the Phase I ESA prepared by Martin & Associates (April 24, 2008), which identified the following other environmental considerations:
Based upon a review of the Phase I ESA, the Project site —identified as Engelauf Rental Company— was identified to be formerly equipped with a 10,000 -gallon diesel fuel and a 6,000- gallon gasoline UST. The USTs were reportedly removed from the Project site in 1998; however, information indicating UST locations, removal, or sampling data was not provided in the previous report. Martin indicated that no significant contamination was identified upon removal. In addition, this former tenant reportedly generated solvents, sludges, oils, machine coolant, and degreasing agents onsite.
According to Martin, surface soil samples were collected by UltraSystems in the vicinity of the former Engelauf Rental Company facility. Soil sample results indicated low levels of VOCs within the soil samples, which were not expected to significantly impact human health or the environment. A sump associated with an equipment wash pad was located in the area where soil samples were collected; however, due to access issues, samples could not be collected from the vicinity of the sump (AEI, 2022, p. 11).
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-6 June 2023
Based on a review of Transportation and Land Management Agency records, two permits for an industrial building were issued for 5520 30th Street in 1978. This appears to correspond with the former Engelauf Rental Company structures located at 5520 30th Street. The DTSC -HWTS website identified A&A Equipment and Construction Company owned by George Engelauf at the 5520 30th Street address generating hazardous waste consisting of aqueous solutions with organic residues and waste oil and mixed oil in 1998 and 2001.
Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation, 2015
A Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation report was completed at the subject property on April 27, 2015 by AEI (AEI, 2015) to determine whether soils —mainly in the northern half of the Project site—were contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons from two USTs removed from the Project site in 1998, and/or methane that could have migrated into the site from a former landfill north of the site. On April 10, 2015, a total of 11 borings (B -1 through B -11) were advanced on the subject property, four to depths of 20 feet bgs and the remaining seven to depths of five feet bgs. Soil samples were obtained from four borings, and soil gas samples from all 11 borings. The results of soil samples analyzed for total petroleum hydrocarbons as part of this investigation were reviewed and compared to the maximum soil screening levels (AEI, 2022; pp. 9 and 11-12). • No petroleum hydrocarbon constituents , and no VOCs, were detected in the soil samples analyzed.
• Test results from soil gas samples taken for this investigation were compared to the vapor screening levels (VSLs) calculated from the USEPA Industrial Regional Screening Levels (RSLs ).
None of the VOC concentrations detected in the soil gas samples from this investigation exceeded the VSLs. No detections of methane were reported.
• The results of soil samples analyzed for metals as part of this investigation determined that metals concentrations detected were within normal background concentrations.
The concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and PCE detected in soil gas samples from five boring locations, B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B -9 exceed the current California Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential properties. The highest concentration of benzene among the five locations was
0.010 micrograms per liter (µg/L) at B-3. Concentration of ethylbenzene in the sample from B-1 were
0.052 µg/L, above the ESL of 0.037 µg/L. Concentrations of PCE in the sample from B -3 were 0.016 µg/L, above the ESL of 0.015 µg/L. However, the contaminant concentrations did not exceed the current California ESLs for commercial/industrial properties. The locations of the five borings with contaminant concentrations above ESLs are shown on Figure 4.8-2.
According to a review of the regulatory database report, several per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) listings were identified on adjoining and nearby sites. These listings appear to originate from sampling points in the subject property area that included analysis for several PFAS. Sampling points include drinking water well sampling points to the south of the subject property and remedial sampling wells associated with the northern adjoining landfill. Studies in laboratory animals indicate that some PFASs can cause reproductive and developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects, as well as tumors. Findings from human epidemiology studies include a small increase in serum cholesterol levels among exposed populations, as well as possible decrease in infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer, and thyroid hormone disruption. Some PFASs have also been linked to phytotoxicity, aquatic toxicity, and terrestrial ecotoxicity (DTSC, 2022). SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-7 June 2023
Figure 4.8-2
SOIL VAPOR SAMPLING LOCATIONS, 2015 PHASE II SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-8 June 2023
The adjoining landfills represent a potential source of PFAS contamination. On June 15, 2022, EPA issued interim updated drinking water health advisories for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) that replace those EPA issued in 2016. The concentrations detected in some of the wells in the vicinity of the subject property are above the current EPA interim updated drinking water health advisories for PFOS and PFOA. The Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) would provide water for the proposed Project; RCSD water sources are entirely groundwater from the Riverside -Arlington Subbasin (Subbasin) of the Upper Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin (Kreiger & Stewart, 2022). PFAS are not currently classified by the Comprehensive E nvironmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( CERCLA) as a hazardous substance and thus the potential presence of PFAS does not represent a REC at this time. However, regulatory criteria and classifications are subject to change.
Limited Soil Sampling Investigation, 2022
A Limited Soil Sampling Investigation was conducted by AEI in October 2022 to determine whether organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic are present in soils onsite formerly used for agriculture; the report, issued November 2, 2022 is included as Appendix D14.1 to this DEIR. Many OCPs are carcinogens and neurotoxic; disrupt the functioning of the endocrine system; and cause hypertension, cardiovascular disorders and other health related problems in humans (Jarayaj, et al., 2017). Arsenic, i n its inorganic form, is listed as a cancer -causing chemical under Proposition 65 (DTSC, 2023).
Samples consisted of 35 shallow samples of agricultural soil from nine sampling areas in the southwest part of site; seven samples from two soil stockpiles in the northern part of site; one sample from discolored soil next to two drums next to the westerly of the two stockpiles; and one sample from each of the two drums.
Agricultural soil was tested for organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) and arsenic. Stockpile soil was tested for total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH); volatile organic compounds (VOCs); semi volatile organic compounds; polychlorinated biphenyls; OCPs; organophosphorus pesticides; polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons; metals; and arsenic. Drum soil and contents were tested for TPH, VOCs, and metals.
Agricultural soil sample test results yielded Endosulfan I, an organochlorine insecticide, at concentrations up to 0.0568 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg), well below the direct contact commercial/industrial environmental screening level (ESL) of 5,800 mg/kg. No other OCPs were detected above the laboratory method detection limits (MDLs). Arsenic was detected at concentrations ranging from 2.5 mg/kg to 7.3 mg/kg, above the direct contact commercial/industrial ESL of 0.31 mg/kg, but below the maximum California background concentration of 11.0 mg/kg.
Stockpile soil sample test results did not show any of the substances tested for above their respective direct contact commercial/industrial ESLs and/or laboratory MDLs.
Drum soil and contents test results: TPH carbon chain and VOCs were not detected at concentrations above their respective direct contact commercial/industrial ESLs and/or laboratory MDLs. TPH as oil was detected at a concentration of 48,500 mg/kg, which is above the DTSC Human Health Risk Assessment Note 3 of 18,000 mg/kg for commercial/industrial scenarios, but below the direct contact ESL of 180,000 mg/kg. Lead was detected in the three soil samples at concentrations ranging from 687 to 1,430 mg/kg, above the direct contact commercial/industrial ESL of 380 mg/kg and the maximum California background concentration of 97.1 mg/kg. The concentrations of lead also SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-9 June 2023
exceed the Total Threshold Limit Concentrations for disposal of 1,000 mg/kg in the two drum content samples. No metals other than lead were detected at concentrations above their respective direct contact ESLs, laboratory MDLs, and/or maximum California background concentrations.
AEI recommended excavating the discolored soil for dispos al at a proper facility. AEI also recommended analyzing the samples of contents of the two drums samples for California Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) to determine the type of waste disposal required.
Regulatory Agency Records Review
The Cortese List—a list maintained by the DTSC and the State Water Resources Control Board that provides information about the location of hazardous materials release sites —identifies the following types of hazardous materials sites: hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action; hazardous waste discharges for which the State Water Quality Control Board has issued certain types of orders; underground storage tanks with reported unauthorized releases; and solid waste disposal facilities from which hazardous waste has migrated. All Cortese List sites located on and within 0.5 mile of the Project site are listed in Table 4.8-1. This table includes sites that have a status of Open, Active, Inactive, or Closed. Only open Cortese List sites are mapped on Figure 4.8-3.
Table 4.8-1
CORTESE SITES ON AND WITHIN 0.5 MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from Permanent TMF site
Additional information
Onsite
GeoTracker
Chevrolet Rubidoux
3070 Rubidoux Boulevard
northwest corner of site
Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST)
Contaminants of concern: gasoline, waste oil,
motor/hydraulic/lubricating
Media of concern: soil
case closed 1996
EnviroStor
Proposed K-8 #1
2950 Wallace St
east-central part of site
EnviroStor
School Site Investigation
Inactive, action required 2008
Offsite
GeoTracker
West Riverside Landfill
2700 Hall Avenue
800 feet north
Inactive landfill
ARCO Smog Pros
2994 Rubidoux Boulevard
470 feet north
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 2003
Mobil #18-A5D
3071 Rubidoux Boulevard
130 feet northeast
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2008
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 1989
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-10 June 2023
Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from Permanent TMF site
Additional information
Rubidoux Fire Department
3590 Rubidoux Blvd
700 feet west
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 1995
Thomas Baltazar
5599 Mission Blvd
0.303 mile west-southwest
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2003
Former El Rancho Cleaners
5571 Mission Blvd
0.304 mile west-southwest
Cleanup Program Site
contaminants of concern
other chlorinated hydrocarbons,
tetrachloroethylene (PCE), trichloroethylene (TCE)
Case open, site assessment 2016
Chevron #9-7743
5623 Mission Blvd
0.309 mile west-southwest
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2003
Mobil #18-FXE
5599 Mission Blvd
0.312 mile west-southwest
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2003
Unocal #4663
5655 Mission Blvd
0.328 mile west-southwest
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 1994
Mission Auto Supply
5310 Mission Blvd
0.347 mile south-southwest
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2006
Riverside County Flood Control
1995 Market St
0.386 mile east-northeast
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 1996
Circle K
3720 Riverside Dr
0.411 mile west
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 1995
Fairmount Park Golf
2681 Dexter Dr
0.414 mile east
LUST
Gasoline release affected soil
Case closed 1992
Son N Nguyen
5731 Mission Blvd
0.424 mile west
LUST
Mission Carwash/KOI
5731 Mission Blvd
0.424 mile west
LUST
Diesel release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2000
Spartan Clean Up
1890 Market St
0.462-mile northeast
LUST
Gasoline release affected drinking water aquifer
Case closed 2015
Stormriverside
1890 Market St
0.462-mile northeast
LUST
Advocate Schools
5760 Mission Blvd
0.487 mile west
LUST
release of waste oil/motor/hydraulic/lubricating
oil affected soil;
case closed 1994
EnviroStor
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-11 June 2023
Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from Permanent TMF site
Additional information
Belltown 1
North of SR-60 on Hall Ave
0.292 mile north
Inactive Landfill
Source: AEI Consultants, 2022
This list includes 11 sites provided by EDR, and dated 03/21/2022 within approximately 0.5-mile of the target property and 10 HIST CORTESE list, as provided by EDR, and dated 04/01/2001.
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-12 June 2023
Figure 4.8-3
OPEN CORTESE LIST SITES ON AND WITHIN 0.5 MILE OF PROJECT SITE
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-13 June 2023
Other hazardous materials sites not listed on the Cortese List but described in the text of the Phase I ESA are briefly described below in Table 4. 8-2. None of these listed sites are considered environmental concerns for the proposed Project site. One listing, at 3150 Wallace Street south of the Project site, documents drug lab waste. The other listings document regulated and permitted waste or stormwater generated activities and are not related to hazardous materials releases.
Table 4.8-2
OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES ON AND WITHIN 0.5-MILE OF THE PROJECT SITE Site Name
Address
Distance and Direction from Permanent TMF site
Database
Additional information
Onsite
Sun Cal Companies, Golden State Fence Co, Verizon
Wireless: Rubidoux, Sprint, United Management Co,
AT&T Mobility (12385)
Haznet, Hazardous Waste Tracking System
(HWTS), California Environmental Reporting
System (CERS). Generated 0.45 tons of hazardous
waste in 2008.
Emerald Meadows Ranch Development Project California Integrated Water Quality System (CIWQS): Stormwater permit terminated 2016
SCC Acquisition Inc.
2801 Wallace St.
Haznet, HWTS.
Generated approxi mately 2.1 tons of hazardous
wastes in 2006
A&A Equip & Const Co Inc, GM Gabrych Family
Limited Partnership, Inland Crane and Machinery
5520, 5520 ½ 30th St
Haznet, HWTS
Generated approximately 1.4 tons of hazardous
wastes, 1998-2017
Marlene Collins, Collins Plumbing
3200 Rubidoux Boulevard
Haznet, HWTS
Generated 0.25 tons of hazardous wastes 1998
Ron Dingus Heavy Equip & Rep, Exclusive
Automotive #1 (Ste K)
HWTS
No information on materials or quantities
Offsite
No name
3150 Wallace St
Adjoining to south
Clandestine drug lab (CDL), California Hazardous
Materials Reporting System (CHMIRS)
Drug lab waste discovered.
Life Church of God in Christ
3245 Rubidoux Blvd
Adjoining to the west
Non-generators of hazardous wastes (RCRA
NonGen/ NLR)
Source: AEI, 2022
Airport-Related Hazards
Flabob Airport is approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the Project site . The Project site is in the Airport Influence Area for Flabob Airport (RCALUC, 2004), as shown in Figure 4. 8-4. The site is in Airport Compatibility Zones D and E within the Airport Influence Area for Flabob Airport (RCALUC, 2004). In zone D, highly noise- sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses are prohibited, and children’s schools, hospitals, and nursing homes are discouraged. In Zone E major spectator -oriented sports stadiums, amphitheaters, and concert halls are discouraged beneath principal flight tracks. The runway at Flabob Airport extends nearly east -west, and the principal flight tracks (as indicated by airport noise contours, shown on Figure 4. 8-5) (RCALUC, 2004) extend nearly east-west from the airport; thus, the flight track extending east from the airport passes south of the Project site. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-14 June 2023
Figure 4.8-4
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY ZONES FOR FLABOB AIRPORT
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-15 June 2023
Figure 4.8-5
AIRPORT NOISE CONTOURS FOR FLABOB AIRPORT
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-16 June 2023
Emergency Response Planning
The City of Jurupa Valley is in the Riverside County Operational Area. The Riverside County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), issued in 2006 (Riverside County, 2006), identifies County agencies and other agencies that would be involved in emergency responses; threat summaries and assessments; and procedures for responding agencies as well as County agencies that would be involved in coordinating and managing responses.
The City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), issued in 2018 (City of Jurupa Valley, 2018), provides additional information on hazard assessments; hazard mitigation strategies; and resources available for emergency response and hazard mitigation.
Wildfire Hazards
The Project site is not in a Fire Hazard Severity Zone ( FHSZ) mapped by California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). The nearest FHSZ to the Project site is a High FHSZ in a State Responsibility Area approximately 0.3 mile to the northwest (CAL FIRE, 2022), as shown on Figure
4.8-6. The nearest FHSZ in a Local Responsibility Area to the Project site is a Very High FHSZ approximately 1.8 miles to the west in the city of Jurupa Valley (CAL FIRE, 2022); see Figure 4.8 -7.
A portion of the Project site is within a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area mapped as an Interface Zone (CAL FIRE, 2022c); however, it does not meet the WUI criteria since it is not also located within a FHSZ.
48 4.8.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
No comments on hazards and hazardous materials impacts of the proposed Project were received during the EIR scoping phase.
4.8.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Occupational Safety and Health Act
The federal Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 USC § 651 et seq.) authorizes each s tate (including California) to establish their own safety and health programs with the US Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) approval. The California Department of Industrial Relations regulates implementation of worker health and safety in California. California OSHA enforcement units conduct on- site evaluations and issue notices of violation to enforce necessary improvement s to health and safety practices. California standards for workers dealing with hazardous materials are contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and include practices for all industries (General Industrial Safety Orders), and specific practices for construction and other industries. Workers at hazardous waste sites (or working with hazardous wastes as might be encountered during excavation of contaminated soil) must receive specialized training and medical supervision according to the Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (HAZWOPER) regulations.
48 CAL FIRE WUI “Interface Zone” is dense housing adjacent to vegetation that can burn in a wildfire and must meet these criteria:
housing density class 2, 3 or 4; in moderate, high, or very high Fire Hazard Severity Zone; not dominated by wildland vegetation (i.e., lifeform not herbaceous, hardwood, conifer or shrub); and spatially contiguous groups of 30m cells that are10 acres and larger. https://frap.fire.ca.gov/media/10300/wui_19_ada.pdf
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-17 June 2023
Figure 4.8-6
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - STATE RESPONSIBILITY AREA
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-18 June 2023
Figure 4.8-7
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE - LOCAL RESPONSIBILITY AREA
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-19 June 2023
Toxic Substances Control Act
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with authority to require reporting, record-keeping and testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. The TSCA addresses the production, importation, use, and disposal of specific chemicals including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint.
State
The EPA has delegated implementation and enforcement of many programs to the states. Then the states apply national standards to sources within their borders through permit programs that control the release of pollutants into the environment. However, the U.S. EPA maintains an overarching role with respect to the states by establishing federal standards and approving state programs.
The primary federal and State regulations applicable to the Project are:
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) gives the U.S. EPA the authority to control hazardous waste from cradle to grave. This includes the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA also set forth a framework for the management of non- hazardous solid wastes. The EPA does not handle all environmental concerns, as some issues are primarily concerns of tribal, state, or local agencies. Many environmental programs have been delegated to the state and local level and they have primary responsibility for them.
• The State of California has developed the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL) and the EPA has delegated authority for RCRA enforcement to the State of California. Primary authority for the statewide administration and enforcement of HWCL rests with the DTSC.
Cal/OSHA and the California State Plan
Under an agreement with OSHA, since 1973 California has operated an occupational safety and health program in accordance with § 18 of the federal OSHA. The State of California’s Department of Industrial Relations administers the California Occupational Safety and Health Program, commonly referred to as Cal/OSHA. The State of California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (DOSH) is the principal agency that oversees plan enforcement and consultation. In addition, the California State program has an independent Standards Board responsible for promulgating State safety and health standards and reviewing variances. It also has an Appeals Board to adjudicate contested citations and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement to investigate complaints of discriminatory retaliation in the workplace.
Pursuant to 29 CFR 1952.172, the California State Plan applies to all public and private sector places of employment in the state, with the exception of federal employees, the United States Postal Service, private sector employers on Native American lands, maritime activities on the navigable waterways of the United States, private contractors working on land designated as exclusively under federal jurisdiction and employer s that require federal security clearances with certain exceptions.
Cal/OSHA is the only agency in the state authorized to adopt, amend, or repeal occupational safety and health standards or orders. In addition, the Standards Board maintains standards for certain things not covered by federal standards or enforcement, including: elevators, aerial passenger SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-20 June 2023
tramways, amusement rides, pressure vessels and mine safety training. The Cal/OSHA enforcement unit conducts inspections of California workplaces in resp onse to a report of an industrial accident, a complaint about an occupational safety and health hazard, or as part of an inspection program targeting industries with high rates of occupational hazards, fatalities, injuries, or illnesses.
California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL)
The Hazardous Waste Control Law (Health and Safety Code [HSC], Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Article 2, Section 25100, et seq.) is the primary hazardous waste statute in California. The HWCL implements RCRA as a “cradle-to-grave” waste management system in the state. It specifies that generators have the primary duty to determine whether their wastes are hazardous and to ensure its proper management. The HWCL also establishes criteria for the reuse and recycling of hazardous wastes used or reuse d as raw materials. The HWCL exceeds federal requirements by mandating source reduction planning and broadening requirements for permitting facilities that treat hazardous waste.
It also regulates a number of waste types and waste management activities not covered by federal law.
California Code of Regulations (CCR), Titles 22 and 26
A variety of CCR titles address regulations and requirements for generators of hazardous waste. Title 22 contains detailed compliance requirements for hazardous was te generators, transporters, and facilities for treatment, storage, and disposal. Because California is a fully-authorized state according to RCRA, most regulations (i.e., 40 CFR 260, et seq.) have been duplicated and integrated into Title
22. However, bec ause the DTSC regulates hazardous waste more stringently than the EPA, the integration of State and federal hazardous waste regulations that make up Title 22 does not contain as many exemptions or exclusions as does 40 CFR 260. As with the HSC, Title 22 al so regulates a wider range of waste types and waste management activities than does RCRA. To aid the regulated community, California has compiled hazardous materials, waste, and toxics-related regulations from CCR, Titles 3, 8, 13, 17, 19, 22, 23, 24 and 27 into one consolidated listing: CCR Title 26 (Toxics).
However, the hazardous waste regulations are still commonly referred to collectively as “Title 22.” Regional
Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA)
Federal and State hazardous materials regulations r equire all businesses that handle more than a specified amount of hazardous materials or extremely hazardous materials to obtain a hazardous materials permit and submit a business plan to its local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
The CUPA also ens ures local compliance with all applicable hazardous materials regulations. The CUPA with responsibility for the City of Jurupa Valley is RCDEH. The RCDEH oversees six hazardous materials programs in the County of Riverside, including inspecting facilities that handle hazardous materials, generate hazardous waste, treat hazardous waste, own/operate USTs, own/operate petroleum ASTs, or handle other materials subject to the California Accidental Release Program.
Riverside County Ordinance No. 615 , Hazardous Waste Generation, Storage, Handling and Disposal , was promulgated for the purpose of monitoring establishments where hazardous waste is generated, stored, handled, disposed, treated or recycled and to regulate the issuance of permits and the activities of establishments where hazardous waste is generated. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-21 June 2023
The Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulatory Program (Unified Program)
The California Environmental Protection Agency oversees California’s Unified Program. This program provides for local implementation of hazardous materials regulatory programs. The California Environmental Protection Agency designated the RCDEH Ha zardous Materials Branch as the CUPA with responsibility for overseeing the primary hazardous materials programs applicable to the Project.
Part of this program is the Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program . In order to protect public health and safety, as well as the environment, the Business Plan Program regulates the storage and handling of hazardous materials through education, facility inspections and enforcement of State law.
Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element that are related to hazards and hazardous materials and that apply to the proposed Project, are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), approved in 2018, includes a vulnerability analysis for many types of hazards including earthquakes, floods, fires, and manmade hazards including terrorism and civil unrest, goals and objectives for strategies for mitigating hazards, proposed strategies and actions for reducing vulnerability to identified hazards.
4.8.4 Methodology
Phase I ESA
As discussed previously, the information in this section is based largely on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Approximately 244 Acres of Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California 92509 prepared by AEI Consultants and dated July 15, 2022 (revised August 24, 2022) (AEI, 2022a).
A complete copy of this Report is included as Appendix D14 to this DEIR. The purpose of the Phase I ESA is to assist the landowner in identifying potential RECs associated with the presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products, and their use, storage, and disposal at and in the vicinity of the subject property. Property assessment activities focused on: 1) a review of databases that identify and describe underground fuel tank sites, leaking underground fuel tank sites, hazardous waste generation sites, and hazardous waste storage and disposal facility sites within the search distance; 2) a property and surrounding site reconnaissance, and interviews with the past and present owners and current occupants and operators to identify potential environmental contamination; and 3) a review of historical sources to help ascertain previous land uses at and surrounding the site (AEI, 2022; p. 15).
As discussed previously, t he Phase I ESA summarizes reports of previous investigations at the site ; Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation, Emerald Meadows; 237 Acres of Vacant Land (AEI, 2015), and Phase I ESA, Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley (AEI, 2019). The Phase I ESA (AEI, 2022) also references SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-22 June 2023
and summarizes the previous Phase I ESA Report, Jurupa Unified School District K -8 #1, Formerly known as Emerald Meadows Elementary (Leighton Consulting Inc., 2006).
Additional Limited Soil Sampling
Additionally, a Limited SSI (Limited Soil Sampling Investigation) was performed by AEI at the Project site and the results are presented in the report dated November 2, 2022 (in Appendix D14 ). The RCDEH requested soil sampling to determine if potential historical agricultural use has impacted the shallow subsurface at the Site. The RCDEH also requested soil samples be collected from identified stockpiles and to collect a soil sample from discolored soil adjacent to two (2) 55-gallon drums at the Site and two soil samples from the contents of the drums.
Agricultural Soil Sampling
AEI assumed the undisturbed previous agricultural land area is approximately 24.5 acres. Per the DTSC’s Interim Guidance, AEI collected 35 shallow soil samples equally spaced which were laboratory-composited into nine soil samples at a California state-certified laboratory.
Stockpile Soil Sampling
AEI assumed approximately 920 cubic yards of soil are located at the western group of stockpiles and 1,500 cubic yards of soil are located at the eastern group of stockpiles. Per the DTSC Advisory, AEI collected seven discrete soil samples from randomly selected stockpiles for analysis. Since the origin of the stockpiles is unknown, AEI analyzed for all constituents listed in the Advisory.
Drum Soil and Contents Sampling
AEI collected one soil sample from the discolored soil adjacent to the drums ( Drum-1) and two (2) soil samples from the contents of the two drums (Drum -2 and Drum -3) using clean laboratory - provided glass jars. The area of the discolored surface soil extended approximately three feet by three feet.
The results of the Limited SSI are presented in a report prepared by AEI on November 2, 2022 (Limited Soil Sampling Investigation, Emerald Meadows, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 , AEI Project No. 464653) and also summarized in a letter to DO Capital from AEI on November 2, 2022 (Subsequent Soil Sampling Results to Riverside County Department of Environmental Health’s Comments, AEI Project No. 464653) (see Appendix D14). The methods and results of the Limited SSI are described above in Section 4.8.1, Existing Conditions.
4.8.5 Thresholds of Significance
Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, of the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guid elines and Thresholds of Significance, August 20, 2020 set forth the following significance thresholds for hazards and hazardous materials. The Project would have a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if it would:
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-23 June 2023
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one. time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material ( as defined in the Health and Safety Code §25501(o), see definition above in introduction) that has a quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq.
• The project handles or stores hazardous materials in quantity equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 and is located within designated 100- or 500-year flood zones.
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located within ¼ mile of an existing public or private school and the project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material (see definitions above) that has a quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq.
d) Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled according to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5..
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety ha zard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within a compatibility zone of the Flabob Airport, Riverside Municipal Airport and does not meet the Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions identified in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the airport..
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-24 June 2023
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project is inconsistent with the City of Ju rupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Any required street improvements do not meet General Plan and/or City standards. • The project has less than two (2) routes for emergency egress and ingress (unless otherwise allowed by the Fire Department).
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Under the City’s local significance th reshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within a "High" fire hazard zone per General Plan Figure 8 -11: Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley. .
4.8.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project create a significant h azard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one. time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on federal, State, or local law currently in place wh ich effectively reduce impacts regarding hazards and hazardous materials. The following applies to the Project and would reduce potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.8-1 Business Emergency Plans . As required by Health and Safety Code § 25507, a business shall establish and implement a business plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the regulations adopted pursuant to § 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one time above the thresholds described in § 25507(a) (1) through (6).
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-25 June 2023
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 requirem ents, including the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of Transportation standards, and the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards.
PPP 4.8-3 Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste Generation, Transportation, Treatment, and Storage. Any project -related hazardous waste generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of non-hazardous solid wastes and underground tanks storing petroleum and other hazardous substances. The Project will be designed and constructed in accordance with the regulations of the RCDEH, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and which implements state and federal regulations for the following programs: (1) Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP), (4) Above Storage Tank (AST) Program, and (5) Underground Storage Tank (UST) Program.
PPP 4.8-4 Regulations governing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Repairs and/or Removals. Any project -related underground storage tank (UST) repairs and/or removals will be conducted in accordance with the California UST Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Co de 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 Substance s 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 w ith the California UST Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations).
PPP 4.8-5 Regulations Governing Asbestos -Containing Materials (ACMs) or Lead -Based Paint (LBP). Any project -related demolition activities that have the potent ial to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos -containing materials (ACMs) or lead- based paint (LBP) will be conducted in accordance with applicable regulations, including, but not limited to:
• South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Rule 1403 • California Health and Safety Code (§ 39650 et seq.)
• California Code of Regulations (Title 8, § 1529)
• California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Regulations (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, § 1529 [Asbestos] and § 1532.1 [Lead]) SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-26 June 2023
• Code of Federal Regulations (Title 40, Part 61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part 763 [asbestos], and Title 29, Part 1926 [asbestos and lead]) PPP 4.8-6 Safety Regulations for Removal of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs), Mercury- Containing Light Ballast, And Mold. The removal of other hazardous materials, such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), mercury-containing light ballast, and mold, will be completed in accordance with applicable regulations pursuant to 40 CFR 761 (PCBs), 40 CFR 273 (mercury- containing light ballast), and 29 CFR 1926 (molds) by workers with the hazardous waste operations and emergency response (HAZWOPER) training, as outlined in 29 CFR 1910.120 and 8 CCR 5192.
PPP 4.8-7 Construction Near Utility or Electric Lines. Any project-related new construction, excavations, and/or new utility lines within 10 feet or crossing existing high-pressure pipelines, natural gas/petroleum pipelines, or electrical lines greater than 60,000 volts will be designed and constructed in accord ance with the California Code of Regulations (Title 8, Section 1541).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
A.2 Impact Analysis
Project construction would involve transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials including fuels, lubricants, greases, pesticides , fertilizers, and architectural coatings. The use, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials would comply with RCRA, CERCLA, OSHA, California hazardous waste control law,
49 OSHA, SCAQMD, Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), and RCFD requirements. Construction impacts arising from the routine use of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
The Project site would include industrial and commercial land uses. The future occupants of the proposed buildings are not yet known. However, the building occupants within the industrial land use will include warehousing, manufacturing, fulfillment, parce l hub and/or similar uses.
Manufacturing uses may include manufacturing on site and shipment of goods and/or shipment/transport of goods to the Project site for manufacturing on site. Building occupants within the commercial land uses will include restaura nts, recreation, and entertainment. Based on the facilities and uses that would be allowed at the Project site, hazardous materials (e.g., diesel fuel, lubricants, solvents, pesticides, janitorial and landscaping supplies, etc.) could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. It is possible that other hazardous materials also could be used during the course of daily operations at the Project site. In the event that hazardous materials, other than those common materials described above, are associated with future operations, the hazardous materials would only be stored and transported to and from the Project site . The residential and park use components of the proposed Project would include small amounts of commercially-available janitorial, pesticide, and landscaping supplies. Hazardous materials would be stored and used during project operation in compliance with the same regulations as during project construction. Additionally, the Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH) implements the Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan) program future industrial and commercial land use occupants will be required to develop a Business Plan. The Business Plan is
49 Codified in California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, Hazardous Waste Control. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-27 June 2023
required to contain basic information on the location, type, quantity, and health risks of hazardous materials stored, used, or disposed of on development sites. The plan also contains an emergency response plan, which describes the procedures for mitigating a hazardous release, procedures, and equipment for minimizing the potential damage of a hazardous materials release, and provisions for immediate notification of emergency- response personnel, such as the local fire agency having jurisdiction. Implementation of the emergency response plan facilitates rapid response in the event of an accidental spill or release, thereby reducing potential adverse impacts.
If businesses that use or store hazardous materials occupy the future buildings on the Project site, the business owners and operators would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure proper transport, use, storage, use, emission, and disposal of hazardous substances (as described above). With mandatory regulatory compliance, the Project would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, storage, emission, o r disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident conditions which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Based on the foregoing information, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long -term operation of the Project are regarded as less than significant after regulatory compliance.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7, impacts arising from routine uses of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold b): Would the project c reate a significant hazard to the public or the env ironment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material (as defined in the Health and Safety Code §25501(o), see definition above in introduction) that has a quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq. • The project handles or stores hazardous materials in quantity equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 and is located within designated 100- or 500-year flood zones.
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-28 June 2023
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7—set forth in Section 4.8.6, A.1 above—apply to project impacts arising from accidental release of hazardous materials.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
B.2 Impact Analysis
Project construction contractors would train construction workers in safe containment and cleanup of small hazardous materials spills and would keep equipment and supplies for containing and cleaning up small spills on their worksites. Any discolored soil encountered during excavation will be reported and excavated and disposed of at a proper facility in accordance with the recommendations by AEI and the City. In the event of a release of hazardous materials of amount and/or toxicity that onsite construction workers could not safely contain and clean up, the contractor would notify the RCDEH immediately. Construction impacts from accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant after regulatory compliance.
Commercial and industrial tenants of the proposed Project would comply with requirements of the RCDEH respecting Hazardous Materials Business Plans, California Accidental Release Program, underground storage tanks, aboveground petroleum storage tanks, and hazardous waste generators.
Tenants would provide records of types and amounts of hazardous materials used, containment and cleanup procedures, procedures for notifying the appropriate authorities in the event of a hazardous materials release requiring first -responder assistance, and procedures for emergency evacuation and for notifying neighbors. Operational impacts arising from accidental release of hazardous materials would be less than significant after compliance with regulations.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7, impacts arising from accidental releases of hazardous materials would be less than significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold c): Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardo us or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located within ¼ mile of an existing public or private school and the project handles a hazardous material or mixture containing a hazardous material (see definitions above) that has a SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-29 June 2023
quantity at any one time during the reporting year equal to or greater than the amounts specified by Health and Safety Code §25507 et seq.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.8-1, 4.8-3, 4.8-4, and 4.8-7—set forth in Section 4.8.6, A.1 above—apply to project hazardous materials impacts related to schools.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
C.2 Impact Analysis
One school is within 0.25 mile of the Project site – Ina Arbuckle Elementary School at 3600 Packard Avenue in the city of Jurupa Valley, approximately 350 feet to the south. Proposed project construction would generate diesel emissions, the chief toxic air contaminant during construction will be diesel particulate matter (DPM ) which is considered hazardous. A Health Risk Assessment (HRA) was performed by Kimley -Horn (2023b) for exposure of nearby workers and residents , including students at the school , to DPM emissions during construction. Details of the HRA’s assumptions, calculations, modeling and risk calculations are discussed in Section A.2 Air Quality and details provided in Appendix D2. The HRA determined that exposure to diesel exhaust during the construction period would not pose substantial hazards to persons at the sc hool. Impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPPs 4.8-1, 4.8-3, 4.8-4, and 4.8-7, impacts related project hazardous materials emissions affecting persons at schools would be less than significant.
C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold d): Would the project b e 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? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5.
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-30 June 2023
D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.8-1 through 4.8-7—set forth in Section 4.8.6, A.1 above—apply to project hazardous materials impacts.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
D.2 Impact Analysis
The ESA identified one REC onsite: contamination with lead and benzo(a)pyrene in the former Proposed K-8 No. 1 at 2950 Wallace Street in the southwest quadrant of the Project site near the southwest portion of the former equestrian track (see Figure 4.8-1). One so il sample (U- 4), had a benzo(a)pyrene concentration of 4.12 mg/kg, greater than California background concentration of
0.9 mg/kg at the time of the investigation. Using the highest concentrations found on site, the cumulative cancer risk for the entire sit e is 1.17 x 10-4, which is above the threshold risk of 1.0 x 10 -
6. The highest concentration of lead detected at the formerly proposed school was 11,300 mg/kg and was identified to be above the DTSC threshold of 255 mg/kg. A removal action work plan (RAW) was recommended by the DTSC in 2008, but this was ultimately not pursued or completed by the Jurupa Unified School District. The ESA recommends that all appropriate actions should be conducted as set forth by the DTSC (or any other applicable oversight agency) and as a result , the Project Applicant entered into a Standard Voluntary Agreement with the DTSC per MM HAZ-1 below.
A Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation report was completed onsite in April 2015 consisting of 11 borings advanced to depths of up to 20 feet bgs. The concentrations of benzene, ethylbenzene, and PCE detected in soil gas samples from five boring locations, B -1, B-2, B-3, B-4, and B -9 exceed the current California Environmental Screening Level (ESL) for residential properties. The highest concentration of benzene among the five locations was 0.010 µg/L at B -3. Concentration of ethylbenzene in the sample from B-1 were 0.052 µg/L, above the ESL of 0.037 µg/L. Concentrations of PCE in the sample from B -3 were 0.016 µg/L, above the ESL of 0.015 µg/L. However, the contaminant concentrations did not exceed the current California ESLs for commercial/industrial properties.
50 All five boring locations with contaminant concentrations above ESLs were in the northern part of the site in proposed commercial and industrial districts, as shown on Figure 4. 8-2 above.
The soil contaminated with benzo(a)pyrene and lead is w ithin the area designated for industrial properties under the proposed Project. The environmental screening level (ESL) for benzo(a)pyrene in commercial/industrial soil is 130 mg/kg, well above the concentration identified on the Project site. However, the ESL for lead in commercial/industrial soil is 500 mg/kg, far below the concentration identified on the Project site (DTSC, 2022). Therefore, remediation for lead contamination is required. See MM HAZ-1 below.
AEI conducted limited soil sampling from agri cultural soil in the southwest part of the site, two soil stockpiles in the northern part of the site, and two drums next to one of the stockpiles, in October
50 The commercial/industrial ESL for benzene is 0.014 µg/L; for ethylbenzene is 0.16 µg/L; and for PCE is 0.067 µg/L (AEI, 2022).
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-31 June 2023
2022. Testing of the samples from the drum contents and soil next to the drums identified TPH as oil, and lead, at concentrations above the commercial/industrial ESLs. Remediation of the drum contents and affected soil is required to minimize hazards to future site occupants and to the environment.
Based on test results from the samples, AEI recommended excavating the discolored soil for disposal at a proper facility. AEI also recommended analyzing the samples of contents of the two drums samples for California Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (TCLP) and Soluble Threshold Limit Concentration (STLC) to determine the type of waste disposal required. A Site Investigation and Remediation is included in the Standard Voluntary Agreement with the DTSC per MM HAZ -1 below.
The DTSC requested additional sampling to reflect the most current conditions on the Project site.
The Project Applicant submitted a Supplemental Site Investigation Workplan, which was approved by DTSC on May 24, 2023. The results of the Supplemental Site Investigation will govern and define the necessary extent of remediation, which will be subject to DTSC’s review and approval.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: The Project site is located on a site which is in cluded on a list of hazardous materials sites. Impacts before mitigation would be significant.
D.3 Mitigation Measures
Based on the results of the previous sampling and reports (AEI, 2022a, 2022b), and the subsequent correspondence with the RCDEH (See App endix D14), the following mitigation measures are required.
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 activiti es during implementation of the response action. The Removal Action Work Plan will include components such as:
• A Soils Management Plan to ensure safe and appropriate handling of site soils and transport and off-site disposal, if necessary.
• Sampling and A nalysis Plan with corresponding Quality Assurance Plan to confirm the effectiveness of the RAW , if applicable.
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-32 June 2023
• 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 imple mentation of all proposed removal and remedial actions.
MM HAZ-2 Post Remediation Requirement s/Restrictions: Prior to issuance of building permits for construction of project buildings on a particular parcel where remediation was required, the Project Applicant shall provide a copy or copies of a deed restriction or land use covenant, if required by the DTSC, which has been recorded over the parcel for which a building permit is sought. The deed restriction or land use covenant shall serve as a land use co ntrol 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.
MM HAZ-3 Post Remediation Clearance Determination: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any project building on a particular parcel where remedial activities under the oversight of the DTSC occurred, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification from DTSC to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Director demonstrating either: 1) that the parcel has been remediated sufficiently to allow safe occupancy of buildings thereon; or 2) issuance of a “No Further Action” letter or equivalent for the parcel. The written verific ation 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.
D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Implementation of MMs HAZ-1 through HAZ-3 require a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Work Plan; and 2) a Removal Action Work Plan (RAW) or Remedial Action Work Plan (RAP ) and post remediation requirements and clearance that would reduce impacts to less than significant. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-33 June 2023
Threshold e): For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within a compatibility zone of the Flabob Airport, Riverside Municipal Airport and does not meet the Compatibility Criteria for Land Use Actions ident ified in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the airport.
E.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No plans, policies, or programs apply to project impacts related to airport hazards.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts related to airport hazards.
E.2 Impact Analysis
Approximately the southern half of the site is in Airport Compatibility Zone D, and the northern half of the site is in Zone E, as shown in Figure 4. 8-4. The Project does not propose development of land uses prohibited in zones D or E (highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses), or discouraged in zones D or E (children’s schools, hospitals, nursing homes, major spectator -oriented sports stadiums, amphitheaters, and concert halls). The Project site is outside of noise contours for Flabob Airport, as shown in Figure 4. 8-5. The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) conducted a Development Review and found the Project to be Consistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
51 Therefore, the Project development would not conflict with Riverside County airport land use compatibility policies and would not cause a safety hazard or excessive noise for people living or working onsite.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Airport-related hazard impacts would be less than significant.
E.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
E.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
51 ALUC Development Review File No. ZAP1038FL22 consistency letter dated September 12, 2022. SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-34 June 2023
Threshold f): Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:
• The project is inconsistent with the City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. • Any required street improvements do not meet General Plan and/or City standards. • The project has less than two (2) routes for emergency egress and ingress (unless otherwise allowed by the Fire Department).
F.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No plans, policies, or programs apply to project impacts on emergency response planning.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project impacts on emergency response planning.
F.2 Impact Analysis
The emergency response plan in effect for the City of Jurupa Valley, the Riverside County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) , identifies County agencies and other agencies that would be involved in emergency responses; threat summaries and assessments; and procedures for responding agencies, in addition to procedures for continuity of government.
The City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), issued in 2018 (City of Jurupa Valley, 2018), provides additional information on hazard assessments; hazard mitigation strategies; and resources available for emergency response and hazard mitigation. Unique hazards in the City of Jurupa Valley identified in the LHMP that are relevant to the Project site and abutting land are transportation hazards on SR -60; wildfires in the Santa Ana Riverbed; and flooding along the Santa Ana River.
Construction
Construction activities for the Project would be primarily confined to the Project site and would only include minor offsite improvements in the public right-of-way in the streets surrounding the Project site, including Rubidoux Boulevard and 34 th Street. Offsite improvements include utilities such as water, sewer, and electricity.
Construction Management Plans (CMPs), incorporated into the Project as Mitigation Measure TRANS-2 (set forth in Section 4.16, Transportation) would be implemented during construction of SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-35 June 2023
the Project to ensure that adequate and safe access remains available within and near the Project site during construction activities. The CMP would detail how parking would be managed during project construction. The parking management pl an would specify where onsite and offsite parking would be available during project construction. The CMP would also include a street closure plan that details how vehicle traffic (including bus traffic), pedestrian traffic, and bicycle traffic would flow during temporary street closures during project construction.
The Project would also comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency access.
Therefore, with adherence to regulatory requirements and implementation of a CMP, construction of the Project would not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, any adopted or onsite emergency response or evacuation plans. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts related to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during construction.
Operation
During operation, the Project would not involve any activities that would impede public access or travel along the public right-of-way or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. A Commute Trip Reduction/Travel Demand Management (CTR/TDM) Plan, incorporated into the proposed Project as Mitigation Measure TRANS-1 set forth in Section 4.16, Transportation, would reduce project trip generation and thus potential contribution of the Project to t raffic congestion.
Proposed truck routes to and from the proposed industrial and warehouse uses have been designated to route trucks away from existing and proposed residential areas, and to minimize congestion of roadways and intersections. All -weather emergency access roads are required to be within 150 feet of each side of each building. Such roads must be at least 24 feet wide and have 13 feet, six inches of vertical clearance (City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 8.10.010). As discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation, of this Draft EIR, the Project site plan will be reviewed by the Riverside County Fire Department and the Project would comply with all emergency access requirements. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access during operation and no impacts would occur.
Furthermore, the Project would not include a land use that would constitute a potential hazard to the community (such as an airport, oil refinery, or chemicals plant), nor would it close any existing streets or otherwise represent a significant impediment to emergency response and evacuation of the local area. Industrial or commercial uses utili zing quantities of hazardous materials over certain thresholds would be required to prepare and implement Business Emergency Plans setting forth procedures in case of hazardous materials releases identifying types and quantities of hazardous materials onsite; evacuation plans; emergency responder notification procedures; and an employee training plan. Therefore, the Project would have a less than significant impact related to an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan during operation a nd no mitigation is required.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on emergency response planning would be less than significant.
F.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-36 June 2023
F.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold g): Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within a "High" fire hazard zone per General Plan Figure 8 -11: Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley.
G.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No plans, policies, or programs apply to project wildfire hazard impacts.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to project wildfire hazard impacts.
G.2 Impact Analysis
Project impacts respecting wildfire risks were determined to be less than significant and are addressed in Section 6.6, Effects Not Found to be Significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on wildfire risks would be less than significant.
G.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
G.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant.
4.8.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative impacts is the portions of the cities of Jurupa Valley and Riverside where the Project Traffic Impact Analysis identified related projects; 63 projects are within about 2.5 miles of the proposed Project site. Known hazardous materials sites within 0.5 mile of the proposed Project site are listed above in Tables 4.8 -1 and 4.8-2. Development of related projects would be required to comply with regulatory requirements for assessment and cleanup of hazardous materials sites before either of the two cities would issue certificates of occupancy for those projects .
Furthermore, mitigation measures HAZ -1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 would be implemented to remediate any remaining lead contamination and provide an analysis of drum contents and soil to determine the type of waste disposal required for contaminated soils onsite. Therefore, implementation of mitigation measures HAZ -1, HAZ-2, and HAZ-3 prior to development would reduce the Project’s SECTION 4.8 – HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.8-37 June 2023
contribution to cumulative impacts from hazards related to known hazardous materials sites to less than significant.
Construction and operation of related projects would be required to comply with laws and regulations governing the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials; therefore, such use, transport, storage, and disposal would not cause substantial hazards to the public or the environment. Cumulative impacts respecting hazardous materials would be less than significant.
Many of the related Project site s are in land use compatibi lity zones for Flabob Airport shown on Figure 4.8-4 (RCALUC, 2004a). Related projects would be required to comply with both Riverside County airport land use compatibility policies and Federal Aviation Administration policies governing obstructions to navigable airspace. Cumulative impacts respecting airport-related hazards would be less than significant.
As with the proposed Project, related projects would comply with requirements of the City of Jurupa Valley and the Riverside County Fire Department respec ting maintaining roadways open for emergency access to surrounding community, and fire apparatus access to structures for human occupancy developed in each respective project. Cumulative impacts regarding emergency response planning would be less than significant.
SECTION 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-1 June 2023
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
The analysis in this section is based in part on information obtained from the following reports.
Additional references are cited in the text.
• Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for The District at Jurupa Valley, prepared on October 13, 2021 (revi sed June 30, 2022) by Kimley- Horn (Kimley- Horn, 202 2b) (Appendix D8 to this DEIR);
• District at Jurupa Valley, Tentative Map 38318, City of Jurupa Valley, CA: Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report prepared on June 14, 2022 by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (Kimley-Horn, 2022c) (Appendix D9 to this DEIR); and • Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification for the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan 21001 Project (MA21269) , prepared on June 29, 2022 by Krieger and Stewart Engineering Consultants (Krieger and Stewart, 2022) (Appendix D10 to this DEIR).
4.9.1 Existing Conditions
Regional Drainage
The Project site is in the East Etiwanda Creek - Santa Ana River hydrologic unit (HU; USGS code 180702030804), which drains an area of approximately 216.4 square miles. This hydrologic unit is within the larger Middle Santa Ana River w atershed (USGS code 1807020308); Reaches 3 and 4 of the Santa Ana River parallel the eastern boundary of the Project site. The Santa Ana R iver is located within the Santa Ana River Basin. The Santa Ana River Basin includes much of Orange County, the northwestern corner of Riverside County, part of southwestern San Bernardino County, and a small portion of Los Angeles County. The Santa A na watershed covers approximately 2,800 square miles in area with about 700 miles of rivers and major tributaries. The Santa Ana River extends 96 miles from the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County to the Pacific Ocean at the boundary between the cities of Huntington Beach and Newport Beach (T & B Planning, Inc., 2021 ; see Figure
4.9-1).
Local Drainage
The Project site is divided into two drainage areas; Wallace Street marks the boundary between the two areas. Area B, west of Wallace Street, sp ans 121.08 acres. Area C, east of Wallace Street, spans 136.7 acres. The Jurupa Ditch passes northeast to southwest through Area B, outletting at 34th Street although the Jurupa Ditch is not a stormwater conveyance channel, but an agricultural water channel.
The primary drainage conveyance in Area C is an open channel extending approximately north-south through the area C outlets into the Santa Ana River through a 36 -inch pipe in the west levee of the River near the southeast corner of the Project site. The hydrologic modeling for existing conditions considered areas B and C to each be 100percent pervious (Kimley Horn, 2022c). However, the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) states that the existing Project site contains approximately 17.12 acres of impervious surfaces (Kimley-Horn, 2022b).
Surface Water Quality
The receiving waters for the Project site are reaches 3 and 4 of the Santa Ana River (the reach numbers increase in the upstream direction). Reach 3 extends from Prado Dam near the west SECTION 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-2 June 2023
Riverside County boundary to 34th Street next to the Project site; and Reach 4 extends from 34th Street to the confluence of the Santa Ana River and Warm Creek in the City of Colton in San Bernardino County (SWRCB, 2022). The 2018 TMDLs for the Santa Ana River, Reaches 3 and 4 are provided in Table 4.9-1.
SECTION 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-3 June 2023
Figure 4.9-1
SURFACE WATER AND WATERSHEDS
SECTION 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-4 June 2023
Table 4.9-1
SANTA ANA RIVER REACHES 3 AND 4: POLLUTANTS LISTED ON 20 SECTION 303(D) LIST OF
WATER QUALITY LIMITED SEGMENTS
Pollutant River Reach Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) Requirement Status
Copper Santa Ana River, Reach 3 5A – TMDL still required Indicator Bacteria Santa Ana River, Reach 3 5B – Being addressed by USEPA approved TMDL
Lead Santa Ana River, Reach 3 5A – TMDL still required
Indicator Bacteria Santa Ana River, Reach 4 5A – TMDL still required Source: SWRCB, 2018
The RWQCB Basin Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin has designated the following existing or potential beneficial uses for Reaches 3 and 4 of the Santa Ana River: agricultural water supply; groundwater recharge; recreation (both body contact and non- body-contact); warm freshwater habitat; wildlife habitat; rare, threatened and endangered species; and spawning, reproduction, and development.
Flood Hazards
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has mapped a flood hazard area across the eastern one-third of the Project site (see Figure 4.9.2, Flood Hazard Zones). This area, Zone X (Other Flood Areas), consists of 500-year flood hazard areas with average depths of less than one foot or with drainage areas less than one square mile, and areas protected by levees from 100-year floods.
4.9.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review on March 31, 2022, and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held on April 20, 2022. One letter was received which contained one comment that pertains to hydrology and water quality resources. On April 28, 2022, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservatio n District (District), submitted a letter in response to the NOP. The District stated that the Project site is located within the Rubidoux Master Drainage Plan (MDP) area, and that the proposed Project could potentially impact MDP facilities.
The western half of the Project site would be within the Rubidoux MDP area. A portion of the Jurupa Ditch passes through the Project site. The Jurupa Ditch was originally constructed as an open ditch in the mid nineteenth century and was later converted to concrete piping in the 1920s and 1930s. It was primarily an underground irrigation channel composed of two subsurface parallel concrete pipes. Although the Jurupa Ditch is associated with significant development of the Jurupa Valley, it no longer retains sufficient integrity as a historical resource but it still operates and delivers agricultural water to its shareholders located south of the Project site. (City of Jurupa Valley 2021, p. 1-4).
SECTION 4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-5 June 2023
Figure 4.9-2
FEMA FLOOD HAZARD ZONES
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-6 June 2023
4.9.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
Clean Water Act §401
Although the Clean Water Act (CWA) is a federal law, the U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has authorized some states, including California, to have the primary authority and responsibility for setting surface- and groundwater water quality standards.
Section 401 is implemented through the Water Quality Certification (WQC) process. In the State of California, the State Water Quality Resources Board (SWRCB) has given the responsibility for issuing § 401 WQCs to its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). Certification must be based on a finding that the proposed discharge will comply with water quality standards, which in clude numeric and narrative water quality objectives applicable to identified surface waters in the Water Quality Control Plan for the region (Basin Plan) in which a discharge of fill is proposed. The Project would be within the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana RWQCB (Region 8).
Clean Water Act §402
In 1987 the CWA was amended to add § 402(p), which established a framework for regulating municipal and industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES Program. On November 16, 1990, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) published final regulations that established storm water permit application requirements for specified categories of industries. The regulations provide that discharges of storm water to waters of the United States from construction projects that one or more acres of soil distu rbance are effectively prohibited unless the discharge is in compliance with an NPDES Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended). Please refer to the description of the Construction General Permit on page 4.9-3 for details.
Pursuant to § 402(p) CWA, stor m water permits are required for discharges from a municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) serving a population of 100,000 or more. The SWRCB and RWQCBs have been authorized by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to implement and enforce the Municipal Storm Water Program.
In the County of Riverside, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements for the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riversid e, and the Incorporated Cities of Riverside County within the Santa Ana Region Area- Wide Urban Runoff Management Program (Order No. R8 -2010-0033, NPDES No.
CAS 618033) (MS4 Permit) is currently in effect; the City of Jurupa Valley is a signatory to this permit, and is subject to the waste discharge requirements set forth in this Order.
Section XII(E) of the MS4 Permit requires that significant development and redevelopment projects …infiltrate, harvest and use, evapotranspire and/or bio- treat the 85th perce ntile storm event (“Design Capture Volume”), and that The Permittees shall incorporate LID site design principles into the revised WQMP to reduce runoff to a level consistent with the MEP [maximum extent practicable] standard. The Co -Permittees shall requi re that New Development and Significant Redevelopment projects include Site Design Best Management Practices ( BMPs) during the development of the Project-specific WQMP. The design goal shall be to maintain or replicate the pre- development hydrologic regime through the use of design techniques that create a functionally equivalent post - development hydrologic regime through site preservation techniques and the use of integrated and SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-7 June 2023
distributed infiltration, retention, detention, evapotranspiration, filtration and treatment systems .
Permittees shall require site-specific WQMPs for streets, roads and highway projects consistent with Section XII.F of this Order (RWQCB 2010).
Clean Water Act § 303(d)
Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that states assess the quality of their waters every two years and publish a list of those waters not meeting the water quality standards established for them. Water quality standards include beneficial uses, water quality objectives necessary to protect these uses and the antidegradation policy, and are found in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) of each region. For water bodies placed on the 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for the pollutant(s) t hat are causing standards impairment. A TMDL must account for all sources of the pollutants that caused the water to be listed. Federal regulations require that the TMDL, at a minimum, account for contributions from point sources (federally permitted discharges from discreet conveyances) and contributions from nonpoint sources—that is, all other sources including stormwater and agricultural runoff. US EPA is required to review and approve the list of impaired waters and each TMDL. TMDLs are established at the geographic level necessary to implement the applicable water quality standards.
Water bodies are included on the 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments after evaluation of existing water quality data using the methodology for determining impairment identified in the Water Quality Control Policy for Developing California's Clean Water Act § 303(d) List and the Functional Equivalent Document, both adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board in September 2004. The USEPA has authorized the SWRCB and the nine RWQCBs to develop and establish water quality objectives.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) defines “water quality objectives” as the allowable “limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisances within a specific area.” Thus, water quality objectives are intended to protect the public health and welfare, and to maintain or enhance water quality in relation to the existing and/or potential beneficial uses of the water. The Porter-Cologne Act requires each RWQCB to develop a program of implementation that describes how water quality standards will be attained. TMDLs can be developed as a component of the program of implementation, thus triggering the need to describe the implementation features, or alternatively as a Water Quality Standard, defined in Basin Plans. When the TMDL is established as a standard, the program of implementation must be designed to implement the TMDL (SWRCB, 2022). Water quality objectives apply to both waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. In the State of California, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is administered in concurrence with the § 401 CWA Water Quality Certification. As with § 401 CWA, the Santa Ana RWQCB would provide review and water quality certification for Porter-Cologne.
State Water Resources Control Board Resolution No. 2019 -0015 and Resolution No. 2021 - 0012
On April 2, 2019, the SWRCB adopted Resolution No. 2019-0015, Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California and the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-8 June 2023
Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California to Establish a State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) for inclusion in the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries and Ocean Waters of California.
When a discharge of dredge or fill material is proposed to waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the SWRCB and the RWQCBs regulate the discharge under Porter-Cologne through the issuance of Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs). CWA § 401 Water Quality Certifications, WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are referred to as orders or permits.
On April 6, 2021, the SWRCB issued Resolution No. 2021-0012 confirming that the “State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” (1) are in effect as state policy for water quality control for all waters of the State and (2) shall be applied via the inland surface waters and enclosed bays and estuaries plan to only waters of the United States.
Construction General Permit Order 2009-009-DWQ (as amended) The SWRCB implements water quality regulations under § 402 CWA and Porter -Cologne for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with a construction activity.
Dischargers whose projects disturb one acre or more of soil are required to obtain coverage under the General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit, 2009- 009-DWQ, as amended). Construction Activity subjec t to this permit includes clearing, grading, and disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling or excavation, but does not include regular maintenance activities performed to restore the original line, grade, or capacity of the facility.
The Construction General Permit requires the development and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWPPP should contain a site map(s) which shows the construction site perimeter, existing and proposed buildings, lots, roadways, stormwater c ollection and discharge points, general topography both before and after construction, and drainage patterns.
The SWPPP would also designate site -specific best management practices (BMPs) that would be implemented to minimize or avoid pollutants (including , but not limited to, sediment, petroleum products, trash) from leaving the Project site and entering storm drains and other waters.
The SWRCB will provide Construction General Permit review and permitting for this Project.
California Green Building Standards Code
The California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code), Part 11 of the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) is designed to improve public health, safety, and general welfare by utilizing design and construction methods that reduce the negative environmental impact of development and encourage sustainable construction practices. The CALGreen Code provides mandatory direction to developers of all new construction and renovations of residential and non- residential structures regarding a ll aspects of design and construction, including but not limited to site drainage design, stormwater management and water use efficiency. Required measures are accompanied by a set of voluntary standards designed to encourage developers and cities to aim f or a higher standard of development.
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-9 June 2023
Regional and Local
Riverside County Water Quality Management Plan
The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFCWCD) issued its Water Quality Management Plan for the Santa Ana [Watershed] Region of Riverside County in 2012. The WQMP sets forth requirements for low- impact development (LID) and source control best management practices ( BMPs). LID uses site design and stormwater management to maintain the site’s predevelopment runoff rates and volumes. The goal of LID is to mimic a site’s predevelopment hydrology by using techniques that infiltrate, filter, store, evaporate, and detain runoff close to the source of rainfall (RCFCWCD, 2011). Source control BMPs reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff. Examples include roof runoff controls , protection of slopes and channels, efficient irrigation, and storm drain system signage.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Basin (Basin Plan) The SWRCB requires its nine RWQCBs to develop water quality control plans (Basin Plans) designed to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all r egional waters.
Specifically, Basin Plans designate beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater, set narrative and numerical objectives that must be attained or maintained to protect the designated beneficial uses and con form to the State antidegradation policy, and describe implementation programs to protect all waters in the regions. In addition, Basin Plans incorporate by reference all applicable State and Regional Board plans and policies, and other pertinent water quality policies and regulations.
The Santa Ana RWQCB Basin Plan (RWQCB 1995, as amended) applies to this Project.
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan Open Space Element, Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element, and Land Use Element, set forth goals and policies for water quality, water conservation, pollution control, and new development. The policies in these elements that are related to hydrology and water quality, and that apply to the proposed Project, are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.
4.9.4 Methodology
The analysis in this s ection of the Environmental Impact Report is based on information found in various technical reports as delineated at the beginning of the section. In addition, background information from the Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020110449) for the Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (T and B Planning, 2021) was incorporated, and additional information was obtained from the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Water Resources (DWR), and FEMA. Additional references are cited in the text.
Sub-area hydrology was performed (Kimley-Horn, 2022c, pp. 6 -7) using Advanced Engineering Software (AES)
52 “HydroWin” based upon the standards of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Hydrology Manual (“the County Hydrology Manual”). AES unit hydrograph modeling was done for both the pre -development and post development Project conditions for the 100 year 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour durations. Similar modeling was also
52 http://advancedengineeringsoftware.com/wp/
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-10 June 2023
done for the 10-year, 5-year, and 2-year storms. Resulting hydrographs were manually imported by spreadsheet into modeling software ( PC SWMM). PC SWMM was used solely for conduit and basin routing in accordance with provisions of the County Hydrology Manual Section E-9. PC SWMM offers the flexibility to incorporate hydrograph results developed using Riverside County standards and comprehensively evaluate Project hydraulics dictated by weirs, orifices, and backwater effects – all of which having relevance to the Project analysis. Numerous AES models were created – one for each sub-catchment area in both the existing and developed conditions.
4.9.5 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist , and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, August 20, 2020, sets forth the following significance thresholds and criteria for hydrology and water quality impacts . The Project would have a significant impact related to hydrology and water quality resources if it would:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere subst antially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project would conflict with an applicable Ground Water Management program as identified in the applicable Urban Water Management Plan.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's drainage system is not designed to manage runoff from 10- and 100-year storm events. iii) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-11 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with the County of Riverside Master Drainage Plan or Municipal Code Chapter
6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project would impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would adversely impact upstream of downstream properties.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located in a 100 -year flood hazard zone and inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter
6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls or Santa Ana Region Basin Plan.
4.9.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise subst antially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
These are existing regulatory requirements applied to the Project based on existing federal, State, or local laws which effectively reduce impacts to geology and soils. The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts on geology and soil resources. These requirements are included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to ensure compliance:
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 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 SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-12 June 2023
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 t he City Engineer (T & B Planning, 2021).
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 Wate r 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 p erforming construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit (T & B Planning, 2021).
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 Engin eer. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following and may, among other things, 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;
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-13 June 2023
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).
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 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).
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDFs applicable to the Project include compliance with the MS4 Permit, as discussed in Section 4.9.2.
PDF 4.9-1 The Project -specific WQMP must be implemented throughout 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.
PDF 4.9-3 Stenciling (“No Dumping/Drains to Ocean”) will be provided for public storm drain inlets on or adjacent to the Project site.
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.
A.2 Impact Analysis
Development of the proposed Project would involve site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating, which have the potential to generate water pollutants such as silt, trash and debris, organic waste, nutrients (e.g. , phosphorus and nitrogen), pathogens (bacteria and viruses), pesticides and herbicides , metals, paints, oil and grease, and other solvents which could adversely affect water quality. Therefore, short -term water quality impacts could occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-14 June 2023
Pollutants of concern for the Santa Ana River (Reaches 3 and 4), that is, pollutants that could be generated by the Project, and for which these reaches of the Santa Ana River are also listed on Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments, are copper and lead (heavy metals) and indicator bacteria (pathogens).
Development of the proposed Project may result in two types of water quality impacts :
(1) short-term impacts due to constru ction-related discharges; and (2) long-term impacts from operation or changes in site runoff characteristics. Runoff during the construction process may carry onsite surface pollutants to groundwater, through insufficient construction stormwater BMPs, or t o receiving water bodies such as streams, rivers, and channels that ultimately drain to the ocean.
Projects that increase urban runoff into local streets or storm drains may indirectly increase erosion as well as local and regional flooding intensity.
Construction Pollutants Control
Construction projects typically expose soil to erosion and may temporarily alter drainage patterns.
Stormwater runoff during construction may contain soil amendments such as fertilizers and pesticides, entrained soil, trash, waste oil, paints, solvents, and other substances used during construction.
The Project owner would be required by the California SWRCB to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Constru ction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ) for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil during construction. The Construction General Permit requires potential dischargers of pollutants into waters of the U.S. and waters of the State of California (State) to prepare a site-specific SWPPP, which establishes enforceable limits on discharges, requires effluent monitoring, designates reporting requirements, and requires construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate point and non- point source discharges o f pollutants, including sediment resulting from erosion. BMPs must be maintained, inspected before and after each precipitation event, and repaired or replaced as necessary. After compliance with Construction General Permit Order 2009 -0009-DWQ, potential violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during Project construction would be a less than significant impact.
Operational Pollutant Controls
The Riverside County MS4 Permit (Order No. R8 -2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS 618033) regulates the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. through stormwater and urban runoff conveyance systems, including flood control facilities and storm drains (MS4s; see Section 4.9.3).
Pursuant to the MS4 Permit, Principal Permittees and Co- Permittees (the City of Jurupa Valley is a Co-Permittee) must regulate discharges of pollutants in urban runoff from human -caused sources into storm water conveyance systems within their jurisdiction.
As new development and redevelopment occurs, it can significantly increase pollutant loads in stormwater and urban runoff, because increased population density results in proportionately higher levels of vehicle emissions, vehicle maintenance wastes, municipal sewage wastes, household hazardous wastes, fert ilizers, pet waste, trash, and other human- generated pollutants (RWQCB 2010). The Riverside County MS4 Permit requires new development and significant redevelopment projects to incorporate post -construction low-impact development (LID) BMPs into Project design SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-15 June 2023
to reduce or eliminate the quantity, and improve the quality of, stormwater being discharged from the Project site.
The proposed Project includes a Project -specific WQMP, which specifies operational LID BMPs in compliance with MS4 permit requirements . PDF 4.9 -1 requires implementation of the WQMP throughout Project design, construction, operation, and maintenance. PDFs required to reduce Project hydrology and water quality impacts are set forth in Section 4.9.7.2 above.
Site Design BMPs
Site design BMPs reduce or eliminate post -Project runoff and filter contaminants from stormwater generated onsite. The PDF 4.9-2 is a site design BMP.
Source Control BMPs
Source control BMPs reduce the potential for pollutants to enter runoff. Source control BMPs include but would not be limited to PDF 4.9 -3: Stenciling (“No Dumping/Drains to Ocean”) and PDF 4.9 -4:
regular sweeping or washing of sidewalks and paved areas. The Project would store and treat runoff in accordance with the Riverside County MS4 permit and City of Jurupa Valley requirements. Impacts to water quality impacts would be less than significant.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be less than significant.
A.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.
Threshold b): Would the project substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project would conflict with an applicable Ground Water Management program as identified in the applicable Urban Water Management Plan.
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.9-3, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, is relevant to Project impacts respecting groundwater recharge.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-16 June 2023
PDF 4.9 -2, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, is also relevant to Project impacts respecting groundwater recharge.
B.2 Impact Analysis
The proposed Project would consist of 1,196 residential dwelling units, approximately 97.1 acres of commercial retail development, 79.9 acres of Industrial and Business Park development, and approximately 12 acres of both active and passive open space.
Water service to the Project would be supplied by the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD).
Based on the Project’s Water Supply Assessment report, RCSD’s current and future water supply will consist of groundwater extracted from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin, augmented by water purchased from the Western Municipal Water District (WMWD). Water rights within the San Bernardino Basin Area, of which Riverside South Groundwater Basin is a part, have been adjudicated, and under Riverside County Superior Court Judgement No. 78 426, RCSD is guaranteed a sufficient water supply from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin to meet current and future demands, even if that supply is not augmented by water purchased from the WMWD. As a result of the 1969 Judgment, RCSD can extract groun dwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin without restrictions until the combined credit of the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South Groundwater Basins is depleted. Once the available credit is depleted, WMWD will be obligated to provide gr oundwater replenishment. It is anticipated that the cost of the replenishment will be allocated to all groundwater extractors, including RCSD. (Krieger and Stewart , 2022, pp. III- 3, IV-2 and IV-3).
As discussed in Sections 4.9.2 and 4.9.5(a), the Project must comply with the requirements of applicable LID BMPs by incorporating into Project design LID BMPs which will capture stormwater generated on the Project site and channel it into Bio Clean Modular Wetlands or similar stormwater infiltration BMP s. Stormwater would filter through the soils and eventually recharge the aquifer below the Project site. Filtration and other types of removal of stormwater pollutants would minimize or prevent stormwater pollutants from reaching the groundwater basin. Imp acts to groundwater supply, groundwater recharge, and sustainable groundwater management would be less than significant.
As stated above, the hydrologic modeling for existing conditions considered areas B and C to each be 100 percent pervious (Kimley Horn, 2022c). However, the Water Quality management Plan (WQMP) states that the existing Project site contains approximately 17.12 acres of impervious surfaces (Kimley-Horn, 2022b). The total area of proposed impervious surfaces within the Project site would be 9,749,231.12 square feet (224 acres) (Kimley-Horn, 2022 b, p. 6 ) The stormwater from these surfaces will be captured and managed in accordance with the WQMP and state laws.
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be less than significant.
B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation. SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-17 June 2023
Threshold c): Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's drainage system is not designed to manage runoff from 10- and 100-year storm events. iii) Create or contribute ru noff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is inconsistent with the County of Riverside Master Drainage Plan or Municipal Code Chapter
6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls. iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project would impede or redirect flood flows in a manner that would adversely impact upstream of downstream properties.
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.9 -3, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, is relevant to Project impacts regarding stormwater runoff.
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.9-2, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, is also relevant to the Project and reducing impacts from stormwater flows and surface runoff.
C.2 Impact Analysis
i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? As described in Section 4.9.6.A, the Project owner would be required to obtain coverage under a General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity (Construction General Permit Order 2009- 0009-DWQ) for projects which will disturb one or more acres of soil SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-18 June 2023
during construction. The owner would obtain coverage through preparing and implementing a SWPPP, described further above in Section 4.9.6.A. After compliance with Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ (see Section 4.9.3), the potential for substantial eros ion or siltation on- or offsite would be less than significant.
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? As described in Section 4.9.6.A, LID BMPs would be incorporated into the Proj ect design to capture stormwater generated on the Project site and direct it into infiltration systems. Only surface runoff from the largest storm events (e.g., the 100 -year storm) would exceed the capacity of these infiltration systems and enter existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or the Santa Ana River.