Jurupa Valley City Council
September 7, 2023

The Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report (Kimley- Horn, 2022 c) conducted multiple analyses which included:
• Quantified existing 100- year offsite flow rates at pertinent culvert crossings a nd discharge points based on 1 -hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24- hour duration storms (required durations) based on unmitigated and mitigated conditions;
• Developed preliminary recommendations for the discharge to the Santa Ana River near the southeasterly corner of the Project; and
• At the request of the City of Jurupa Valley and the Riverside County Flood Control District, applied study objectives to the 10-year, 5-year, and 2-year storms (Kimley-Horn 2022c, pp. 5 and 6).

Hydrology and hydraulic analysis methodo logy included use of advanced modeling software for stormwater, wastewater, watershed, and water distribution systems (PC SWMM) and AES HydroWIN, which uses Master Plans of Drainage to evaluate impacts to stormwater due to development.

The study concluded that proposed infiltration basins and culvert extensions are adequately sized to accommodate the proposed Project. The analysis also concluded that existing basins dedicated to regulating flows of the Santa Ana River upstream of the Project site and other local flooding areas outside of the mapped FEMA Special Flood Hazard Areas (see Section 4.9.1) site is adequately sized to limit 100 -year discharge flows at or below the existing condition of these basins (Kimley- Horn 2022c, pp. 15 and 16).

The hydrology and hydraulics analysis divided the Project site into three areas: Area B, the central and western parts of the site; Area C, the eastern parts of the site; and Area S, the sites of existing and proposed roadways. Areas B and C in existing condit ions are completely pervious. At project completion areas B and C are assumed to be 90 percent pervious; and area S 100 percent.

Drainage flow rates in existing and post-Project mitigated conditions are shown below in Table 4.9-

2. As shown, the flow rates for 100-year and 10-year storms (Q100 and Q10, respectively) at all five  SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-19 June 2023
locations addressed in Table 4.9- 2 in post-Project mitigated conditions would be equal to or less than existing flow rates for 1-hour, 3-hour, 6-hour, and 24-hour storms, respectively.  SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-20 June 2023
Table 4.9-2

COMPARISON OF PRE-DEVELOPMENT AND MITIGATED POST DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FLOWS
Location Existing Conditions Mitigated Post-Development Model Element Model Element
Q100, cfs
“Area A” Offsite
flows upstream of
Existing Dual Box
Culvert under SR-60
J2 Pre-
Development

PC SWMM
Model
=AES Node 101
699 (1 hour) J2 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model =
AES Node 1011
699 (1 hour)
380 (3 hour) 380 (3 hour)
329 (6 hour) 329 (6 hour)
104 (24 hour) 104 (24 hour)
Onsite Flows from
“Area B” towards
34th Street and
Wallace
J6 Pre-
development
PC SWMM Model
= AES Node 105
219 (1 hour) J6 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model2
48 (1 hour)
123 (3 hour) 33 (3 hour)
102 (6 hour) 32 (6 hour)
31 (24 hour) 31 (24 hour)
Onsite Flows from
“Area C” towards
Santa Ana River
Levee
J4 Pre-
development

PC SWMM
Model
(Lateral
Inflow
Values Only) =
AES Node 103
243 cfs (1 hour) OR10+OR11
Post
Development

PC SWMM
Model3
0 cfs (1 hour)
141 cfs (3 hour) 0.2 cfs (3 hour)
118 cfs (6 hour) 8 cfs (6 hour)
38 cfs (24 hour) 21 cfs (24 hour)
Total Flow through
Ex 36” Pipe within
Santa Ana River
Levee Berm from
Project
C1 Pre-
Development PC
SWMM Model4
119 cfs (1 hour) OR15 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model
72 cfs (1 hour)
116 cfs (3 hour) 72 cfs (3 hour)
115 cfs (6 hour) 73 cfs (6 hour)
88 cfs (24 hour) 72 cfs (24 hour)
Total Flow through
Spillway within Santa
Ana River Levee
Berm
W1 Pre-
Development PC
SWMM Model
0 cfs (1 hour) W1 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model
0 cfs (1 hour)
0 cfs (3 hour) 0 cfs (3 hour)
0 cfs (6 hour) 0 cfs (6 hour)
0 cfs (24 hour) 0 cfs (24 hour)
Q10, cfs
“Area A” Offsite
flows upstream of
Existing Dual Box
Culvert under SR-60
J2 Pre-
Development

PC SWMM
Model
=AES Node 101
397 (1 hour) J2 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model =
AES Node 1015
397 (1 hour)
213 (3 hour) 213 (3 hour)
184 (6 hour) 184 (6 hour)
47 (24 hour) 47 (24 hour)
Onsite Flows from
“Area B” towards
34th Street and
Wallace
J6 Pre-
development
PC SWMM Model
= AES Node 105
119 (1 hour) J6 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model6
27 (1 hour)
64 (3 hour) 33 (3 hour)
52 (6 hour) 17 (6 hour)
6 (24 hour) 11 (24 hour)
Onsite Flows from
“Area C” towards
Santa Ana River
Levee
J4 Pre-
development

PC SWMM
Model
(Lateral
Inflow
Values Only) =
AES Node 103
133 cfs (1 hour) OR10+OR11
Post
Development

PC SWMM
Model7
0 cfs (1 hour)
75 cfs (3 hour) 0 cfs (3 hour)
62 cfs (6 hour) 0 cfs (6 hour)
9 cfs (24 hour) 6.5 cfs (24 hour)
Total Flow through
Ex
C1 Pre- 96 cfs (1 hour) OR15 Post 72 cfs (1 hour)
94 cfs (3 hour) 72 cfs (3 hour)
 SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-21 June 2023
Location Existing Conditions Mitigated Post-Development Model Element Model Element
36” Pipe within Santa
Ana River Levee
Berm from Project
Development PC
SWMM Model8
91 cfs (6 hour) Development PC
SWMM Model
92 cfs (6 hour)
44 cfs (24 hour) 24 cfs (24 hour)
Total Flow through
Spillway within Santa
Ana River Levee
Berm
W1 Pre-
Development PC
SWMM Model
0 cfs (1 hour) W1 Post
Development PC
SWMM Model
0 cfs (1 hour)
0 cfs (3 hour) 0 cfs (3 hour)
0 cfs (6 hour) 0 cfs (6 hour)
0 cfs (24 hour) 0 cfs (24 hour)
1 No development mitigation or changes to flow rates upstream of SR-60. 2 Flow values consider attenuation provided by Project detention basins. 3 Flow values consider attenuation provided by Project detention basins. 4 Flows shown consider storage within existing areas of local flooding within site (Not FEMA SFHA). The Project proposes to eliminate areas of local flooding.
5 No development mitigation or changes to flow rates upstream of SR-60. 6 Flow values consider attenuation provided by Project detention basins. 7 Flow values consider attenuation provided by Project detention basins. 8 Flows shown consider storage within existing areas of local flooding within site (Not FEMA SFHA). The Project proposes to eliminate areas of local flooding.

Source: Kimley Horn, 2022c, Table 3, pp. 2-3

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

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Project impacts regarding runoff, flooding, and exceeding storm drainage capacity would be less than significant after implementation of PPPs 4.9-1 through

4.9-4 and PDFs 4.9-1 through 4.9-4.
iv) Impede or redirect flood flows
As described in Section 4.9.1, the Project is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (100- year floodplain) designated by FEMA, and the results of the Hydrology and Hydraulics report (Kimley- Horn 2022c); (see Section 4.9.6 [c]) determined that existing and proposed levees, basins, culverts, etc. were sufficiently sized to prevent onsite flooding from the 100-year flood. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not proposed.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts 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): In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
 SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-22 June 2023
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.

D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.9-1 and 4.9 -3, set forth above in Section 4.9 .6.A, are relevant to Project impacts respecting flooding and resultant pollution.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.9-1, 4.9-2, and 4.9 -4, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, are also relevant to Project impacts respecting flooding and resultant pollution.

D.2 Impact Analysis
A tsunami is a series of ocean waves caused by a sudden displacement of the ocean floor, most often due to earthquakes. The Project site is located in western Riverside County, California, and is approximately 48 miles from the mouth of the Santa Ana River at the Pacific Ocean. A seiche is a surface wave created when an inland water body is shaken, usually by an earthquake . No surface water bodies are close enough to the Project site such that Project development would exacerbate an existing seiche flood hazard. No impact would occur and mitigation is not required.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: There would be no impact.

D.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No impact would occur.

Threshold e): Would the project 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.

E.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPPs 4.9 -1 throug h 4.9- 4, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, are relevant to Project water quality impacts.
 SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-23 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDFs 4.9-1 through 4.9-4, set forth above in Section 4.9.6.A, are also relevant to Project water quality impacts.

E.2 Impact Analysis
The Project would be designed in compliance with all applicable City of Jurupa Valley regulations regarding stormwater runoff, as well as the Riverside County MS4 permit (Order No. R8-2010-0033, NPDES No. CAS 618033) to which the City of Jurupa Va lley is a signatory, and the LID capture and infiltration facilities would, through natural infiltration of soils, ensure that the water quality objectives of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) are met. It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan.

A Groundwater Sustainability Management Plan (SGMP) for the Riverside South Groundwater Basin is in preparation by the WMW D; however, the WMWD has not yet adopted that SGMP (DWR, 2022; WMWD, 2023). Project development will not be drawing any groundwater since all water will be supplied by the RCSD, as such the Project would not conflict with an adopted SGMP. Impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: 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.

4.9.7 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impact analysis considers potential hydrology and water quality effects of the Project in conjunction with other development projects in the vicinity of the Project site as well as other projects located in the Santa Ana River Bas in and the Upper Santa Ana Valley Groundwater Basin.

The analysis of potential cumulative impacts to hydrology and water quality is divided into six general topics of discussion by combining the Thresholds of Significance (listed above in Subsection 6) into groupings of like topics, as follows: water quality (Thresholds a and e); groundwater supply and recharge (Threshold b); erosion and siltation (Threshold c); flood hazards (Thresholds c); stormwater drainage system capacity (Threshold c); and other hazards (Threshold d).

Water Quality
Project construction and the construction of other projects in the cumulative study area would have the potential to contribute waterborne pollution, including erosion and sedimentation, to the Santa Ana River Watershed. As discussed above in Thresholds a and e, pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board and the Santa Ana RWQCB, all construction projects that disturb one (1) or more acre of land area are required to obtain a NPDES permit and obtain coverage for construction acti vities. In order to obtain coverage, an effective site -specific SWPPP is required  SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-24 June 2023
to be developed and implemented. The SWPPP must identify potential on-site pollutants and identify an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures t o reduce or eliminate discharge of pollutants to surface waters. In addition, the Project Applicant and all cumulative developments in the Santa Ana River Basin would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program, which establishes water quality standards for ground and surface waters of the region. Compliance with these mandatory regulatory requirements, would ensure that development projects within the Santa Ana River watershed, including the proposed Project, would not contribute substantially to water quality impairments during construction; therefore, the Project would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact.

Operational activities on the Project site would be required to comply with the Project’s Preliminary WQMP to minimize the amount of waterborne pollution discharged from the site. Other development projects within the watershed would similarly be required by law to prepare and implement site - specific WQMPs to ensure that runoff doe s not substantially contribute to water quality violations.

Accordingly, operation of the Project would not contribute to cumulatively- considerable water quality effects.

Groundwater Supply and Recharge
As discussed above in Threshold b and shown in Table 4.9.-2, although the proposed Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the site, the Project incorporates permeable landscape areas and other design features that would allow some surface runoff to infiltrate into the groundwater basin. Also, as previously noted, the City is underlain by groundwater resources associated with the Upper Santa Ana Valley, Riverside -Arlington Sub -basin; however, impacts to groundwater recharge would be incremental and insignificant based on the small size of the Project site in relation to the size of the groundwater basin and the design features proposed by the Project to allow percolation. Furthermore, no groundwater wells would be installed on the Project site as part of the Project’s implementation. For these re asons, the proposed Project would not result in cumulatively-considerable impacts associated with the depletion of groundwater supplies or substantial interference with sustainable groundwater recharge. (Also refer to Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems for additional discussion on water supply).

Erosion and Siltation
Construction of development projects within the Santa Ana River Watershed would alter existing ground contours throughout the basin, which would result in changes to the basin’s existing drainage patterns. As discussed above in Threshold (c), development projects, including the proposed Project, would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to minimize stormwater pollution during construction (including erosion and siltation). Accordingly, grading plans would be required to be designed to preclude undue soil erosion and development projects would be required to prepare and implement SWPPPs and WQMPs to ensure that substantial soil erosion and/or sedimentation would not occur during temporary construction conditions or long -term operating conditions. Because the Project, and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Watershed would need to comply with applicable federal, State, and local regulations, substantial cumulative erosion and/or siltation would not occur.

Flood Hazards
Construction of the Project and other development projects within the Santa Ana River Watershed would be required to comply with federal, State, and local regulations and ap plicable regional and  SECTION 4.9 - HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.9-25 June 2023
local master drainage plans in order to mitigate flood hazards both on- and off-site. As discussed above in Threshold c, c ompliance with federal, State, and local regulations and applicable drainage plans would require development sites to be protected from flooding during peak storm events (i.e., 100-year storm) and also would not allow development projects to expose downstream properties to increased flooding risks during peak storm events. In addition, future development proposals within the Santa Ana River Watershed would be required to prepare hydrologic and hydraulic calculations, subject to review and approval by the responsible City/County Engineer, to demonstrate that substantial on- and/or off-site flood hazards would not occu r. As discussed under the response to Threshold (c ), the Project is designed to ensure that peak flood volumes and flows are less than that of the designed capacity of the existing storm drain system. Because the Project and all other developments throughout the Santa Ana River Basin would need to comply with federal, State, and local regulations to ensure that stormwater discharges do not substantially exceed existing volumes or exceed the volume of available conveyance infrastructure, a substantial cumula tive impact related to flood hazards would not occur.

Additionally, the Project site is not located within a special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1-percent annual flood (i.e., 100-year floodplain). Accordingly, development on the Project site would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows within a 100 -year floodplain and no cumulatively-considerable impact would occur.

Stormwater Drainage System Capacity
As discussed above in Threshold c, the designed capacity of the existing storm drain system contains adequate capacity to accommodate all Project runoff; therefore, impacts to the existing stormwater drainage system capacity would be less than cumulatively-considerable.

Other Hazards
As discussed above in Threshold d, the Project site is not located within an inundation area associated with seiches, tsunamis, or flooding. The Project has no potential – on either a direct or cumulative level – to result in adverse water quality effects due to inundation.

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-1 June 2023

4.10 Land Use and Planning
The following discussion focuses on P roject consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations.

4.10.1 Existing Conditions
Existing and Adjacent Land Uses
The Project site is approximately 248.3 acres in the eastern portion of the City of Jurupa Valley. More specifically, the Project site is bounded by the State Route (SR) -60 freeway to the north; the Santa Ana River to the east; single- and multi-family residential uses, a commercial business, two churches, and a water well and tank to the south; and single – and multi-family residences, a church, and a gas station to the west across Rubidoux Boulevard (Google Earth Pro, 2022). The Project site is vacant except for 11 vacant single-family residences in the central part of the site, three roadways (Wallace Street, Hall Avenue, and 30 th 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). The entire site is fenced off.

Project Site General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations The General Plan land use designations for the Project site are Medium Density Residential (MDR; 2- 5 dwelling units [DU] per acre); Medium High Density Residential (MHDR; 5 -8 DU/acre); High Density Residential (<14 DU/acre); Very High Density Residential (<20 DU/acre); and Commercial Retail (CR) (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a) (refer to Table 4.10 -1 and Figure 4.10 -1, below). The Project site is zoned Specific Plan (Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan) (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022b) (refer to Figure 4.10-2, below).

Table 4.10-1

EXISTING LAND USE, ZONING, AND DEVELOPMENT

FOR THE PROJECT SITE AND PROJECT AREA
Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing
Development
Project Site Medium Density
Residential (MDR; 2 -5
DU/acre); Medium High
Density Residential
(MHDR; 5 -8 DU/acre);
High Density Residential
(<14 DU/acre); Very High
Density Residential (<20
DU/acre); and
Commercial Retail (CR)
Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
(EMRSP)
Primarily vacant
site, fence along the
perimeter, 11 single-
family residences, 2
garages
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-2 June 2023
Location General Plan
Designation Zoning Designation Existing
Development
Surrounding Area
North SR-60 (Caltrans right -of-
way)
State Route 60 Highway
South Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR)
R-1-One (1) Family Dwellings
R-2-MultipleFamily Dwellings
Multifamily
residential
buildings, single
family residences ,
churches
West Medium High Density
Residential (MHDR) and
Commercial Retail (CR)
R-3- General Residential,
C-1 & C-P- General Commercial
Multifamily
residential
buildings, single
family residences,
commercial
buildings
East Santa Ana River channel Santa Ana River channel Santa Ana River channel
Source: City of Jurupa General Plan,2017; City of Jurupa Valley-Zoning, March 2022; Google Earth Pro, 2022.

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-3 June 2023
Figure 4.10-1

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-4 June 2023
Figure 4.10-2

ZONING DESIGNATIONS

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-5 June 2023

4.10.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
Jackie Vega at the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) submitted an email April 12, 2022 stating that the Project requires ALUC review as it is in the airport influence areas ( AIAs) for Flabob Airport and Riverside Municipal Airport. ALUC review is addressed in sections 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.16, Transportation.

4.10.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no federal regulations that pertain to this issue area.

State
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is the designated regional planning agency for the following six counties in Southern California: Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Riverside, Ventura, and Imperial. SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments that voluntarily convene to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Orga nization and under state law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Government (SCAG, 2022).

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal) In 2020 SCAG adopted the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, which presents a vision for the region in 2045.

Guided by the leadership of the Regional Council, in 2012 SCAG adopted the region’s first RTP/SCS— a plan now called Connect SoCal. Connect SoCal is a major planning document for our regional transportation and land use network. It balances the region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. The 2020-2045 Connect SoCal has goals that would build more than 20 miles of light rail, creating a rail backbone to serve the entire region; accommodate 51 percent of all future housing near major transit stations and corridors; and would replace gas taxes with mileage-based user fees to ensure a long-term sustainable funding mechanism that isn’t eroded by rising fuel efficiency and construction costs. (SCAG, 2020a, p. 2).

Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan, adopted in 2017, sets an up -to-date framework to help guide the City’s future. The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in 2011 and encompasses six formerly unincorporated communities: from west to east, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Jurupa Valley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope, and Crestmore Heights. The 2017 General Plan addresses only key issues that are critical to the transition from county to cityhood and has been referred to as an “Interim General Plan” due to budget constraints. The 2017 General Plan provides comprehensive, mid - to long-term goals and policies for maintaining and enhancing Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. It guides land use, circulation, open space preservation, housing, and many other facets of the City’s growth and development (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017, p. 1-1).
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-6 June 2023
The Project site is identified in the General Plan as an Opportunity Site for shopping and mixed -use development (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017, p. 11-4).

City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code ordinances governing land use and development are set forth in Titles 7, Subdivisions; 8, Building and Construction; and 9, Planning and Zoning; and 12, Vehicles and Traffic (City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, 2022).

4.10.4 Methodology
This analysis focuses on determining if the construction and operation of the Project would physically divide an established community or would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regu lation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Pursuant to the City of Jurupa Valley Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance , August 20, 2020, project consistency was determined for the following plans:
• City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
• City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
• South Coast Air Quality Management District’s Final 2022 Air Quality Management Plan • California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
• Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Santa Ana Region Basin Plan • SCAG 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (Connect SoCal)
Consistency with the Air Quality Management Plan is addressed in S ection 4.2, Air Quality ; consistency with the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan is addressed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources; consistency with the Santa Ana Region Basin Plan is addressed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality; and the Air Resources Board Scoping Plan is addressed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

4.10.5 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Sign ificance, August 20, 2020, set forth the following significance thresholds for land use and planning impacts. The Project would have a significant impact related to land use and planning if it would:
a) Physically divide an established community.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project involves the construction of a new freeway, highway, or roadway or proposes the construction of any physical feature that would serve to impede the connectivity between parts of a cohesive neighborhood or community.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-7 June 2023
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's conflict with any land use plan is related to an environmental issue under CEQA and the project's conflict results in an adverse environmental impact. The applicable plan s include, but are not limited to:
• Jurupa Valley General Plan
• South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan • Western Riverside County MSHCP
• Santa Ana Region Basin Plan
• Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for either Flabob Airport or Riverside Municipal Airport.

4.10.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project physically divide an established community? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project involves the const ruction of a new freeway, highway, or roadway or proposes the construction of any physical feature that would serve to impede the connectivity between parts of a cohesive neighborhood or community.

A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no specific PPPs that address impacts related to land use and planning.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features are applicable to project land use and planning impacts.

A.2 Impact Analysis
The Project area abuts the SR-60 right-of-way to the north, 34th Street to the south, Santa Ana River to the east and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west. The southern border of the Project site area is irregular and does not include a majority of the existing uses along 34th Street. • North: The SR-60 freeway, followed by single family and multifamily residential, commercial and industrial uses.
• South: Single family dwellings and multiple -family dwelling, churches, educational institutions and light agriculture uses.
• East: Santa Ana River and City of Riverside jurisdictional boundary with residential, and parks and recreational uses.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-8 June 2023
• West: Rubidoux Boulevard followed by Single- family and multi -family residential and commercial uses.

Access to the site is primarily from the Frontage Road, 30th Street, Hall Avenue, Rubidoux Boulevard, 34th Street and Wallace Street. These existing public streets are paved roads with varying widths though not all roads have curb, gutter, or sidewalks. The existing residences within the Specific Plan area have direct access from Wallace Street. There are no major freeways or major thoroughfare streets proposed that would divide either an existing neighborhood or a proposed neighborhood.

The Project site is characte rized as predominantly vacant land, with limited previous development of older residential properties. The surrounding neighborhoods have been developed over time with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Since the Project site is bordered by SR-60 to the north, 34 th Street and existing residences to the south, the Santa Ana River east), and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west, it is essentially an infill development site. Based on the foregoing, the Project will not divide an established community and there will be no impact.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: No impact.

A.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No project impact.

Threshold b): Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project's conflict with any land use plan is related to an environmental issue under CEQA and the project's conflict results in an adverse environmental impact. The applicable plans include, but are not limited to:
• Jurupa Valley General Plan
• South Coast Air Quality Management District Air Quality Management Plan • Western Riverside County MSHCP
• Santa Ana Region Basin Plan
• Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for either Flabob Airport or Riverside Municipal Airport.

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-9 June 2023
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs) and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP’s that are applicable to the project are identified in Sections 4.2, Air Quality , 4.3 Biological Resources, 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDF’s that are applicable to the project related to land use and planning.

B.2 Impact Analysis
The proposed Project would replace the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Speci fic Plan (EMRSP) with the District at Jurupa Specific Plan (DJSP). The EMRSP, located within the Project site, contains a mix of residential and Commercial Retail (CR) land use designations but was not developed. The DJSP would change the land use of the Project site to a mix of residential, commercial, industrial and business park, open space, and signage and monuments land uses.

The proposed Project would include 1,196 residential units and nonresidential land uses in five districts totaling approximately 248.3 acres in the northeast part of the City of Jurupa Valley. Table

4.10-1 provides details for the Project site and surrounding area’s land use, zoning designations, and existing development.

The Project would include standards for signage that could be installed within each land use area.

Signage standards may include but not be limited to commercial/industrial signs (wall and monument), directional signage, entry features/monuments, and freeway- oriented signs, including project pylon signs and billboards. The goal would be to provide a comprehensive and cohesive approach to signage throughout the Project site.

The Conceptual Land Use Plan can be seen in Figure 4.10-3 below.

General Plan Consistency Analysis
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Element contains goals and policies for land use that reflect the values and unique characteristics of the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project’s consistency with applicable goals and policies is provided in Table 4.10-2. As shown below, the proposed Specific Plan would be consistent with the City’s General Plan.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-10 June 2023
Figure 4.10-3

LAND USE PLAN

 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-11 June 2023
Table 4.10-2

GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Policy Consistency Analysis

AESTHETICS
COS 9.1 Protect scenic resources, especially
skylines, undeveloped ridgelines, rocky
hillsides, river view corridors, and outstanding
scenic vistas not designated for urban uses
from development and maintain those
resources in their current patterns of use.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, with the implementation the combination of floor area ratio limits, building setback lines, and building heights, the partial views to the Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, and Mount Rubidoux would still be publicly available from the Project site post development.

The existing public views of the Santa Ana River a re already blocked because the elevation is the same or lower that these vantage points and because of the intervening structures and vegetation block any view.

COS 9.2 Ensure that development in areas
with scenic values, including natural or
agricultural landscapes, is visually
subordinate to and compatible with the
dominant landscape features, colors, and
textures. Development includes but is not
limited to buildings, signs (including
billboard signs), roads, utility and
telecommunication lines, and str uctures.

Such development shall:

1. Avoid visually prominent locations such as
ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20
percent, particularly in the visually
sensitive Jurupa Mountains.

2. Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation
removal, and site lighting.

3. Incorporate building forms, architectural
materials, and landscaping that respect
the setting, including the historical pattern
of development in similar settings, and
avoid stark contrasts with its setting4.

Preserve scenic or unique
landforms; significant trees in terms of
size, age, species, or rarity; historical
features; and rock outcroppings.

Consistent: The Specific Plan is a planning document to guide development; it does not propose specific development projects.

Future development of the Specific Pl an will occur through the processing of a variety of implementing projects, including, but not limited to tract maps, parcel maps, grading plans, site development permits, conditional use permits, tenant improvements, and sign permits. All implementing pro jects shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and processing.

The Community Development Department shall review all plans for consistency with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality contained in Specific Plan Section 3, Land Use and Development Standards, and Section 4, Design Guidelines. (Also refer to analysis for Policy COS 9.10).

COS 9.4 View Protection in New
Development. The City will include in all
environmental review and carefully consider
effects of new development, streets and road
construction, grading and earthwork, and
utilities on views and visual quality.

Consistent: Refer to analysis for Policy COS 9.1
COS 9.5 Views to and from Public Places,
Including Scenic Corridors. The City will
preserve and improve views of important
scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to
do so. Public places include parks, plazas, the
grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads,
and publicly accessible open space. In
particular, the route segments shown in Figure
Consistent: Refer to analysis for Policies COS 9.1 and COS 9.2.  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-12 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
4-23 [of the General Plan] are designated as
local scenic corridors.

COS 10.1 Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor
lighting to be shielded and prohibit outdoor
lighting that:

1. Operates at unnecessary locations, levels,
and times

2. Spills onto areas off- site or to areas not
needing or warranting illumination

3. Includes lighting frequencies (colors) that
interfere with astronomical viewing

4. Produces glare (intense line- of-site
contrast)
Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, , Outdoor lighting fixtures are required to comply with Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements, and Section 4.5, Lighting, of the Specific Plan. These regulations require all exterior lighting fixtures to be directed downward to illuminate the site and avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution on adjacent properties.

COS 10.2 New Residential Development and
Remodeling Projects. Require devel opment
projects and major remodel projects to
minimize light pollution and trespass while
enhancing safety and aesthetics.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for COS 10.1.

COS 10.3 Public Facilities, Buildings, and
Streets. Use outdoor light -shielding measures
for new and existing lighting fixtures, including
signs, to minimize light trespass and glare while
enhancing safety and aesthetics.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for COS 10.3
COS 10.4 Commercial and Industrial
Buildings. Require that site lighting for
commercial and industrial uses is unobtrusive
and constructed or located so that only the
intended area is illuminated, off -site glare is
prevented, and adequate safety is provided.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for COS 10.1.

HE 4.2 Design Compatibility. Higher density
housing should maintain high quality standards
for unit design, privacy, security, on- site
amenities, and public and private open space.

Such standards should be flexible enough to
allow innovative and affordable design
solutions and shall be designed to enhance
prevailing neighborhood architectural and site
character.

Consistent: The Specific Plan is a planning document to guide development; it does not propose specific development projects.

Future development of the Sp ecific Plan will occur through the processing of a variety of implementing projects, including, but not limited to tract maps, parcel maps, grading plans, site development permits, conditional use permits, tenant improvements, and sign permits. All impleme nting projects shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and processing.

The Community Development Department shall review all plans for consistency with the applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality contained in Specific Plan Section 3, Land Use and Development Standards, and Section 4, Design Guidelines. (Also refer to analysis for Policy COS 9.10).

HE 4.3 Neighborhood Integration. New
neighborhoods should be an integral part of an
existing neighborhood or should establish
pedestrian, bicycle, and, where appropriate,
equestrian linkages that provide direct,
convenient, and safe access to adjacent
neighborhoods, schools, parks, and shopping.

Consistent: The Project circulation plan specifies improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping. The Project proposes community serving pedestrian pathways and on -street bicycle lanes along two proposed roadways.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-13 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
LUE 4.5 Architectural Compatibility. Public
Facility/Institutional development shall be designed
to enhance and be architecturally compatible with its
surroundings and with designated scenic highways
or public view corridors by providing high-quality
architecture, landscaping, and site improvements
(Applies to . Public Facility/Institutional (PF)

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy HE 4.2.

LUE 9.7 Grading. Limit grading, cut, and fill to
the minimum quantities necessary to provide
stable areas for structural foundations, street
rights of way, parking facilities, and other
intended uses
Consistent: 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 as per the Grading Plan.

AIR QUALITY
AQ 2.1 Site Plan Designs. Require City land
use planning efforts and site plan designs to
protect people and land uses sensitive to air
pollution, using barriers and/or distance from
emissions sources, and protect sensitive
receptors from pol luting sources, wherever
possible.

Consistent: The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between trucks and passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR- 60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the
development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the re sidential land uses.

Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways.

The following exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2- 4 and 2 -5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan).

Per Section 3.3.4 Industrial Land Use Buffer of the Specific Plan, “Where there are industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any indust rial building to any residential building. The buffer area can be used as open space, providing landscape and infrastructure improvements that can include sidewalks, trails, and other passive uses.”

AQ 2.2 Pollution Control Measures. Strongly
encourage t he use of pollution control
measures such as landscaping, vegetation and
other materials that trap particulate matter or
control pollution.)
Consistent: As shown on Figure 3 -8, Conceptual Landscape Plan , the Project includes landscaping along the Project’s frontage, parking areas, and entryways.

AQ 3.3 Stationary Pollution Reduction .

Require stationary pollution sources to prevent
the release of toxic pollutants through the
following:

1. Design features;

2. Operating procedures;

3. Preventive maintenance;

4. Operator training; and

5. Emergency response planning

Consistent: The Project will have relatively few discrete stationary sources of air toxic pollutants, as the term “stationary source” is understood in air pollution control law. Howev er, the five measures specified here are embodied in federal, state and SCAQMD regulations that control air toxics emissions from stationary sources.

AQ 3.4 Emissions Mitigation . Require every
project to mitigate any of its anticipated
emissions that exceed allowable levels as
Consistent: As discussed in Section 4.2, Air Quality , the Project would result in an exceedance of ROG, NOx, and CO emissions during operation of the Project. However, the Project has  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-14 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
established by the SCAQMD, the US EPA, and
CARB, to the greatest extent possible.)

incorporated all feasible mitigation measures and project design features to reduce impacts associated with air quality emissions, described in Table 4.2- 8, Summary of Required Air Pollution Reduction Measures.

AQ 3.6 Grading in High Winds . Suspend all
grading when wind speeds exceed 25 miles per
hour.

Consistent: This requirement is part of SCAQMD Rule 403- Fugitive Dust, Table 3.

AQ 4.2 Particulate Matter. Reduce particulate
matter from agriculture, construction,
demolition, debris hauling, street cleaning,
utility maintenance, railroad rights of way, and
off-road vehicles to the maximum extent
possible

Consistent: The Project will comply with all pertinent provisions of SCAQMD Rule 403. In addition, it will go beyond Rule 403 through implementing of MM AQ -1- Minimize Construction Emissions.

AQ 4.3 Electric Se rvice Units. Require the
installation and use of electric service units at
truck stops and distribution centers for heating
and cooling truck cabs, and particularly for
powering refrigeration trucks, in lieu of idling
of engines for power.

Consistent: The Project will be subject to MM AQ -7-TRUs to be Plug-in-Capable, which requires TRUs entering the Project site to be plug-in capable with electric hookups provided. Therefore, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy AQ 4.3.

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
COS 1.2 Protection of Significant Trees .

Protect and preserve significant trees, as
determined by the City Council upon the
recommendation of the Planning Commission.

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 particular, California native
trees should be protected.

Consistent: 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.

COS 1.3 Other Significant Vegetation .

Maintain and conserve superior examples of
vegetation, including: agricultural wind screen
plantings, street trees, stands of mature native
and non- native trees, and other features of
ecological, aesthetic, and conservation value.

Consistent: The majority of the Project area has been cleared and is devoid of significant vegetation. Areas that hav e 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.

COS 2.2 Wildlife Corridors. Identify and
maintain a continuous wildlife corridor along
the City’s northern boundary through the
Jurupa Mountains and along the Santa Ana
River from the northern boundary to the City’s
western boundary. Condition development
approvals to ensure that im portant corridors
for wildlife movement and dispersal are
protected and not interrupted by walls, fences,
roadways or other obstructions. Features of
particular importance to wildlife include
Consistent: The Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River and may serve as an extension of open space available to local wildli fe for foraging, but it is highly constrained as a wildlife corridor. This is discussed in more detail in Section 5.3.5 of the biological technical report (RECON, 2023a). Furthermore, the Project site has not been identified as an area where habitat conser vation is needed to support buildout of the Western Riverside County MSHCP habitat preserve system.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-15 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
riparian corridors, wetlands, streams, springs,
and protected na tural areas with cover and
water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided
to maintain connections between habitat areas.

COS 2.3 Biological Reports. Require the
preparation of biological reports to assess the
impacts of development and provide mitigation
for impacts to biolo gical resources when
reviewing discretionary development projects
with the potential to affect adversely wildlife
habitat.

Consistent: A Project -specific Biological Resources Technical Resource Report has been prepared for the Project. (EIR Technical Appendix F).

COS 3.20 Riparian Area Preservation .

Require development projects to preserve and
enhance native riparian habitat and prevent
obstruction of natural watercourses. Zoning
incentives, such as transfer of development
credits, should be used to the maximum extent
possible.

Consistent: The Project a small amount of low quality riparian habitat, the loss of which will be mitigated in accordance with MM BIO-4 The Project may result in a direct or indirect physical change to riparian habitat , but will be required to implement mitigation subject to approval by applicable regulatory agencies, which may include the implementation of MM-BIO-4 to replace the habitat at a specified ratio, as discussed under the analysis for Policy CSSF

1.11, below.

COS 3.21 Ecotones. Identify and, to the
maximum extent possible, conserve remaining
upland habitat areas, or “ecotones” adjacent to
wetland and riparian areas that are critical to
the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife
species.

Consistent: 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 2022c, pp. 9-10

COS 8.1 Environmental Resource
Protection. Preserve and maintain open space
that protects environmental resources and
protects public health and safety.

Consistent: The proposed Project would preserve approximately

11.1 acres as open space.

COS 8.2 Extension of Public Facilities . Avoid
the extension of public streets, facilities,
services, and utilities for urban uses into areas
designated as Open Space in the General Plan.

Consistent: The Project site is designated “Specific Plan” and, therefore, the development of the proposed Project would not impact an area designated “Open Space.”

CSSF 1.11 Modification of Water Courses.

Prohibit substantial modification to water
courses, unless modification does not increase
erosion or adjacent sedimentation, or increase
water velocities, so as to be detrimen tal to
adjacent property, nor adversely affect
adjacent wetlands or riparian habitat.

Consistent: As required by 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:
a. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of
Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section 404
permit is not required (i.e. Army Corps declines
jurisdiction or definition of Water of US changes
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-16 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
pursuant to Sackett vs. Environmental Protec tion
Agency;
b. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from
the RWQCB for water quality impacts related to the
permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of
Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction with the USACE 404 permit or a Was te Discharge
Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
c. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA)
from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10
acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and

1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.

The Project Applicant would be responsible for complying with all permit conditions. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to, implementation of best
management practices (i.e., erosion and sediment control measures) and seasonal work restrictions, as appropriate.

In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected
to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including
riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory
habitat acreage would be bas ed on the functions and
values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provided at a ratio of up to 1:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit
process if the agencies find that a different ratio is
sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required, evidence of th at change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and
concurrence.

CSSF 1.13 Environmental Protection. Ensure
that any substantial modification to a
watercourse is accomplished in the least
environmentally damaging manner possible to
maintain adequate wildlife corridors and
linkages and maximize groundwater recharge.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for CSSF 1.11.

LUE 5.47 Sensitive Habitat and Species .

Public and private development, operations,
and maintenance shall avoid dam aging
sensitive habitat or species, including
significant native trees, species of local
significance, and threatened and endangered
species
Consistent: Three vegetation communities/land cover types were mapped within the Project site: disturbed land; disturbed riparian; and developed land. Impacts to disturbed land and developed land would not be considered significant under CEQA and thus impacts to these land cover types would not be cumulatively considerable.

Impacts to disturbed riparian would be considered significant and require mitigation through implementation of MM BIO -4. Per the  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-17 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
MSHCP, a Local Development Mitigation Fee will be required for the total acreage of project impacts.

ME 8.37 Tree Preservation in Rights-of-Way.

Preserve mature trees with street or highway
rights-of-way that are identified as superior
examples of California native species or
naturalized tree species.

Consistent: The proposed Project would preserve London Plane Trees along Rubidoux Blvd.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
COS 7.1 Preservation of Significant Cultural
Resources. Identify, protect, and, where
necessary, archive significant paleontological,
archaeological, and historical resources.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources , 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 archeolo gical resources. In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1 described below would ensure that impacts on historical resources would be less than significant.

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.

COS 7.3 Development Review . Evaluate
Project sites for archaeological sensitivity and
for a project’s potential to uncover or disturb
cultural resources as part of development
review.

Consistent: A Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment was prepared by BFSA for the Project and included a records search, backgro
und research, and a pedestrian survey of accessible
portions of the Project site to determine the presence or absence or archaeological resources and the findings disclosed in Section

4.4, Cultural Resources.

COS 7.7 Qualified archaeologist present .

Cease construction or grading activities in and
around sites where archaeological resources
are discovered until a qualified archaeologist
knowledgeable in Native American cultures can
determine the significance of the resource and
recommend alternative mitigation measures.

Consistent: The Project incorporated Mitigation Measure CUL -1:

Cultural Resources Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Treatment Plan.

COS 7.9 Archaeological Resources
Mitigation. Require a mitigation plan to
protect resource s when a preliminary site
survey finds substantial archaeological
resources before permitting construction.

Possible mitigation measures include presence
of a qualified professional during initial grading
or trenching; project redesign; covering with a
layer of fill; and excavation, removal and
Consistent: The Project incorporated Mitigation Measure CUL -1:

Cultural Resources Monitoring Program and Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Treatment Plan.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-18 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
curation in an appropriate facility under the
direction of a qualified professional.)

LUE 5.68 CEQA Compliance . Require
mitigation of significant, adverse impacts to on-
site and adjacent, designated histo ric, or other
cultural resources as a condition of approval of
any project requiring California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) review.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policies COS 7.1, COS 7.3, COS

7.7, and COS 7.9.

LUE 5.70 New Development. Encourage
developers of residential and commercial
developments within a 300 -foot radius from a
historic resource to be compatible with the
historic resource in terms of scale, massing,
building materials, and general architectural
treatment.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.4, Cultural Resources , the Project is not located within a 300 -foot radius from a historic resource; therefore, it is not required to be compatible with a historic resource in terms of scale, massing, building materials, and general architectural treatment.

ENERGY
AQ 5.2 Energy Conservation. 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
consumption for heating and cooling, and offer
incentives, as appropriate.

Consistent: The Project would be required to implement and adhere to PPPs 4.5- 1 through 4.5 -5, which would help to reduce fuel consumption. The Project would be required to implement and adhere to PPPs and MMs in Section 4.2, Air Quality.

LUE 11.6 Energy Efficiency . Require
development projects to use energy efficient
design features in their site planning, building
design and orientation, and landscape design
that meet or exceed state energy standards.

Consistent: The Project would be required to implement and adhere to PPP 4.5- 5 CALGreen Building Standards Code (24 CCR, Part 11), PPP 4.5- 4 Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CCR, Part 6), PPP 4.5- 6 Reduce Heat-Island effect.

HE 5.1 New Construction . Encourage the
development of dwellings with energy-efficient
designs, utilizing passive and active solar
features and energy -saving features that
exceed minimum requirements in state law.

Consistent: The Project is required to submit building plans and is required to meet CALGreen Codes, CA Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards included in (PPP 4.5-4.

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
EJ 2.1 Separation of Land Uses . Require that
proposals for new sensitive land uses are
located adequate distances from freeways and
major roadways based on an analysis of
physical and meteorological conditions at the
Project site.

Consistent: The project will locate the residential units further away from SR-60 than was proposed in the existing Emerald Meadows Specific Plan and is proposing buffers between the proposed residential areas and the Industrial and Commercial Retail-Integrated uses as discussed in EJ -22 below. All residential areas of the proposed Specific Plan will be located along the southerly boundary of the Project site, at the furthest possible distance from SR-60, with additional screening/buffering provided by intervening buildings and landscaped park areas.

EJ 2.2 Sensitive Land Use Buffers . Require
that proposals for new sensitive land uses
incorporate adequate setbacks, barriers,
Consistent: As required by Specific Plan Section 3.3.4, Industrial Land Use Buffer, where there are industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any industrial building to any residential building located in a  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-19 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
landscaping, or other measures as necessary to
minimize air quality impacts.
residential district/zone. The buffer area can be used as open space, providing landscape and infrastructure improvements that can include sidewalks, trails, and other passive uses. In addition, the Specific Plan requires a 500’ buffer between a residential unit located in a residential district/zone.

EJ 2.3 School Buffers . Provide adequate
buffers between schools and industrial
facilities and transportation corridors.

Consistent: The proposed industrial area is buffered from Ina Arbuckle Elementary School, located south of 34 th Street by a public park, water quality basin , and residentially planned land.

EJ 2.4 Stationary Source Emissions . Require,
wherever possible, existing s ources of
stationary emissions near sensitive land uses to
relocate and/or incorporate measures to
minimize emissions.

Consistent: There are no existing sources of stationary emissions on the Project site.

EJ 2.5 Residential Buffers . Require that
zoning r egulations provide adequate
separation and buffering of residential and
industrial uses.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy EJ 2.2.

EJ 2.6 Mitigate Air Quality. Identify resources
for the existing sensitive receptors
experiencing adverse air qu ality issues to
incorporate measures to improve air quality
such as separation/setbacks, landscaping,
barriers, ventilation systems, air
filters/cleaners, and other measures.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy EJ 2.2. Additionally, the Project in cludes Project Design Feature (PDF) AQ -11 which requires MERV 13 filters within 500 feet of TAC sources.

EJ 2.7 Latest Technologies. Give preference in
approving commercial and industrial
development to those projects that incorporate
the latest technolo gies to reduce diesel
emissions.

Consistent: Table 4.2 -8, Summary of Required Air Pollution Reduction Measures, includes PPP 4.2-11 (Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule), PDF AQ-8 (Model Year 2010 Fleet), PDF AQ- 9 (ZE Trucks by 2030), MM AQ -11 that requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity.

EJ 2.8 Separation of Uses. Build new sensitive
land uses with sufficient buffering from
industrial facilities and uses that pose a
significant hazard to human health and safety.

The California ARB recommends that sensitive
land uses be located at least 1,000 feet from
hazardous industrial facilities.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy EJ 2.2.

EJ 2.14 Truck Idling. Seek the necessary
funding and resources to enforce the statewide
idling limit of five minutes for heavy duty diesel
vehicles with a Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
(GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more.

Consistent: The Project would be required to install signage that limits idling and implement the anti- idling regulations under State law pursuant to MM AQ-8.

EJ 2.16 Noise Mitigation. Support traffic and
highway techniques and technologies that
reduce noise impacts of vehicular traffic
through traffic calming, noise barriers,
pavement design, and other measures.

Consistent: Project operation is not expected to generate significant traf fic noise levels, and no mitigation for onsite operational traffic noise is proposed. Project operational noise impacts are expected to contribute to cumulative traffic noise impacts. Feasible mitigation is not available to reduce off- site traffic noise. Typically, feasible mitigation measures for off- site roadway noise impacts include repairing the roads with
rubberized asphalt and developing sound walls or attenuation barriers to minimize noise impacts. However, this mitigation can  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-20 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
only be imposed on onsite roadways since the Applicant would not have authorization or control to make offsite improvements.

EJ 2.19 Green Building Techniques .

Encourage public and private development to
incorporate green building techniques, such as
construction waste managem
ent practices,
optimization of energy efficiency measures,
and avoidance of toxic chemicals
Consistent: The Project would comply with the California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (see PPP 4.7-1) and the Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (California Code of Regulations [CCR], Title 24, Part 6) (see PPP 4.7 -4). Therefore, the Project would be consistent with policy EJ 2.19.

GEOLOGY AND SOILS
CSSF 1.1 Fault Rupture Hazards. When
reviewing new development, minimize fault
rupture hazards through the enforcement of
Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
provisions and the following requirements:
• Require geologic studies or analyses for new,
critical structures, such as sc hools, medical
facilities, senior or disabled housing, or other
high risk occupancies located within 0.5 mile of
all active or potentially active faults.
• Require geologic trenching studies for new
developments within all designated
Earthquake Fault Stud ies Zones, unless
adequate evidence is presented and accepted
by the City Engineer or a Building Official. The
City may also require geologic trenching for
new development located outside designated
fault zones for especially critical or vulnerable
structures or lifelines.
• Require that critical infrastructure, including
roads, bridges, and utilities be designated to
resist, without failure, their crossing of a fault,
if fault rupture occurs.
• Encourage and support efforts by the geologic
research communi
ty to better define the
locations and risks of County faults. Such efforts
could include data sharing and database
development within regional entities, State and
local governments, private organizations,
utility agencies, or universities
Consistent: As de tailed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, 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). The nearest known active fault to the Project site is the San Jacinto Fault Zone approximately 7.3 miles to the northeast.

CSSF 1.2 Geologic Investigations. Require
geological and geotechnical investigations as
part of the environmental development and
review process. This requirement shall apply to
the development of any structure proposed for
human occupancy or to unoccupied structures
whose damage could cause secondary hazards
in areas with potential for earthquake-induc ed
liquefaction, landslides, or settlement.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.6, Geology and Soils, 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 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).

CSSF 1.4 Structural Damage. Utilize the latest
approaches to minimize damage to structures
located in areas determined to have high
liquefaction potential during seismic events.

Consistent: 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 City, and be incorporated in the  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-21 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
construction of each structure, to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
AQ 3.2 Centrally Heated Facilities. Encourage
centrally heated facilities to utilize automated
time clocks or occupant sensors to control
heating.

Consistent: The Project is required to comply with current Title 24 and energy efficiency standards including the use of smart thermostats in heating and cooling systems.

AQ 5.1 Reduce solid waste . Utilize source
reduction, recycling, and other appropriate
measures to reduce the amount of solid waste
disposed of in landfills.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.15, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project would implement best practices to reduce the amount of solid waste generated during construction and operation.

AQ 9.5 GHG Thresholds. Utilize the SCAQMD
Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development
proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action
Plan (CAP).

Consistent: The 3,000 MTCO2e threshold used in this analysis is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non -industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). This threshold is also consistent with the SCAQMD’s draft interim threshold Tier 3.

CSSF 2.44 Drought-Tolerant
Landscaping. Require the use of drought -
tolerant landscaping in all new development
Consistent: As shown on Specific Plan Figure 3 -8, Conceptual Landscape Plan , the Project includes drought -tolerant plants.

Standards for landscaping requirements, inclusive of applicable irrigation requirements are established in Specific Plan Table 3- 8, Landscaping Requirements. These standards are to be used in conjunction with Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Compliance with these provisions would result in the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping at the Project site.

HE 5.2 Sustainable Design. Residential
developments should promote sustainability in
their design, placement, and
use. Sustainability can be promoted through a
variety of housing strategies, including the
following:

1. Maximize use of renewable, recycled-content
and recycled material s, and minimize use of
building
materials that require high levels of energy to
produce or that cause significant, adverse
environmental impacts.

2. Incorporate renewable energy features into
new homes, including passive solar design,
solar hot
water, solar power, and natural ventilation and
cooling.

3. Minimize thermal island effects through
reduction of heat -absorbing pavement and
increased tree shading.

4. Avoid building materials that may contribute
to health problems through the release of gases
or
Consistent: The proposed Project includes design standards to promote energy efficiency in new dwelling units.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-22 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
glass fibers into indoor air.

5. Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out,
including appropriate noise mitigation for
residential uses near
noise sources such as highways, major streets,
railroad tracks, and industrial uses.

6. Design dwellings to be economical to live in
due to reduced energy or resource use, ease of
maintenance, floor area, or durability of
materials.

7. Help inform residents, staff, and builders of
the advantages and methods of sustainable
design, and
thereby develop consumer demand for
sustainable housing.

8. Consider adopting a sustainable
development rating system, such as the LEED®
or Green Globes program.

HE 5.3 Site and Neighborhood Design .

Residential site, subdivision, and neighborhood
designs should consider sustainability. Some
ways to do this include:

1. Design subdivisions to maximize solar access
for each dwelling and site.

2. Design sites so residents have usable outdoor
space with access to sun and shade.

3. Streets and access ways should minimize
pavement devoted to vehicular use.

4. Use multi -purpose neighborhood “pocket
parks”/ retention basins to purify street runoff
prior to its
entering creeks. Retention basins shall be
designed to be visually attractive as well as
functional. Fenced off retention basins should
be avoided.

5. Encourage cluster developments with
dwellings grouped around significantly sized,
shared open space in return for City approval of
smaller individual lots.

Consistent: As required by Specific Plan Section 4.6, Sustainable Design, developments will incorporate sustainable design strategies that integrate principles of environmental stewardship into building/site design and construction. All development within the Specific Plan Area shall be subject to applicable laws of the State of California regarding water quality.

The developments
within the Specific Plan Area shall be designed in consideration of water efficiency and conservation measures. LID Best Management Practices (BMPs) should be used to infiltrate, or treat runoff from impervious surfaces, in accordance with the Design Handbook for Low Impact Development Practices.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-23 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis

6.Treat public streets as landscaped parkways,
using continuous plantings at least 6 feet wide
and, where feasible, median planters to
enhance, define, and buffer residential
neighborhoods of all densiti es from the effects
of vehicle traffic.

HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
COS 3.17 Environmental Mitigation .

Encourage and, where possible, require that
substantial modifications of a floodplain be
designed to reduce adverse environmental
effects to the maximum extent feasible,
considering the following factors:

1. Stream scour

2. Erosion protection and sedimentation

3. Wildlife habitat and linkages

4. Groundwater recharge capability

5. Adjacent property

6. Designed to achieve a natural effect.

Examples could include soft riparian bottoms,
riparian corridors within the floodway, and
gentle and modulating bank slopes, wide and
shallow floodways, minimization of visible use
of concrete, and landscaping with California
native plants to the maximum extent possible.

A site -specific hydrologic study may be
required.

Consistent. As detailed in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (100-year floodplain) designated by FEMA,
LUE 5.55 ALUP Compliance. Provide for the
orderly operation and development of Flabob
and Rivers ide Municipal Airports and the
surrounding area by complying with the
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as set forth
in Appendix 4.0, as well as any applicable
policies related to airports in the Land Use,
Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elements of the
2 017 General Plan, unless the City Council
overrides the Plan as provided for in state law.

Consistent: According to Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review File No. ZAP1038FL22 consistency letter dated September 12, 2022, it was determined that the Project is consistent with the Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility with respect to all issues potentially affecting flight operations and noise exposure. and would not pose an obstruction to air navigation.

LUE 5.58 Consistency Requirement . Review
all proposed projects and require consistency
with any applicable provisions of the Riverside
County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as
set forth in Appendix A-4.0, and require General
Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments to
achieve compliance, as appropriate.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 5.55.

LUE 5.62 Bird-attracting Uses. In accordance
with FAA criteria, avoid locating sanitary
landfills and other land uses that attract birds
within 10,000 feet of any runway used by
turbine-powered aircraft and within 5,000 feet
of other runways. Also, avoid locating
attractors of other wildlife that can be
hazardous to aircraft operations in locations
Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 5.62.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-24 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
adjacent to airports (Applies to Flabob and
Riverside Municipal Airports Overlay).

LUE 5.63 Encroachment. Ensure that no
structures or activities encroach upon or
adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 5.63.

ME 8.2 Driveway Location and Number.

Limit driveway locations and/or number based
upon the street's General Plan classification
and function. Driveways shall be located a
sufficient distance away from major
intersections and designed to allow for safe,
efficient operation and minimize traffic
conflicts
Consistent: Per Section 2.6.2, Access and Circulation, of the Specific Plan, the internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area.

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

COS 3.3 Water Quality. Employ the best
available practices for pollution avoidance and
control and encourage others to do the same.
“Best available practices” means actions and
equipment th
at result in the highest water
quality, considering available equipment, life -
cycle costs, social and environmental side
effects, and the regulations of other agencies.

Consistent: As required by Section 2.11.3, Storm Water Drainage, of the Specific Plan, all projects proposing construction activities including clearing, grading, or excavation that result in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area, or activity which is part of a larger common plan of development of one acre or greater, shall obtain the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) construction permit and pay the appropriate fees. All developments within the Specific Plan Area shall be subject to requirements adopted by the City to implement the NPDES program. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to; on-site retention; covered storage of all outside storage facilities; vegetated swales; and monitoring programs.

COS 3.9 Pollution Discharge. Minimize
pollutant discharge into storm drainage
systems and natural drainage and aquifers.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy 3.3.

CSSF 1.15 Regional Storm Drain System. All
proposed development projects shall address
and mitigate any adverse impacts on the
carrying capacity of local and regional storm
drain systems.

Consistent: As discussed in Subsection 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system.

HC 4.10 Health Risk Assessment. Require the
preparation of a Health Risk Assessment for
large development projects and projects
involving the use, storage, or distribution of
hazardous substances.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, commercial an d 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 was te 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.

LAND USE AND PLANNING
HE 4.3 Neighborhood Integration. New
neighborhoods should be an integral part of an
existing neighborhood or should establish
pedestrian, bicycle, and, where appropriate,
equestrian linkages that provide direct,
Consistent: As detailed in Section 2.6.2, Access and Internal Circulation, of the Specific Plan , the internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. Access drives off of the backbone  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-25 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
convenient, and safe access to adjacent
neighborhoods, schools, parks and shopping.

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

LUE 3.5 Residential Compatibility .

Commercial uses abutting residential
properties shall be designed to protect the
residential use from the impacts of noise,
vibration, light, fumes, odors, vehicular traffic,
parking, and safety hazards.

Consistent. Section 3.3, Development Standards , of the Specific Plan, sets forth standards to control the physical dimensions and location of structures, and site improvements amongst the various land use areas to implement the Specific Plan Guiding Principles and Project Objectives and establish well -designed development projects within the Specific Plan Area that work in harmony with each other and minimize potenti
al impacts to residential uses
within the Specific Plan Area as well as adjacent sensitive uses.

UE 7.8 Environmentally Sensitive Areas .

Prevent inappropriate development in areas
that are environmentally sensitive or subject to
severe natural hazards.

Consistent: As detailed in: Section 4.3, Biological Resources , impacts to sensitive habitats and species have been avoided or mitigated; Section 4.4 Geology and Soils, seismic hazards are not present on the site that require mitigation beyond mandatory requirements per the Building Code; Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, the Project is not at risk from flood hazards.

LUE 3.11 Environmental Compatibility and
Quality. Require commercial districts and uses
to be compatible with their environmental
setting, promote City environmental goals, and
be designed and operated to avoid or mitigate
environmental impacts.

Consistent: With adherence to the Plans Policies and Progra ms (PPPs) Project Design Features (PDFs) and mitigation measures identified in this EIR, impacts are avoided or mitigated.

LUE 3.13 Commercial Trucks. Manage
commercial truck traffic, access, loading, and
parking to minimize potential impacts on
adjacent residential and commercial
properties.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 2.6.3, Truck Circulation, of the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR- 60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallac e Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses.

Additionally, gateway monuments will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways.

LUE 4.8 Impact Mit igation of New Public
Facilities. Planning and development of new
public facilities, such as public buildings, utility
transmission lines (water, sewer,
communications and power), roads, bridges,
storage and equipment yards, and flood control
channels, shall avoid adverse impacts to prime
residential or commercial properties, or areas
with residential and commercial development
potential, and shall not adversely affect the
character and quality of life in the City’s
residential neighborhoods.

Consistent: The construction/installation of water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, dry utilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, communications, etc.), and public
facilities are subject to
Section 3.0 Land Use and Development Standards of the Specific Plan, which establishes land use and development standards to establish the desired physical form and identity of the built environment suitable for each land use.

LUE 8.1 Land Use Compatibility. Require land
to be developed and used in accordance with
the General Plan, specific plans, and community
Consistent: The Project is a Specific Plan. Consistency with General Plan policies for purposes of avoiding or minimizing an environmental effect is demonstrated in this Table 4.10-2  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-26 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
and town center plans to ensure compatibility
and minimize impacts.

General Plan Consistency Analysis . Additionally, Appendix A - General Plan Consistency of the Specific Plan details the consistency of the Specific Plan with the applicable goals and policies of the Jurupa Valley General Plan.

LUE 8.4 Buffering. Require buffering between
urban uses and adjacent rural/equestrian
oriented land uses to the maximum extent
feasible. New development shall be responsible
for providing the buffering on its own site or
off-site, where appropriate, and acceptable to
affected property owners.

Consistent: According to General Plan Figure 2 -16: Land Use Overlays, the Project site is not located within the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay zone and the surrounding properties are not designated/zoned for rural development. Notwithstanding, Sections 3.0, Development Standards , and Section 4.0, Design Guidelines, sets forth requirements for buffering impacts from the proposed development of the Specific Plan on adjacent properties.

LUE 11.10 Resident ial Compatibility .

Require non-residential uses to be designed so
that site and building entries, driveways,
parking and loading areas, trash and recycling
areas, drive-through uses, and storage bays are
located and designed to minimize conflicts with
adja
cent residential neighborhoods due to
traffic, noise, vibration, odor, lighting, and other
impacts on surrounding properties. Any
potential impacts shall be mitigated to a level of
non-significance, to the approval of the City.

Consistent. Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 3.5.

LUE 11.11 Landscape Maintenance. Require
development projects to include landscaping in
all site areas, including street trees, parking
lots, setback areas, open spaces, and other
exterior use areas. Landscaping shall include
trees, shrubs and ground covers, and an
automatic, water conserving irrigation system,
and shall be designed and maintained in
accordance with City Landscape Standards. In
addition, a priority should be placed on
preserving mature trees in place wherever
possible. Where mature trees must be removed,
they shall be replaced with an equivalent
number of large trees of the same or compatible
species.

Consistent: Section 3.6, Landscaping Requirements, sets forth standards for landscaping requirements, inclusive of applicable irrigation requirement. These standards are to be used in conjunction with JVMC Chapter 9.282.050 (Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements). All projects shall provide and maintain landscaping and irrigation in compliance with applicable sections of this Specific Plan.

LUE 11.12 Natural Features . Require
development projects, including public
projects, utilities, and earthworks/ grading, to
protect and preserve natural features, such as
unique natural terrain, rocky outcrops,
ridgelines, drainage ways, mature trees, and
native vegetation, wherever possible,
particularly where they provide continuity
with more extensive regional systems.

Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.1, Aesthetics, there is no unique natural terrain, rocky outcrops, or ridgelines on the Project site. As discussed in Section 4.3, Biological Resources, impacts to drainage ways, native vegetation, and mature trees have been avoided, minimized, or mitigated.

NOISE
NE 1.1 Land Use/Noise Compatibility. Utilize
the Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix,
Figure 7- 3, to determine the compatibility of
proposed development, including General Plan
amendments, specific plan amendments, town
Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.12, Noise, noise created by new stationary noise sources, or by existing stationary noise sources that undergo modifications that may increase noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not exceed the noise level standards of General Plan Figure 7-3.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-27 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
center plans, and rezonings, with existing land
uses and/or noise exposu re due to
transportation sources.

NE 1.2 New Development and Stationary
Noise Sources. New development of noise -
sensitive land uses near existing stationary
noise sources may be permitted only where
their location or design allows the development
to meet the standards listed in Figure 7 – 3.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for General Plan Policy NE 1.1.

NE 1.3 New or Modified Stationary Noise
Sources. Noise created by new stationary noise
sources, or by existing stationary noise sources
that undergo modifications that may increase
noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not exceed
the noise level standards. This policy does not
apply to noise levels associated with
agricultural operations existing in 2017.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for General Plan Policy NE 1.1.

NE 1.4 Acoustical Assessment . Require an
acoustical assessment for proposed General
Plan amendments and rezones that exceed the
“Normally Acceptable” thresholds of the Land
Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix.

Consistent: In the event a future Project exceeds the “Normally Acceptable” thresholds of the Land Use/Noise Compatibility Matrix, Mitigation Measure NOI- 2, Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan, will be imposed.

NE 2.2 Commercial Tru ck Deliveries.

Require commercial or industrial truck
delivery hours be limited to least -sensitive
times of the day when adjacent to noise-
sensitive land uses, unless there is no feasible
alternative or there are overriding
transportation benefits, as determined by the
Planning Director.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.12, Noise, Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan, requires any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary n oise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval.

The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).

NE 3.1 Noise Analysis. Require that a noise
analysis be conducted by an acoustical
specialist for all proposed development
projects that have the potential to generate
significant noise near a noise-sensitive land use
or on or near land designated for noise -
sensitive land uses and ensure that
recommended mitigation measures are
implemented.

Consistent: The Project included preparation of Acoustical Assessment, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, California, p repared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., May 2023. The Acoustical analysis included mitigation measures that address noise impacts during both construction and operation of the Project that reduce any impacts to noise sensitive land uses.

NE 3.2 Truck Loading, Shipping, and Parking.

Require that the lo ading, shipping, or parking
facilities of commercial and industrial land uses
that abut or are within 200 feet of residential
parcels, be located and designed to minimize
potential noise impacts upon residents.

Overnight commercial truck parking areas shall
Consistent: As required by Mitigation Measure NOI -2, Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan, any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Dire
ctor for
review and approval. The plan shall identify specific techniques  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-28 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
be regulated in the Zoning Ordinance as a
commercial use.
and measures to reduce on -site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction desi gn features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).

NE 3.4 Construction Equipment. Require that
all construction equipment utilize noise
reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine
shrouds) that are at least as effective as those
originally installed by the equipment’s
manufacturer
Consistent: As required by Mitigation Measure NOI -1,
Construction Noise Mitigation Plan , prior to issuance of gra ding and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement measures to limit construction -related noise.

NE 3.6 Commercial Truck Idling. Restrict
truck idling near noise sensitive receptors.

Consistent: As required by Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan, any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. Additionally, Mitigation Measure AQ-8 limits truck idling to five minutes, consistent with State law.

NE 3.7 Automobile -Oriented Uses. Require
that parking structures, terminals, drive -
through restaurants, automobile sales and
repair, fueling stations, mini-marts, car washes,
and similar automobile -oriented uses be sited
and designed to minimize potential noise
impacts on adjacent land uses.

Consistent: As required by Mitigation Measure NOI-2, Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan, any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval.

NE 3.8 Entertainment Uses. Minimize the
generation of excessive noise from
entertainment and restaurant/bar
establishments into adjacent residential or
noise sensitive uses.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy NE 3.7.

NE 4.2 Vibration Producing Land Uses. Avoid
the placement of vibration-producing land uses
adjacent to or within one quarter mile of
sensitive receptors.

Consistent: The operation of the Specific Plan would not include any substantial long-term vibration sources.

NE 4.3 Truck Idling. Restrict truck idling near
sensitive vibration receptors.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.12, Noise, truck idling is not expected to exceed vibration thresholds. Notwithstanding, MM NOI-2, requires preparation of a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan which would ensure that these vibration level impacts generated by future development projects would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

POPULATION AND HOUSING
HE 2.1 Retain Housing. Where feasible and
appropriate, older, sound housing should be
retained, rehabilitated, and maintained as a
Consistent: There are 11 housing units on site, seven of which would be demolished during site clearance. Based on the ave rage household size in the City of Jurupa Valley of 3.71 persons, the  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-29 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
significant part of the City’s affordable housing
stock, rather than demolishing it. Demolition of
non-historic housing may be p ermitted where
conservation of existing housing would
preclude the achievement of other housing
objectives or adopted City goals.

seven units to be demolished are estimated to house 26 persons.

The Project proposes the development of a net increase of 1,192 housing units, over 100 times the number of units that would be demolished.

CSSF 2.23 Review of Development
Proposals. Involve the school districts in the
review of large residential development
proposals to ensure that adequate schools are
provided without affecting existing facilities.

Consistent: As discu ssed in Section 3.0, t he Project does not propose a large residential development and will not impact existing school facilities.

COS 8.6 Provision of Recreation Facilities .

Require that parkland or open space dedication
and improvement occur prior to, or concurrent
with, construction, as a condition of approval of
new residential subdivisions.

Consistent: The Project proposes the construction of 1,192 new residential units including the dedication and construction of 11.1 acres of new parkland on -site. In addition, the new residential development will include on -site recreational amenities for the occupants as required by the Specific Plan and City’s Development Code.

PUBLIC SERVICES
The physical impacts as a result of expanding or constructing new or altered public service facilities is addressed under the other environmental topics in this table as applicable.

RECREATION
The physical impacts as a result of expanding or constructing new or altered recreation facilities is addressed under the other environmental topics in this table as applicable.

TRANSPORTATION
LUE 10.4 Street and Trail Connectivity .

Create street and trail networks that directly
connect local destinations and that promote
use by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists.

Consistent: Section 2.6, Circulation Plan, of the Specific Plan is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. The internal circulation betwe en land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards. The major components of the Plan include, but are not limited to:

• Minimizing the interaction between truck trips and
passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR -60 at
Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via
Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the
Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas . The
circulation plan incorporates a roundabout at the
intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses.

• Providing Multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes as a means of connecting residents and employees with
the various land uses in the Specific Plan Area. The multi -  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-30 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
use pedestrian trail is strategically aligned with the bus stop placement of proposed and relocated stops to allow for greater community access to the public amenities. The Specific Plan accommodates on -street and off -street trail facilities using multiple materials that align with the intended use.

LUE 10.5 Residential/Commercial
Connectivity. Maintain and/or provide
connectivity betw een residential and
commercial developments where appropriate.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 10.4.

ME 2.3 Development Project Impacts .

Require development projects to analyze
potential off- site traffic impacts and related
environmental impacts through the CEQA
process and to mitigate adverse impacts to less-
than significant levels.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.16, Transportation, a Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis was prepared in accordance with changes to CEQA gui delines as a replacement to LOS as the measurement for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects pursuant to SB743.

ME 2.13 Multi-Modal Level of Service. When
the City determines that there is a suitable tool
available, we will
measure and evaluate
roadway performance and CEQA compliance
and mitigation from a multi -modal, “complete
streets” perspective using vehicle miles
traveled (VMT), consistent with SB 743 and
state guidelines.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy ME 2.3.

ME 2.16 Traffic Impacts. Traffic
studies prepared for development entitlements
(e.g., tracts, plot plans, public use permits,
conditional use permits) shall identify project-
related traffic impacts and determine the
“significance” of such impacts in compliance
with CEQA.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy ME 2.3.

ME 3.11 Pedestrian Connectivity . Require
development projects and site plans to be
designed to encourage pedestrian connectivity
among buildings within a site, while linking
buildings to the public bicycle and pedestrian
network.

Consistent: Refer to analysis for Policy LUE 10.4
ME 3.17 Public Transit Connections. Ensure
safe pedestrian access from developments to
existing and future transit routes and terminal
facilities through project design.

Consistent: Refer to analysis for Policy LUE 10.4
ME 3.21 ADA Compliance . Require safe
pedestrian walkways that comply with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements within commercial, office,
industrial, mixed use, residenti al, and
recreational developments.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 10.4. Additionally, compliance with ADA requirements is mandated by the Building Code.

ME 8.2 Driveway Location and Number .

Limit driveway locations and/or number based
upon the street's General Plan classification
Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 10.4.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-31 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
and function. Driveways shall be located a
sufficient distance away from major
intersections and designed to allow for safe,
efficient operation and minimize traffic
conflicts.

ME 8.29 TDM in Development Review .

Encourage on -site features in all new non -
residential developments that support
Transportation Demand Management (TDM).

Potential features may include preferred
rideshare parking, car sharing vehicles, on-site
food service and exercise facilities.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.16, Transportation, Mitigation Measure MM TRANS -1, Transportation Demand Management,
prior to recordation of the Final Map, the Property Owner shall provide assurances that the transportation demand management measures described in the mitigation measure will be perpetually implemented, regardless of property ownership, and a mechanism for informing subsequent property owners of the transportation demand management plan requirements.

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
COS 7.8 Native American Monitoring. Include
Native American participation in the City’s
guidelines for resource assessment and impact
mitigation. Native American representatives
should be present durin g archaeological
excavation and during construction in an area
likely to contain cultural resources. The Native
American community shall be consulted as
knowledge of cultural resources expands and
as the City considers updates or significant
changes to its General Plan.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources, the City conducted government- to-government consultation with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. As a result of the consultation process, the following mitigation measures are included in the EIR:

• MM CUL -1 Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
(CRMP) requires the identification of 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 and includes tribal monitoring.

• 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.

• MM TCR -1 requires preservation in place for tribal
cultural resources or reburial.

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
CSSF 2.60 Waste Reduction . Encourage the
diversion of waste from landfills through
reduction, reuse, and recycling efforts.

Consistent: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, mandates at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of 75 percent. Project construction would involve recycling and/or salvaging
construction and demolition waste in accordance with the policy.

Based on the analysis above, project impacts regarding solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

CSSF 2.61 Waste Management . Encourage
new development to employ construc tion
waste management techniques to divert
construction materials and debris away from
the landfills.

Consistent: As required under AB 939, at least 50 percent of the Project’s waste will be diverted from landfills. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions wi thin the county, or show a plan to transform or divert their waste.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-32 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis
CSSF 2.66 Waste Diversion . Achieve at least
the minimum construction and demolition
waste diversion requirement of 75%.

Consistent: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, mandates at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of 75 percent. Project construction would involve recycling and/or salvaging
construction and demolition waste in accordance with the policy.

Based on the analysis above, project impacts regarding solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

LUE 2.3 Infrastructure . Ensure that
circulation facilities, water resources, sewer
and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities
available or provided by t
he developer are
adequate to meet the demands of a proposed
residential land use in addition to those
services and resources required to serve
existing residents and businesses. Applies to
Residential.

Consistent: Section 2.11, Infrastructure and Utility Plan, identifies the infrastructure, utilities, and public services and facilities provided to the Specific Plan area. The components of the Infrastructure and Utility Plan are water, sanitary sewer, storm water drainage, dry ut ilities (i.e., electricity, natural gas, communications, etc.), and public services and facilities (law enforcement, fire, and trash collection). Implementation of the Plan will ensure that infrastructure and utilities are available to serve the Project as development occurs.

LUE 3.6 Infrastructure . Require that new
commercial development provide adequate
parking, transportation facilities and utilities,
including sidewalks and trails, street trees,
water resources, sewer and storm water
facilities , and other utilities to serve new
businesses in addition to meeting the needs of
existing residents and businesses. Applies to
Commercial, Industrial, and Business Park.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 2.3.

LUE 12.1 Service Capacity. Ensure
that development does not exceed the City’s or
the community services districts’ or special
districts’ ability to adequately provide
supporting infrastructure and services, such as
water, wastewater treatment, energy, solid
waste and public services such as police/
fire/emergency medical services, recreational
facilities, and transportation systems.

Consistent: Refer to the analysis for Policy LUE 2.3.

LUE 12.3 Urban Water Management
Plans. Review all projects for consistency with
the appropriate community services district’s
urban water management plans.

Consistent: As detailed in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, the Project has been reviewed for consistency with the Rubidoux Community Services District’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan.

WILDFIRE
CSSF 1.23 Fire Prevention . Develop and
enforce construction and design standards that
ensure that proposed development
incorporates fire prevention features through
the following:

1. All proposed construction shall meet
minimum standards for fire safety as defined in
the City Building or Fire Codes, or by City
zoning, or as dictated by the Building Official or
the Transportation Land Management Agency
based on building type, design, occupancy, and
use.

Consistent: As discussed i n Subsection 4.13, Transportation, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right -of-way. Moreover, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with PPP 4.8 -3 which would ensure that the Project is designed and constructed to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, as discussed in Subsection 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the Project would comply with the City of Jurupa Valley Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measure s. Therefore, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CSSF 1.23.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-33 June 2023
Policy Consistency Analysis

2. In addition to the fire safety provisions of the
Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire
Codes, apply additional standards for high risk,
high occupancy hospital and health care
facilities, dependent care, emergency operation
centers, and other essential or “lifeline”
facilities, per county or state standards. These
shall include assurance that structural and
nonstructural architectural elements of the
building will not impede emergency egress for
fire safety staffing/personnel, equipment, and
apparatus; nor hinder evacuat
ion from fire,
including potential blockage of stairways or fire
doors.

3. Proposed development in Hazardous Fire
areas shall provide secondary public access,
unless determined unnecessary by CAL FIRE or
City Building Official.

CSSF 1.24 Adjacent Natural Vegetation.

Development that adjoins large areas of native
vegetation will require drought tolerant
landscaping that blends with the natural
vegetation to the greatest extent possible.

Consistent: As shown on Figure 3 -8, Conceptual Landscape Plan , the Project includes drought -tolerant plants. The Project is required to comply with Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Compliance with these provisions would result in the installation of drought-tolerant landscaping at the Project site. Therefore, the Project is consistent with General Plan Policy CSSF 1.24.

Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal)
As a metropolitan planning organization, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), is responsible for developing long -range transportation plans and a sustainability strategy for a vast and varied region. The centerpiece of that planning work is Connect SoCal, the 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). 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 pla ns a reality. Connect SoCal is an important planning document for the SCAG region, allowing public agencies who implement transportation projects to do so in a coordinated manner, while qualifying for federal and state funding.

Additionally, California Senate Bill 375, codified in 2008 in Government Code §65080 (b)(2)(B), also requires that the RTP include a sustainable communities strategy or “SCS”, which outlines growth strategies for land use and transportation and help reduce the state’s greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light duty trucks. Table 4.10-3

CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS WITH RTP/SCS
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency
RTP/SCS Goals

1. Encourage regional economic prosperity and
global competitiveness
Consistent. The proposed project would facilitate
new housing, employment, educational, and
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-34 June 2023
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency
recreational opportunities while also providing
essential infrastructure. This would promote
regional economic prosperity through new capital
investment, expansion of the tax base, and the
creation of new jobs.

2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability, and
travel safety for people and goods
Consistent. The Circulation Plan, provides new
roadways and streets to accommodate traffic
generated by the anticipated uses as well as facilitate internal vehicular access to the surrounding areas.

3. Enhance the preservation, security, and resilience
of the regional transportation system
Consistent. The Project contributes to and would be
consistent with planned land use and growth
assumptions in the City of Jurupa Valley, as
anticipated by the General Plan . The Project
proponents would pay applicable traffic mitigation
fees that would fund additional traffic improvements
in the study area and maintenance of roadway
infrastructure in the Project area. This policy
provides guidance to the City of Jurupa Valley to
monitor the transpo rtation network and to
coordinate with other agencies as appropriate. The
Project would not conflict with the City’s
transportation network or the City’s coordination
with other agencies.

4. Increase person and goods movement and travel
choices within the transportation system
Consistent. The Project allows development of
industrial warehouse uses, within a developing
industrial area and in proximity to the State highway
system, which would avoid or shorten truck -trip
lengths on other roadways . In compliance with the
CALGreen Code, interior bicycle storage would be
provided within the proposed buildings, and short -
and long-term exterior bicycle parking spaces would
be provided at each building. The Project also
includes the construction of sidewalks along
roadways adjacent to the Project site where
sidewalks do not currently exist; replacement of
older sidewalks, as necessary; and, repair of existing
sidewalks if damaged during construction.

Sidewalks would be constructed to the City’s full -
width standards.

5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve air
quality
Consistent: By implementing the measures under
the Local Jurisdictions’ Land Use Policies/Best
Practices section of this table, the Project promotes
the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and
improves air quality.

6. Support healthy and equitable communities Consistent. The Project proposes healthy communities’ components including pedestrian
paths and bicycle trails.

7. Adapt to a changing climate and support an
integrated regional development pattern and
transportation network
Consistent. Project greenhouse gas emissions
impacts were determined to be significant and
unavoidable.

8. Leverage new tran sportation technologies and
data-driven solutions that result in more efficient
travel
Inapplicable. The Project does not propose new
transportation technologies.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-35 June 2023
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency

9. Encourage development of diverse housing types
in areas that are supported by multiple
transportation options
Consistent. The Project proposes development of
housing including single -family and multifamily
units. The Project site is in an area supported by
multiple transportation options including roadways;
Riverside Transportation Agency Bus Route 29; and
the Santa Ana River Trail.

10. Promote conservation of natural and agricultural
lands and restoration of habitats
Inapplicable. Project development would involve
development of mostly vacant land previously used
as farmland. The Project site is not native habitat or
natural landscape.

SCS Strategies
Focus Growth Near Destinations & Mobility Options
Emphasize land use patterns t hat facilitate
multimodal access to work, educational and other
destinations
Consistent. See the response to Goal 6 above.

Focus on a regional jobs/housing balance to reduce
commute times and distances and expand job
opportunities near transit and along center-focused
main streets
Consistent. Project operation is expected to
generate 3,243 jobs; the Project proposes
development of 1,192 residential units. The Project
would have a neutral impact on jobs -housing
balance: the City of Jurupa Valley is expected to have
a jobs -housing balance of 1.50 in 2035 and 1.55 in
2035 with-project conditions; both values are within
the range considered as balanced.

Plan for growth near transit investments and
support implementation of first/last mile strategies
Consistent. See response to Goal 6 above.

Promote the redevelopment of underperforming
retail developments and other outmoded
nonresidential uses
Inapplicable. The Project does not propose
redevelopment.

Prioritize infill and redevelopment of underutilized
land to accommodate new growth, increase
amenities and connectivity in existing
neighborhoods
Consistent. The Project would be an infill
development on underutilized land in a largely
urbanized portion of Jurupa Valley and close to
downtown Riverside.

Encourage design and transportation options that
reduce the reliance on and number of solo car trips
(this could include mixed uses or locating and
orienting close to existing destinations)
Consistent. See the response to Goal 9 above. The
Project proposes a mix of land uses in an area with
multiple transportation modes available.

Identify ways to “right size” parking requirements
and promote alternative parking strategies (e.g.
shared parking or smart parking)
Consistent. Off-street parking prescribed by the
proposed Project does not exceed that required
under City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section

9.240.120. The Project does not propose shared
parking or smart parking.

Promote Diverse Housing Choices
• Preserve and rehabilitate affordable housing
and prevent displacement
• Identify funding opportunities for new
workforce and affordable housing development
• Create incentives and reduce regulatory barriers
for building context -
sensitive accessory
dwelling units to increase housing supply
• Provide support to local jurisdictions to
streamline and lessen barriers to housing
Consistent. Three of the four strategies listed are
policy initiatives inapplicable to an individual
development project. The City’s RHNA Allocation
determined that there is a need for 4,497 housing
units in order to meet the City’s housing needs. The
proposed Project would provide a net increase of
1,192 housing units, which would help to support the
housing needs of the City consistent with the City’s
RHNA Allocation.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-36 June 2023
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency
development that supports reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions
Leverage Technology Innovations
• Promote low emission techno logies such as
neighborhood electric vehicles, shared rides
hailing, car sharing, bike sharing and scooters by
providing supportive and safe infrastructure
such as dedicated lanes, charging and
parking/drop-off space
• Improve access to services through technology
such as telework and telemedicine, as well as
other incentives such as a “mobility wallet,” an
app-based system for storing transit and other
multi-modal payments
• Identify ways to incorporate “micro -power
grids” in communities, for example solar energy,
hydrogen fuel cell power storage and power
generation
Consistent. The Project does not propose car
sharing and bike sharing. The Western Riverside
County Council of Governments (WRCOG) Climate
Action Plan (CAP) sets forth policies and measures
supp
orting electric vehicle infrastructure and
neighborhood electric vehicles. Provision of
technology such as telework and telemedicine would
be under the control of future residential owners, not
the applicant. The Project does not propose a micro-
power grid.

Support Implementation of Sustainability Policies
• Pursue funding opportunities to support local
sustainable development implementation
projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
• Support statewide legislation that reduces
barriers to new constructi on and that
incentivizes development near transit corridors
and stations
• Support local jurisdictions in the establishment
of Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
(EIFDs), Community Revitalization and
Investment Authorities (CRIAs), or other tax
increment or value capture tools to finance
sustainable infrastructure and development
projects, including parks and open space
• Work with local jurisdictions/communities to
identify opportunities and assess barriers to
implement sustainability strategies
• Enhance partnerships with other planning
organizations to promote resources and best
practices in the SCAG region
• Continue to support long range planning efforts
by local jurisdictions
• Provide educational opportunities to local
decisions makers and staff on new tools, best
practices and policies related to implementing
the Sustainable Communities Strategy
Inapplicable. The strate gies are policy initiatives
inapplicable to an individual development project.

Promote a Green Region
• Support development of local climate adaptation
and hazard mitigation plans, as well as project
implementation that improves community
resiliency to climate change and natural hazards
Consistent. See response to Goal 7.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-37 June 2023
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency
• Support local policies for renewable energy
production, reduction of urban heat islands and
carbon sequestration
Inapplicable. The strategy is a policy initiative
inapplicable to an individual development project.
• Integrate local food production into the regional
landscape
Inapplicable. The proposed Project would not
integrate local food production.
• Promote more resource efficient development
focused on conservation, recycling and
reclamation
Inapplicable. The strategy is a policy initiative
inapplicable to an individual development project.
• Preserve, enhance and restore regional wildlife
connectivity
Inapplicable. The Project site is not a regional
wildlife corridor or a nursery site.
• Reduce consumption of resource areas,
including agricultural land
Inapplicable. The Project site is not agricultural
land.
• Identify ways to improve access to pub lic park
space
Consistent. The Project includes 11.1 acres of
proposed parks and open space, and is opposite the
Santa Ana River from two City of Riverside parks and
the Santa Ana River Trail.

Local Jurisdictions’ Land Use Policies/Best Practices
PMM-TRA-1: In accordance with provisions of
sections 15091(a)(2) and 15126.4(a)(1)(B) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, a Lead Agency for a
project can and should consider mitigation
measures to reduce su bstantial adverse effects
related to transportation -related impacts, as
applicable and feasible. Such measures may
include the following or other comparable
measures identified by the Lead Agency:

• Transportation demand management (TDM)
strategies shoul
d be incorporated into
individual land use and transportation projects
and plans, as part of the planning process. Local
agencies should incorporate strategies
identified in the Federal Highway
Administration’s publication: Integrating
Demand Management in to the Transportation
Planning Process: A Desk Reference (August
2012) into the planning process (FHWA 2012).

For example, the following strategies may be
included to encourage use of transit and non -
motorized modes of transportation and reduce
vehicle miles traveled on the region’s roadways:
• include TDM mitigation requirements for
new developments;
• incorporate supporting infrastructure for
non-motorized modes, such as, bike lanes,
secure bike parking, sidewalks, and crosswalks;
• provide incentives to use alternative modes
and reduce driving, such as, universal transit
passes, road and parking pricing;
• parking management programs, such as
parking cash -out, priority parking for carpools
and vanpools;
Consistent: As required by Mitigation Measure
TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management
Program, the Project shall provide assurances that
the transportation demand management measures
consistent with the measures identified in the
Connect SoCal Plan.
 SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-38 June 2023
Applicable SCS Strategies Project Consistency
• develop TDM -specific performance
measures to ev aluate project -specific and
system-wide performance;
• incorporate TDM performance measures in
the decision -making process for identifying
transportation investments
• implement data collection programs for
TDM to determine the effectiveness of certain
strategies and to measure success over time; and
•  set aside funding for TDM initiatives.
•  The increase in per capita VMT on
facilities experiencing LOS F represents a
significant impact compared to existing
conditions. To assess whether implementati on
of these specific mitigation strategies would
result in measurable traffic congestion
reductions, implementing actions may need to
be further refined within the overall parameters
of the proposed Plan and matched to local
conditions in any subsequent pr oject-level
environmental analysis.

Sources: SCAG, 2020a
RTP/SCS Goals are set forth in Chapter 1, About the Plan.

SCS Strategies are set forth in Chapter 3, A Path to Greater Access, Mobility & Sustainability.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: As shown above in Tables 4.10-3 through 4.10-5, project development would not conflict with relevant policies of the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan or the SCAG RTP/SCS, and 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.

4.10.7 Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site that are shown on Table 4.0-2 – Cumulative Development Land Use Summary.

As discussed under Threshold a, the Project site is characterized as predominantly vacant land, with limited previous development of older residential properties. The surrounding neighborhoods have been developed over time with residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Because the Project site is bordered by SR-60 to the north, 34
th Street and existing residences to the south, the Santa Ana River to the east and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west, it is essentially an infill development site.

Therefore, the Project will not divide an established community and there will be no impact.  SECTION 4.10 – LAND USE AND PLANNING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.10-39 June 2023
Therefore, the Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact with respect to a physical division of an established community.

As discussed under Threshold b, the Project would not conflict with any other aspects of the City’s General Plan or any other applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects. Cumulative development would also be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted land use plans, policies, or regulations. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with the General Plan and environmental polici es that would result in adverse physical environmental effects. Thus, it is expected that the land uses of cumulative projects would be consistent with policies that avoid an environmental effect; therefore, cumulatively considerable impacts from cumulative projects related to policy consistency would be less than significant.
 SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-1 June 2023

4.11 Mineral Resources
Minerals are naturally occurring chemical element s or compound s, or groups of elements and compounds, formed from inorganic processes and organic substances, includi ng, but not limited to, coal, peat, and bituminous rock, but excluding geothermal resources, natural gas, and petroleum (California Public Resources Code Section, 2005).

4.11.1 Existing Conditions
San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region
The Project site is in the San Bernardino Production- Consumption (P-C) Region that spans much of the parts of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley in San Bernardino and Riverside counties and most of the San Jacinto Basin in Riverside County.

Aggregate Production, Reserves, and Resources
Total production of Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) -grade aggregate —that is, the grade most commonly used in construction—in the San Bernardino P-C Region in 2006, the latest year for which data are available, was approximately 19.7 million tons (CGS, 2008).

Reserves are aggregate that has been determined to be acceptable for commercial use; they are in properties owned or leased by aggregate producing companies, and for which permits have been issued allowing mining and processing of the material . PCC- grade aggregate reserves in the San Bernardino P -C region were estimated at 287 million tons in 2008. In 2008 those reserves were estimated to be depleted in 2024, given forecast consumption rates (CGS, 2008).

Resources include reserves and all of th e potentially usable aggregate materials that may be mined in the future, but for which no permit allowing mining has been issued, or for which marketability has not yet been established. PCC-grade aggregate resources in the San Bernardino P -C region were estimated at approximately 6 billion tons in 2008 (CGS, 2008).

Oil and Gas
Two oil and gas fields – the Prado-Corona Field and part of the Mahala Field – are present in Riverside County, both next to the west County boundary; the balance of the Mahala Field is in San Bernardino County. Both of those fields are near the City of Corona; no fields are in the City of Jurupa Valley and as such there are no oil and gas wells in close proximity to the Project. (CalGEM, 2022). Oil production in Riverside County in 2019, the latest year for which data are available, was 8,181 barrels. Natural gas production in 2019 was approximately 27 million cubic feet (CalGEM, 2020). All oil and natural gas production was from the Mahala Field.

City of Jurupa Valley
Mines
Four mines are mapped in the City of Jurupa Valley on Mines Online , the database maintained by the Division of Mine Reclamation.
• Crestmore Quarry, north of the Project site, produced quartz crystals and is closed.  SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-2 June 2023
• Pacific Ridge Industrial Park (River View Pit), a sand and gravel mine north of the Project site, appears in aerial photos to have been closed and the land reclaimed. • Avalon Mine is listed as an open pit sand and gravel mine north of the Project site. No open pit mine is visible at this location in Google Maps satellite view, but a sand supplier operates very close to the indicated location of the mine.
• Quality Aggregates Inc. open pit sand and gravel mine, northwest of the Project site, is operational.

Mineral Resource Sectors
Sectors are areas that have been classified as Mineral Resource Zone 2 (MRZ-2) by the State Geologist, and that have current land uses deemed compatible with potential mining – such as non-urbanized land and land used for agriculture, grazing, or open space – by the SMGB.

Sectors E -20 and E- 22 are within the Project site, as shown on Figure 4.11-1. Sector E- 20 encompasses 37.6 acres in the east half of the site; PCC-grade aggregate resources were estimated at

5.3 million tons in 2008. Sector E-22 encompasses 41.3 acres in the southeast quadrant of the site; PCC-grade aggregate resources were estimated at 6.1 million tons in 2008. No PCC -grade aggregate reserves were identified in either sector (CGS, 2008).

Sector E-19 is in the Santa Ana River next to the east site boundary. Sector E-24 is partly in the Santa Ana River south of Sector E-19, and partly south of both the Project site and Flabob Airport. Most of the part of Sector E- 24 south of Flabob Airport is mapped as lost to land use s incompatible with mining.

The remaining sectors in the City of Jurupa Valley, Sectors D-2 (part) and D-4 through D-6, are in the northwest part of the City; all are mapped as lost to land uses incompatible with mining (CGS, 2008).

Project Site
The Project site is in MRZ-2, indicating that significant mineral resources are present or considered likely to be present (CGS, 2008); see Figure 4.11 -1. Sectors E-20 and E-22 are in the east half of the Project site. However, commitments of land for development – such as approved tracts or specific plans – restrict the accessibility of such land for mining (CGS, 2008b). Mining is prohibited onsite under the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan.

4.11.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
No comments on Project impacts on mineral resources or mines were received during the EIR scoping phase.

 SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-3 June 2023
Figure 4.11-1

MINERAL RESOURCE ZONES AND SECTORS

 SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-4 June 2023

4.11.3 Regulatory Framework
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act: California Public Resources Code §§ 2710 et seq.

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) is the primary law regulating mining in the State. It delegates specific regulatory authority to local jurisdictions. The act requires the S tate Geologist ( i.e., California Geological Survey) to identify important mineral deposits in the state threatened by land uses that would be incompatible with future extraction and classify them into mineral resource zones. Local jurisdictions are required to enact specific procedures to guide mineral conservation and extraction at identified sites and to incorporate mineral resource management policies (MRMPs) into their general plans.

State Mining & Geology Board
The State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) provides professional expertise and serves as a regulatory, policy and hearing body representing the state's interest in the development, utilization and conservation of mineral resources, the reclamation of mined lands, and the developme nt and dissemination of geologic and seismic hazard information. The nine -member SMGB operates within the Department of Conservation and is granted certain autonomous responsibilities and obligations under several statutes, including the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, and the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act.

Division of Mine Reclamation
The Division of Mine Reclamation (DMR) oversees local governments in administering SMARA. DMR may provide comments to lead agencies on a mining operation’s reclamation plan and financial assurance and, jointly with SMGB, is charged with encourag ing SMARA compliance. The primary focus is on existing mining operations and reclaiming mined lands to a usable and safe condition for subsequent land uses. Issues related to abandoned legacy mines are addressed in the Abandoned Mine Lands program.

California Geological Survey
The California Geological Survey (CGS) provides objective geologic ex pertise and information about California’s nonfuel mineral resources, including their related hazards, through maps and reports to assist governmental agencies, mining companies, consultants, and the public in recognizing, developing, and protecting important mineral resources.

Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources
The Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR) oversees the drilling, operation, maintenance and plugging and abandonment of oil, natural gas and geothermal wells in order to protect the environment, prevent pollution and ensure public safety. All California oil and gas wells (development and prospect wells), enhanced-recovery wells, water-disposal wells, service wells (i.e., structure, observation, temperature observation w ells), core-holes, and gas -storage wells, onshore and offshore (within three nautical miles of the coastline), located on state and private lands, are permitted, drilled, operated, maintained, plugged and abandoned under requirements and procedures administered by DOGGR.
 SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-5 June 2023
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
Approximately 301 acres are designated in the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan as Open Space – Mineral Resources; this land permits mineral extraction and processing and may be held in reserve for future mineral extraction and processing. The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to minerals and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

4.11.4 Methodology
The methodology used for this section consisted of determining what Mineral Resource Zone and Mineral Resource Sector the Project site is mapped in by the CGS; locating mines in the City of Jurupa Valley mapped by the DMR; locating oil and gas wells mapped by the DOGGR; and identifying mineral resource areas in the City of Jurupa Valley referenced in the City’s General Plan.

4.11.5 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 mineral resources impacts. The Project would have a significant impact related to mineral resources if it would:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) MRZ -1 or MRZ-2 as shown on General Pl an Fig1,1re 4-16-jurupa Valley Mineral Resources.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located on land designated as Open Space, Mineral Resources (OS-MIN) by the General Plan..

4.11.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) MRZ -1 or MRZ-2 as shown on General Plan Fig1,1re 4-16-jurupa Valley Mineral Resources
A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies and Programs (PPPs)
 SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-6 June 2023
No plans, policies, or programs apply to Project impacts on mineral resources.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No Project design features apply to Project impacts on mineral resources.

A.2 Impact Analysis
The Project site contains two mineral resource sectors, E- 20 and E -22, which combined span approximately 79 acres in the eastern half of the Project site . The CGS acknowledges that commitments of land for development, such as specific plans, constrain the availabilit y of that land for mining (SMGB, 2004, p. 7). Mining is prohibited onsite under the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and would also be prohibited under the proposed Specific Plan. Because Mining is not permitted under either the existing Specific Plan or Project, there is no loss of a mineral resource and development of the Project on mineral resources would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Project impacts on availability of mineral resources would be less than significant.

A.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold b): Would project development cause the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site is located on land designated as Open Space, Mineral Resources (OS-MIN) by the General Plan.

B.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 mineral resources.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to Project impacts on mineral resources.

B.2 Impact Analysis
No mine is identified on or next to the Project site in the City’s General Plan, Specific Plan, or other Land Use Plans, and the Project site is not designated Open Space – Mineral Resources in the General  SECTION 4.11 – MINERAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.11-7 June 2023
Plan which allow for mineral extraction and processing facilities (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017, p. 2 - 28). Development of the Project would not cause a loss of availability of a mining site delineated in the City’s General Plan and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on availability of mining sites would be less than significant.

B.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.11.7 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic area considered for cumulative impacts is the San Bernardino Producti on- Consumption Region (Region), which spans most of the Upper Santa Ana River Valley in southwest San Bernardino County and the northwest corner of Riverside County, and most of the San Jacinto Basin in western Riverside County. Mineral resource sectors in the Region total approximately 22,293 acres containing approximately six billion tons of aggregate resources and 287 million tons of reserves. (CGS, 2008a).

As population increases in the region, greater demand will be placed on aggregate and other mineral resources, especially sand and gravel. Similarly, development pressures in areas where these materials are known or expected to occur would cause the loss of availability of some of these mineral resources. The anticipated consumption of aggregate in th e San Bernardino Production- Consumption Region from 2007 through the year 2057 is estimated to be 1,131 million tons, of which 735 million tons must be PCC quality. There remains an estimated 5,986 million tons of unpermitted PCC-grade aggregate resources in the San Bernardino Production-Consumption Region (CGS, 2008a).

Mineral resource development within the San Bernardino Production- Consumption Region will be conducted in accordance with SMARA, which requires all cities and counties to incorporate into their General Plans the mapped designations approved by the State Mining Board. Both Riverside County’s and the City’s General Plan policies require future development to coordinate carefully between proposed mining and existing development, or between existing mining and proposed development.

These policies would ensure that the cumulative impacts on availability of mineral resources within the City would be less than significant.

The proposed Project ’s impacts on availability of mineral resources would not be cumulatively considerable because there are no available resources on the Project site as discussed in greater detail above.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-1 June 2023

4.12 Noise
Overview
This section analyzes the potential impacts from noise and vibration that would result from project construction and operation, and includes a discussion of the characteristics of sound and groundborne vibration as well as regulations, standards, and plans for controlling noise and vibration exposures. The section identifies sensitive noise receivers surrounding the Project site, and presents the results of ambient noise sampling at six nearby noise sensitive receivers. Short -term (construction) noise and vibration exposure estimates are quantified, and a qualitative discussion of operational impacts is presented with recommendations for mitigation measures for noise generated by project construction and operations. Finally, cumulative noise impacts are discussed. This section is based on the Acoustical Assessment- The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan completed by Kimley- Horn in May 2023 (Kimley-Horn, 2023f). A complete copy of this assessment is included as Appendix D18 to this DEIR.

Characteristics of Sound
Sound is a pressure wave transmitted through the air. It is described in terms of loudness or amplitude (measured in decibels), frequency or pitch (measured in hertz [Hz] or cycles per second), and duration (measured in seconds or minutes). The dec ibel (dB) scale is a logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Because the human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies, a special frequency -dependent rating scale is used to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against upper and lower frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. The scale is based on a reference pressure level of 20 micropascals (zero dBA). The scale ranges from zero (for the average least perceptible sound) to about 130 (for the average human pain level).

Noise Measurement Scales
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze adverse effects of community noise on people.

Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of noise on people depends largely upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as follows:
• Leq, the equivalent noise level, is an average of sound level over a defined time period (such as one minute, 15 minutes, one hour, or 24 hours). Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy to the ear during exposure.
• L
90 is a noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location; it is often used as a measure of “background” noise.
• Lmax is the root mean square (RMS) maximum noise level during the measurement interval.

This measurement is calculated by taking the RMS of all peak noise levels within the sampling interval. L max is distinct from the p eak noise level, which only includes the single highest measurement within a measurement interval.
• CNEL, the Community Noise Equivalent Level, is a 24 -hour average Leq with a

4.77-A-weighted decibel (dBA) “penalty” added to noise during the hours of 7:00 p.m. to  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-2 June 2023
10:00 p.m., and a 10-dBA penalty added to noise during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. to account for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2009). The logarithmic effect of these additions is that a 60-dBA 24-hour Leq would result in a calculation of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
• Ldn, the day-night average noise, is a 24-hour average Leq with an additional 10-dBA “penalty” added to noise that occurs between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The L dn metric yields values within 1 dBA of the CNEL metric. As a matter of practice, Ldn and CNEL values are considered to be equivalent and are treated as such in this assessment.

Groundborne Vibration
Vibration is sound radiated through the ground. Groundborne noise is the rumbling sound caused by the vibration of building interior surfaces. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as peak particle velocity (PPV) in inches per second (“In/Sec”) and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB).

Typical outdoor sources of perceptible groundborne vibration are construction equipment and traffic on rough roads.

4.12.1 Existing Conditions
Noise Sources
The City of Jurupa Valley is mostly urbanized. Transportation related noise is the primary noise source in the city. Other noise sources include noise generated from commercial, residential and recreational activities ( Kimley-Horn, 2023f, p. 21). Existing traffic noise levels within the Project traffic study area range from 40.8 dBA CNEL to 66.0 dBA CNEL 100 feet from roadway centerlines.

Noise-Sensitive Receivers
Noise sensitive uses typically include residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly. Vibration sensitive receivers are generally similar to noise sensitive receivers but may also include businesses, such as research facilities and laboratories that use vibration -sensitive equipment. The existing sensitive receivers that are nearest to the Project site are listed in Table 4.12-1. These receivers would be exposed to noise during project construction and operations.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-3 June 2023
Table 4.12-1

NEAREST EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEIVERS

Sensitive Land Use Distancea and Direction from Project Site Single-family Residential: NAP 1 Adjacent to the Project site Single-family Residential: NAP 2 Adjacent to the Project site Single-family Residential Adjacent to the south and southwest Single-family Residential Approximately 110 feet to the west Multi-family Residential Approximately 110 feet to the west Multi-family Residential Approximately 200 feet to the south Live Church of God in Christ Adjacent to the south
New Century Baptist Church Adjacent to the southeast
Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church Approximately 60 feet to the south Life Church of God in Christ Approximately 200 feet to the southwest Ina Arbuckle Elementary School Approximately 470 feet to the southwest Fairmount Park Approximately 2,300 feet to the east
Source: Distances measured on Google Earth, 2022.
a Distances are from site boundary closest to property line of sensitive receiver; they are not the distances used for noise or vibration exposure calculations.

Ambient Noise Levels
In order to characterize existing noise levels, Kimley- Horn conducted ambient noise sampling at six locations in the general project area including (ST-1) located near the single-family residences to the northwest, (ST-2) near the single-family residences within the Project boundary, (ST-4 & 5) near the single-family residences adjacent to the south and southwest; these are shown in Figure 4.12 -1.

Table 4.12-2 lists the measurement points, sampling locations, and measurement results. The purpose of this noise monitoring was to obtain data on background noise in the Project area, so that the change in noise exposure due to the Project could be evaluated.

The samples were taken between 10:41 a.m. and 11:58 a.m. on Tuesday, April 26, 2022. The 10-minute L
eq values ranged from 51.8 to 68.5 dBA. The lowest of these values was measured at Point 3, which is located outside a single-family residence at 4725 Circle Lazy J Road in the City of Riverside east of the site. The highest value was measured on a vacant lot at 3259 Rubidoux Boulevard opposite Rubidoux Boulevard from the west site boundary.

Table 4.12-2

MEASURED AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
Location Sampling Location 10-Minute Leq (dBA)
ST-11 2862 Razor Way, Jurupa Valley 68.3
ST-2 100 feet north of 2861 Wallace Street, Jurupa
Valley 65.0
ST-3 4725 Circle Lazy J Road, Riverside 51.8
ST-4 5160 24th Street, Jurupa Valley 60.9
ST-5 5364-5400 34th Street, Jurupa Valley 59.5
ST-6 3259 Rubidoux Boulevard, Jurupa Valley 68.5
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023f.
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-4 June 2023

4.12.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
No comments respecting noise or vibration were received during the scoping process.

4.12.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
There are no relevant federal regulations that apply to the Project.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-5 June 2023
Figure 4.12-1

NOISE MONITORING LOCATIONS

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-6 June 2023
State
California Government Code
California Government Code Section 65302(f) mandates that the legislative body of each county and city adopt a noise element as part of its comprehensive general plan. The local noise element must recognize the land use compatibility guidelines established by the State Department of Health Services. The guidelines rank noise land use compatibility in terms of “normally acceptable”, “conditionally acceptable”, “normally unacceptable”, and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. Single -family homes are “normally acceptable” in exterior noise environments up to 60 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. Multiple- family residential uses are “normally acceptable” up to 65 CNEL and “conditionally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL. School s, libraries, and churches are “normally acceptable” up to 70 CNEL, as are office buildings and business, commercial, and professional uses.

Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Noise Element (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) identifies policies to minimize the impacts of excessive noise levels throughout the City and establish noise level compatibility guidelines for all land uses ( Kimley-Horn, 2023f, pp. 15 -17). The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to noise and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

The goal of the Jurupa Valley General Plan (General Plan) Noise Element is to actively minimize the effects of noise and vibrations on sensitive receptors. In the Noise Element, the City of Jurupa Valley (City) describes how it intends to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of excessive noise exposure on its residents, employees, visitors, and other persons. To assist with meeting this goal, the City has adopted noise criteria for land use planning purposes, as shown in Table 4.12-3 . These criteria set outdoor noise level standards that are normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable for a variety of land uses.

Table 4.12-3

LAND USE COMPATIBILITY FOR COMMUNITY NOISE SOURCES
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
DNL or CNEL, dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential–Low Density
Single-family, Duplex, Mobile
Homes

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-7 June 2023
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
DNL or CNEL, dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residential–Multi-family

Transient Lodging–Motels,
Hotels

Schools, Libraries, Churches,
Hospitals, Nursing Homes

Auditoriums, Concert Halls,
Amphitheaters

Sports Arenas, Outdoor
Spectator Sports

Playgrounds, Neighborhood
Parks

Golf Courses, Riding Stables,
Water Recreation,
Cemeteries

Office Buildings, Business
Commercial and Professional

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-8 June 2023
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
DNL or CNEL, dB
55 60 65 70 75 80
Industrial, Manufacturing,
Utilities, Agriculture

Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is satisfactory, based upon the assumption that any buildings involved are of normal conventional construction, without any special insulation requirements.

Conditionally Acceptable: New construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features are included in the design.

Normally Unacceptable: New construction or development should generally be discouraged. If new construction or development does proceed, a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements must be made and needed noise insulation features included in the design.

Clearly Unacceptable: New construction or development clearly should not be undertaken.

Source: City of Jurupa Valley. 2017. City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. January.

4.12.4 Methodology
Construction
Construction noise levels were based on typical noise levels generated by construction equipment as published by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Construction noise is assessed in dBA L
eq. This unit is appropriate because L eq can be used
to describe the noise level from operation of each piece of equipment separately, and levels can be combined to represent the noise level from all equipment operating during a given period.

Construction noise was estimated with the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RC NM).

Reference noise levels are used to estimate operational noise levels at nearby sensitive receivers based on a standard noise attenuation rate of 6 dB per doubling of distance (line -of-sight method of sound attenuation for point sources of noise).

Noise level estimates do not account for the presence of intervening structures or topography, which may reduce noise levels at receptor locations. Therefore, the noise levels presented herein represent a conservative, reasonable worst -case estimate of actual temporary construction noise. The City of Jurupa Valley has established daytime (80 dBA L
eq) and nighttime (70 dBA L eq) construction noise
thresholds for noise-sensitive receivers (Kimley-Horn, 2022f, p. 25).

Operations (Stationary)
The analysis of the “Without Project” and “With Project” noise environments is based on noise prediction modeling and empirical observations. Reference noise level data were used to estimate the Project’s operational noise impacts from stationary sources. Noise levels collected from field  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-9 June 2023
noise measurements and other published sources for similar types of activities were used to estimate noise levels expected with the project’s stationary sources. The reference noise levels were used to represent a worst -case noise environment, as noise levels from stationary sources can vary throughout the day..

Traffic Noise
An analysis was conducted of the Project’s effect on traffic noise conditions at offsite land uses.

Without Project traffic noise levels were compared to With Project traffic noise levels. Traffic data used in the model was obtained from the Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) prepared for the Project (Appendix D20.0 and D20.1). The environmental baseline is the Without Project condition. The Without Project and With Project traffic noise levels in the Project vicinity were calculated using the FHWA Highway Noise Prediction Model (FHWA-RD-77-108). The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependent upon such factors as the source -to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures (walls and buildings), barriers, and topography. The noise attenuating effects of changes in elevation, topography, and intervening structures were not included in the model.

Therefore, the modeling effort is considered to be a worst-case representation of the roadway noise.

In general, a 3-dBA increase in traffic noise is barely perceptible to people, while a 5-dBA increase is readily noticeable.

Vibration
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction- related activities for the Project were evaluated utilizing typical groundborne vibration levels associated with construction equipment, obtained from FTA published data for construction equipment. Potential groundborne vibration impacts related to building/structure damage and interference with sensitive existing operations were evaluated, considering the distance from construction activities to nearby land uses. As shown in Table 4.12-4, the City has established 0.2 in/sec PPV as the vibration threshold.

4.12.5 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, set forth the following significance thresholds and criteria for noise impacts. The Project would have a significant impact related to noise if it would result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

Construction:
1) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5: Construction Noise . Limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high-noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.; and
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-10 June 2023
2) Construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, Operational Noise (Stationary):

The project may have a significant impact if:
3) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 1.3 New or modified stationary Noise Sources. Noise created by new stationary noise sources, or by existing stationary noise sources that undergo modifications that may increase noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not exceed the noise level standards of General Plan Figure 7-3. This policy does not apply to noise levels associated with agricultural operations existing in 2017, If the existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity (as described in a noise study approved by the City), exceed the noise levels in General Plan Figure 7- 3, the impact is significant and requires mitigation,
Operational Noise (Transportation):
4) A project may have a significant impact if traffic generated by the project would result in a noticeable increase in roadway noise in areas where exterior noise is already in excess of City standards. A noticeable increase in roadw ay noise would occur in traffic noise increased by 3 dBA or more.

b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if it:

Creates construction or operational vibration in excess of 0.20 PPV inch/second adjacent to or within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project may have a significant impact if it generates aircraft noise that exposes people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within the Flabob Airport or Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to noise levels in excess of the noise standards of said plans.

The City’s noise significance thresholds are based on the General Plan Noise Element as shown in Table 4.10-2, General Plan Consistency Analysis, above, and are summarized in Table 4.12-4 below.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-11 June 2023
Table 4.12-4
SUMMARY OF THE CITY’S NOISE AND VIBRATION SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS

Analysis Receiving
Land Use

Condition(s) Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime

Off-Site Noise-Sensitive If ambient < 65 dBA CNEL1 Project plus ambient > 65 dBA CNEL and a ≥ 3 dBA CNEL project increase
Non-Noise-
Sensitive
If ambient < 70 dBA CNEL1 Project plus ambient > 70 dBA CNEL and a ≥ 3 dBA CNEL project increase2
Operational
Noise-Sensitive
Exterior Noise Level Standards2 65 dBA Leq 45 dBA Leq
If ambient > 65 dBA Leq1 ≥ 3 dBA Leq project increase
Vibration Level Threshold2 0.2 in/sec PPV
Construction Noise-Sensitive
Limit construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high -noise- generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) 3 Noise Level Threshold2 80 dBA Leq 70 dBA Leq
Vibration Level Threshold2 0.2 in/sec PPV
Notes: "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.; "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity.

Sources:
1 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Noise Element Policy NE 1.5 and Figure 7-3 normally acceptable noise exposure. 2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA, 2018). 3 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy NE 3.5.

4.12.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-12 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

Construction:
1) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5: Construction Noise. Limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high -noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.; and
2) Construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Transi t Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual,
Operational Noise (Stationary):

The project may have a significant impact if:
3) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 1.3 New or modified stationary Noise Sources. Noise created by new stationary noise sources, or by existing stationary noise sources that undergo modifications that may increase noise levels, shall be mitigated so as not exceed the noise level standards of General Plan Figure 7 -3. This policy does not apply to noise levels associated with agricultural operations existing in 2017, If the existing ambient noise levels in the project vicinity (as described in a noise study approved by the City), exceed the noise levels in General Plan Figure 7 -3, the impact is significant and requires mitigation,
Operational Noise (Transportation):
4) A project may have a significant impact if traffic generated by the project would result in a noticeable increase in roadway noise in areas where exterior noise is already in excess of City standards. A noticeable increase in roadway noise would occur in traffic noise increased by 3 dBA or more.

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 that apply to the Project and which effectively reduce or avoid impacts from noise. These requirements are also included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance.

PPP 4.12-1 In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.4 Construction Equipment, it shall be required that all construction equipment utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as tho se originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-13 June 2023
PPP 4.12-2 In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.5 Construction Noise , commercial construction activities shall be limited within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, betwe en 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and high noise- generating construction activities shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
The proposed Project would include all applicable mandatory features pertaining to federal, Sta te, and/or local noise regulations and standards. The Project does not include any specific project design features related to noise beyond those already required.

A.2 Impact Analysis
Construction Impacts
Based on the City’s significance criteria, construction noise would result in a significant impact if the Project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5: Construction Noise, and construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Trans it Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. Both conditions would need to be met to identify a potentially significant impact under the City’s thresholds.

In addition, as stated in PPP 3.13-1 above, the proposed Project must comply with General Plan Policy NE 3.4 Construction Equipment, which requires all construction equipment to utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer. Furthermore, as stated in PPP 4.13-2 above, the proposed Project must comply with General Plan Policy NE 3.5, Construction Noise, which limits commercial construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limits high noise-generating construction activities to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. To ensure compliance with these requirements, MM NOI -1 requires the construction contractor to designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for respondi ng to any complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator would be responsible for responding to complaints and for identifying measures to correct any problem.

Development of the proposed Project is expected to result in construction act ivities within the planned area. Noise impacts from construction activities associated with the proposed Project would be a function of the noise generated by construction equipment, equipment location, sensitivity of nearby land uses, and the timing and duration of the construction activities.

For future development projects, two types of short -term noise impacts would occur during site preparation and project construction. The first type would result from the increase in traffic flow on local streets, associated with the transport of workers, equipment, and materials to and from the Project site. The transport of workers and construction equipment and materials to a development site would incrementally increase noise levels on access roads leading to the s ite. Typically, a doubling of the ADT hourly volumes on a roadway segment is required in order to result in an increase of 3 dBA in traffic noise levels, which, as discussed in the characteristics of noise discussion above, is the lowest change that can be perceptible to the human ear in outdoor environments.

Individual development project’s construction trips would not be expected to double the hourly or daily traffic volumes along roadway segments in the vicinity of a development site. For this reason, short-term intermittent noise from construction trips would not be expected to result in a perceptible increase in hourly or daily average traffic noise levels. Therefore, short -term  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-14 June 2023
construction-related noise impacts associated with the transportation of wo rkers and equipment to a development site would be less than significant.

For future development projects, the second type of short -term noise impact is related to noise generated during site preparation, grading, and construction activities. Construction is performed in discrete steps, each of which has its own mix of equipment, and consequently, its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on-site. Thus, the noise levels vary as construct ion progresses. Despite the variety in the types and sizes of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. Table 4.12 -5 shows typical noise levels of construction equipment as measured at a distance of 50 feet from the operating equipment.

Table 4.12-5

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVELS
Type Lmax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Backhoe 80
Grader, Dozer, Excavator, Scraper 85
Truck 88
Concrete Mixer 85
Pneumatic Tool 85
Pump 76
Saw, Electric 76
Air Compressor 81
Generator 81
Paver 89
Roller 74
Source: FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

The site preparation phase, which includes excavation and grading activities, generates the highest noise levels because the noisiest construction equipment is earthmoving equipment. Earthmoving equipment includes excavating machinery and compacting equipment, such as bulldozers, draglines, backhoes, front loaders, roller compactors, scrapers, and graders. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve 1 or 2 minutes of full power operation followed by 3 or 4 minutes at lower power settings.

Development projects that could occur with implementation of the proposed Project would be expected to require the use of scrapers, bulldozers, water trucks, haul trucks, and pickup trucks.

Based on the information provided in Table 4.12 -5 above, the maximum noise level generated by each scraper is assumed to be 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet from this equipment. Each bulldozer would generate 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. The maximum noise level generated by graders is approximately 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Each doubling of sound sources with equal strength increases the noise level by 3 dBA. Assuming that each piece of construction equipment operates at some distance from the other equipment, a reasonable worst -case combined noise level during this phase of construction would be 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet from the acoustical center of a construction area. This would result in a reasonable worst -case hourly average of 86 dBA Leq. The acoustical center  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-15 June 2023
reference is used because construction equipme nt must operate at some distance from one another on a Project site and the combined noise level as measured at a point equidistant from multiple sources operating simultaneously would represent the worst-case noise levels.

These reasonable worst-case construction noise levels would only occur during the site preparation phase of development. Such noise levels would attenuate at a rate of 6 dBA for every doubling of the distance from the operating equipment.

There are no site -specific development plans for the proposed Project; however, project development within the Project site could result in a relatively high single -event noise exposure potential, causing a substantial temporary increase that could exceed the City’s significance criteria. an intermittent noise nuisance that could result in annoyance or sleep disturbances at nearby sensitive receptors.

Therefore, mitigation is required to reduce this potential impact. Implementation of mitigation requiring use of best management noise reduction technique s and practices and other site -specific noise reduction measures would ensure that construction noise would not result in sleep disturbances at nearby off -site sensitive receptors or expose persons to excessive noise levels limiting construction hours would ensure commercial construction activities would not occur outside the City’s time periods for these activities. In addition, implementation of best management noise reduction measures and requiring implementation of temporary sound barriers with Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or greater would ensure construction activities would also not exceed the FTA’s threshold of 80 dBA Leq as measured at residential receptors, or 90 dBA Leq as measured at commercial or industrial land use receptors. Therefore, with implementation of MM NOI -1, the potential short-term construction noise impacts to noise -sensitive receptors in the Project vicinity would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Offsite Traffic Noise
The main offsite noise source would be project-generated mobile source traffic. These are evaluated below.

Offsite noise from existing and with -project traffic volumes was modeled in four scenarios (Kimley- Horn, 2023f):
• 2025 Phase I Opening Year Without Project.
• 2025 Phase I Opening Year With Project.
• 2028 Phase 2 Opening Year Without Project.
• 2028 Phase 2 Opening Year With Project.
• Horizon Year 2045 Without Project.
• Horizon Year 2045 With Project.

Traffic noise levels would be a less than significant impact for 2025 Phase 1 Opening Year of the Project, as shown below in Table 4.12-6 for roadway segments adjacent to and within the proposed Project site that will be directly impacted by Project generated traffic. Roadway noise levels without the Project would range from 41.1 dBA CNEL to 66.9 dBA CNEL and with the Project they would be between 41.1 dBA CNEL and 68.2 dBA CNEL. Project -generated traffic would result in a maximum increase of 3.8 dBA for the Frontage Road between Rubidoux Boulevard and 30th Street, but there are no sensitive receivers close to that segment. The next -greatest noise level increase of 3.4 dBA is  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-16 June 2023
related to Hall Avenue between Market Street and 24th Street, but because the With Project noise level at this roadway segment remains below 65 dBA CNEL for noise -sensitive uses, it would not result in a significant impact.

Table 4.12-6
PHASE ONE OPENING YEAR 2025 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS

Roadway Segment
2025 Opening
Year
Without
Project
2025 Opening
Year
With Project
Change
Noise
Threshold2
Significant
Impact
ADT
dBA
CNEL
1 ADT dBA
CNEL1
Cedar
Avenue
Slover Avenue to Santa Ave 22,327 63.8 23,507 64.1 0.3 65 No Santa Ana Ave to Jurupa Ave 20,356 64.6 21,936 65.0 0.5 65 No Jurupa Ave to El Rivino Rd 21,309 65.9 23,289 66.4 0.5 65 No El Rivino Rd to 20th St/Market St 22,061 66.0 24,041 66.5 0.5 65 No Rubidoux
Blvd
20th St/Market St to 24th St 20,789 65.7 23,539 66.5 0.7 65 No 24th St to 26th St 20,450 65.6 23,200 66.4 0.7 65 No
26th St to 28th St 21,845 65.9 24,595 66.6 0.7 65 No
28th St to 30 St/SR-60 WB Off-Ramp 27,161 64.6 30,021 65.2 0.7 65 No 30th St/SR-60 WB Off-Ramp to SR-60 WB On-
Ramp 39,912 66.3 46,712 67.3 1.0 65 No
SR-60 WB On-Ramp to SR-60 EB-Off
Ramp/Frontage Rd 31,011 65.2 39,681 66.7 1.6 N/A3 No
SR-60 EB Off-Ramp/Frontage Rd to 34th St 33,232 66.7 42,632 68.2 1.5 65 No 34th St to Mission Blvd 29,371 64.9 33,101 65.7 0.8 65 No Market St
Rubidoux Blvd to Agua Mansa Rd 21,314 64.8 21,704 64.9 0.1 65 No Agua Mansa Rd to Hall Ave 16,493 63.5 16,693 63.5 0.1 65 No Hall Ave to 24th St/Via Cerro 17,135 63.6 17,705 63.8 0.2 65 No 24th St/Via Cerro to Rivera St 24,828 65.2 25,478 65.4 0.2 65 No Rivera St to SR-60 WB Ramps 27,978 66.1 28,898 66.3 0.2 65 No SR-60 WB Ramps to SR-60 EB Ramps 22,431 65.1 23,451 65.4 0.3 65 No Hall
Avenue
Market St to 24th St 996 50.1 1,766 53.5 3.4 65 No
24th St to 26th St 2,847 54.6 3,697 56.3 1.7 65 No
26th St to 28th St 2,890 54.7 3,740 56.3 1.6 65 No
Mission
Blvd
Valley Way to Golden W Ave 25,210 64.4 26,110 65.4 1.0 65 No Golden W Ave to Opal St 27,223 64.7 28,333 65.9 1.1 65 No Opal St to Pacific Ave 27,981 64.9 29,241 66.1 1.2 65 No Pacific Ave to La Rue St 26,914 64.7 28,554 66.3 1.6 65 No La Rue St at Riverview Dr 27,553 64.8 29,193 66.3 1.6 65 No Riverview Dr to Rubidoux Blvd 32,541 65.6 35,931 68.1 2.4 65 No Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 29,563 65.2 29,563 65.2 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 27,275 64.8 27,765 65.3 0.5 65 No Riverview
Dr/Limonit
e Avenue
Mission Blvd to 42nd St 17,077 63.8 18,827 64.4 0.6 65 No 42nd St to Pacific Ave 19,112 64.3 20,672 64.8 0.5 65 No Pacific Ave to Ave Juan Bautista 23,864 66.6 25,424 66.9 0.4 65 No Ave Juan Bautista to Camino Real 25,207 66.9 26,247 67.2 0.2 65 No 24th Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 2,674 50.4 2,674 50.4 0.0 65 No Hall Ave to Market St 3,713 51.9 3,793 52.1 0.2 65 No
26th Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 725 44.8 725 44.8 0.0 65 No 28th Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 2,262 49.7 2,522 50.7 1.0 65 No Frontage
Road Rubidoux Blvd to 30th St 12,237 57.0 19,797 60.8 3.8 N/A3 No Wallace
Street
34th St to 36th St 1,948 53.0 2,438 53.6 0.6 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 3,160 55.1 3,650 55.5 0.4 65 No Crestmore
Road
34th St to 36th St 2,609 50.3 3,209 50.7 0.4 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 2,912 50.8 3,512 51.1 0.3 65 No 34th Street Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 4,535 52.7 4,535 52.7 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 3,269 51.3 3,269 51.3 0.0 65 No  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-17 June 2023
Roadway Segment
2025 Opening
Year
Without
Project
2025 Opening
Year
With Project
Change
Noise
Threshold2
Significant
Impact
ADT
dBA
CNEL
1 ADT dBA
CNEL1
36th Street Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 314 41.1 314 41.1 0.0 65 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependen t upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

2. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 65 dBA CNEL and a 3 dBA increase (i.e., both must occur) at the receiving noise-sensitive land use (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly).

3. This roadway segment is not surrounded by land uses identified in the Jurupa Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix. Therefore, no land use threshold is applicable.

Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Analysis Memorandum for the proposed District at Jurupa Valley, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2023.

Refer to Appendix B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. Refer to Appendix C for ADT Traffic Data.

The “2028 Opening Year Without Project” and “2028 Opening Year With Project” scenarios are compared in Table 4.12-7. The 2026 Opening Year With Project includes traffic generated from both Phase 1 and Phase 2. Roadway noise levels without the Project would range from 41.4 dBA CNEL to

67.1 dBA CNEL and with the Project between 41.4 dBA CNEL and 68.3 dBA CNEL. Project -generated traffic would resu lt in a maximum increase of 3.7 dBA for Frontage Road between Rubidoux Boulevard and 30th Street; however, there are no sensitive receivers near this segment. The next - highest noise level increase of 3.3 dBA is related to Hall Avenue between Market Street and 24th Street, but because the With Project noise level at this roadway segment remains below 65 dBA CNEL for noise-sensitive uses, it would not result in a significant impact. The Project therefore would not have significant offsite traffic noise impacts.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-18 June 2023
Table 4.12-7
PHASE 2 OPENING YEAR 2026 TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
2028 Opening
Year
Without Project
2028 Opening
Year
With Project
Change
Noise
Threshol
d2
Significan
t Impact
ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT
dBA
CNEL
1 Cedar
Avenue
Slover Avenue to Santa Ave 23,594 64.0 24,774 64.3 0.3 65 No Santa Ana Ave to Jurupa Ave 21,502 64.8 23,082 65.3 0.4 65 No Jurupa Ave to El Rivino Rd 22,513 66.1 24,493 66.6 0.5 65 No El Rivino Rd to 20th St/Market St 23,324 66.2 25,304 66.7 0.5 65 No Rubidoux
Blvd
20th St/Market St to 24th St 21,874 66.0 24,624 66.7 0.7 65 No 24th St to 26th St 21,510 65.8 24,260 66.5 0.7 65 No
26th St to 28th St 22,909 66.1 25,659 66.8 0.7 65 No
28th St to 30 St/SR-60 WB Off-Ramp 28,344 64.8 31,204 65.4 0.6 65 No 30th St/SR-60 WB Off-Ramp to SR-60 WB On-Ramp 41,634 66.4 48,434 67.4 1.0 65 No SR-60 WB On-Ramp to SR-60 EB-Off Ramp/Frontage
Rd 32,322 65.3 40,992 66.9 1.5 N/A3 No
SR-60 EB Off-Ramp/Frontage Rd to 34th St 34,575 66.9 43,975 68.3 1.5 65 No 34th St to Mission Blvd 30,513 65.1 34,243 65.8 0.8 65 No Market St
Rubidoux Blvd to Agua Mansa Rd 22,434 65.0 22,824 65.2 0.1 65 No Agua Mansa Rd to Hall Ave 17,364 63.7 17,564 63.8 0.1 65 No Hall Ave to 24th St/Via Cerro 18,007 63.8 18,577 64.0 0.2 65 No 24th St/Via Cerro to Rivera St 26,064 65.4 26,714 65.6 0.2 65 No Rivera St to SR-60 WB Ramps 29,431 66.3 30,351 66.5 0.2 65 No SR-60 WB Ramps to SR-60 EB Ramps 23,548 65.3 24,568 65.6 0.3 65 No Hall
Avenue
Market St to 24th St 1,057 50.3 1,827 53.6 3.3 65 No
24th St to 26th St 3,021 54.9 3,871 56.4 1.6 65 No
26th St to 28th St 3,067 54.9 3,917 56.5 1.6 65 No
Mission
Blvd
Valley Way to Golden W Ave 26,480 64.6 27,380 65.5 1.0 65 No Golden W Ave to Opal St 28,576 64.9 29,686 66.0 1.1 65 No Opal St to Pacific Ave 29,380 65.1 30,640 66.2 1.2 65 No Pacific Ave to La Rue St 28,188 64.9 29,828 66.4 1.5 65 No La Rue St at Riverview Dr 28,850 65.0 30,490 66.5 1.5 65 No Riverview Dr to Rubidoux Blvd 34,156 65.8 37,546 68.2 2.4 65 No Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 31,204 65.4 31,204 65.4 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 28,806 65.0 29,296 65.5 0.5 65 No Riverview
Dr/Limon
ite
Avenue
Mission Blvd to 42nd St 17,935 64.0 19,685 64.6 0.6 65 No 42nd St to Pacific Ave 20,095 64.5 21,655 65.0 0.5 65 No Pacific Ave to Ave Juan Bautista 25,138 66.8 26,698 67.2 0.4 65 No Ave Juan Bautista to Camino Real 26,562 67.1 27,602 67.4 0.2 65 No 24th
Street
Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 2,837 50.7 2,837 50.7 0.0 65 No Hall Ave to Market St 3,940 52.1 4,020 52.3 0.2 65 No
26th
Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 770 45.0 770 45.0 0.0 65 No 28th
Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 2,401 50.0 2,661 50.9 1.0 65 No Frontage
Road Rubidoux Blvd to 30th St 12,765 57.2 20,325 60.9 3.7 N/A3 No Wallace
Street
34th St to 36th St 2,068 53.2 2,558 53.8 0.6 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 3,304 55.3 3,794 55.6 0.4 65 No Crestmor
e Road
34th St to 36th St 2,768 50.6 3,368 50.9 0.3 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 3,090 51.1 3,690 51.4 0.3 65 No 34th
Street
Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 4,813 53.0 4,813 53.0 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 3,469 51.6 3,469 51.6 0.0 65 No 36th
Street Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 333 41.4 333 41.4 0.0 65 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.

1. Traffic noise levels are at 100 feet from the roadway centerline. The actual sound level at any receptor location is dependen t upon such factors as the source-to-receptor distance and the presence of intervening structures, barriers, and topography.

2. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 65 dBA CNEL and a 3 dBA increase (i.e., both must occur) at the receiving noise-sensitive land use  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-19 June 2023
Roadway Segment
2028 Opening
Year
Without Project
2028 Opening
Year
With Project
Change
Noise
Threshol
d2
Significan
t Impact
ADT dBA
CNEL1 ADT
dBA
CNEL
1 (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly).

3. This roadway segment is not surrounded by land uses identified in the Jurupa Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix. Therefore, no land use threshold is applicable.

Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Analysis Memorandum for the proposed District at Jurupa Valley, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2023.

Refer to Appendix B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. Refer to Appendix C for ADT Traffic Data.

Operational Impacts
Long-term noise impacts include project -generated onsite and offsite operational noise sources.

Onsite (stationary) noise sources would include operation of mechanical equipment such as air conditioners, landscape and building maintenance, parking and truck activity at loading docks Mechanical Equipment
Rooftop-mounted heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment serving new development in the Specific Plan area could be located close to existing residences. Noise levels from commercial HVAC systems typically result in noise levels that average 52 dBA at 50 feet from the source. Although detailed site plans for future development within the Specific Plan area have not yet been developed, HVAC equipment would typically be roof mounted and shielded by parapet walls that would block the line of sight to receivers. At the time of this analysis, identification of specific mechanical equipment and detailed site plans have not been developed. However, the Specific P lan has identified a minimum building setback of 10 feet. Therefore, the nearest off- and on-site sensitive receptors could be located 10 feet from potential HVAC units on the Project site. At this distance, HVAC noise levels would be approximately 66.0 dBA, which would exceed the City’s exterior noise standard (i.e., 65 dBA CNEL). Therefore, MM NOI-2 shall be implemented to ensure noise-generating stationary source equipment would not exceed noise regulations established by the City of Jurupa Valley. Thus, noise levels generated from mechanical equipment on the Project site would result in a less than significant impact with implementation of MM NOI-2.

Truck and Loading Dock Noise
The predominant noise source during onsite operations would be from onsite truck movements and idling. Truck loading and unloading areas may be included at the proposed industrial and commercial uses. Truck loading and unloading activities may occur during daytime and nighttime hours as the operational schedule of the proposed industrial and commercial uses is not known at the time of this analysis. The closest receivers to the proposed industrial and commercial uses are a residence within the Project boundary and a church adjacent to the south edge of the western portion of the Project site. Assuming slow-moving trucks could operate up to the Project boundary line, sensitive receivers may experience noise levels associated with slow -moving trucks at a dista nce of 30 feet. Typically, slow-moving, heavy- duty delivery trucks accessing loading docks can generate a maximum noise level of approximately 79 dBA at a distance of 50 feet (Berger et al., 2010). Therefore, truck and loading dock noise levels have the potential to exceed the City’s daytime (65 dBA) and nighttime (45 dBA) exterior noise standards at the closest sensitive receivers (i.e., residences and a church). MM NOI-2 would be implemented to ensure that sensitive receivers are not exposed to noise levels above  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-20 June 2023
the City’s exterior noise thresholds. Noise levels generated from trucks and loading docks on the Project site would result in a less than significant impact with implementation of MM NOI-2.

Landscape Maintenance Activities
Development and operati on of the proposed Project would introduce new landscaping requiring periodic maintenance. Noise generated by a gasoline -powered lawnmower is estimated to be approximately 70 dBA at a distance of five feet. However, MM AQ-5 (see Section 4.3.10) requires all landscaping equipment used onsite to be 100 percent electrically powered. This will result in significantly lower noise levels. Additionally, landscape maintenance activities would operate during daytime hours for brief periods of time and would not permanently increase ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity. Further, noise emanating from landscaping equipment is exempt from the noise standard pursuant to Municipal Code § 11.05.020. Therefore, impacts associated with landscape maintenance would be less than significant.

Parking
Parking activities have the potential to be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receivers. The instantaneous maximum sound levels generated by a car door slamming, engine starting up, and car pass-bys range from 53 to 61 dBA (Kariel, 1991). Conversations in parking areas may also be an annoyance to adjacent sensitive receivers. Sound levels of speech typically range from 33 dBA at 50 feet for normal speech to 50 dBA at 50 feet for very loud speech (Berger et al., 2010). These activities are expected to occur intermittently throughout the day, as residents, visitors, and employees arrive at and leave from the parking areas. As such, noise associated with parking lots is typically not of sufficient volume to exceed community nois e standards, which are based on a time -averaged scale such as the CNEL scale.

At the time of this analysis, the proposed Project’s parking areas have not been identified. As the proposed Project’s parking areas have not been identified, this analysis conse rvatively assumes the parking lots would be located along the Project boundary closest to existing sensitive receivers. The nearest sensitive receivers to potential parking areas on the Project site would be the residence within the Project boundary and the residences to the south. Therefore, parking noise levels have the potential to exceed the City’s daytime (65 dBA) and nighttime (45 dBA) exterior noise standards at the closest sensitive receivers (i.e., residences and a church). MM NOI -2 would be implemented to ensure sensitive receivers are not exposed to noise levels above the City’s exterior noise thresholds.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation:, Impacts from construction and operational noise would be potentially significant before mitigation.

A.3 Mitigation Measures
Construction Noise
Noise impacts during construction will be less than significant with implementation of MM NOI-1 MM NOI-1 Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction- related noise:
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-21 June 2023
• The construction contr actor shall limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high -noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all internal combustion engine - driven equipment is equipped with mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary noise -generating equipment as far as possible from sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin or are near a construction project area. In addition, the Project contractor shall place such stationary construc tion equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit unnecessary idling (no more than 5 minutes) of internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction- related noise sources and noise -sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction.
• For construction activity within 50 feet or impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of construction activities that would require the use of heavy construction equipment. The barrier shall be located between the construction zone and all adjacent sensitive receptor land uses. The temporary sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that shall meet the City’s construction noise threshold of 55 dBA Lmax as measured at the façade of the sensitive receptor land uses. The noise barrier shall be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 25 or greate r. The barrier can be either (a) a 0.75-inch-thick plywood wall or (b) a hanging blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2 pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of so und absorption material with a Noise Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher.

Temporary barriers would not be necessary if the applicant/developer can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that construction noise levels would be below 80 dBA Leq threshold at sensitive receptors.
• Impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise -sensitive receptors shall use an acoustical shroud (i.e., a noise curtain shall be installed on the pile driver or around the pile) to reduce noise by up to approximately 15 dBA. Additionally, foundation pile holes shall be predrilled, or sonic or vibratory pile drives shall be used, as feasible based on geologic conditions, to minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile.
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-22 June 2023
• The construction contractor shall designate a “disturbance coordinator” who would be responsible for responding to any complaints about construction noise.

The disturbance coordinator shall determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., a bad muffler) and shall require that measures be implemented to correct the problem.
• These measures may only be granted an exception if an application for construction-related exception is made to and considered by the Building Official of the City in accordance with Section 11.05.070 of the Municipal Code.

Operational Noise
NOI-2 Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits, the property owner/developer shall be responsible to implement the following measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed large scale, mixed -use, or master -planned developments shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 1.9 and NE 1.10 of the City’s Noise Element by incorporating acoustic site planning to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that adequately minimizes potential noise impacts to adjacent land uses to meet the City’s standards shown in General Plan Figure 7 -3. In addition, such projects shall demonstrate compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.1 of the City’s Noise Element, such projects and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
• Any future commercial or industrial development projects that would include stationary noise sources, such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate co mpliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. The plan shall identify specific techniques and measures to reduce on- site stationary operational noise to ensure compliance with the noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features may include, but are not limited to, locating stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).

A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Operational Noise
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-5 and NOI-2, noise impacts during project operation would be less than significant.
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-23 June 2023
Threshold b): Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if it:

Creates construction or operational vibration in excess of 0.20 PPV inch/second adjacent to or within one-quarter mile of sensitive receptors.

B.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 which effectively reduce impacts to groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the proposed Project related to the topic of noise.

B.2 Impact Analysis
Construction Vibration
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment used on the site. Operation of construction equipment causes ground vibrations that spread through the ground and diminish in strength with distance. Buildings in the vicinity of a construction site respond to these vibrations with varying results ranging from no perceptible effects at the low levels to slight damage at the highest levels. Table 4.12-8 provides approximate vibration levels for particular construction activities.

Table 4.12-8

VIBRATION LEVELS OF CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction
Equipment
PPV at 25 Feet
(inches/second)
rms Velocity in Decibels (VdB)
at 25 Feet
Water Trucks 0.001 57
Scraper 0.002 58
Bulldozer—small 0.003 58
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Concrete Mixer 0.046 81
Concrete Pump 0.046 81
Paver 0.046 81
Pickup Truck 0.046 81
Auger Drill Rig 0.051 82
Backhoe 0.051 82
Crane (Mobile) 0.051 82
Excavator 0.051 82
Grader 0.051 82
Loader 0.051 82
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-24 June 2023
Construction
Equipment
PPV at 25 Feet
(inches/second)
rms Velocity in Decibels (VdB)
at 25 Feet
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Bulldozer—Large 0.089 87
Caisson drilling 0.089 87
Vibratory Roller (small) 0.101 88
Compactor 0.138 90
Clam shovel drop 0.202 94
Vibratory Roller (large) 0.210 94
Pile Driver (impact -
typical)

0.644 104
Pile Driver (impact-upper
range)

1.518 112
Notes:

PPV = peak particle velocity
rms = root mean square
VdB = velocity in decibels
Source: Compilation of scientific and academic literature, generated by Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Of the variety of equipment used during construction, impact pile drivers that could be used in the site preparation phase of construction would produce the greatest groundborne vibration levels.

Impact pile drivers produce groundborne vibration levels ranging between 0.644 to 1.518 inch per second (in/sec) PPV at 25 feet from the operating equipment.

Construction vibration levels from future development projects could exceed the City’s threshold criteria of 0.20 in/sec PPV. Therefore, mitigation would be required to reduce this potential impact.

Construction vibration sources can be mitigated to acceptable levels either at the source or on the adjacent property using alternate equipment, adequate setbacks, or by digging temporary t renches between the source and the receptor. For example, at a distance of 100 feet, vibration levels from an impact pile driver would attenuate to 0.19 in/sec PPV, which would be below the City’s threshold.

Therefore, implementation of MM NOI -3, which re quires preparation of a Construction Vibration Monitoring Plan would ensure that these vibration level impacts generated by future development projects would be reduced to a less than significant impact.

Operational Vibration
The operation of the Specific Plan would not include any substantial long- term vibration sources.

Therefore, vibration impacts from operation of the Project would be less than significant (Kimley- Horn, 2023f, p. 36).

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts from construction v ibration levels would be potentially significant. Operational vibration impacts would less than significant and no mitigation would be required.

B.3 Mitigation Measures
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-25 June 2023
MM NOI-3 Construction Vibration Reduction Plan. Prior to issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related vibration impacts:
• For any future development projects that would necessitate the use of pile driving within 100 feet of an off -site structure, shall submit a Construction Vibration Reduction Plan that identifies specific techniques, such as the depth and location of temporary trenching, that would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant for the impacted structure.
• For any future development projects that would necessitate the use of large vibratory rollers within 30 feet of an off-site structure, or the use of other heavy construction equipment within 15 feet of an off- site structure, shall submit a Construction Vibration Reduction Plan that identifies specific techniques, such as the depth and location of temporary trenching, that would reduce potential vibration impacts to less than significant for the impacted structure. • The individual project owner/developer shall submit the Construction Vibration Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review and approval. Upon approval by the City, the construction vibration reduction measures shall be incorporated into the construction documents.

B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less Than Significant.

Threshold c): For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project may have a significant impact if it generates aircraft noise that exposes people residing or working in the vicinity of a private airstrip or within the Flabob Airport or Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to noise levels in excess of the noise standards of said plans.

C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs applicable to the proposed Project related to excessive noise level from airport activity.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no PDFs applicable to the proposed Project related to the topic of airport noise.  SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-26 June 2023
C.2 Impact Analysis
The Project site is in the airport influence area for Flabob Airport, which is approximately 0.6 mile southwest of the Project site. However, the site is outside the lowest (55 CNEL) noise contour for Flabob Airport (RCALUC, 2 004), as shown in Figure 4.12 -2. Therefore, project development would not expose residents or workers onsite to excessive noise levels from airport activity that would be in excess of the noise standards identified in the applicable land use compatibly pla ns and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.

C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No mitigation is required.

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-27 June 2023
Figure 4.12-2

NOISE CONTOURS FOR FLABOB AIRPORT

 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-28 June 2023

4.12.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative Construction Noise
Cumulative construction impacts could occur if other construction projects were active concurrently with development of the proposed Project, and near enough so that noise from two or more projects were perceived by the same sensitive receivers. Related projects in the City of Riverside would not generate noise or vibration impacts combining with impacts of the proposed Project to cause significant cumulative impacts because of distance (the nearest such project site is approximately 0.8 mile southeast of the proposed Project site) and because noise from such projects would not be audible by sensitive receivers near the proposed Project site due to ambient noise, mainly from the SR-60 freeway. Most of the related projects in the City of Jurupa Valley are either north of the SR -60 freeway, or along Mission Boulevard south of the Project site, or west of Rubidoux Boulevard west of the site (see Figure 3.4-1 ). One related project, Avalon Court single -family residential project, is along Avalon Street three blocks west of Rubidoux Boulevard. At that distance, and considering ambient traffic noise from Rubidoux Boulevard, noise and vibration impacts from Avalon Court would not combine with those of the proposed Project to cause cumulative significant noise impacts.

Furthermore, construction activities at other planned and approved projects near the Project site would be required to comply with applicable City rules related to noise and would take place during daytime hours on the days permitted by the applicable Municipal Code provisions, and projects requiring discretionary City approvals would be required to evaluate construction noise impacts, comply with the City’s standard conditions of approval, and implement mitigation, if necessary, to minimize noise impacts. Construction noise impacts are by nature localized. Based on the fact that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, noise impacts would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Therefore, project construction would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts, assuming such a cumulative impact existed, and impacts in this regard would not be cumulatively considerable (Kimley-Horn, 2023f, pp. 37-40).

Cumulative Operational Noise
Cumulative Off-Site Traffic Noise
As described in the Acoustical Analysis (Kimley-Horn, 2023f, pp. 37-40), included in Appendix D18 of this EIR, cumulative noise impacts would occur primarily as a result of increased traffic on local roadways due to buildout of the proposed Project and other projects in the vicinity. Cumulative increases in traffic noise levels were estimated by comparing the Existing and Opening Year Without Project scenarios to the Opening Year Plus Project scenario. The traffic analysis considers cumulative traffic from future growth assumed in the transportation model, as well as cumulative projects. A project’s contribution to a cumulative traffic noise increase would be considered significant when the combined effect exceeds perception level (i.e., auditory level increase) threshold. The following criteria were used to evaluate the combined and incremental effects of the cumulative noise increase. • Combined Effect. The cumulative with project noise level (“Opening Year With Project”) would cause a significant cumulative impact if a 3.0 dB increase over “Existing” conditions occurs and the resulting noise level exceeds the applicable exterior standard at a sensitive use.

Although there may be a significant noise increase due to the proposed Project in combination with other related projects (combined effects), it must also be demonstrated that the Project has an incremental effect. In other words, a significant portion of the noise increase must be due to the proposed Project (the second factor, discussed immediately below).
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-29 June 2023
• Incremental Effects. The “Opening Year With Project” causes a 1.0 dBA increase in noise over the “Opening Year Without Project” noise level.

A significant impact would result only if both the combined and incremental effects criteria have been exceeded and the With Project noise levels exceed the acceptable noise levels on the land use compatibility matrix (refer to Table 4.12-9). By definition, noise is a localized phenomenon and reduces as distance from the source increases. Consequently, only the proposed Project and growth due to occur in the general area would contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

Table 4.12-9 identifies the traffic noise effects along roadway segments in the Project vicinity for “Existing,” “Horizon Year 2045 Without Project,” and “Horizon Year 2045 With Project,” conditions, including incremental and net cumulative impacts (Kimley-Horn, 2023f pp. 37-40).

Table 4.12-9

CUMULATIVE OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE LEVELS
Roadway Segment
Existing
dBA
CNEL
Horizon
Year
2045
Without
Project1
dBA
CNEL
Horizon
Year
2045
With
Project1
dBA CNEL
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Land Use
Threshol
d dBA
CNEL2
Cumulativel
y Significant
Impact?
Difference In
dBA Between
Existing and
Horizon Year
2045 With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Horizon Year
2045 Without
Project and
Horizon Year
2045
With Project
Cedar
Avenue
Slover Avenue to Santa Ave 63.1 64.0 64.3 1.2 0.3 65 No Santa Ana Ave to Jurupa Ave 63.9 64.8 65.3 1.4 0.4 65 No Jurupa Ave to El Rivino Rd 65.2 66.5 67.0 1.8 0.5 65 No El Rivino Rd to 20th St/Market
St 65.4 67.5 67.8 2.5 0.4 65 No
Rubidoux
Blvd
20th St/Market St to 24th St 64.7 67.4 67.9 3.2 0.5 65 No 24th St to 26th St 64.5 66.8 67.4 2.9 0.6 65 No
26th St to 28th St 64.6 67.2 67.7 3.2 0.5 65 No
28th St to 30 St/SR-60 WB Off-
Ramp 62.8 65.3 65.8 3.1 0.6 65 No
30th St/SR-60 WB Off-Ramp to
SR-60 WB On-Ramp 64.4 66.4 67.4 3.0 1.0 65 No
SR-60 WB On-Ramp to SR-60
EB-Off Ramp/Frontage Rd 63.2 65.3 66.9 3.6 1.5 N/A1 No
SR-60 EB Off-Ramp/Frontage
Rd to 34th St 64.5 67.0 68.4 3.9 1.4 65 Yes
34th St to Mission Blvd 62.6 65.3 66.0 3.4 0.7 65 No
Market St
Rubidoux Blvd to Agua Mansa
Rd 63.8 66.0 66.1 2.3 0.1 65 No
Agua Mansa Rd to Hall Ave 62.5 65.1 65.1 2.7 0.1 65 No Hall Ave to 24th St/Via Cerro 62.5 64.9 65.0 2.5 0.1 65 No 24th St/Via Cerro to Rivera St 64.0 65.7 65.8 1.8 0.1 65 No Rivera St to SR-60 WB Ramps 65.1 66.6 66.7 1.6 0.1 65 No SR-60 WB Ramps to SR-60 EB
Ramps 63.9 65.7 65.9 2.0 0.2 65 No
Hall
Avenue
Market St to 24th St 49.7 55.3 56.1 6.3 0.8 65 No
24th St to 26th St 54.3 56.0 56.8 2.5 0.8 65 No
26th St to 28th St 54.3 56.2 57.0 2.6 0.7 65 No
Mission
Blvd
Valley Way to Golden W Ave 63.2 64.6 65.5 2.4 1.0 65 No Golden W Ave to Opal St 63.5 64.9 66.0 2.5 1.1 65 No
Opal St to Pacific Ave 63.6 65.1 66.2 2.6 1.2 65 No
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-30 June 2023
Roadway Segment
Existing
dBA
CNEL
Horizon
Year
2045
Without
Project1
dBA
CNEL
Horizon
Year
2045
With
Project1
dBA CNEL
Combined
Effects
Incremental
Effects
Land Use
Threshol
d dBA
CNEL2
Cumulativel
y Significant
Impact?
Difference In
dBA Between
Existing and
Horizon Year
2045 With
Project
Difference In
dBA Between
Horizon Year
2045 Without
Project and
Horizon Year
2045
With Project
Pacific Ave to La Rue St 63.2 65.3 66.7 3.5 1.4 65 Yes
La Rue St at Riverview Dr 63.3 65.0 66.5 3.2 1.5 65 Yes Riverview Dr to Rubidoux Blvd 64.4 65.9 68.2 3.8 2.3 65 Yes Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 64.4 65.4 65.4 1.0 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 64.1 65.1 65.6 1.5 0.5 65 No Riverview
Dr/
Limonite
Avenue
Mission Blvd to 42nd St 62.6 64.0 64.6 2.0 0.6 65 No
42nd St to Pacific Ave 63.2 64.7 65.2 2.0 0.4 65 No
Pacific Ave to Ave Juan
Bautista 65.6 67.0 67.3 1.7 0.3 65 No
Ave Juan Bautista to Camino
Real 66.0 67.4 67.7 1.6 0.2 65 No
24th
Street
Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 50.1 55.2 55.2 5.1 0.0 65 No
Hall Ave to Market St 51.5 55.2 55.3 3.8 0.1 65 No
26th
Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 44.4 46.0 46.0 1.6 0.0 65 No 28th
Street Rubidoux Blvd to Hall Ave 49.4 55.2 55.5 6.2 0.3 65 No Frontage
Road Rubidoux Blvd to 30th St 55.2 57.2 60.9 5.7 3.7 N/A1 No Wallace
Street
34th St to 36th St 52.6 55.1 55.5 2.9 0.4 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 53.5 55.9 56.2 2.7 0.3 65 No
Crestmor
e Road
34th St to 36th St 50.0 50.6 50.9 0.9 0.3 65 No
36th St to Mission Blvd 50.5 51.1 51.4 0.9 0.3 65 No
34th
Street
Rubidoux Blvd to Wallace St 52.4 53.6 53.6 1.2 0.0 65 No Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 51.0 51.6 51.6 0.6 0.0 65 No 36th
Street Wallace St to Crestmore Rd 40.8 41.4 41.4 0.6 0.0 65 No ADT = average daily traffic; dBA = A-weighted decibels; CNEL = community noise equivalent level.

Note:

1. This roadway segment is not surrounded by land uses identified in the Jurupa Valley Community Noise Compatibility Matrix. Therefore, no land use threshold is applicable.

2. Potential impacts occur when the Project change exceeds 65 dBA CNEL and a 3 dBA increase (i.e., both must occur) at the receiving noise-sensitive land use (e.g., residences, hospitals, schools, childcare facilities, and places of assembly).

Source: Based on traffic data within the Traffic Analysis Memorandum for the proposed District at Jurupa Valley, prepared by Kimley-Horn, 2023.

Refer to Appendix B for traffic noise modeling assumptions and results. Refer to Appendix C for ADT Traffic Data.

As shown on Table 4.12-9, some of the roadway segments meet the criteria for cumulative noise increases. Below is the explanation for each segment:
• Rubidoux Boulevard (from SR-60 WB On-Ramp to SR-60 EB Off-Ramp/Frontage Rd): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively; however, there is no sensitive receptor near the segment, and therefore the cumulative impact is less than significant.
• Rubidoux Boulevard (from SR-60 EB Off-Ramp/Frontage Rd to 34th St): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively and the cumulative impact is significant.
 SECTION 4.12 – NOISE 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.12-31 June 2023
• Mission Boulevard (from Pacific Ave to La Rue St): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively, and the cumulative impact is significant. • Mission Boulevard (from La Rue St to Riverview Dr): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively, and the cumulative impact is significant. • Mission Boulevard (Riverview Dr to Rubidoux Blvd): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively, and the cumulative impact is significant. • Frontage Road (from Rubidoux Blvd to 30th St): the combined effects and incremental effects are above 3 dBA and 1 dBA, respectively; however, there is no sensitive receptor near to the roadway segment, and therefore the cumulative impact is less than significant.

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

Cumulative Stationary Noise
Stationary noise sources of the proposed Project would result in an incremental increase in non- transportation noise sources in the Project vicinity and as discussed above, operational noise caused by the proposed Project would be less than significant with implementation of MM NOI-2.

Similar to the proposed Project, other planned and approved projects would be required to mitigate for stationary noise impacts at nearby sensitive receptors, if necessary. As stationary noise sources are generally localized, there is a limited potential for other projects to contribute to cumulative noise impacts.

No known past, present, or reasonably foreseeable projects would combine with the operational noise levels generated by the Project to increase noise levels above acceptable standards because each project must comply with applicable City regulations that limit operational noise. Therefore, the Project, together with other projects, would not create a significant cumulative impact and even if there was such a significant cumulative impact, the Project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative operational noise.

Given that noise dissipates as it travels away from its source, operational noise impacts from on- site activities and other stationary sources would be limited to the Project site and vicinity. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related projects, in conjunction with project-specific noise impacts, would not be cumulatively significant (Kimley-Horn, 2023f, p. 40).

 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-1 June 2023

4.13 Population and Housing
This section analyzes the proposed Project’s potential impacts on population and housing. It is based on housing and popula tion information from the California Department of Finance (CDF), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and the United States Census. Potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project are discussed in Section 6.4 of this DEIR.

4.13.1 Existing Conditions
Population
The CDF estimated Jurupa Valley’s population to be 105,384, as of January 1, 2022 53. Table 4.13-1 summarizes the change in population for Jurupa Valley and Riverside County between 2010 and 2021. Note that the City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in July 2011; prior to that, it was part of unincorporated Riverside County.

Table 4.13-1

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS
2010 2019 2020 2021 Change,
2010-2021
Percent Change,
2010-2021
City of Jurupa
Valley
94,986 109,527 105,053 108,097 13,111 13.8
Riverside County 2,189,641 2,470,546 2,418,185 2,454,453 264,812 12.1 Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, United States Census Bureau. QuickFacts, Jurupa Valley City, California.

Website: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/jurupavalleycitycalifornia,US/PST045221. Accessed March 27, 2023.

Population Forecast
SCAG is a regional planning agency that forecasts population, housing, and employment trends for jurisdictions within Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial counties.

SCAG’s population forecast for 2040 for the City of Jurupa Valley and Riverside County are shown in Table 4.13-2. SCAG’s forecast shows the City growing at a much slower pace than Riverside County overall.

Table 4.13-2

POPULATION FORECAST
2016 2045 Change, 2016-
2045
Percent Change,
2016-2045
City of Jurupa Valley 100,100 117,800 17,700 17.68
Riverside County 2,364,000 3,252,000 888,000 37.56
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast.

Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed December 2, 2021.

53 California Department of Finance. 2023. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State 2020 - 2022. May. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates- for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed March 27, 2023.

 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-2 June 2023
Housing
The CDF estimates housing characteristics including number and type of dwelling units, occupancy/vacancy, and persons per household. Estimated available housing, including unit type characteristics, in the City of Jurupa Valley and Riverside County is detailed in Table 4.13-3.

Table 4.13-3

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Housing Unit Type City of Jurupa Valley Riverside County Single-Family Detached 22,926 592,473
Single-Family Attached 1,023 53,163
Multi-Family 3,277 137,468
Mobile Homes 1,967 80,972
TOTAL 29,193 864,076
Persons Per Household 3.71 3.23
Vacancy Rate 3.4% 13%
Source: California Department of Finance. 2022. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 1,2021-2022. Website: https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-5- population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/. Accessed October 19, 2022.

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State housing law as part of the periodic process of updating housing elements of local general plans. State law requires that general plan housing elements identify RHNA targets set by HCD to enc ourage each jurisdiction in the state to provide its fair share of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income housing. The RHNA does not promote growth but provides a long -term outline for housing in the context of local and regional trends and hou sing goals. SCAG determines housing need for communities in Southern California based on three factors: 1) the number of housing units needed to accommodate future population and employment growth; 2) the number of additional housing units needed to allow for housing vacancies; and 3) the number of very low, low, moderate, and above moderate income housing units needed in the community. Additional factors include but are not limited to tenure and the average rate of units needed to replace housing units demolished.

The City of Jurupa Valley’s RHNA allocation for the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029 is shown in Table 4.13-4 below. The City is required to ensure that sufficient sites are planned and zoned for housing and are available to accommodate its need and to implement proactive programs that facilitate and encourage the provision of housing to meet the City’s housing needs.

According to the General Plan Housing Element, City Planning staff estimates that construction for the Project will begin in 2025 and that half (50 percent) of the units in each land use category will build out during the 2021 -2029 planning period. This would result in an estimated 598 units being approved and/or constructed.

 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-3 June 2023
Table 4.13-4
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY RHNA ALLOCATION 2021-2029
Household Income Category Target (Units)
Very Low Income 1,207
Low Income 749
Moderate Income 731
Above Moderate Income 1,810
TOTAL 4,497
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2021. SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan.

Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/6th-cycle-rhna-final-allocation-plan.pdf?1625161899.

July 1. Accessed March 27, 2023.

Employment Projections
SCAG employment projections for the City of Jurupa Valley and Riverside County for 2045 are shown in Table 4.13-5 below. As shown in the table, Riverside County is anticipated to have a substantial increase in the workforce by 2045.

Table 4.13-5

EMPLOYMENT PROJECTIONS
2016 2045 Change, 2016-2045 Percent Change,
2016-2040
City of Jurupa Valley 27,100 31,300 4,200 15.5
Riverside County 743,000 1,103,0
00 360,000 48.45
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast.

Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and-growth- forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed March 27, 2023.

Jobs-Housing Balance
The jobs-housing ratio is a general measure of the total number of jobs and housing units in a defined geographic area, without regard to economic constraints or individual preferences. The balance of jobs and housing in an area, in terms of the total number of jobs and housing units as well as the type of jobs versus the price of housing, has implications for mobility, air quality, and the distribution of tax revenues. The jobs-housing ratio is one indicator of the Project ’s effect on growth and quality of life in the area.

SCAG applies the jobs-housing ratio at the regional and subregional levels to analyze the fit between jobs, housing, and infrastructure. A major focus of SCAG’s regional planning efforts has been to improve this balance. The American Planning Association (APA) recognizes that an ideal jobs - housing ratio will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The APA’s recommended target jobs-housing ratio is 1.5, with a recommended range of 1.3 to 1.7.

As shown in Table 4.13 -6 below, the jobs -housing ratio in Jurupa Valley is forecast to decrease between 2016 and 2045, from 1.07 to 0.98 between 2016 and 2045 due to an increase of employment. Additionally, the jobs-housing ratio in Riverside County is estimated to decrease from

1.04 to 1.02 during the same period.
 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-4 June 2023
Table 4.13-6

JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE
Year Employment Households Jobs-Housing
Ratio
City of Jurupa Valley 2016 27,100 25,300 1.07
2045 31,300 31,800 0.98
Riverside County 2016 743,000 716,000 1.04
2045 1,103,000 1,086,000 1.02
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Connect SoCal Demographics and Growth Forecast. Website: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-attachments/0903fconnectsocal_demographics-and- growth-forecast.pdf?1606001579. Accessed March 27 2023.

4.13.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
The following comments were received during the EIR scoping phase pertaining to the topics of population, employment, and housing.

The attorney representing the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, Mitchell M. Tsai, submitted a letter containing recommendations for community benefits to be required by the City, such as the use of local labor and skilled workforce for building the Project, requiring workers to have completed a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program, and implementing a COVID workplace safety program. It is important to note that decisions related to hiring, worker qualifications, and employer-employee relations are beyond the scope of CEQA. Although the comments have been acknowledged, they have not been addressed in the analysis provided below.

4.13.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal regulations pertaining to this issue area.

State
California Housing Element Law
The State Housing Element Law (Government Code Chapter 1143, Article 10.6, §§ 65580 and 65589) requires each city and county to adopt a gene ral plan for future growth. This plan must include a housing element that identifies housing needs for all economic segments and provides opportunities for housing development to meet that need. The amount of housing that must be accounted for in a local housing element is determined through the RHNA. In the RHNA process, the State gives each region a number representing the amount of housing needed based on existing need and expected population growth.

At the State level, the HCD estimates the relative share of the State’s anticipated population growth that would occur in each county in the State, based on CDF population projections and historic growth trends. Where there is a regional council of governments, as in the Southern California Area (in this case, the SCAG), the HCD provides the regional housing need to the council. The council then assigns a share of the regional housing need to each of its cities and counties.

Each city and county must update its general plan housing element on a regular basis pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Section 65580, et seq. Among other things, the housing element  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-5 June 2023
must incorporate policies and identify potential sites that would accommodate a city’s share of the regional housing need. Before adopting an update to its housing element, a city or county must submit the draft to the HCD for review.

Regional
Southern California Association of Governments
SCAG is the designated regional planning agency for six counties in Southern California: Los Angeles; Orange; San Bernardino; Riverside; Ventura; and Imperial. SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local governments that voluntarily convene to address regional issues. It is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization under federal law and as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments under state law (SCAG, 2022).

Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods.

The 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Plan, which covers the planning period from October 2021 to October 2029, was adopted by the Regional Council of SCAG on July 1, 2021. Communities use the RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth.

The RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth so that collectively the region and sub- regions can grow in ways that enhance the quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote mobility, and address social equity and fair share housing needs. Local jurisdictions are required by state law to base updates to their General Plan Housing Elements on the most recently adopted RHNA allocation (SCAG, 2022).

Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element
The Housing Element of the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan was adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2021, and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development on April 22, 2022. The Housing Element provides guidance for housing development within the City from 2021 to 2029. It provides a comprehensive overview and analysis of the current housing stock in the City; the constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development; an inventory of sites for housing development; opportunities for energy conservation; a review of the previous Housing Element, which covered 2017 to 2021; and housing goals, policies, objectives, and programs to provide diverse housing across the City. Housing Element policies that are applicable to the proposed Project are presented in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

4.13.4 Methodology
The analysis of the Project ’s potential impacts on population, housing, and employment is based on a comparison of the Project ’s contribution in light of City of Jurupa Valley projections and policies regarding population, housing, and employment.
 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-6 June 2023

4.13.5 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 s ignificance criteria related to population and housing. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact on population and housing if it would:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure); Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is in an area that is currently undeveloped or unserved by major infrastructure, and the project would introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted General Plan.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project site contains residential housing which will not be replaced with new residential housing on- site.

4.13.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project is in an area that is currently undeveloped or unserved by major infrastructure, and the project would introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted General Plan.

A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No PPPs apply to the proposed Project population and housing impacts.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No PDFs apply to the proposed Project’s population and housing impacts.  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-7 June 2023
A.2 Impact Analysis
Unplanned Population Growth
To assess the potential for growth-inducing impacts, the Project’s characteristics that may encourage and facilitate activities that individually o r cumulatively may affect the environment must be evaluated (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e)). CEQA Guidelines state that a significant growth-inducing impact may result if the project would:
• Induce substantial population growth in an area (for example, by proposing new homes and commercial or industrial businesses beyond the land use density/intensity envisioned in the general plan);
• Substantially alter the planned location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the population of an area; or
• Include extensions of roads or other infrastructure not assumed in the general plan or adopted capital improvements project list when such infrastructure exceeds the needs of the project and could accommodate future developments.

As indicated previously, the City’s Significance Criteria would be exceeded if:
• The project is in an area that is currently underdeveloped or unserved by major infrastructure; and
• The project would introduce unplanned infrastructure that was not previously evaluated in the adopted General Plan.

Construction Impacts
Construction jobs created by the Project would not result in substantial population growth in the Project area because construction jobs are temporary in nature. The unemployment rate in Riverside County in December 2022 was 3.6 percent (EDD, 2022). Thus, it is expected that Project construction employment would be absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract workers to move from outside of the Project region. Project construction impacts on population and housing would be less than significant.

Operational Impacts
The proposed Project area was intended for residential and nonresidential uses in 2005, when the County of Riverside approved the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan No. 337 and certified the associated EIR (State Clearinghouse No. SCH 2004031007 ). Thus, both local and regional growth projections account for population and employment growth within the Project site. Therefore, the buildout of the proposed Project would constitute planned growth in accordance with regional and local projections.

Additionally, Project development would not cause growth in population or housing exceeding regional forecasts for the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project proposes the development of 1,192 residential units that are estimated to house 4,422 persons , based on the average household size of  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-8 June 2023

3.71 persons in the City of Jurupa Valley in 2022. 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 impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant.

The proposed Project would provide needed housing options in the City to support planned population growth. As shown in Table 4 .14-4, the City’s RHNA Allocation determined that there is a need for 4,497 housing units in order to meet t he City’s housing needs. The proposed Project would provide up to 1, 192 housing units, which would help to support the housing needs of the City consistent with City’s RHNA Allocation. The Housing Element Update projects that by 2029, approximately 50 percent, or 596 of the proposed 1, 192 housing units would be built. Of these proposed 596 housing units, 357 are expected to be in the RHNA “Above Moderate Income” category, and 239 are expected to be in the RHNA “Moderate Income” category. The increase in housing resulting from the construction of the proposed Project would constitute planned growth in accordance with regional and local projections.

Employment
Project operation is estimated to generate approximately 3,779 jobs, as shown below in Table 4.13-

7. The estimate is slightly conservative in that no employment generation factor for fast food, discount store, or supermarket is available; the factor for regional retail (one employee per 275 square feet) was used for those land uses. Employment in the City of Jurupa Valley is forecast to increase by approximately 42,000 between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Project-generated employment would not exceed the regional forecast for the City and thus would have a less than significant impact.

Table 4.13-7

ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT GENERATION
Land Use Square Feet
Employees
Square feet per
employee1 Total
Phase I
Commercial 1,472,500 600 2,459
Furniture Store/Warehouse 1,000,000 1,200
Business Park 30,000 800 37
Industrial 1,500,000 1,200 833
Subtotal, Phase 1 3,329
Phase 2
Commercial 270,000 600 450
Subtotal, Phase 2 3,779
Total
1 54Note: Commercial = 1 employee per 600 square feet; office/business park = 1 employee per 800 square feet; industrial = 1 employee per 1,200 square feet

54 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, Table 2.3, Non-Residential Land Use Statistics & Buildout Projections.  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-9 June 2023
Indirect Impacts of Project-Generated Employment on Population and Housing The addition of Project -related residential units and estimated Project- related employment to the existing 2045 forecast for the City yields a jobs -housing balance ratio of 1.05, which could suggest a jobs-housing imbalance within the City limits. As such, it is expected that the jobs created by the Project would be sourced from the local workforce and would not require people to relocate from surrounding communities. Therefore, the Project is not expected to contribute to direct unplanned growth in the City.

Roadways and Other Infrastructure
While the Project site is currently undeveloped and is not served by major infrastructure, a few roadways are present on site including Rubidoux Boulevard and 34th Street. Existing utilities – such as water and sewer mains and electric distribution lines – are present onsite along Wallace Street and abutting the site in roadways including Rubidoux Boulevard and 34th Street.

The proposed Project would include extension of roads and infrastructure to serve the proposed residential and nonresidential uses. However, the infrastructure would only serve the Project site. As such, the Project would not contribute to the extension of infrastructure into an undeveloped area.

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.

Threshold b): Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have si gnificant effects if: The project site contains residential housing which will not be replaced with new residential housing on- site.

B.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 housing displacement.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features apply to housing displacement.  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-10 June 2023
B.2 Impact Analysis
There are 11 housing units on site, seven of which would be demolished during site clearance. Based on the average household size in the City of Jurupa Valley of 3.71 persons, the seven units to be demolished are estimated to house 26 persons. The Project proposes the development of a net increase of 1,192 housing units, over 100 ti mes the number of units that would be demolished.

Therefore, Project development would not require the construction of replacement housing offsite, and impacts would be less than significant.

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.

4.13.7 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative population and housing effects must be considered in relationship to land use, plans, and policy considerations for development facilitated by the General Plan. The relevant cumulative geographic context is the City and includes projects identified in Table 4.13-8 below and mapped in Figure 4.13 -1 that are located within the City. Table 4.13- 8 identifies which projects consist of residential uses, employment-generating land uses, or both.

Population Growth
The geographic scope of the cumulative p opulation and housing analysis is the City. The City’s population is forecast to increase by 17.7 percent, or approximately 17,700, between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Cumulative projects listed in Table 4.13- 8 in conjunction with the Project would add population. The proposed Project combined with cumulative projects would add1,743 housing units to the City ; and is estimated to add 12,258 residents based on the City’s average household size of

3.71 persons. Population growth from cumulative projects wou ld be within the regional population forecast for the City; thus, cumulative impacts on population growth would be less than significant.

Project impacts, therefore, would not be cumulatively considerable.

Population/Housing Displacement
Cumulative project s listed in Table 4.13 -8 in conjunction with the proposed Project would add residential units to the City. None of the listed projects substantially displaces housing units or people within the City. In fact, the implementation of the cumulative projects w ould result in a net increase in housing in the City. The City further established incentives and standards to encourage the development of affordable housing in its 2021 -2029 Housing Element (see Regulatory Setting).

Therefore, cumulative impacts associat ed with population and housing displacement would be less than significant. Thus, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.  SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-11 June 2023
Table 4.13-8

CUMULATIVE PROJECTS LIST
Projects in City of Jurupa Valley only
Proj # Project Name/Number Land Use
Project Type Residential
Units Residential Employment-
Generating Both
1 New Rio Vista Specific Plan Single-Family Detached Housing X 1,215 Single-Family Attached Housing
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Public Park
Middle School/Junior High School
2 Proficiency Rubidoux (or Capital) Warehousing X 0
3 Agua Mansa Development Project Warehousing X 0
4 Neighborhood Commercial Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) X 0 5 Mondragon Auto Repair Coffee/Donut Shop w/ Drive-thru X 0 6 MA20084 Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru X 0
7 MA20132 Automobile Sales (Used) X 0
8 MA21214 Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) X 0
9 Saddlehorn Ranch Single-Family Detached Housing X 31 10 Havana Investment Spec Building Warehousing X 0
11 Action Plumbing Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) X 0
12 Highland Park Single-Family Detached Housing X 97
13 Market Street Commercial Convenience Store/Gasoline Station X 0 High-Turnover (Sit-Down) Restaurant
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru
Automated Car Wash
14 Avalon Court Single-Family Detached Housing X 24
15 Emerald Ridge South Single-Family Detached Housing X 215 Single-Family Attached Housing
16 Emerald Ridge North Single-Family Detached Housing X 184 17 Rubidoux Commercial Development
LLC
Business Park X 0
 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-12 June 2023
Proj # Project Name/Number Land Use
Project Type Residential
Units Residential Employment-
Generating Both
18 Agua Mansa Commerce Park High-Cube Transload and Short-Term Storage
X 150
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
Shopping Plaza (40-150k)
19 MA17099 Single-Family Detached Housing X 48
20 Bailey Building Warehousing X 0
21 La Rue Apartments Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise) X 80 22 Kiewit Infrastructure West Warehousing X 0
23 Mission Gateway Plaza & Mission
Gateway Villas
Shopping Center (>150k) X 68
Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)
24 Karcher Industrial Project Warehousing X 0
25 Wheeler Trucking Inc. Warehousing X 0
26 Commercial Center Strip Retail Plaza (<40k) X 0
Fast-Food Restaurant w/ Drive-thru
27 West Coast Cold Storage High-Cube Cold Storage Warehouse X 0 56 SB2 High-Cube Fulfillment Center
Warehouse
X 0
57 Holly Street Truck Terminal Warehousing X 0
Total Not applicable Not applicable 2,112
1 JV = City of Jurupa Valley; R = City of Riverside
Source: Kimley Horn, 2022

 SECTION 4.13 – POPULATION AND HOUSING 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.13-13 June 2023
Figure 4.13-1

MAP OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS

 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-1 June 2023

4.14 Public Services
This section of the DEIR discusses the Project’s impacts on public services including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities. It describes the existing services and facilities in the Project area and analyzes: 1) if the existing public services and facilities would be sufficient to accommodate the Project; 2) the impacts of the Project on existing services and facilities; and 3) the Project’s consistency with the applicable regulatory requirements related to the services.

4.14.1 Existing Conditions
Fire Protection Services
The Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) provides fire protection and emergency medical services to the City of Jurupa Valley including the Project site. The nearest fire station to the Project site is Rubidoux Fire Station at 5721 Mission Boulevard, approximately 0.4 miles to the west (RCFD, 2021).

Police Protection Services
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD) provides law enforcement service to the City of Jurupa Valley including the Project site. The RCSD Jurupa Valley Station, at 7477 Mission Boulevard in the City of Jurupa Valley , serves the cities of Norco and Eastvale in addition to Jurupa Valley, as well as several communities in the northwest part of unincorporated Riverside County. The Jurupa Valley Station consists of patrol and investigative functions. (RCSD, 2022).

Schools
The Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) provides K-12 public school services for the Project site.

The Project site is in the attendance boundaries of the three schools listed below in Table 4.14-1 .

JUSD uses student generation factors shown below in Table 4.14-2.

Table 4.14-1

SCHOOLS SERVING THE PROJECT SITE
School and
Address
Enrollment, 2021-22
Ina Arbuckle Elementary
3600 Packard Street
441
Mission Middle
5961 Mustang Lane
696
Rubidoux High
4250 Opal Street
1,524
Source: California Department of Education, 2022

 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-2 June 2023
Table 4.14-2

JURUPA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT GENERATION FACTORS Single-Family Detached Units Multi-Family Attached Units Elementary 0.4500 0.3040
Middle 0.1288 0.0925
High 0.2599 0.1620
Total 0.8387 0.5585
Source: Cooperative Strategies, 2020 https://jurupausd.org/our- district/planning/Documents/Draft%20School%20Fee%20Justification%20Study.pdf#search=school%20fee%20justification

Parks
The Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD) builds and maintains parks, and offers recreation services, in the City of Jurupa Valley, including the Project site , a nd part of the City of Eastvale. No parks are present onsite; the nearest public parks to the Project site are described below in Table 4.14-3 and shown on Figure 4.14-1. The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District operates several parks in the City of Jurupa Valley, described in Table 4.14-3. Additionally, several parks near the Project site are in the City of Riverside and are operated by the City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department. A list of public parks near the Project site is listed in Table 4.13-3X in Section 4.15, Recreation.

Library
The Riverside County Library System (RCLS) serves much of Riverside County including the City of Jurupa Valley. RCLS has two facilities in the City of Jurupa Valley. The Louis Rubidoux Library is at 5840 Mission Boulevard, and the Glen Avon Library is at 9244 Galena Street. The Rubidoux Library has a collection of 62,500 items and 67 computers. The Glen Avon Library has a collection of 40,500 items and 18 computers (R&CS, 2020).

4.14.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
Fire Protection Services
No comments regarding fire protection and emergency medical services were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.

Police Protection Services
No comments respecting police facilities or police protection were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.

Schools
The City of Riverside Public Works – Traffic Engineering Division, in a letter dated April 29, 2022, requested a school evaluation to determine where all students from the new housing will attend.

No other comments respecting schools were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-3 June 2023
Parks
David Murray, Principal Planner with the City of Riverside Community Development Department, submitted a letter dated April 29, 2022, including the following comments regarding parks and recreation facilities:
• Parks, Recreation, and Community Services : impacts on City’s parks, including mitigation measures for any recreational impacts.
• Consistency with the City’s Trails Master Plan
• Discuss trail connection to local, County, and adjacent jurisdiction trail systems. • Discuss the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project and the trail facilities to be included in the District Plan to facilitate trail travel between the Project area and Riverside. • Discuss the interface of development along the Santa Ana River to avoid turning our backs on the river. Impacts on views of the rivers and adjacent parks and open spaces from the 60 Freeway.
• Provide a call-out for the green line on the eastern edge of the industrial logistics land use.

No other comments respecting park facilities or services were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.

Library
No comments regarding library facilities were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.

4.14.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to public services are applicable to the proposed Project.

State
California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 2, California Building Code Current law states that every local agency enforcing building regulations, such as cities and counties, must adopt the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) within 180 days of its publication date, which is established by the California Building Standards Commission. The most recent building standard adopted by the legislature and used throughout the state is the 20 22 version of the CBC, often with local, more restrictive amendments that are based on local geographic, topographic, or climatic conditions. The CBC is updated on a three- year cycle, and the 2022 CBC took effect on January 1, 202 3. The building standards in the California Building Code apply to all locations in California, except where more stringent standards have been adopted by state agencies and local governing bodies.

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 9, California Fire Code Requirements in the California Fire Code (CFC) are for building and equipment design, such as fire- rated construction, alarm systems, sprinkler systems, and means of egress; requirements for specific land uses, including airports, dry cleaners, gas stations, and automotive service businesses;  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-4 June 2023
hazardous materials; fire flow requirements; and fire hydrant spacing. Other fire safety requirements of the CFC are related to the provision of fire resistance standards for doors, building materials, and particular types of construction, and clearance of debris within a prescribed distance from occupied structures within wildfire hazard areas. The CFC is updated on a three -year cycle, and the 2022 CFC took effect on January 1, 2023.

Mitigation Fee Act: California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.

The Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) authorizes local agencies to impose fees for public facilities as a condition of approval of a development project defraying all or part of the cost of public facilities related to the Project (California Legislative Information, 2023).

Assembly Bill 2926 and Senate Bill 50
To assist in providing school facilities to serve students generated by new development projects, the State passed Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 in 1986. This bill allows school districts to collect impact fees from developers of new residential and commercial/industrial building space. Development impact fees are also referenced in the 1987 Leroy Greene Lease-Purchase Act, which requires school districts to contribute a matching share of costs for construction, modernization, and reconstruction projects.

Senate Bill (SB) 50, which passed in 1998, provides a comprehensiv e school facility financing and reform program and enables a statewide bond issue to be placed on the ballot. The provisions of SB 50 allow the state to offer funding to school districts to acquire school sites, construct new school facilities, and moderni ze existing school facilities. SB 50 also establishes a process for determining the amount of fees developers may be charged to mitigate the impact of development on school facilities resulting from increased enrollment. Under this legislation, a school di strict could charge fees above the statutory cap only under specified conditions, and then only up to the number of funds that the district would be eligible to receive from the state. According to § 65996 of the California Government Code, development fees authorized by SB 50 are deemed to be “full and complete school facilities mitigation.”
SB 50 establishes three levels of developer fees that may be imposed upon new development by the governing board of a school district depending upon certain conditions within a district.

Level 1: Level 1 fees are the base statutory fees. These amounts are the maximum that can be legally imposed upon new construction projects by a school district unless the district qualifies for a higher level of funding.

Pursuant to § 65995 of the California Government Code, as of February 2022 the statutory maximum Level 1 school fees that may be levied by a school district on new development is a maximum of $4.79 per assessable square foot of residential construction and a maximum of $0.78 per square foot of enclosed and covered space for commercial/industrial development. These rates are established by the State Allocation Board and may be increased to adjust for inflation based upon a statewide cost index for Class B construction. T o implement Level 1 fees, the governing board of a school district must adopt a nexus study linking development impacts and the need for the construction of new facilities. Although not standard, such studies are frequently referred to as Developer Fee Justification Study.

Level 2: Level 2 fees allow the school district to impose developer fees above the statutory level, up to 50 percent of new school construction costs. To implement Level 2 fees, the governing board of  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-5 June 2023
the school district must adopt a School Facilities Needs Analysis (SFNA) and meet other prerequisites in accordance with § 65995.6 of the California Government Code.

The purpose of an SFNA is to determine the need for new school facilities attributable to growth from new residential development (California Government Code § 65995.6). An SFNA documents that the district has met prerequisite eligibility tests and calculates the fee per square foot of new development. If the school district is eligible for state new construction funding, the state will match the Level 2 fees if funds are available.

Quimby Act
The Quimby Act (California Government Code § 66477) was established by the California Legislature in 1965 to preserve open space and parkland in rapidly urbanizing areas of the State. The Quimby Act allows cities and counties to establish requirements for new development to dedicate land for parks, pay an in-lieu fee, or provide a combination of the two. (See Section 4.15, Recreation for further discussion).

Local
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
The City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 requires payment of a development impact fee to the City to assist the City in funding improvements to public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by development projects.

City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City’s General Plan Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) includes policies addressing fire prevention and natural gas shutoff in case of emergencie s.

The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element that are related to fire protection services that apply to the proposed Project , are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

Police Protection Services
No existing regulations address project impacts on police facilities.

Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City’s General Plan Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element ( City of Jurupa Valley , 2017) requires school districts to be involved in the review of development proposals to ensure adequate facilities. The specific policy outlined in the City’s General Plan Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element that is related to schools and applies to the proposed Project, is included in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-6 June 2023
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 7.25.020 requires the dedi cation of land and/or payment of fees for parks as a condition of approval of a tentative map or parcel map dividing the land for residential purposes. The dedication of land and/or fees shall be in the amount of three acres per 1,000 residents (Municode, 2023).

City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017), includes policies addressing environmental resource protection, public facilities, parkland, recreation, and trail facilities. The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element that are related to parks and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

Library
The City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 requires payment of a development impact fee to the City to assist the City in funding improvements to public faci lities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by development projects, including libraries.

4.14.4 Methodology
Fire Protection Services
For the purpose of analyzing potential project impacts on fire prote ction services and facilities, existing fire protection services and facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed and identified. A discussion of existing fire protection services and facilities in the vicinity of the Project site is provided in Section 4.11.a.2.2.

In general, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on fire protection services if it requires the addition of a new fire station or expansion of existing fire protection facilities to accommodate the Project. Increased demand for fire protection services and facilities and resulting potential impacts as a result of the Project were evaluated based on 1) the estimated increases in population and employment -generating land uses to be generated by the Project , and 2) input received from the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD; refer to Appendix D19 for details).

Consultation with RCFD was conducted to determine the Project ’s effect on fire protection services.

RCFD evaluates impacts related to fire protection s ervices by taking into consideration a project’s land use, needs related to fire protection services, project’s adherence to recommended response distance and fire safety requirements , and project design features related to fire safety (such as project size, project components, required fire flow, fire hydrant sizing, access, and use and storage of hazardous materials). Based on these factors, the RCFD determines whether the addition of a new fire station or expansion of existing fire protection facilities is needed to accommodate the Project.

Police Protection Services
For the purpose of analyzing potential project impacts on police facilities, existing police protection services and facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed and identified. A discussion of existing police protection services and facilities in the vicinity of the Project site is provided above.  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-7 June 2023
In general, a project would be considered to have a significant impact on police protection services if it requires the addition of a new police station or expansion of existing police protection facilities to accommodate the Project . Increased demand for police protection services and facilities and resulting potential impacts as a result of the Project were evaluated based on 1) the estimated increases in population and employment -generating land uses to be generated by the Project , and 2) input received from the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department (RCSD; refer to Appendix D19 for details).

Schools
Schools serving the Project site were identified using the Jurupa Unified School District’s SchoolSite Locator webpage (JUSD, 2022) . School enrollment information was obtained from the Cal ifornia Department of Education’s Dataquest application (CDE, 2022) . Project student generation was estimated using student generation factors from the School Fee Justification Study for the Jurupa Unified School District prepared by Cooperative Strategies in 2020 (Cooperative Strategies, 2020).

Parks
For the purpose of analyzing potential project impacts on parks facilities, existing park facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed and identified. A discussion of existing park facilities in the vicinity of the Project site is provided above.

4.14.5 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 recognizes the following significance thresholds and Significance Criteria related to aesthetics. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact on aesthetics if it would:
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, t he construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services:
i) Fire protection.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project substantially affects Fire-Rescue response times (i.e., increases the existing response times in the project area) to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required to meet the response times as listed in the County Fire Protection Master Plan or similar performance standard document adopted by the Riverside County Fire Department.
ii) Police protection.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project cannot be served by existing Sheriff Department resources and new or altered sheriff facilities are required to serve the project.
 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-8 June 2023
iii) Schools.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significan t effects if: As required by §65995 of the Government Code, a project is required to pay any applicable school district fee following protocol for impact fee collection required by that district. The payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project-related impacts to school services.
iv)
Parks.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project will result in creating park deficiencies in the area resulting in the need for new or altered park facilities that are not off- set by the payment of development impact fees or the dedication of parkland.
v)
Other Public Facilities (Library).

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project will result in creating deficiencies to other public facilities the area that are not off-set by the payment of development impact fees.

4.14.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a - i): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilit ies, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project substantially affects Fire-Rescue response times (i.e., increases the existing response times in the project area) to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required to meet the response times as listed in the County Fire Protection Master Plan or similar performance standard document adopted by the Riverside County Fire Department.

A-i-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 which effectively reduce impacts to fire protection services The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to fire protection services. These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.14-1 The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants,  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-9 June 2023
automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.

PPP 4.14-2 The Project shall comply with the City’s Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, which requires payment of a development impact fee to the City to assist in providing revenue that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project . Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever comes first, the Project Applicant shall pay fees in accordance with Municipal Code Chapter 3.75.

PPP 4.14-3 The proposed Project will be designed and constructed in accordance w ith the California Fire Code as adopted, with certain amendments, by the City of Jurupa Valley in Chapter 8.10 of the City’s Municipal Code.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features pertain to project impacts on fire facilities.

A-i.2 Impact Analysis
Project Construction
During the construction phase of the Project, there may be some fire hazards due to the exposure of combustible building materials like wood, coverings, and coatings in buildings under construction and stockpiles of mat erials. However, to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for workers during construction, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration enforces regulations for construction sites, which are included in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Ti tle 29, Part 1926.

These regulations mandate that construction workers be trained in emergency response and fire safety operations, including monitoring and management of life safety systems. In addition, the Project would provide adequate fire suppression and firefighting equipment, sufficient water supply, and storage sites that would be free from unnecessary combustible materials, in compliance with safety requirements related to fire protection and prevention for construction sites listed in CFR Part 1926, Subpart F. The Project would also comply with federal, state, and local requirements for handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials.

It is expected that the Project's compliance with applicable regulatory requirements would result in impacts related to increased fire risk during construction being less than significant. Moreover, construction activities and staging areas would be confined within the Project site's boundary, and as such, the Project would not significantly affect the provision of fire protection services in the vicinity of the Project site during the construction phase.

Project Operation
The City General Plan considers the proposed Project as planned growth within the City. The General Plan Final EIR 55 stated that future development under the General Plan would be required to be designed, constructed, and operated per applicable fire prevention/protection standards established by the City. It further stated that all new developments would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to the City, concluding that there would be no significant impacts related to fire protection

55 LSA. 2017, City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH #2016021025. April 17.  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-10 June 2023
from implementation of the General Plan. Finally, the General Plan identifies the need for expanding public service by establishing Program CSSF 2.2, which would ensure the provision of sufficient public facilities and services prior to, or concurrently with, new development.

The Project site is served by the Rubidoux Fire Station 38 at 5721 Mission Boulevard, approximately

0.4 miles to the west. Future development would be required by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant syste m, paved access, and secondary access routes. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 and pay the City’s DIF, which would ensure that the proposed project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including equipment and personnel for fire protection services, that future projects would utilize. In is anticipated that any additional of equipment to Station 38 could be accommodated within the existing facility and would not require the alteration or construction of new facilities. As such, construction of new or physically altered facilities would not be required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With the implementation of PPPs 4.14-1 through PPP 4.14- 3, project impacts on fire protection would be less than significant.

A-i.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

A-i.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold a - ii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services?

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project substantially affects Fire-Rescue response times (i.e., increases the existing response times in the project area) to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required to meet the response times as listed in the County Fire Protection Master Plan or similar performance standard document adopted by the Riverside County Fire Department.

A-ii.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.14-2 under Threshold a)- i) applies to this threshold including payment of development impact fees for the improvement of public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-11 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features pertain to project impacts on police or Sheriff’s Department facilities.

A-ii.2 Impact Analysis
Project Construction
Project construction demands on law enforcement services would be minor, mostly consisting of routine patrols on roadways in and abutting the Project site to deter theft of construction equipment and materials; and identifying and apprehending anyone suspected of such theft.

Project Operation
Project development would add approximately 1,192 housing units, 4,422 residents, approximately

3.013 million square feet of employment-generating land uses, and 3,243 jobs, which could increase the demand for RCS D services. The Project site is located in a developed area of the City that is routinely patrolled by the Sheriff’s Department. Future development proposed by the project would be required to comply with Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 and pay the City’s DIF, which would ensure that the proposed project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including equipment and personnel for police protection services. In is anticipated that any additional of equipment or personnel could be accommodated within the Sheriff’s Department’s existing facilities and would not require the alteration or construction of new facilities. As such, construction of new or physically altered facilities would not be required, and impacts would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With the implementation of PPP 4.14-2, project impacts on police protection would be less than significant.

A-ii.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

A-ii.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.

Threshold a - iii): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools?
Under the City’s local signifi cance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: As required by §65995 of the Government Code, a project is required to pay any applicable school district fee following protocol for impact fee collection required by that district. The paymen t of  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-12 June 2023
school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project-related impacts to school services.

A-iii.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 which effectively reduce impacts to school facilities The following applies to the Project to reduce impacts on school facilities. This requirement is included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.14-4 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay required development impact fees to the Jurupa Unified School District following protocol for impact fee collection as directed by SB 50.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
No project design features are relevant to project impacts on school facilities.

A-iii.2 Impact Analysis
The Project proposes the development of a net increase of 1,192 housing units. The proposed residential district would permit the development of both single -family and multiple -family units.

The unit type split for the Project is unknown; this analysis assumes that half the proposed residential units would be single -family detached, and half multi -family attached (Gorham, Thomas. 2023).

Project operation is estimated to generate 449 elementary school students, 132 middle school students, 251 high school students, and 833 total students, as shown below in Table 4.14-3 .

However, the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and planned development for that plan was included and accounted for in the City’s current General Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017). The Project site is served by the JUSD. Development projects undertaken pursuant to the Specific Plan would pay development fees to the JUSD in accordance with SB 50. The payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for p roject-related impacts on school services and on school capacity. Therefore, project impacts on school capacity would be less than significant.

Table 4.14-3

ESTIMATED PROJECT STUDENT GENERATION
Single-Family Detached Units
596 Units
Multi-Family Attached Units
596 Units
Total
Generation
Factors
Students Generation
Factors
Students
Elementary 0.4500 268 0.304 181 449
Middle 0.1288 77 0.0925 55 132
High 0.2599 155 0.162 97 251
Total 0.8387 500 0.5585 333 833
Source: Cooperative Strategies, 2020
 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-13 June 2023
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With payment of SB 50 development fees under PPP 4.14 - 4, project impacts on school capacity would be less than significant.

A-iii.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

A-iii.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold a - iv): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain an acceptable service ratio, response times or other performance objectives for parks?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project will result in creating park deficiencies in the area resulting in the need for new or altered park facilities that are not off set by the payment of development impact fees or the dedication of parkland.

Impacts related to Parks are discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation of this EIR .

Threshold a - v): Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts , in order to maintain acceptable service ratio , response times other performance objectives for library services?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project will result in creating deficiencies to other public facilities the area that are not off-set by the payment of development impact fees.

A-v.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.14-2 under Threshold a)- i) applies to this threshold including payment of development impact fees for the improvement of public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-14 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
No design features pertain to project impacts on library facilities.

A-v.2 Impact Analysis
Project Construction
Project construction is not expected to impact library facilities.

Project Operation
Demands for library services are generated by the population in the libraries’ service areas. Project development would add an estimated 4,422 residents to the Project site, thus increasing demand for library services. As shown in Table 4.14-4, there are two RCLS libraries within the City.

Table 4.14-4

RIVERSIDE COUNTY LIBRARY SYSTEM LIBRARIES IN JURUPA VALLEY Library Branch and
Location
Distance
from
Project Site
Hours of Operation Services and
Facilities
Glen Avon Library
9244 Galena Street
Jurupa Valley, CA
92509

4.5 miles
west
Sunday: Closed
Monday-Tuesday: 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.

Wednesday: 12:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.

Thursday: 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.

Friday: 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Saturday: 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.
• Computers
• Wireless
internet
• Printing
services
• Meeting rooms
• Study room
Louis Robidoux
Library
5840 Mission
Boulevard
Jurupa Valley, CA
92509

0.75 miles
southwest
Sunday: 1:00 p.m.–5:00 p.m.

Monday-Wednesday: 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.

Thursday: 12:00 p.m.–8:00 p.m.

Friday-Saturday: 10:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m.

Saturday: 10:00 a.m.–2:00 p.m.
• Computers
• Wireless
internet
• Printing
services
• Community
room
• Study room
Source: Riverside County Library System. Locations. Website: https://www.rivlib.net/locations. Accessed March 27, 2023.

Development projects in Jurupa Valley are required to pay development impact fees for library collection items and computers pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75. Projects built in accordance with the Specific Plan would pay the referenced development impact fees. Payment of such fees will provide funding to expand the library to support new development and would reduce impacts to less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With the payment of development impact fees for libraries pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 (included in PPP 4.14 -2), project impacts on library services would be less than significant.
 SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-15 June 2023
A-v.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation is not required.

A-v.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.14.7 Cumulative Impacts
The geographic scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the service area of each of the providers serving the proposed Project . Because of differences in the nature of the public service topical areas, they are discussed separately.

Fire Protection Services
The geographical scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the boundaries of Riverside County Fire Department. Cumulative development in the surrounding area would be expected to increase the permanent residents and daytime population, which includes employees and visitors/patrons. The cumulative increase in population could in turn result in an increased demand for fire protection facilities. Similarly, the proposed business park and industrial land use could result in increased demand for fire protection.

To help offset the increased demand, the cumulative projects would be required to pay all applicable fees to the Riverside County Fire Department and CalFire. All developments would also be required to adhere to the California Fire Code, Part 9 of the California Building Standards Code (CBC) in terms of meeting standards for fire safety such as fire flow requirements for buildings, fire hydrant location and distribution criteria, automated sprinkler systems, and fire-resistant building materials.

With adherence to CBC Code sections and payment of applicable fees, cumulative projects would not result in the need for new or altered fire protection or emergency medical facilities. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact regarding the need for new or altered fire protection and emergency medical facilities . Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Project ’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Police Protection Services
The geographical scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the boundaries of the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. Cumulative development in the surrounding area could be expected to increase the permanent residents and daytime population, which includes employees and visitors/patrons. The cumulative increase in population could in turn result in an increased demand for police protection facilities.

To help offset the increased demand for police protection facilities, the cumulative projects would be required to pay applicable fees to the Riverside County Sheriff’s Department. All developments would also be reviewed for impacts on law enforcement services and would be required to address any potential impacts with mitigation. Because demand for law enforcement services is highly dependent on a number of fact ors that vary substantially by project (clientele, hours of operation, crime prevention measures, etc.), it is unlikely that there would be substantial overlap in demand that  SECTION 4.14 – PUBLIC SERVICES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.14-16 June 2023
would result in a cumulatively significant impact such that new police protection facilities are necessary.

With payment of applicable fees, cumulative projects would not result in the need for new or altered police protection facilities. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact regarding the need for new or altered police protection facilities. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Schools
The geographical scope of the cumulative public services analysis is the boundaries of the JUSD. The cumulative projects listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3 -1, Cumulative Projects, are mostly commercial and industrial in nature, with only project S, T, U, W, and X being residential (see Exhibit 3 -1). Cumulative development would increase the population and demand for educational facilities. The cumulative increase in population could in turn result in an increased demand for school facilities.

Other cumulative projects do not include any educational facilities. All cumulative developments would be required to pay DIF to the JUSD. In accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50) as implemented by per California Government Code Section 65995, JUSD is authorized to levy a new construction fee per square foot of construction to fund the reconstruction or construction of new school facilities. Payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project -related impacts to sch ool services. Under State law, this is the exclusive means of mitigating impacts to school facilities due to increased enrollment. As part of the Project entitlement process, the cumulative project applicants would be responsible for paying their fair share of these school facility fees.

With payment of applicable fees, cumulative projects would not result in the need for new or altered school facilities. Thus, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact regarding the need for new or altered school facilities. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Project ’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.

Library
The geographic scope of the cumulative library facilities analysis is the RCLS. The cumulative projects listed in Chapter 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, Table 3 -1, could increase the population and demand for library facilities.

However, with payment of applicable fees by the cumulative projects, there would be a less than significant cumulative impact related to potential increased use and physical deterioration of existing library facilities or the need for new or altered library facilities. Additionally, as discussed above, the proposed Project’s incremental contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable.
 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-1 June 2023

4.15 Recreation
This section of the DEIR discusses the Project’s impact on public recreation and parks facilities. It describes the existing public recreation and parks facilities in the Project area and analyzes (1) if the existing parks and recreation facilities would be sufficient to accommodate the Project ; (2) the impacts of the Project on existing parks and recreation facilities; and (3) the Project’s consistency with the applicable City goals and regulatory requirements related to parks and recreation.

4.15.1 Existing Conditions
Park and Recreation Facilities Near the Project Site
The Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District (JARPD) builds and maintains parks, and offers recreation services, in the City of Jurupa Valley, including the Project site , and part of the City of Eastvale. Nearby public parks are shown in Figure 4.15-1. No parks are present onsite; the public parks located within two miles of the Project site are described in Table 4.1 5-1. The Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District (RCRPOSD) operates several parks in the City of Jurupa Valley also described in Table 4.15-1 and shown on Figure 4.15-1.

Table 4.15-1

PUBLIC PARKS NEAR THE PROJECT SITE
Park and Address Acres Amenities
Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District
Sky Park
5355 Mission Rock Way
Jurupa Valley, CA 9259

0.5 Playground, picnic tables, outdoor half-basketball
court, walking/jogging trail
Veterans Memorial Community Park
4389 Riverview Drive
Jurupa Valley, CA 9259

10.2 Playground, picnic shelters, picnic tables, BBQs,
baseball/softball fields, field lighting, outdoor half- basketball court, restrooms
Avalon Park/Wanamaker Gym
25 Avalon Street
Jurupa Valley, CA 9259

10.0 Playground, picnic tables, baseball/softball fields, soccer fields, field lighting, outdoor half-basketball
court, restrooms
Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District
Rancho Jurupa Regional Sports Park
5249 Crestmore Road
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

32.0 15 sports fields, a plaza with picnic
shelters, restrooms, a snack bar, and two
playgrounds
Rancho Jurupa Park and Campground
4800 Crestmore Road
Riverside, CA 92509
309.0
Splash pad, a rock-climbing playground, miniature
golf course, a disc golf course, two fishing lakes
and two campgrounds
Martha McLean/Anza Narrows Park
5759 Jurupa Avenue
Riverside, CA 92504
296.8
Picnic facilities, hiking, bicycle and equestrian
trails, disc golf course (within 40 acres at the south
end). Most of this is natural area.

Jensen-Alvarado Ranch Historical Park
4307 Briggs Street
Riverside, CA 92509

30.0 Museum, historic home tours, picnic area, feed
farm animals
Louis Robidoux Parkland and Pecan
Grove (LRPPG)
5370 Riverview Drive
Riverside, CA 92509

63.8 Public trails system, nature center, picnic facilities, historic pecan grove, tribal grinding rocks.

Currently being renovated after 2019 fire.

Santa Ana River Wildlife Area 644.1 Natural area, undeveloped  SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-2 June 2023
Park and Address Acres Amenities
South of LRPPG and north of Martha
McLean/Anza Narrows Park
Rubidoux, Riverside, CA
City of Riverside Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department Fairmount Park
2601 Fairmount Boulevard
Riverside, CA 92501 213.1
Golf course, tennis courts, barbecues, boat rentals,
sailing and fishing, Santa Ana River Trail,
playground, lawn bowling court, rose garden with
a gazebo
Mount Rubidoux Park
4706 Mount Rubidoux Drive
Riverside, CA 92501
158.8
Hiking trails and paved roads
Lincoln Park
4261 Park Avenue
Riverside, CA 92507

3.3 Lighted basketball court, horseshoe courts,
community center, playground and picnic facilities
Carlson Park
4700 Buena Vista Avenue,
Riverside, CA 92506

1.77 Picnic tables, off-leash dog area and on-site parking.

Historic site
North Park
3172 Mission Inn Avenue
Riverside, 92507

1.3 Historic Site with arbor structure
Newman Park
378O 14th Street
Riverside, CA 92501

0.4 De Anza Statue, Sport Hall of Fame – Historic Site
White Park
3936 Chestnut Street
Riverside, CA 92501

5.3 Senior center, administration offices, Asian garden, picnic tables, restrooms, on -site parking and
Botanic Garden (historic site)
AB Brown Sports Complex
3700 Placentia Lane
Riverside, CA 92501

55.5 16 Soccer fields, restrooms, multi -purpose room,
snack bar, on-site parking, covered picnic area
Loring Park
3687 Mt. Rubidoux Drive
Riverside, CA 92501

2.5 Playground a rea, three covered picnic areas and
picnic tables
Tequesquite Park
(Ryan Bonaminio Park at Tequesquite
Arroyo)

5000 Tequesquite Avenue
Riverside, CA 92506

42.8 Baseball Fields, basketball courts, community
garden, and fitness stations
Evans Sports Complex (Sam Evans)
4555 Magnolia Ave,
Riverside, CA 92501

12.1 Lighted sports fields, playground, picnic tables,
restrooms and onsite parking
Reid Park
701 N. Orange Street
Riverside, CA 92501 42.7
Softball fields, basketball, tennis, and lighted sports field, soccer field, community center with gym,
playground, pool, picnic tables, snack bar,
barbeques, restrooms and on-site parking
Sources: JARPD, 2021; RCRPOSD, 2022; City of Riverside, 2022; County of Riverside, 2022. RJM Design Group, 2020; LRPPG Consortium, 2023.
 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-0 June 2023
Figure 4.15-1

NEARBY PUBLIC PARKS AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES

 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-1 June 2023
Trails
A planned regional trail will pass along the east Project site boundary. The Santa Ana River Trail (SART), a paved multi- use trail, extends along the east side of the Santa Ana River on the west boundaries of Mt. Rubidoux Park and Fairmont Park. The segment of the SART passing near the Project site extends from the Santa Ana River Wildlife Area to Waterman Avenue in the City of San Bernardino in San Bernardino County, approximately 20 miles in length (County of Riverside, 2022).

4.15.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
The following comment was received from David Murray, Principal Planner at the City of Riverside:

Parks, Recreation, and Community Services:
• Impacts on City’s parks, include mitigation measures for any recreational impacts. • Consistency with the City’s Trails Master Plan
• Discuss trail connection to local, County and adjacent jurisdiction trail systems. • Discuss the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project and the trail facilities to be included in the District Plan to facilitate trail travel between the Project area and Riverside.
• Discuss the interface of development along the Santa Ana River to avoid turning our backs on the river. Impacts on views of the rivers and adjacent parks and open spaces from the 60 Freeway.
• Provide a call -out for the green line on the eastern edge of the industrial logistics l and use.

No other comments respecting recreation facilities were submitted during the DEIR scoping phase.

4.15.3 Regulatory Framework
Federal
No federal regulations pertain to this issue area.

State
The Quimby Act
The California Legislature first established the Quimby Act in 1975. Per the Quimby Act, California allows a city or county to pass an ordinance that requires, as a condition of approval of a subdivision, the dedication of land, the payment of a fee in- lieu of dedication, or a combination of both for pa rk and recreational purposes (California Government Code § 66477). This legislation establishes maximum parkland dedication standards for new subdivision development unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community parkland exceeds the limit. In the City of Jurupa Valley, the Quimby Act is implemented via City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, which requires developers to pay development impact fees to the City for acquisition and/or construction of certain public facilities. The Quimby Act permits the City to require parkland dedications not to exceed three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons residing in a subdivision, and/or in- lieu fee payments for residential development projects.
 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-2 June 2023
Local
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 requires payment of a development impact fee to the City to assist the City in funding improvements to public facilities and/or to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by development projects.

City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 7.25.020 sets forth a standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons; the City Council can increase that standard to up to five acres per 1,000 persons if a parks and recreation plan determines that the existing amount of neighborhood and community park areas exceeds three acres per 1,000 persons (Municode, 202 3). Developers of subdivisions are required to dedicate land and/or pay in-lieu fees for parks.

City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and Land Use Element (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017), both include policies addressing environmental resource protection, public facilities, parkland, recreation, and trails facilities. The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to parks and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

4.15.4 Methodology
For the purpose of analyzing potential project impacts on public services and facilities, existing public services and facilities in the vicinity of the Project site were reviewed and identified. A discussion of existing public recreational facilities in the vicinity of the Project site is provided above. Potential project impacts on recreation and parks were evaluated based on 1) the estimated increase in population to be generated by the Project and 2) anticipated increased demand for park and recreation service generated by the Project and its effect on existing level of service. The analysis of project impacts related to recreation and parks also evaluates project consistency with the standards and regulations set forth in regulatory documents such as the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, the Quimby Act, and the City’s General Plan, described above.

4.15.5 Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, Environment al Checklist , and the City of Jurupa Valley CEQA Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance, August 20, 2020, set forth the following significance thresholds for recreation resources impacts. The Project would have a significant impact related to recreation if it would:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated;
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project proposes a General Plan Amendment which could result in an increase in population over that projected in the adopted General Plan and the project will result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.  SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-3 June 2023
or
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.

Screening Criteria: If the project is a non- residential project and does not include on- site or off-site recreational facilities it may be pres umed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction o r expansion of recreational facilities, significant impacts may occur if any of the Significance Thresholds identified in these Guidelines are exceeded.

4.15.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Under the City’s local significance threshold
the project would have significant effects if: The project proposes a General Plan Amendment which could result in an increase in population over that projected in the adopted General Plan and the project will result in an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.

Or
Threshold b): Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Screening Criteria: If the project is a non -residential project and does not include on -site or off-site recreational facilities it may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project includes recreational facilities or requires the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, significant impacts may occur if any of the Significance Thresholds identified in these Guidelines are exceeded.

 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-4 June 2023
A.1 & B.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 which effectively reduce impacts to recreation. The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts on recreational resources.

These requirements are included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.15-1 Funding for Parks Require d from New Development. The Project shall implement City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.5 requiring new development to provide funding and/or long -term implementation strategies for the acquisition and improvement of active and passive parks, open space, and recreational sites, when appropriate.

PPP 4.15-2 Parkland Dedication Required for New Residential Subdivisions. The Project shall implement City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.6 requiring that parkland or open space dedication and improvement occur prior to, or concurrent with, construction, as a condition of approval of new residential subdivisions.

PPP 4.15-3 Required Dedication and/or Fees. The Project must dedicate land and/or pay in- lieu fees for parks pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 7.25.020.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
There are no specific project design features relevant to project impacts on recreation.

A.2 & B.2 Impact Analysis
Project Construction
Construction of the Project would introduce construction jobs and therefore construction workers on the Project site. However, construction jobs created by the Project would not result in substantial population growth in the Project area because construction jobs are temporary.

The nearest existing park to the Project site is Avalon Park at 25 Avalon Street, approximately 1.1 miles to the north by road. It is unlikely that project construction workers would drive to nearby parks during their lunch breaks , and construction workers are not expected to use nearby parks during evenings and weekends when they would not be working onsite. Construction impacts, such as air quality, noise, and traffic, on parks are not expected due to the distances of parks from the Project site. Fairmont Park, for example, is approximately 1,150 feet southeast of the Project site, opposite the Santa Ana River. Construction impacts under threshold a) would be less than significant.

The Specific Plan’s Open Space Land Use Area includes open space areas and proposed neighborhood parks, urban parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off -street trails. In additio n to the Open Space Land Use Areas identified, residential development will incorporate private and common areas that will expand and connect to the open space areas, and other adjacent uses (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022; Section 2 , p. 8) . The Project open space plan is presented as Figure 2.4-8 in Section 2.0 of this DEIR.
 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-5 June 2023
These Open Space Land Use areas would require construction of any physical features that are proposed to be constructed during Phase II of the Project . The neighborhood park construction in conjunction with any new residential development would be substantially complete prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy of the 75th percentile of residential units in the Residential Land Use Area. However, the precise location, design, and amenities provided in the Open Space Land Use Areas will be determined by the implementing projects. (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022; Section 2, p. 8).

The future design and locations of these facilities will be determined through subsequent site development permits and will comply with the City’s and the Specific Plan development standards.

Potential adverse physical effects on the environment that may occur from construction of these facilities could include temporary short-term impacts common from construction activities such as air quality, hazards and hazardous materials, greenhouse gases, and noise. However, these impacts would be temporary and localized during construction of any proposed recreational facilities.

Furthermore, relevant PPPs and specific mitigation measures to offset those impacts are discussed in Sections 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.12 of this DEIR, and will be implemented for the construction of any recreation facilities. Therefore, physical impacts on the environment under threshold b) are not expected to be adverse and would be less than significant.

Project Operation
The Project proposes development of 1,192 residential units. The average household size in Jurupa Valley is 3.71 persons (CDF, 2021). Thus, at project buildout, the residential units are estimated to house 4,422 persons. The estimated number of residents in the Project at buildout would not exceed the population projection in the adopted General Plan. At the City standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, the Project would generate a need for approximately 13.3 acres of parkland.

The Specific Plan include s Open Space Use as a component of the Residential Land Use. The open spaces areas include neighborhood parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off-street trails. The Open Space area also incorporates landscape buffer s and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater. Community pedestrian and multi-use trails are planned along streets and the Santa Ana River. The Specific Plan accommodates the area for a future multi-use path (Class I) along the Santa Ana River and will implement an on-street bicycle lane (Class I) along Rubidoux Boulevard, A Street and B Street. Off -street bicycle paths will be incorporated south of the Industrial, and within the Residential (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022; pp. 7, 12, and 13).

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

The Project would include 11.1 acres of open space, leaving a remaining requirement for 2.1 acres of parkland or open space to meet City standards. The Project would be required to dedicate parkland and/or pay in-lieu fees for acquisition and/or improvement of parkland pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.25.020. Impacts would be less than significant after dedication of parkland and/or payment of in-lieu fees.
 SECTION 4.15 – RECREATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.15-6 June 2023
Level of Significance Be fore Mitigation: With implementation of PPP 4.15- 1, Funding for Parks Required from New Development; PPP 4.15- 2, Parkland Dedication Required for New Residential Subdivisions; and PPP 4.15-3, Required Dedication and/or Fees, impacts on park facilities would be less than significant.

A.3 & B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.

A.4 & B.4 Level of Significance after Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation.

4.15.7 Cumulative Impacts
The area considered for cumulative impacts to recreation facilities is the JARPD service area, which spans the City of Jurupa Valley and part of the City of Eastvale. The analysis here focuses on the part of JARPD’s service area within the City of Jurupa Valley. The population of the City of Jurupa Valley is forecast to increase by 17,700, or 17.7 percent, between 2016 and 2045. At the City’s standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons such growth would generate a need for approximately 53.1 acres of parkland. Other projects would be required to dedicate parkland and/or pay in -lieu fees pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code §7.25.020. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant after dedication of parkland and/or payment of fees, a nd project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-1 June 2023

4.16 Transportation
With the adoption of Senate Bill (SB 743) in 2013, the State of California changed the method of traffic analysis required through the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for publicly and privately initiated projects. Prior to the adoption of this law, the State CEQA Guidelines evaluated traffic impacts using a metric called “Level of Service” (LOS), which defines how well vehicle traffic flows along a roadway. If the amount time it takes to get through an intersection is beyond a certain amount of time, the mitigation measures to reduce that time typically included increasing the vehicle capacity of the roadway to accommodate more vehicles by widening or adding more travel lanes to the roadway.

Under the new law, the effectiveness of the roadway system is now evaluated a metric called “Vehicle Miles Traveled” ( VMT), which measures how much actual auto travel (additional miles driven) a proposed project would cre ate on California roads. If the project adds excessive car travel onto the roadway system, the project may cause a significant transportation impact. The intent of the new law is to reduce the reliance on passenger vehicles by increasing opportunities for other modes of travel, such as mass transit, bicycles, and walking. In practice, reducing the amount of vehicle miles traveled would reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions emitted by vehicles. Because greenhouse gas emissions are a major contributor to climate change, the negative impacts caused by climate change would be reduced.

This section evaluates the potential transportation impacts that would be generated by the Project by determining if the Project would:
• Conflict with existing programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the performance of the City’s transportation system (for both motorized and non -motorized modes of travel) relating to reducing VMT.
• Conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), whose purpose is to evaluate VMT’s impacts on the environment.
• Increase hazards due to a roadway’s geometric design; and • Interfere with emergency access.

Information in this section is based, in part, on the following technical reports:
• District at Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by Kimley-Horn dated July 2022 (Kimley Horn, 2022a). A complete copy of the TIA is included as Appendix D20 to this DEIR.
• SB 743 VMT Analysis for Districts at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley, completed by Kimley Horn in January 2023 (Kimley Horn, 2023d); a complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D21 of this DEIR.
• Traffic Analysis Memorandum for the proposed District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley, CA, completed by Kimley Horn on May 11 2023 (Kimley Horn 2023c). A complete copy of this report is included as Appendix D22 of this DEIR.  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-2 June 2023

4.16.1 Existing Conditions
The Project site abuts the SR-60 right-of-way to the north, 34th Street to the south, Santa Ana Ri ver to the east, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west. The southern border of the Specific Plan area is irregular and does not include a majority of the existing uses along 34th Street. The surrounding area is characterized as predominantly vacant land, with limited previous development of older residential properties. The surrounding neighborhoods have been developed over time with residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

Access to the site is primarily from Frontage Road, 30th Street, Hall Avenue, Rubidoux Boulevard, 34th Street and Wallace Street. These existing public streets are paved roads with varying widths though not all roads have curb, gutter, or sidewalks. The existing residences within the Project site take direct access from Wallace Street.

Roadways
Roadways in and near the Project site are described below in Table 4.16-1.

Table 4.16-1

EXISTING ROADWAYS IN AND NEAR THE PROJECT SITE
Description Number of Lanes Sidewalks? Bike Lane?
Wallace Street (N/S) 2 undivided No No
Hall Avenue (N/S)/
30th Street (E/W)
2 undivided Not onsite; yes, on
bridge over SR-60
No
Rubidoux Boulevard (N/S) 4 with two-way median turn lane Yes, both sides No 34th Street (E/W) 2 undivided No No
SR-60 (E/W) 8-lane freeway Not applicable Not applicable Frontage Road (E/W) 2 undivided No No
Mission Boulevard
(E/W)/Santa Ana River
(N/S). Replacement of the
Mission Boulevard Bridge
over the Santa Ana
River—approximately 0.3
mile south of the
southeast corner of the
Project site—is planned by
Riverside County. The
project is scheduled to
start construction in
Winter 2023 and be
completed in Winter 2026
(RCTD, 2023).
4 travel lanes, with a 12 -foot
multipurpose trail with barrier
separation from vehicular traffic
on the south side of the bridge, and
two eight-foot shoulders.

Yes Yes
Sources: UltraSystems 2023; Google Maps 2023

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-3 June 2023
Public Transit Service
The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) provides public transit bus service in the Project region. Two routes pass near the Project site as shown in Figure 4.16-1, Transit Route #29, and Figure 4.16-2, Transit Route #49.

Bicycle Routes
No existing bicycle facilities are mapped in or near the Project site on the City of Jurupa Valley Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (CMPBP), except for the Santa Ana River Trail on the City of Riverside side of the Santa Ana River.

Pedestrian Facilities
No sidewalks are present in the interior of the Project site. The only sidewalks on the site perimeter are on Rubidoux Boulevard and a short segment on the SR-60 Frontage Road.

4.16.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
David Murray, princi pal planner with the City of Riverside submitted a letter dated April 29, 2022, that included the following comments:
• Discuss consistency with the City [of Riverside]’s Trails Master Plan. This topic is discussed in Section 4.15.6, Environmental Impact Analysis, in Section 4.15, Recreation.

• Discuss trail connection to local, County and adjacent jurisdiction trail systems. This topic is discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation.

• Discuss the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project and the trail facilities to be included in the District Plan to facilitate trail travel between the Project area and Riverside. This topic is discussed in Section 4.16.1, Existing Conditions, above.

Frank Wen, Manager, Planning Strategy Department at the Southern California Associ ation of Governments (SCAG) submitted a letter dated April 27, 2022, asking for analysis of project consistency with the 2020 – 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS or Connect SoCal). This topic is addressed in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

4.16.3 Regulatory Framework
The analysis is this section considers the Project’s compliance with the following regulations.

Federal
There are no federal regulations that are applicable to the topic of transportation in the City of Jurupa Valley.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-0 June 2023
State
Senate Bill 743 and VMT-Based Analyses
Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013), codified in PRC § 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the analysis of transportation impacts. In 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. With the California Natural Resources Agency’s certification and adoption of the changes to the CEQA Guidelines, automobile delay, as measured by “level of service” and other similar metrics, no longer constitutes a significant environmental effect under CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21099, subd. (b)(3).)
Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) (Connect SoCal) In 2020, SCAG adopted the 2020- 2045 RTP/SCS, (called Connect SoCal ), which presents a vision for the region in 2045. Connect SoCal is a major planning document for the sout hern California regional transportation and land use network. It balances the region’s future mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental and public health goals. Connect SoCal has goals that would build more than 20 miles of light rail, creating a rail backbone to serve the entire region, accommodate 51 percent of all future housing near major transit stations and corridors, and would replace gas taxes with mileage-based user fees to ensure a long- term sustainable funding mechanism that isn’t eroded by rising fuel efficiency and construction costs. (SCAG, 2020b, p. 2).

Local
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Mobility Element
The General Plan Mobility Element (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017) identifies the circulation facilities located in the vicinity of the Project site; discusses planned circulation system improvements in the vicinity of the Project; site and issues standards for the design and construction of new roadways within the City. To help meet projected future traffic and pedestrian demands and achieve balanced growth, the City has adopted specific transportation-related goals and policies that serve as the basis for the Mobility Element. The specific policies and recommendations for implementation of the General Plan are relevant to the proposed Project and are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
Pursuant to Section 5.2, Applicability & Interpretation, of the Specific Plan, all development within the Specific Plan area shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in the Specific Plan document. If conflicts exist between the standards contained in the Specific Plan, Zoning Ordinance or Municipal Code, the regulations, and standards in the Specific Plan shall take precedence. Any area of development standards, administration, review procedures, landscaping requirements, sign requirements, parking requirements, and regulations not expressly addressed by the Specific Pla n shall be subject to the provisions of the Municipal and Zoning Code, using the context and objectives of the Specific Plan as a guide.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-1 June 2023
City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Methodologies and Requirements for General Plan Compliance Analysis and CEQA VMT Analysis , November 2020 , (TIA Guidelines), provide instructions for analyzing the transportation impacts of proposed development projects. The TIA Guidelines present the recommended format and methodology for preparing a VMT analysis consistent California law.

City of Jurupa Valley Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (CMPBP) The Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians (CMPBP), adopted by the City in 2018, makes recommendations for bicycling and pedestrian facilities. The CMBPB recommends a new Class III bike lane, 0.6 miles in length, between 34th Street and Hall Avenue.

City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Safety Plan
In March 2021, the City of Jurupa Val ley completed a Complete Streets Safety Assessment (CSSA) study to assess different locations within the City in an aim to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety, and to enhance walkability. One of the selected corridors included 34th Street from Rubidoux Boulevard to Crestmore Road with the primary goals to review safe walking and crossing, eliminating speeding, and creating pedestrian shortcuts.

Suggestions for improvements from the study affecting the Project also included:
• Consider installing traffic calming devices at the one-third points between Rubidoux and Wallace, as well as Daly Avenue intersection to reduce speeds on 34th to improve walkability.
• Implementation of a walkway on the south side and require that all street parking use the north side.
• Need for all -weather walkway due to pedestrian access to school from Arora / 35th.

Implement a minimum 8’ paved walkway.
• Preserve accessibility for the walkway between 34th and 35th along east edge of Mt.

Calvary churchyard; and
• Creating an alternative cross-section along 34th Street and other low -volume rural roadways.

The CSSA study area included areas for planned improvement into the Specific Plan Area at the intersection of Wallace and 34th Street as well as some of the project frontage along 34th Street.

4.16.4 Methodology
The analysis in this section is based on the City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines Methodologies and Requirements for General Plan Compliance Analysis and CEQA VMT Analysis , November 2020 , (TIA Guidelines), which provide instructions for analyzing the transportation impacts of proposed development projects. The TIA Guidelines present the recommended format and methodology for a VMT analysis.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-2 June 2023

4.16.5 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, set s forth the following significance thresholds and criteria for transportation impacts. The Project would have a significant impact related to transportation if it would:
a) Conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project that is inconsistent with the General Plan Mobility Element policies pertaining to the roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, equestrian and multi -purpose trails network, and public transit may have a significant impact Note: Level of Service (LOS) is not required to be analyzed under this threshold.
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b).

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

Projects that cannot be screened out through the steps outlined in the City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Guidelines as specified in the CEQA Assessment- VMT Analysis section, will require additional analysis in order to determine if a project exceeds the following thresholds of significance:

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

1. Project VMT Impacts:

A project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if, in the Existing Plus Project scenario, its net VMT per capita (for residential projects) or per employee (for office and industrial projects) exceeds the City’s average VMT. The City's average VMT per service population shall be the metric that is in effect at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is required, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced.

2. Cumulative VMT Impacts:

If a project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence. If it is not consistent with the RTP/SCS, a project would result in a significant VMT if:
a) For residential projects, its net VMT per capita exceeds the average VMT per capita for Jurupa Valley in the RTP/SCS horizon-year
b) For office and industrial projects its net VMT per employee exceeds the average VMT per employee for Jurupa Valley in the RTP/SCS horizon year. c) For all other land development project types, a net increase in VMT in the RTP/SCS horizon-year would be considered a significant impact.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-3 June 2023
d) Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles travelled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appro priate measure of transportation impacts consistent with CEQA and ither applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency ma y be tier from that analysis as is provided in Section 15152.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project that is inconsistent with the Improvement Standard Drawings for Road Standards maintained by the Public Works Department, may have a significant impact. d) Result in inadequate emergency access.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project may have a significant impact if:

1. The project blocks roadways that provide emergency vehicle access during construction; or

2. The project does not provide adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles from adjacent roadways during operation.

The Significance Criteria used to determine the level of impact are identified under each threshold in the analysis that follows. Additionally, as part of the process to determine if a project creates a significant impact, the City considers if Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) apply to the project, thus reducing impacts.

Plans Policies and Programs (PPPs)
These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs (PPPs) applied to the Project on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place that effectively reduce environmental impacts. If applicable, they will be identified in the Impact Analysis section below.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
If a project includes within its project scope features or construction techniques that minimize environmental impacts, those features can be incorporated into the Project description as project design features (PDFs). Examples of PDFs include, but are not limited to, installation of solar panels, implementation of energy efficient design standards, use of zero emission equipment and vehicles, or a site design that creates or maintains open space. Because PDFs are incorporated into the Project, they do not constitute mitigation measures. Even so, PDFs are incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure that they are implemented as a part of the Project conditions of approval.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-4 June 2023

4.16.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project that is inconsistent with the General Plan Mobility Element policies pertaining to the roadway network, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, equestrian and multi -purpose trails network, and public transit may have a significant impact Note: Level of Service (LOS) is not required to be analyzed under this threshold.

A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs applicable to the Project related to Threshold a.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
The Project incorporates community serving pedestrian and bicycle pathways through a multi-use trail and sidewalks along A and B Streets as previously shown on Figure 4.16-4. The pedestrian and bicycle pathways are setback from the curb within a landscape parkway that provides a pedestrian friendly environment. See Figure 4.16-5: Modified Arterial Cross Section (A Street & B Street) and Figure 4.16-6: Industrial Collector Cross Section (B Street).

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

PDF 4.16-2 The County of Riverside, in cooperation with the Cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, proposes to replace the existing Mission Boulevard Bridge over the Santa Ana River near Mount Rubidoux in Riverside County. The proposed County project will accommodate two 12-ft lanes, two 14-ft lanes, two 8-ft shoulders and a 4 -ft median.

A 12 -ft multipurpose trail with barrier separation from vehicular traffic will be located along the south side of the bridge in lieu of standard sidewalks on each side.

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

PDF 4.16-3 The project shall provide up to 7 ,800 linear feet of pedestrian street improvements in coordination with the City. The City Engineer can approve alternative design with future street improvements that provide pedestrian connections as intended in the City of Jurupa Valley Complete Streets Safety Assessment, dated November 2021.

Such alternative design can consider using the on- street parking on the north shoulder for a 4 -foot pedestrian sidewalk. On the south side between the pavement edge and front yard fence lines, an alternative design could install a standard 4- foot sidewalk protected from traffic with a raised feature such as an intermittent asphalt dike.

PDF 4.16-4 All future projects will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which include, but are not limited to improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk,  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-5 June 2023
and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi -use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes.

A.2 Impact Analysis
According to the City’s CEQA Guidelines, transportation impacts may be significant if a project would conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation modes (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks). A sign ificant transportation impact could occur if the proposed project would conflict with the General Plan Mobility Element or other adopted transportation programs, plans, ordinances, or policies, such as the City’s Bicycle Master Plan.

Public Transit Impact Analysis
As shown in Figure 4.16-1, Transit Route #29, and Figure 4.16-2, Transit Route #49, two RTA bus routes pass near the Project site: Route #29 on Rubidoux Boulevard and Route #49 on Mission Boulevard. The existing bus stop on northbound Rubidoux Boulevard at the intersection with Frontage Road would be relocated south to the intersection of Rubidoux Boulevard and proposed “A” Street. The Project is proposing additional bus stops within the boundaries and those future bus stops would be placed in locations as approved by the RTA during as part of the site specific planning phases so additional bus services serving the Project site could be available by RTA upon the opening of new businesses and residences.

Route #29 operates between the Cities of Eastvale, Jurupa Valley, and Riverside, traveling through Jurupa Valley along Limonite Avenue, Rubidoux Boulevard, and Market Street in the project vicinity.

Route 29 operates on weekdays from approximately 5:10 AM to 9:50 PM with approximately 80 - minute headways (the time between bus arrivals) and on weekends from approximately 5:55 AM to 9:10 PM with approximately 70-minute headways.

Route# 49 operates between the City of Jurupa Valley and City of Riverside, traveling along Mission Boulevard in the project vicinity. Route 49 operates on weekdays from approximately 5:55 AM to 9:00 PM with approximately 60-minute headways (the time between bus arrivals) and on weekends from approximately 6:20 AM to 8:30 PM with approximately 50-minute headways.

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-6 June 2023
Figure 4.16-1
Transit Route #29

Project Site
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-7 June 2023
Figure 14.16-2
Transit Route #49
Project Site
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-8 June 2023
The internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. Access drives off of the backbone infrastructure are shown on the Circulation Plan. The internal circulation between land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards. (See Figure 4.16-3 through Figure 4.16-6).

Conceptual street cross-sections illustrate the street improvements and parkways. Due to the mix of industrial, commercial, and residential land uses, special attention to directing truck traffic away from residential uses have been incorporated into the Circulation Plan. Circulation improvements include the following:

Improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, landscaping, and may include bike lanes . (See Figure

4.16-3 as an example).

Street designs would discourage trucks from entering or traveling through the Residential Land Use Area or on existing 34th Street through the use of traffic calming devices including roundabout circles and overhead barriers. Calming devices will include a gateway treatment at A Street along Rubidoux Boulevard, which will have height restriction element; (See Figure 4.16-5, Gateway Treatment).

A roundabout shall be a design feature included at the intersections of Wallace Avenue and A Street . (See Figure 4.16-6, Roundabout).

The roadway system provides new roadways and streets to accommodate traffic generated by the anticipated uses as well as facilitate internal vehicular access to the surrounding areas.

The Specific Plan will provide Multi -use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes as a means of connecting residents and employees with the various land uses in the Specific Plan Area. This network of walkable and bikeable pathways throughout the Specific Plan Area provide not only environmental and health benefits but also help to create a greater sense of community through connection. The multi -use pedestrian trail is strategically aligned with the bus stop placement of proposed and relocated stops to allow for greater community access to the public amenities. The Specific Plan accommodates on-street and off-street trail facilities using multiple materials that align with the intended use.

A Street is classified as a Modified Arterial Roadway and serves as the primary circulation route for east to westbound movements to and from Rubidoux Boulevard within the Specific Plan area. The street section accommodates 94-feet of right-of-way with one 16-foot and one 12-foot travel lanes in each direction. One side of the parkways include 11-foot parkway inclusive of a 6-foot sidewalk along the northern commercial retail side and 15 -feet parkway inclusive of a 10 -foot multi-use trail along the southern residential right -of-way. The modification is the introduction of raised median for enhanced landscape and project specific parkway widths as the planned development accommodate greater landscape setbacks from right -of-way. B Street is classified as a Modified Arterial between the roundabout and the landscaped paseo within the Industrial Land Use area. The Modified Arterial section for B Street is identical to the cross section described under “A” Street.  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4-9 June 2023
Figure 4.16-3

CIRCULATION PLAN

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-10 June 2023
Figure 4.16-4

MULTI-USE TRAIL NETWORK

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-11 June 2023
Figure 4.16-5
CROSS SECTION-MODIFIED ARTERIAL (A and B Street)

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-12 June 2023
Figure 4.16-6
CROSS SECTION-INDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR (B Street and 30th Street) )

Industrial Collector: Beyond the landscaped paseo, B Street is classified as an Industrial Collector. Typical section for an Industrial Collector measures 77 feet from R.O.W with two travel lanes measuring 20 feet in each direction, with 6 -inch curb and gutter divided by raised median. One side of the parkways include 10 -foot parkway inclusive of a 5- foot sidewalk along the eastern commercial retail side and 15 - feet parkway inclusive of a 10 -foot multi -use trail along the western industrial right- of-way. A striped median is proposed along the centerline that will serve as a center turn lane (see Figure 2-8, Industrial Collector Cross Section).

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-13 June 2023
Figure 4.16-7
Cross Section-Local Street (Wallace Street and 34th Street) )

A local street described above typically typical measures 60 feet from right-of-way with two travel lanes measuring 12 feet in each direction, 6-inch curb and gutter, and 10-foot parkway inclusive of a 5-foot sidewalk.

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-14 June 2023
Figure 4.16-8

CROSS SECTION-RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD

Rubidoux Boulevard, located along the western boundary of the Specific Plan area, is designated in the General Plan as a Major Highway with a 118-foot right-of-way. Rubidoux Boulevard carries significant traffic volumes to both SR-60 Eastbound and Westbound lane.

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-15 June 2023
Figure 4.16-9
Gateway Treatment-Rubidoux Boulevard and A Street
Gateway monument will be implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways.

Figure 4.16-10
Gateway Treatment-Rubidoux Boulevard and A Street

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-16 June 2023
A roundabout will be located at the intersection of Wallace Street, and future A Street and B Street.

The roundabout provides a significant traffic control measure to deter truck traffic, while providing an amenity to the community. Two travel lanes are accommodated, measuring 15 feet in each direction, an 8 -foot sidewalk as well as an interior parkway measuring 130 feet in total. The large parkway will consist of a 10-foot mortared cobblestone border around the street adjacent edge. The interior parkway will celebrate the local landscape with decorative boulders native to the region. A detailed design of the roundabout shall be reviewed by the traffic engineer and City and detailed plans, that include hardscape and plant materials, will be required prior to the approval of the Street Improvement Plans.

Roadway Impact Analysis
The internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. Access drives off of the backbone infrastructure are shown on the Circulat ion Plan. The internal circulation between land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards. Figure 4.16.x, Conceptual Street Improvements, and Figures 2-7 through

2.13 of the Specific Plan describes the required roadway improvements that facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of travel.

Bicycle Facilities Impact Analysis
No existing bicycle facilities are mapped in or near the Project site on the City of Jurupa Valley CMPBP, except for the Santa Ana River Trail (SART) opposite the Santa Ana River from the site. No access is proposed from the Project site to the SART. The nearest existing access to the SART is at Mission Boulevard approximately 0.3 mile south of the Project site. The Project shall provide, if approved by the City Engineer, a Class III bike route along Crestmore Road from 34th Street to Mission Boulevard by placing bike route signs and optional shared roadway markings (sharrow) along Crestmore Road.

Note that the proposed bike route on Crestmore Road would provide a connection from the Project site to Mission Boulevard near the planned Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement.

Pedestrian Facilities Impact Analysis
No sidewalks are present in the interior of the Project site. The only sidewalks on the site perimeter are on Rubidoux Boulevard and a short segment on the SR -60 Frontage Road . As shown on Figure

2.6, required by Section 2.6.4 Multi-Use Trail Network, of the Specific Plan , the Specific Plan will provide Multi -use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes as a means of connecting residents and employees with the various land uses in the Specific Plan Area. The multi -use pedestrian trail is strategically aligned with the bus stop placement of proposed and relocated stops to allow for greater community access to the public amenities. The Specific Plan accommodates on- street and off-street trail facilities using multiple materials that align with the intended use.

With adherence to the Circulation Plan and design standards required for roadway improvements, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing t he circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Project impacts on plans and policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant after compliance with PPP 4.16-1 and PDF 4.16-1.  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-17 June 2023
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 conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision ?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

Projects that cannot be screened out through the steps outlined in the City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Guidelines as specified in the CEQA Assessment- VMT Analysis section, will require additional analysis in order to determine if a project exceeds the following thresholds of significance:

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

1. Project VMT Impacts:

A project would result in a significant project generated VMT impact if, in the Existing Plus Project scenario, its net VMT per capita (for residential projects) or per employee (for office and industrial projects) exceeds the City’s average VMT. The City's average VMT per service population shall be the metric that is in effect at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is required, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced.

2. Cum ulative VMT Impacts:

If a project is consistent with the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence. If it is not consistent with the RTP/SCS, a project would result in a significant VMT if:
a) For residential projects, its net VMT per capita exceeds the average VMT per capita for Jurupa Valley in the RTP/SCS horizon-year
b) For office and industrial pro jects its net VMT per employee exceeds the average VMT per employee for Jurupa Valley in the RTP/SCS horizon year. c) For all other land development project types, a net increase in VMT in the RTP/SCS horizon- year would be considered a significant impact.
d) Transportation projects that reduce, or have no impact on, vehicle miles travelled should be presumed to cause a less than significant transportation impact. For roadway capacity projects, agencies have discretion to determine the appropriate measure of transportation impacts consistent with CEQA and ither applicable requirements. To the extent that such impacts have already been adequately addressed at a programmatic level, such as in a regional transportation plan EIR, a lead agency may be tier from that analysis as is provided in Section 15152.  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-18 June 2023
B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
There are no PPPs applicable to the Project related to Threshold b.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
The Project incorporates community serving pedestrian and bicycle pathways through a multi -use trail and sidewalks along A and B Streets as previously shown on Figure 4.16-4. The pedestrian and bicycle pathways are setback from the curb within a landscape parkway that provides a pedestrian friendly environment. See Figure 4.16-5: Modified Arterial Cross Section (A Street & B Street) and Figure 4.16-6: Industrial Collector Cross Section (B Street).

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

PDF 4.16-2 The County of Riverside, in cooperation with the Cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, proposes to replace the existing Mission Boulevard Bridge over the Santa Ana River near Mount Rubidoux in Riverside County. The proposed County project will accommodate two 12-ft lanes, two 14 -ft lanes, two 8-ft shoulders and a 4 -ft median.

A 12 -ft multipurpose trail with bar rier separation from vehicular traffic will be located along the south side of the bridge in lieu of standard sidewalks on each side.

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

PDF 4.16-3 The project shall provide up to 7 ,800 linear feet of pedestrian street improvements in coordination with the City. The City Engineer can approve alternative design with future street improvements that provide pedestrian connections as intended in the City of Jurupa Valley Complete Street s Safety Assessment, dated November 2021.

Such alternative design can consider using the on- street parking on the north shoulder for a 4 -foot pedestrian sidewalk. On the south side between the pavement edge and front yard fence lines, an alternative design could install a standard 4 -foot sidewalk protected from traffic with a raised feature such as an intermittent asphalt dike.

PDF 4.16-4 All future projects will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which include, but are not limite d to improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi -use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes.

B.2 Impact Analysis
For purposes of SB 743 compliance, a VMT analysis shall be conducted for land use projects as deemed necessary by the Planning and Public Works Departments and applies to projects that have the potential to increase the average VMT/SP (e.g., population plu s employment) compared to the City’s baseline VMT/SP rate. There are three screening steps to be followed to screen projects from project-level assessment. These screening steps are outlined in Table 4.16.2.

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-19 June 2023
Table 4.16-2

VMT SCREENING STEPS
Screening Criteria Screened
Out?
Step 1 : Located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) .Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) are Priority Growth Areas that are within one half mile of existing or planned ‘major’ transit stops in the region. A ‘major’ transit stop is defined as a site containing an existing or planned rail or bus rapid transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
(1)
No
Step 2: Located in a Low VMT Area. To identify if the project is in a low VMT-generating area, the analyst should review the WRCOG screening tool and apply the appropriate threshold within the tool. Additionally, as noted above, the analyst must identify if the project is consistent with the existing land use within that TAZ and identify that there is nothing unique about the project that would otherwise be misrepresented utilizing the data from the travel demand model.

No
Step 3. Project Type. Local serving retail projects less than 50,000 square feet may be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary. Local serving retail generally improves the convenience of shopping close to home and has the effect of reducing vehicle travel. In addition to local serving retail, the following uses can also be presumed to have a less than significant impact absent substantial evidence to the contrary as their uses are local serving in nature:
• Local parks
• Day care centers
• Local-serving retail centers, gas stations, and banks • Local-serving restaurants, including with drive-thru. • Local-serving hotels (e.g., non-destination hotels)
• Local serving community colleges that are consistent with the assumptions noted in the RTP/SCS
• Projects generating less than 250 daily vehicle trips.

No
Notes: (1) Connect SoCal, Chapter 3, p.51. Available at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file - attachments/0903fconnectsocal-03-plan.pdf
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines, November 2020.

As shown in Table 14.6-2, the Project does not qualify to be screened out and a full VMT Analysis was prepared. The Project’s VMT screening is provided in Appendix D21.

Projects that are not screened out through the steps in Table 4.16.2, are required to complete a full VMT analysis and forecasting using RIVTAM/RIVCOM to determine if they have a significant VMT impact. Therefore, a VMT analysis was prepared (see Appendix D21).

Vehicle-Miles-Travelled Analysis
The detailed methodology used in preparing this VMT Analysis is included in Appendix D21 to this DEIR and not repeated in detail here.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-20 June 2023
The VMT analysis was completed using the most current version of Riverside County’s Transportation Model, RIVCOM (referred to as the “RIVCOM Model”). The RIVCOM model is a complex system that analyzes road networks, socio- economic data, driver behavior, and goods movement to predict where traffic flow will oc cur as the population grows and changes. While the RIVCOM model covers the entire SCAG region, Riverside County is the focus of analysis, and the model data is more disaggregated within the County as opposed to other areas of the region.

The model is trip -based and considered interaction between different land uses based on socio - economic data such as population, households, and employment. Adjustments in socio- economic data (employment) were made to the appropriate Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) in the RIVCOM Model to reflect the Project’s proposed land uses.

A TAZ is a geographic area where data is relating to population, employment, school enrollment, etc.

As shown in Figure 4.16-11, the Project site is located within TAZ 895 and 899 bordered by SR60 to the north, Mission Boulevard to the south, the Santa River to the east, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west.

The current version of the RIVCOM Model maintains a base year condition of 2018 which, for the purposes of analysis, is considered to be representative of baseline conditions. The planning horizon for the RIVCOM Model is 2045. VMT analysis was conducted for existing and cumulative scenarios and results were compared to the existing conditions. The population and employment factors used for preparation of socio-economic data were based on factors used in the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Element . Consistent with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, a factor of

3.75 persons per dwelling unit was used for residential, 1 employee per 600 sf for commercial, 1 employee per 800 sf for business park, and 1 employee per 1,200 sf for industrial . The resultant land use data was coded into the RIVCOM Model for analysis.

The analysis includes the following scenarios:
• Baseline Conditions - based on 2018 RIVCOM Model conditions. • Baseline Plus Project Conditions – Based on 2018 RIVCOM Model with proposed Project. • Cumulative No Project Conditions – Based on 2045 RIVOM Model conditions. • Cumulative Plus Project Conditions – Based on 2045 RIVCOM Model condit ions with proposed Project.

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-21 June 2023
Figure 4.16-11
Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ)

Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Population Employment VMT/Employee VMT/Capita 895 2391 318 49.9 17.0
899 316 14 54.1 19.6

 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-22 June 2023
VMT significance thresholds are based on land use categories consisting of VMT/Capita (Residential) and Work VMT/employee (Employee-Based VMT). The calculation of VMT has two components – the total number of trips generated and the average trip length of each vehicle trip. VMT calculations are explained further in the VMT Analysis included as Appendix D21 to this DEIR.

Residential Uses
Table 4.16-3 below shows the estimated VMT per capita from proposed residential uses.

Table 4.16-3

VMT ANALYSIS, RESIDENTIAL USES
Scenario Home-Based
VMT/Capita
% Change
compared to City
average
VMT Impact
City Average 21.84
Baseline Plus Project 5.3 -75.73% No

Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 7.6 -65.2% No
Threshold: In the Baseline Plus Project scenario, its net VMT per capita exceeds the City’s average VMT per capita.

Source: Kimley Horn 2023d
As shown in Table 4.16-3 above, the proposed Project’s Home-based VMT is 75.73 percent lower than Citywide average under baseline conditions and 65.2 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, residential land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. Impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Industrial/Employment Uses
Table 4.16-4 below shows the estimated VMT per capita for industrial (employment) Table 4.16-4

VMT ANALYSIS, INDUSTRIAL/EMPLOYMENT USES
Scenario Employment-Based
VMT/Employee
% Change
compared to City
average
VMT Impact
City Average 48.05
Baseline Plus Project 40.0 -16.75% No
Cumulative Plus Project Conditions 41.7 -13.21% No
Threshold: For office and industrial projects its net VMT per employee exceeds the City’s average VMT per employee.

Source: Kimley Horn 2023d
As shown In Table 4.16-4 above, the proposed Project’s Employment -Based VMT is 16.75 percent lower than Citywide average under baseline conditions and 13.21 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, employment land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. Impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Regional Retail/Other Uses
Table 4.16-5 below shows that project generated VMT for regional retail and other uses.  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-23 June 2023
Table 4.16-5

VMT ANALYSIS, REGIONAL RETAIL/OTHER USES
Scenario Total VMT % Change in
Citywide VMT
VMT Impact
Baseline - City of JV 4,225,118
Baseline Plus Project - City of JV 4,278,890
Net Change in VMT (Baseline) 23,772 +0.56% Yes
Cumulative - City of JV 5,535,957
Cumulative Plus Project - City of JV 5,559,996
Net Change in VMT (Cumulative) 24,039 +0.43% Yes
Threshold: For all other uses, a net increase in total VMT within the city would be considered a significant Impact.

Source: Kimley Horn 2023d
As shown in Table 4.16-5 above, the proposed Project’s Regional Commercial and Other uses results in a net increase Citywide VMT of 0.56 percent under baseline conditions and 0.43 percent under cumulative conditions. As such, regional retail and other land uses exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. Impacts are significant in this regard.

In summary, the following initial unmitigated results are determined:
• The proposed project’s Home -based VMT is 75.73 percent lower than Citywide average under baseline conditions and 65.2 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, residential land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios.
• The proposed project’s Employment -Based VMT is 16.75 percent lower than Citywide average under baseline conditions and 13.21 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, employment land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios.
• The proposed project’s Regional Commercial uses results in a net increase Citywide VMT of

0.56 percent under baseline conditions and 0.43 percent under cumulative conditions. As such, regional retail land uses exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Project impacts on plans and policies addressing the circulation system would be less than significant after compliance with PPP 4.16-1 and PDF 4.16-1.

Less than significant for Residential and Employment VMT. Potentially significant for cumulative VMT.

B.3 Mitigation Measures
The following Mitigation Measures (MM) are required to reduce impacts to the maximum extent feasible.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-24 June 2023
MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management Program . Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the Property Owner shall provide assurances that the transportation demand management measures described below, will be perpetually implemented, regardless of property ownership, and a mechanism for informing subsequent property owners of the tr ansportation demand management plan requirements. These requirements may be accomplished through recordation of covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or the formation of a transportation management association which assumes responsibility for implementation and monitoring of the transportation demand management measures or other measures deemed acceptable by the City.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase, the Project Applicant shall consult with the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services and to relocate the existing bus stop on northbound Rubidoux Boulevard at Frontage Road southward to the intersection of Rubidoux Boulevard and proposed A Street. The applicant shall fund such relocation. The Project Applicant shall fund a study on behalf of RTA to determine whether adding bus service along proposed A Street in the Project site would be warranted by potential riders hip and be practicable for RTA. Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
• Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any commercial use, future tenants in employment -generating land uses developed pursuant to the proposed Project shall implement measures including, but not be limited to, the following: ride - matching assistance; prefere ntial carpool parking; flexible work schedules for carpools; transportation coordinators; providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides; designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles; and including bicycle end of trip facilities including bike parking, bike lockers, showers, and personal lockers. The measures chosen must achieve a total estimated VMT reduction not less than 8.3 percent. This list may be updated as new methods become available.

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
• Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling being sold or offered for sale, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow. This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant shall notify and offer to the tenant or prospective tenant, mate rials describing public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the vicinity of the development. The materials shall be approved by the City of Jurupa  SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-25 June 2023
Valley. The materials shall be provided no later than the time the rental agreement is executed. This information shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division for review and approval, prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Effectiveness of VMT Reduction Measures

Table 4.16-6
Effectiveness of VMT Reduction Measures
VMT Reduction Measure Potential VMT Reduction (%)
Voluntary CTR Program (T-5) 4%
Implement Commute Trip Reduction Marketing (T-7) 4%
Provide End-of-Trip Bicycle Facilities (T-10) 0.3%
Provide Pedestrian Network Improvements (T-18) 6.4%
Construct or Improve Bike Boulevard (T-19-B) 0.01%
Total Potential VMT Reduction 14.71%

As shown in Table 4.16-6, implementation of the VMT Reduction Measures could result in a 14.7 percent reduction, and the 0.56 percent increase in VMT would be rectified. However, the Project is a Specific Plan, which is a planning mechanism to ensure that projects develop in an organized and a cohesive mann er. Specific plans incorporate a framework for the development of land use, circulation, safety and infrastructure including drainage, sewer, and water facilities in accordance with a jurisdiction’s General Plan. Specific plans also set the guidelines for implementing projects within the specific plan area relating to architecture, urban design and landscaping.

Although the Specific Plan’s Circulation Plan identifies the necessary improvements required to reduce VMT, the timing of the construction of these improvements is unknown. Similarly, MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management Program, TDM programs are very tenant - and employer-specific. For example, providing a shuttle service to office use can vary extensively based on the tenant of that office building. As such, at the time of entitlement, it is very difficult to fully capture the actual VMT reduction associated with implementation of the TDM program.

Given the uncertainty in tenant participation at the site and the uncertainty in the timing of when improvements will be constructed, the ability t o achieve the 14.71 percent VMT reduction for the Project cannot be guaranteed and the impact is considered significant and unavoidable for the retail component of the Project.

B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation:

Less than significant for Regional Retail/Other VMT. Significant and Unavoidable for baseline and cumulative VMT.

Threshold c): Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-26 June 2023
Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: A project that is inconsistent with the Improvement Standard Drawings for Road Standards maintained by the Public Works Department, may have a significant impact.

C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No PPPs apply to this threshold.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.16-1 through PDF 4.16-4 apply.

C.2 Impact Analysis
As detailed in Section 2.6, Circulation System, of the Specific Plan, the internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. Access drives off of the backbone infrastructure are shown on the Circulation Plan. The internal circulation between land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards. Specifically, the Circulation Plans addresses the following:
• Improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping. • Street designs which would discourage trucks from entering or traveling through the Residential Land Use Ar ea or on existing 34th Street through the use of traffic calming devices.
• Improving 34th Street from Rubidoux Boulevard to Crestmore Road to provide for safe walking and crossing, eliminating speeding, and creating pedestrian shortcuts. • Minimizing the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR -60 at Rubidoux Boulevard would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th Street and B Street to access the Industrial and Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation p lan incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses.
• Providing multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes as a means of connecting residents and employees with the various land uses in the Specific Plan Area.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-27 June 2023
C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation:

Less than significant.

Threshold d): Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project may have a significant impact if:

1. The project blocks roadways that provid e emergency vehicle access during construction; or

2. The project does not provide adequate ingress and egress for emergency vehicles from adjacent roadways during operation.

D.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
No PPPs apply to this threshold.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.16-1 through PDF 4.16-4 apply.

D.2 Impact Analysis
During the course of the City of Jurupa Valley’s review of the proposed Project, the City evaluated the Project’s design, including but not limited to proposed driveway locations and parking lot/drive aisle configuration, to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. Furthermore, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the Project would implement an emergency access only road along Primavera Avenue. Moreover, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with PPP 4.8 -3 which would ensure that the Project is designed and constructed to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles.

Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and a less than significant impact would occur.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Less than significant.

D.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

D.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Less than significant.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-28 June 2023

4.16.7 Cumulative Impacts
Because the fo cus of the transportation impact analysis is on VMT (for purposes of reducing GHG emissions which by nature is a global impact), the geographic scope for the VMT cumulative analysis considers the Project’s impacts in the context of the SCAG region. For the other impacts, such as consistency with General Plan policies related to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel, the geographic scope is the project’s identified in Table 3 1, Cumulative Projects.

The purpose of a cumulative analysis is to deter mine if several projects when evaluated together could result in a significant “cumulative” impact that would otherwise not be considered significant when projects are evaluated one at a time. If several projects considered together have the potential to r esult in a significant cumulative impact (that is not already identified as a significant project impact), the question becomes whether the project being analyzed would result in a “considerable” contribution to such a significant cumulative impact. Theref ore, if a project results in a significant impact by itself, then its contribution to a cumulative impact is considerable.

The cumulative impact analysis for each threshold question posed by the City’s CEQA Guidelines is discussed below.

Would the Project conflict with existing programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the performance of the City’s transportation system (for both motorized and non-motorized modes of travel) relating to reducing VMT?
As identified in the analysis presented under Threshold a, the Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. As shown in Table 3 1, Cumulative Projects , projects are located in the City of Jurupa Valley and the City of Riverside. Cumulative development projects in both cities would be reviewed for consistency with adopted programs, plans, ordinances, or policies as applicable in each jurisdiction . As detailed in the analysis in this EIR , impacts are less than significant, the Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts are less than significant in this regard.

Would the Project conflict with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3(b), whose purpose is to evaluate VMT’s impacts on the environment?.

As detailed under Threshold b, above, the following initial unmitigated results are determined:

• The proposed Project’s Home-based VMT is 75.73 percent lower than Citywide avera ge under baseline conditions and 65.2 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, residential land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable. Impacts are less than significant in this regard. • The proposed Project’s Employment-Based VMT is 16.75 percent lower than Citywide average under baseline conditions and 13.21 percent lower than Citywide average under cumulative conditions. As such, employment land uses do not exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. The Project would not contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable . Impacts are less than significant in this regard.
 SECTION 4.16 – TRANSPORTATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.16-29 June 2023
• The proposed Project’s Regional Commercial uses results in a net increase Citywide VMT of

0.56 percent under baseline condi tions and 0.43 percent under cumulative conditions. As such, regional retail land uses exceed the City threshold under baseline and cumulative scenarios. The Project would contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would be cumulatively considerable. Impacts are significant and unavoidable in this regard and are thus cumulatively considerable.

Would the Project increase hazards due to a roadway’s geometric design? and As detailed under Threshold c) the internal site circulation is composed of a core backbone roadway that provides access and connectivity between each Land Use area and circulation through the Specific Plan area. Access drives off of the backbone infrastructure are shown on the Circulation Plan.

The internal circulation between land uses will be addressed with future site development plans for the individual development projects consistent with the standards of the Specific Plan and all other applicable City, County and State standards. Cumulative projects will also have to meet the applicable standards for street improvements to prevent safety hazards.

As such, the Project would not
contribute to a cumulative impact and thus would not be cumulatively considerable.

Would the Project interfere with emergency access?
As detailed under Thresh old d) The proposed Project would have less than significant impacts in regard to emergency access with implementation of MM TRANS- 2. The proposed Project as well as other projects proposed in the City of Jurupa Valley would be required to implement mitiga tion measures (as warranted) for potential short -term and long -term impacts from projects. It is anticipated that cumulative projects, just as with the proposed Project, would be required to provide adequate emergency vehicle access to Project sites both d uring the short-term construction period and long -term operational phases. Therefore, Project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-1 June 2023

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
For the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Tribal Cultural Resources (TCRs) may be broadly defined as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe. More specifically, TCRs may be understood as resources th at have been formally recognized by a lead agency and/or are listed or determined eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations[CCR] § 4852).TCRs may also include archaeological and historic resources (seeSection3.5, Cultural Resources, for discussion and analysis of impacts relating to archaeological and historic resources). It is notable that the fact that a resource is not yet identified as a TCR or found eligible for the CRHR does not preclude a lead agency from determining that said resource is a TCR pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. Under CEQA, a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR would const itute a significant effect on the environment.

Confidentiality
With some exceptions, any information, including but not limited to, the location, description, and use of tribal cultural resources submitted by a California Native American tribe during the environmental review process shall not be included in the environmental document or otherwise disclosed by the lead agency or any other public agency to the public, consistent with Government Code §6254 (r) and §6254.10. Any information submitted by a Calif ornia Native American tribe during the consultation or environmental review process shall be published in a confidential appendix to the environmental document unless the tribe that provided the information consents, in writing, to the disclosure of some o r all of the information to the public. (Pub. Resources Code §21082.3 (c)(1)).

Therefore, this section relies, in large part, on the government -to-government consultation process required by California Senate Bill 18 —Protection of Tribal Cultural Places (SB18) and California Assembly Bill 52 —Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources (AB 52) which are more fully described in subsection 4.17.4, Regulatory Framework, below.

Tribal Expertise
CEQA §21080.3.1(s) notes that “the legislature finds and declares that Cal ifornia Native American tribes…may have expertise concerning their tribal cultural resources.” Based on guidance from the California Office of Planning and Research, substantial evidence that may support the lead agency’s determination may include tribal e lder testimony, oral history, tribal government archival information, the testimony of a qualified archaeologist certified by the relevant tribe, testimony of an expert certified by the tribal government, official tribal government declarations or resoluti ons, formal statements from a certified tribal historic preservation officer, and historical notes or other anthropological records. As such, the analysis in this section considers the information obtained during the government to government tribal consult ation process that the City engaged in with the tribes who consulted under AB52 and SB18.
 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-2 June 2023

4.17.1 Existing Conditions
Ethnography
“Ethnography” is defined as the study of a culture to obtain information on past and present life ways.

It is a “first-and”, account of a particular culture or group, focusing on a particular population, place and time, and all with the goal of accurately describing th at culture or ethnic group . Because ethnography involves tribal elder testimony, oral history, and tribal government archival information, which may be confidential, it is not discussed in the EIR, but was considered in the analysis.

Physical Conditions
The majority of the Project area was found to be disturbed with evidence of both prior agricultural and residential development that has since been demolished. Much of the open space within the Project area appears to have been previously plowed and/or bulldozed, and scatters of broken and displaced construction materials and residential refuse were found throughout, including chunks of concrete, asphalt, brick, window glass, and other building materials along with recently discarded furniture, clothing, and other residential items. Ground surface visibility was variable throughout the Project area 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 (ASM, 2022).

Historical imagery available from historicaerials.com , included topographic maps from 1896, 1898, 1901, 1905, 1909, 1911, 1913, 1926, 1927, 1929, 1938, 1939, 1942, 1943, 1946, 1955, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1963, 1965, 1975, 1980, 1981, 1985, 2012, 2015, and 2018 (NETR 2022a); and aerial images from 1938, 1948, 1959, 1966, 1967, 1968, 1980, 1985, 1994, 2002, 2005, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2014, 2016, and 2018 .

The earliest topographic maps show Rubidoux Boulevard already in place, as well as the Santa Ana River channel. One structure is depicted in the northern portion of the Project area. 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 1959 map, while maps from 1975 onward show a smaller number of structures within the Project area. The aerial images provide greater detail regarding use of the Project area. Wallace Street appears on the 1938 image which also shows much of the area under cultivation or exhibit ing a relatively uniform open space land surface with a more natural landscape at the east along the riverfront. Additional structures appear in the 1948 image, but it not until the 1966 aerial that the easternmost area also appears to be under cultivation and the large ‘racetrack’ shaped feature is visible. Some additional buildings are present in the northern and central portions of the Project area by 1980. Sometime between 2005 and 2009, many of the structures in the northern part of the Project had been removed and the Project area appears much as it does in 2022 as described above.

4.17.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the proposed Project was released for public review on April 1, 2022, and an EIR Scoping Meeting was held on April 20 , 2022. No comments were made during the EIR Scoping Meeting that pertain to tribal cultural resources.  SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-3 June 2023
A letter via email was received related to tribal cultural resources from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on April 14, 2022. The NAHC requested that the EIR adhere to the Native American consultation requirements pursuant to Senate Bill 18 and Assembly Bill 52.

4.17.3 Regulatory Framework
State
The following regulatory requirements were relied upon regarding the analysis of tribal cultural resource impacts under CEQA:

California Assembly Bill 52 (Native Americans : California Environmental Quality Act) Assembly Bill 52 (Gatto, 2014) requires consideration of tribal cultural resources early in the CEQA process, the legislature intended to ensure that local and tribal governments, public agencies, and project proponents would have information available early in the Project planning process to identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources. To determine whether a project may have such an effect, the Public Resources Code requires a lead agency to consult with any California Native American tribe that requests consultation a nd is traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed Project . That consultation must take place prior to the release of a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration, or environmental impact report for a project. Pu b. Res. Code § 21080.3.1. If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Pub. Res. Code § 20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources. 56 These
measures may include avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property.
57 California Senate Bill 18 (Traditional Tribal Cultural Places) SB 18 requires local (city and county) governments to consult with California Native American tribes to aid in the protection of traditional tribal cultural places (“cultural places”) through local land use planning. SB 18 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to making certain planning decisions and to provide notice to tribes at certain key points in the p lanning process. These consultation and notice requirements apply to adoption and amendment of both general plans (defined in Government Code §65300 et seq.) and specific plans (defined in Government Code §65450 et seq.). If a lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to tribal cultural resources, the lead agency must consider measures to mitigate that impact. Pub. Res.

Code § 20184.3 (b)(2) provides examples of mitigation measures that lead agencies may consider to avoid or minimize impacts to tribal cultural resources may include avoidance and preservation of the resources in place, treating the resource with culturally appropriate dignity, or permanent conservation easements or other interests in real property. 58 56 Office of Planning and Research, Technical Advisory, AB 52 and Tribal Cultural Resources in CEQA, June 2017. https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/20200224-AB_52_Technical_Advisory_Feb_2020.pdf 57 Ibid.
58 Ibid.
 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-4 June 2023
California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5
The California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 states that if human remains are discovered during construction on a Project site , no further disturbance shall occur until a county coroner makes 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 NAHC within 24 hours.

Regional
There are no regional policies that relate to tribal cultural resources.

Local
The specific policies outlined in the City of Jurupa Valley’s General Plan Land Use Element, Conservation and Open Space Element, and Environmental Justice Element that are related to tribal cultural resources and the Project are listed in a General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section

4.10, Land Use and Planning. .

4.17.4 Methodology
Sacred Lands File Search.

The NAHC’s Sacred Lands Inventory is a confidential catalog of Native American sacred and cultural sites on public and private lands. It is authorized in statute by Public Resources Code section 5097.94 (a), which authorizes the NAHC “to identify and catalog places of special religious or social significance to Native Americans, and known graves and cemeteries of Native Americans on private lands,” and Public Resources Code section 5097.95, which authorizes the NAHC to “prepare an inventory of Native American sacred places that are located on public lands.” CEQA lead agencies that are conducting an environmental review of a proposed Project prior to granting a permit or license for that project typically request a search of the Sacred Lands Inventory as part of the CEQA environmental review process to determine if a project ha s an impact on Native American cultural resources. If a Sacred Lands Inventory search reveals that a Native American cultural resource is in a project area, (called “positive”) the NAHC does not provide the name or location of the sites. Instead, the NAHC provides the requesting party a list of the California Native American Tribes on its AB 52/SB 18 Tribal Consultation Lists that are traditionally and culturally affiliated to the Project area so that the CEQA lead agency may consult with the Tribes to discuss avoidance, preservation in place, or mitigation of impacts to any Native American cultural resources in a project area 59.

The NAHC maintains a confidential SLF database which contains resources of traditional, cultural, or religious value to the Native American community. The NAHC was contacted on October 7, 2021, to request a search of the SLF. The NAHC responded to the request in a letter dated November 19, 2021, indicating that the results were positive. The response letter did not provide details on resources within the Project site.

59 https://nahc.ca.gov/environmental-and-cultural-department/  SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-5 June 2023

4.17.5 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 i n Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. 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 tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in t erms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of histor ical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1.

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

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if: The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

1. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

2. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of §5020.1.

3. A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

4. A historical resource described in §21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of §21083.2, or a "nonunique archaeological resource" as defined in subdivision (h) _ of §21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-6 June 2023

4.17.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in sub division (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, the project would have significant effects if:

The project causes a substantial adverse change or materially alters sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

1.Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.

2.Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of §5020.1.

3.A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.

4.A historical resource described in §21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of §21083.2, or a "nonunique archaeological resource" as defined in subdivision (h) _ of §21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).

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 which effectively reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. The following PPP listed in Section 4.4 , Cultural Resources, applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to tribal cultural resources. This requirement is included in the Project’s MMRP to ensure compliance:
 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-7 June 2023
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)
There are no measures incorporated into the Project’s design that are specifically intended to reduce or avoid impacts to tribal cultural resources. Compliance with regulatory requirements and the PPP listed above would ensure the Project would result in less than significant impacts to tribal cultural resources.

A.2 Impact Analysis
Native American Consultation
AB52 Consultation Notices:

As required by AB 52, the City sent notification to the following Native American tribes who have previously requested in writing to receive notices pursuant to AB52:
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians,
• Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
• Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians
SB18 Consultation Notices:

As required by SB18, the City sent SB18 notification letters to the following tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of Riverside County or project region.

The City issued AB52 and/or SB18 Notices on November 10, 2021. The results of both the AB52 and SB18 processes are shown on Table 4.17-1.

Table 4.17-1
SUMMARY OF AB52 AND SB18 CONSULTATION PROCESS
Tribe AB52
Notice
SB18
Notice
Result
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla
Indians
 Stated that the Project site is out of their
culturally affiliated area.

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -
Kizh Nation
  City unable to reach agreement
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe  No response
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
 No response
Gabrielino/Tongva Nation  No response
 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-8 June 2023
Tribe AB52
Notice
SB18
Notice
Result
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band
of Mission Indians
 No response
Morongo Band of Mission Indians  No response.

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians  No response
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma
Reservation (Quechan Indian Tribe)
 Stated that the Project site is out of their
culturally affiliated area.

Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians  No response
San Fernando Band of Mission
Indians
 No response
Serrano Nation of Mission Indians  No response
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians   Agreed to mitigation measures in the EIR and consultation completed on September
29, 2022.

Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla
Indians
  No response
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
(formerly San Manuel Band of
Mission Indians)
  Mutual agreement with City on proposed
mitigation measures in the EIR and
consultation completed on August 24,
2022.
§ 21080.3.2.
(a) As a part of the consultation pursuant to § 21080.3.1, the parties may propose mitigation measures, including, but not limited to, those recommended in § 21084.3, capable of avoiding or substantially lessening potential significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource or alternatives that would avoid significant impacts to a tribal cultural resource. If the California Native American tribe requests consultation regarding alternatives to the Project, recommended mitigation measures, or significant effects, the consultation shall include those topics. The consultation may include discussion concerning the type of environmental review necessary, the significance of tribal cultural resources, the significance of the Project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and, if necessary, project alternatives or the appropriate measures for preservation or mitigation that the California Native American tribe may recommended to the lead agency. (b) The consultation shall be considered concluded when either of the following occurs:
(1) The parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource.
(2) A party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached.

Threshold ai): Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k);  SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-9 June 2023
An historic resource also can be a tribal cultural resource under CEQA. For example, a building or structure that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources , may be of cultural value to a Native American tribe. As discussed in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, all prior recorded resources within the Project site are historic residential buildings, with the exception of the Jurupa Ditch (i.e., Zanja System), 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. Based on the analysis in Section 4.3, Cultural Resources, of this EIR, the historic ditch (i.e., Zanja System) is no longer eligible for the CRHR. The remaining h istoric resources (i.e., residential structures) observed and recorded during the pedestrian survey were evaluated and found to be not significant and not eligible for the CRHR.

During the AB52 and SB18 tribal consultation process discussed in more detail below, this information was provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians -Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, and each tribe indicated that these historic resources were not tribal cultural resources. Therefore, the Project will have no impact with respect to a tribal cultural resource that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as de fined in Public Resources Code § 5020.1(k);
Threshold aii) : A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code § 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Significance Before Mitigation. Potentially significant.

A.3 Mitigation Measures
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes shall be placed on the grading plan verbatim:
“Cultural Resources Mitigation Measures CUL-1 and CUL-2 shall apply:

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 Na tion, 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  SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-10 June 2023
monitoring was completed shall be provided to the Jurupa V alley 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 resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. The statement shall identify the date(s) and contact persons involved. A final re port 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 tri bal cultural resource is involved, 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.” Additionally, Tribal Cultural Resource Mitigation Measure TCR-1 shall apply:

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

1. Preservation–in-place, if feasible this is the preferred option. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place where they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources.

2. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall be culturally appropriate as determined through consultation with the consulting Tribe(s)and include, at least, the following: Measures to protect the reburial area from any future impacts in perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required cataloguing and recordation have been completed on the cultural resources, with the exception that sacred and ceremonial items, burial goods, and Native American human remains are excluded. No cataloguing, analysis, or other studies may occur on human remains grave goods, and sacred and ceremonial items. The designated 10’ x 10’ location for reburial shall be in a predetermined area that is limited in accessibility, not subject to erosion or flooding, and ma y require the incorporation of natural deterrents such as prickly plants, etc. The final artifact inventory associated DPR forms and location of the reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV Report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with CHRIS System at the Eastern Informational Center, at UC Riverside, under a confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Request. Copies of the Phase IV Report shall also be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.”
 SECTION 4.17 – TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.17-11 June 2023
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
After implementation of MM CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1, impacts would be less than significant.

4.17.7 Cumulative Impacts
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the proposed Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development project in the vicinity of the Project site that are in the northwestern area of Riverside County and the traditional use area of the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation. These areas have a potential to yield cultural resources that have affiliation with the cultural context of the Project site.

Although other development projects in the traditional use area for the Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians -Kizh Nation, and the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians may impact significant tribal cultural resources, impacts are generally site-specific resulting from ground disturbing activities. There are no cumulative projects adjacent to the Project site that would lead to a cumulative effect . Furthermore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure s MM CUL-1, CUL-2, and TCR-1, Project impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant .

There is no potential for the proposed Project to contribute towards a significant cumulative impact to the significance of a tribal cultural resource or a collection of resources pursuant to California Code of Regulations § 15064.5. Other projects will also be required to comply with SB 18 and/or AB 52.

No TCRs have been identified within the Project site or within the vicinity of the Project site . The Project and related projects are located within a semirural area of the City of Jurupa Valley that ha s been disturbed by agricultural use and constructure of scattered residences over the decades. Should tribal cultural resources be uncovered during construction of these projects, each related project would be required to comply with the applicable laws and regulations regarding tribal cultural resources, as detailed in the Regulatory Framework in Section 4.17.3, Additionally, related projects would be required to comply with the consultation requirements of AB 52 and SB 18 to determine and mitigate any potential impacts to TCRs. Thus, cumulative impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than significant and would not be cumulatively considerable. No cumul ative tribal cultural resource impacts would occur with the implementation of the Project.

 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-1 June 2023

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
This Section addresses the current conditions for utility and service system providers, including water, wastewater, stormwater, solid waste, electricity, and natural gas services, and the Project’s physical impacts related to construction and the ability for t hese providers to serve the Project .

Impacts on electricity and natural gas supplies and consumption are addressed in Section 3.5 , Energy.

The information in this Section is based, in part, on the following technical reports prepared for the Project:
• Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Project by Krieger & Stewart Engineering Solutions dated June 2022 (Krieger & Stewart, 2022), included in Appendix D17 of this EIR.
• Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study completed by Kimley-Horn in December 2022 and included as Appendix D23 of this EIR.

4.18.1 Existing Conditions
Water Supplies
RCSD's 2020 UWMP addresses water supply/water resources, reliability planning, water use provisions, supply and demand comparison pro visions, water demand management measures, and water recycling, and includes a water shortage contingency plan. RCSD's 2020 UWMP is incorporated herein by reference. The Emerald Meadows Ranch project, which was the predecessor to the proposed Project, was identified by name in RCSD's 2020 UWMP (p. 3 -27) as a future development whose proposed land uses were already included in RCSD's land use plan. The water demands for said land uses had previously been identified as 1,100 af/Yr in the 2015 Water Facilities Master Plan (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, pp. III-2-3).

RCSD currently has six potable and six non-potable water production wells that extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin. Essentially, all of RCSD's service area overlies t he Riverside South Groundwater Basin. Based on RCSD's 2020 UWMP, future water demand (including water demand for the proposed Project) will be met by continued and increased production of groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin, augmented by water purchased from Western Municipal Water District and wheeled through the City of Riverside’s distribution system (RPU connection).

The Riverside South Groundwater Basin is that portion of the Riverside Groundwater Basin located in Riverside County (T he Riverside North Groundwater Basin is that portion of the Riverside Groundwater Basin located in San Bernardino County). The Riverside Basin is located between the Chino Groundwater Basin on the northwest and the Colton Groundwater Basin on the northeast .

Chapter 6 of RCSD's 2020 UWMP includes additional descriptive information pertaining to the Riverside South Groundwater Basin. (Krieger and Stewart 2022, p. III-3). On March 1, 1963, Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) filed a suit for a general adjudication of water rights within the San Bernardino Basin Area. A physical settlement was completed and documents delineating the settlement were entered in the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Riverside on April 17, 1969, being Judgment No. 78426 (hereafter referred to as the 1969 Judgment).

The 1969 Judgment included the establishment of rights to extract water from three groundwater  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-2 June 2023
basins (San Bernardino, Colton, and Riverside) and provided for replenishment in the event actual extractions exceed those rights. (Krieger & Stewart, p. III-4).

In accordance with a court judgment, RCSD can extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin without restrictions until the combined credit of the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South groundwater basins are depleted. Once the available credit is depleted, Western Municipal Water District (WMWD) will be obligated to provide groundwater replenishment (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. III-10).

Projected annual water production requirements for RCSD are summarized in Table 4.18-1 below.

The RCSD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in its service area over the 2025-2045 period in normal, single -dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021, pp. 7.8, 7,10, and 7.13).

Table 4.18-1

PROJECTED ANNUAL WATER PRODUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR RCSD Year Projected Groundwater Production
(rounded) (afy)
2025 8,182
2030 10,914
2035 11,649
2040 12,338
2045 13,130
Source: Krieger & Stewart, 2022.

Water Conveyance
RCSD operates approximately 70 miles of water distribution pipelines (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021, p. 3-3). Existing water mains in and near the Project site include a 12-inch main in Rubidoux Boulevard, a 6-inch main in Wallace Avenue, and a 16-inch main in 34th Street (see Figure 2.5-1).

Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater from RCSD’s service area is conveyed to the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in the City of Riverside, which has capacity of 46 mgd. Wastewater flows through the facility in 2020 were 28,345 acre- feet (af) or approximately 25.4 mgd (WSC, 2021, p. 6- 9). Therefore, residual capacity at the facility is approximately 20.6 mgd.

Wastewater Conveyance
An existing sewer main crosses the site north-south in Wallace Street; the main is 15 inches diameter at the north site boundary and increases to 18 inches at the south boundary (Kimley-Horn 2022d).

Storm Drainage
The Project site is in the Santa Ana Watershed (Watershed). The Santa Ana River, the major stream in the Watershed, passes by the east Project site boundary. The Project site is divided into two drainage areas; Wallace Street marks the boundary between the two areas. Area B, west of Wallace Street, spans 121.08 acres. Area C, east of Wallace Street, spans 136.7 acres. The prim ary drainage conveyance in Area C is an open channel extending approximately north -south through the area C  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-3 June 2023
outlets into the Santa Ana River through a 36-inch pipe in the west levee of the Santa Ana River near the southeast corner of the Project site (Kimley-Horn, 2022c).See Figure 4.18-1.

Solid Waste Disposal and Diversion
Burrtec collects solid waste from residences and commercial land uses from most of the City of Jurupa Valley including the Project site (City of Jurupa Valley, 2021). In 2019, the lates t year for which data are available, approximately 98 percent of the solid waste landfilled from the City of Jurupa Valley was disposed of at the three facilities described below in Table 4.18-2 (CalRecycle, 2021a).

Table 4.18-2

LANDFILLS SERVING THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Facility and Nearest
City/Community
Remaining
Capacity,
cubic yards
Daily
Permitted
Disposal
Capacity,
tons
Actual
Daily
Disposal,
tons1
Residual
Daily
Disposal
Capacity,
tons
Estimated
Closing
Date
Badlands Sanitary Landfill,
Moreno Valley
15,748,799 4,800 2,813 1,987 2022
El Sobrante Landfill,
Corona
143,977,170 16,054 10,996 5,058 2051
Lamb Canyon Sanitary
Landfill,
Beaumont
19,242,950 5,000 1,977 3,023 2029
Total 178,968,919 25,854 15,786 10,068 Not
applicable
1 Daily disposal calculated based on annual disposal tonnage assuming 300 operating days per year: that is, six days per week less certain holidays.

Sources: CalRecycle. 2021a. Jurisdiction Disposal by Facility; CalRecycle. 2021[b, c, and d]. Solid Waste Information System (SWIS): SWIS Facility/Site Search; CalRecycle. 2020f. 2019 Landfill Summary Tonnage Report (CalRecycle, 2021e).

 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-4 June 2023
Figure 4.18-1

DRAINAGE AREAS ON THE PROJECT SITE

 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-0 June 2023
Electricity
Southern California Edison (SCE) provides electricity to the Project site . Overhead electric distribution lines are present along Wallace Street, Hall Avenue, Rubidoux Boulevard, 34th Street, and the SR-60 Frontage Road.

Natural Gas
SoCalGas provides natural gas to the Project site. The nearest SCGC high-pressure distribution line to the Project site is in Rubidoux Boulevard (SoCalGas, 2022).

Telecommunications
The existing telecommunications services in the vicinity of the Project site are supplied by AT&T Distribution, Rubidoux Communication Services, and Spectrum (digalert.org, 2021).

4.18.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
A letter from SCGC dated April 25, 2022 stated that their Transmission Department does not operate any facilities within the proposed site. However, their Distribution Department may maintain and operate facilities within the Project site and requested they be contacted to check and make sur e there would be no conflict.

4.18.3 Regulatory Framework
State
Senate Bill 221 (California Government Code Section 66473.7) Senate Bill (SB), California Government Code § 66473.7 prohibits approval of a tentative map, or a parcel map for which a tentative map was not required, or a development agreement for subdivisions of more than 500 dwelling units unless the legislative body of a city or county provides written verification from the applicable public water system (PWS) that there is a sufficient water supply to support the Project, defined as "the total water supplies available during normal, single- dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20-year projection that will meet the projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses."
Senate Bill 610 (California Water Code Section 10910 et seq.) SB 610, codified in the California Water Code, § 10910 et seq., became effective January 1, 2002. SB 610 requires counties and cities to consider the availability of adequate water supplies for certain new large development projects, including the proposed Project, as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Specifically, SB 610 requir es that for certain projects subject to CEQA, the urban water supplier must prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that determines whether the projected water demand associated with a project is included as part of the most recently adopted urban water management plan.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-1 June 2023
Article 22.5 Drought Emergency Water Conservation, California Code of Regulations (Emergency Declaration and Executive Orders)
Governor Gavin Newsom declared a drought emergency on April 21, 2021. The declaration directed the Department of W ater Resources, State Water Resources Control Board, Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Food and Agriculture, in consultation with the Department of Finance, to take various actions to respond to water shortages, increase water conservation, and increase resilience of water supplies (Executive Department, 2021a). Governor Newsom expanded the drought emergency statewide in a proclamation dated October 19, 2021 (Executive Department, 2021b).

Assembly Bill 939, Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989 Assembly Bill (AB) 939 (Integrated Solid Waste Management Act of 1989; Public Resources Code 40050 et seq.) established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. AB 939 required every California city and county to divert 50 percent of its waste from landfills by the year 2000. Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity for all jurisdictions within the county, or show a plan to transform or divert their waste.

Assembly Bill 341 (Chapter 476, Statutes of 2011)
Assembly Bill 341 increases the statewide waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses.

Assembly Bill 1826 (California Public Resources Code §§ 42649.8 et seq.) Assembly Bill 1826 requires recycling of organic matter by businesses and multifamily residences of five of more units that generate such wastes in amounts over certain thresholds. Organic waste means food waste, green waste, landscape and pruning waste, nonhazardous wood waste, and food- soiled paper waste that is mixed in with food waste. Multifamily residences are not required to have a food waste diversion program.

Senate Bill 1383 (California Health and Safety Code §§ 39730.5 et seq.) Senate Bill 1383 set targets to achieve a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction by 2025. The law is intended to reduce emissions of methane, a short-lived climate pollutant, from decomposition of organic waste in landfills, for the protection of people in at-risk communities as well as to reduce GHG emissions.

California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24 Part 11) The California Green Building Standards Code, commonly referred to as the CALGreen Code, is set forth in California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 11, and establishes voluntary and mandatory standards pertaining to the planning and design of sustainable site development and water conservation, among other issues. Under the CALGreen Code, all water closets (i.e., flush toilets) are limited to 1.28 gallons per flush, and urinals are limited to 0.5 gallon per flush. In addition, maximum flow rates for faucets are established at: 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm) at 80 pounds per square inch  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-2 June 2023
(psi) for showerheads; 1.2 gpm at 60 psi for residential lavatory faucets; and 1.8 gpm at 60 psi for kitchen faucets.

Section 5.408 (Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal, and Recycling) of the 2019 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11) requires that at least 65 percent of the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste from nonresidential construction operations be recycled and/or salvaged for reuse.

California Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24 Part 6) The California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings (24 CA. Code Regs. 6) contain energy and water efficiency requirements (and indoor air quality requirements) for newly constructed buildings, additions to existing buildings, and alterations to existing buildings. The California Energy Commission (CEC) updates the Energy Code every three years. On August 11, 2021, the CEC adopted the 2022 Energy Code. In December, it was approved by the California Building Standards Commission for inclusion into the California Building Standards Code.

Local
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.75 sets forth requirements for solid waste collection and disposal. Chapter 6.77 sets forth requirements for storage and collection of organic material and recyclable materials.

City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The specific policies outlined in the City’s General Plan that are related to utilities and service systems and that apply to the proposed Project are listed in the General Plan Consistency Analysis table in Section 4.10, Land Use and Planning.

Rubidoux Community Services District Ordinance No. 105
The collection system of the RCSD conveys untreated sewage to the regional wastewater treatment facilities of the City of Riverside , which are considered publicly owned treatment works. Ordinance No. 105 ensures wastewater discharge into RCSD’s sewer system is compliant with the NPDES permit conditions, bio-solid use and disposal requirements, and any other federal or state laws.

The ordinance also includes the RCSD’s Industrial Pre- Treatment program, including all currently adopted limits for the discharge of pollutants as adopted by the RCSD and as applicable to the specific industrial user.

Rubidoux Community Services District Water and Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction Manual
The RCSD Water and Sanitary Sewer Design and Construction Manual ensures that water and sewer facilities constructed for the RCSD are complete, correctly operating, and in compliance with government codes and good water and wastewater industry practice. The manual also provides interested parties with the RCSD’s procedures, policies, and requirements for the design and construction of new water and wastewater infrastructure.  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-3 June 2023

4.18.4 Methodology
Analysis of impacts to utility capacities is based on the WSA completed by Krieger & Stewart in June 2022 (Appendix D17); the Rubidoux Community Services District 2020 Urban Water Management Plan adopted June 17, 2021, as amended April 7, 2022 (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021) ; the Water Master Plan for Rubidoux Community Services District. Dated May 5, 2022 (Albert A Webb Associates, 2022a); and landfill capacity and disposal information obtained online from the California Department of Resources Recovery and Recycling (CalRecycle, 2021a). Analysis of project impacts on utilities facilities within and next to the Project site is based on information in the proposed District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 202 3a); in the Project Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study completed by Kimley-Horn in December 2022 and included as Appendix D23 to this DEIR; and the 2022 Wastewater Master Plan for Rubidoux Commu nity Services District. Dated May 5, 2022 (Albert A Webb Associates, 2022b).

4.18.5 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. The City of Jurupa Valley Guidelines recognizes the following significance thresholds related to biological resources. Based on these significance thresholds, a project would have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects;
Under the City’s local significance threshold,: a significant impact may occur if the installation of water and sewer lines impacts land (either disturbed or undisturbed) to a degree that impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years; Under the City’s local significance threshold, a significant impact may occur if the project results in the water purveyor (e.g. Jurupa Community Services District, Rubidoux Community Services District, Santa Ana Water Company) not being able to supply sufficient water for the project during normal, single-dry, and multiple -dry years over the next 25 years as de scribed in their respective Urban Water Management Plans.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments;
Under the City’s local significance threshold: A significant impact may occur if the project results in the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which provides wastewater treatment services to the Jurupa Communit y Services District and the Rubidoux Community Services District, to exceed its capacity for wastewater treatment.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-4 June 2023
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the at tainment of solid waste reduction goals; or
Under the City’s local significance threshold, a project may have a significant impact if it does not participate in programs intended to meet waste diversion requirements of the General Plan as stated below:
• CSSF 2.67 Waste Diversion. Achieve at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of75%.
• State legislation (AB 341) mandates businesses and public entities generating four (4) cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings with five (5) units or more to recycle.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Under the City’s local significance threshold, a project may have a significant impact if it does not participate in individual programs (i.e. solid waste pickup, recycling) identified the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) which was prepared in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Chapter 1095 (AB 939).

4.18.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
Threshold a): Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Under the City’s local significance threshold,: a significant impact may occur if the installation of water and sewer lines impacts land (either disturbed or undisturbed) to a degree that impacts cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels.

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 which effectively reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to utilities and service systems. These requirements are included in the Project ’s MMRP to ensure compliance:

PPP 4.18-1 Compliance with Rubidoux Community Services District Requirements. The Project must comply with the Rubidoux Community Services District rules, regulations, conditions, requirements, and fees for commercial and industrial projects regarding water and sewer services.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-5 June 2023
Project Design Features (PDFs)
PDF 4.18-1 The Project shall provide a landscaping and irrigation plan for review and approval by City staff. The landscape plan shall be designed for the intended function of the Project and for the efficient use of water. The landscape plan shall address conditions of the Specific Plan area such as controlling erosion, filtering stormwater, screening of unsightly elements, creating shade, and softening the appearance of walls or structures. Both the landscaping and irrigation plans shall i ncorporate water conservation features.

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

A.2 Impact Analysis
Water Supplies
Project construction would involve constructi on of a network of water mains under existing and proposed roadways. The mains would connect to existing mains at two places: Rubidoux Boulevard west of the site, and 34
th Street at Wallace Street to the south. Figure 2.5-1 in Section 2.0 of this EIR shows the proposed water plan. Impacts of construction and maintenance of the proposed water mains would be part of the impacts of the whole project analyzed throughout Chapter 4, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this EIR and summarized in Se ction 1.0, Executive Summary. No additional impact related to water supplies would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Wastewater
All proposed on- site mains are sized to meet RCSD flow depth and slope requirements. Project development would inv olve construction of a system of sewers that would connect to an existing sewer main at the intersection of Wallace Street and 34 th Street; all wastewater from the Project would be conveyed to that existing main. Figure 2.5- 2 in Section 2 shows the proposed sewer plan.

Impacts of construction and maintenance of the proposed sewer mains would be part of the impacts of the entire project analyzed throughout Chapter 4 of this EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Executive Summary. No additional impact related to wastewater would occur. Impacts would be less than significant.

Storm Water Drainage
The Project site is divided into two drainage areas divided north to south along Wallace Street. In the westerly drainage area drainage flows southwesterly via a natural channel. In the easterly area drainage flows southerly via a man-made channel (Kimley-Horn, 2022c).

The Project would include construction of a drainage system including storm drains conveying runoff to two outfalls: one on the south site boundary at the intersection of Wallace Street and 34 th Street,  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-6 June 2023
and the other on the southeast site boundary next to the Santa Ana River. The Project would include construction of an offsite storm drain connecting the proposed outfall at Wallace Street and 34 th Street to an existing storm drain in Mission Boulevard to the south. The proposed drainage system would have capacity to convey runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm to the existing drain in Mission Boulevard and to the Santa Ana River (see Section 4.9 , Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information). Impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed drainage system would be part of the impacts of the entire project analyzed throughout Chapter 4 of this EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and would be less than significant with implementation of PPP

4.9-3 set forth in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality. No additional impact related to storm water drainage would occur.

Electricity
Project construction would include installation of underground electric distribution lines serving the entire Specific Plan area. Impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed electric lines would be part of the impacts of the entire project analyzed throughout Chapter 4 of this EIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG -2 set forth in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No additional impact related to electricity would occur.

Natural Gas
Project construction would include installation of underground natural gas mains and laterals serving the entire Specific Plan area. Impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed natural gas pipelines would be part of the impacts of the entire project analyzed throughout Chapter 4 of this DEIR and summarized in Section 1.0, Executive Summary, and would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation
measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 set forth in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. No additional impact related to natural gas would occur.

Telecommunications
AT&T Distribution, Rubidoux Communication Services and Spectrum own and operate telecommunications facilities on the Project site. Project construction would include installation of telecommunications facilities onsite connecting to existing facilities on and near the site. Project development would not require construction of new or upgraded telecommunications facilities offsite. Impacts of construction and operation of new telecommunications facilities onsite would be part of the impacts of the whole project analyzed throughout Chapter 4 of this DEIR. Impacts would be less than significant and no additional impact related to telecommunications would occur.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP 4.9 -3 set forth in Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, impacts related to storm water drainage would be less than significant.

Impacts related to construction and operation of the proposed electric lines and natural gas pipelines would be significant before mitigation. Impacts arising from construction of the rest of the new utility facilities would be less than significant.

A.3 Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures GHG-1 and GHG-2 are required for project impacts on electricity and natural gas utilities. No mitigation measures are required specifically relating to impacts on water, wastewater treatment, storm water drainage, and telecommunications facilities.  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-7 June 2023
A.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts on water, wastewater treatment , storm water drainage, and telecommunications facilities systems are less than significant without mitigation.

Threshold b): Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Under the City’s local significance threshold, a significant impact may occur if the project results in the water purveyor (e.g. Jurupa Community Services District, Rubidoux Community Services District, Santa Ana Water Company) not being able to supply sufficient water for the project during normal, single-dry, and multiple- dry years over the next 25 years as described in their respective Urban Water Management Plans.

B.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
See discussion under A.1 above.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
See discussion under A.2 above.

B.2 Impact Analysis
Water Supplies
The RCSD provides water to the Project site . RCSD’s entire water supply is groundwater from the Riverside-Arlington Subbasin (Subbasin) of the Upper Santa Ana River Groundwater Basin produced through five active wells (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021, pp. 3-2, 3-3, and 6-2). The Subbasin spans approximately 92 square miles in western Riverside County and southwestern San Bernardino County. A court judgment in 1969 (“1969 Judgment”) established rights to extract water from three groundwater basins: San Bernardino, Colton, and Riverside. Average annual extractions from the Colton Basin and the portion of the Riverside Basin within San Bernardino County for use outside San Bernardino Valley are 3,381 afy for the Colton Basin and 21,085 afy for the Riverside Basin. Five- year limits for the two basins are 16,905 af for the Colton Basin and 105,425 af for the Riverside Basin. Maximum one-year extractions are 4,057 af and 25,302 af, respectively.

In accordance with the 1969 Judgment, RCSD can extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin without restrictions until the combined credit of the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South groundwater basins are depleted. Once the available credit is depleted, WMWD will be obligated to provide groundwater replenishment. It is anticipated that the cost for replenishment will be allocated to all groundwater extractors, including RCSD.

Total extractions from the Colton, Riverside North, and Riverside South Basins have increased from 36,036 afy in 2016 to 37,521 afy in 2020, approximately a 1 -percent increase per year. Assuming groundwater extractions from these three groundwater basins continue to increase 1 percent per  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-8 June 2023
year, total extraction would increase to approximately 48,777 afy by 2050. At this rate, it would take over 11 years to deplete the currently available credit of 546,307 af (a figure which continues to increase). Even after the available credit is depleted, RCSD can continue to extract groundwater from the Riverside South Groundwater Basin; however, RCSD could be subject to payment of its share of the cost of groundwater replenishment to maintain pumping to meet future water demands (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. III-10). RCSD forecasts that its groundwater production from the Riverside South Basin will increase from 8,182 afy in 2025 to 13,130 afy in 2045, as shown in Table 4.18-1 above (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. III-9). RCSD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in its service area over the 2025-2045 period in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry- year conditions (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021, pp. 7.8, 7,10, and 7.13).

RCSD also plans to increase future water supplies to the area by developing three new well fields and by purchasing imported water from the City of Riverside Public Utilities (RPU) (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021, p. 6-15 and 6-16).

Project water demand is estimated at 612.08 afy or 546,400 gallons per day (gpd) (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. II- 2); see Table 4.18-3 below. RCSD has sufficient existing and planned water supplies to meet proposed Project water demands in normal, single-dry-year, and multiple-dry-year conditions (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. IV-2).

TABLE 4.18-3

PROJECT WATER DEMAND DETERMINATION
Land Use Maximum Annual Use (afy)
Commercial
Neighborhood 21.90
Retail 36.09
Retail – Power Center (Furniture Store/Warehouse) 121.01 Tourist (Hotel)Vacated R/W (Park) 0.94
Vacated R/W (Park) 4.89
NAP Parcel 0.00
Commercial Subtotal 184.83
Residential
Highest Density Residential1 254.88
Residential Subtotal 254.88
Business Park
Business Park (BP) 10.84
Vacated R/W (Park) 1.30
NAP Parcel 0
Business Park Subtotal 12.14
Industrial/Logistics
Industrial/Logistics 157.73
Vacated R/W (Park) 0.43
Industrial/Logistics Subtotal 158.16
Public Improvements
Public Streets 0.00
Public Parkway (Park) 0.98
Public Facility 1.09
Public Improvements Subtotal 2.07
Project Totals 612.08
1 Density permits up to 25 DU/acre, with no minimum
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-9 June 2023
Source: Krieger & Stewart, 2022, Appendix E-1
Additionally, as discussed in the WSA (see Appendix D17 ) a demand determination for the Project, incorporating the current proposed land use plan and updated residential water use assumption, is included in RCSD's 2022 Water Master Plan (Albert A Webb Associates, 2022a ). According to the calculations in Appendix E of the WSA, the maximum anticipated total project water demand of approximately 612 afy is considerably less than the 1,100 afy covered by the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the Project's water demand has actually been included and accounted for in RCSD's most recently adopted UWMP, with a substantial safety factor. Thus, project impacts on water supplies would be less than significant.

Since the Project's water demand has been included in RCSD's most recently adopted UWMP, a WSA under CWC 10910 (SB 610) is technically not required; however, this fact does not eliminate the requirement for a Written Verification under CGC 66473.7. Since the Project's water demand has been included in RCSD's most recently adopted UWMP, it is included as evidence in the Written Verification and WSA (in accordance with the requirements of CGC 66473.7) that there is a sufficient water supply to support the Project, defined as "the total water supplies available during normal, single-dry, and multiple-dry years within a 20 -year projection that will meet the Projected demand associated with the proposed subdivision, in addition to existing and planned future uses, including, but not limited to, agricultural and industrial uses." (Krieger & Stewart, 2022, p. III -10). The WSA states that RCSD has adequate water supplies to meet projected water demands for a 25-year period, that is, through 2050 (Krieger & Stewart, 2023).

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: With implementation of PPP 4.1 8-1, Compliance with Rubidoux Community Services District Requirements, adequate water supplies are available to serve the Project and impacts would be less than significant.

B.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

B.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts on water supplies are less than significant.

Threshold c): Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Under the City’s local significance threshold: A significant impact may occur if the project results in the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which provides wastewater treatment services to the Jurupa Community Services District and the Rubidoux Community Services District, to exceed its capacity for wastewater treatment.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-10 June 2023
C.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
PPP 4.18-2 Evidence of Adequate Wastewater Treatment Capacity. Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each development project pursuant to the proposed Specific Plan, the Project Applicant must provide sufficient evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Engineering Department that the Rubidoux Community Services District has verified that adequate capacity is available at the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to serve the Project.

Project Design Features (PDFs)
See discussion under A.1 above.

C.2 Impact Analysis
Wastewater from RCSD’s service area is conveyed to the Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) in the City of Riverside, which has capacity of 46 mgd. Wastewater flows through the facility in 2020 were 28,345 af or approximately 25.4 mgd (WSC, 2021, p. 6-9). Therefore, residual capacity at the facility is approximately 20.6 mgd.

The RCSD, in its 2022 Wastewater Master Plan (Albert A Webb Associates, 2022 b) identified no deficiencies downstream of the Project site based on the previously approved uses. Those previously approved uses were estimated to generate approximately 283,697 gpd on average. The proposed Project is projected to generate approximately 286,650 gpd average (see Table 4.1 8-4 below), an increase of approximately 1.0 percent. Since the generation rate of the Specific Plan is substantially similar to the uses studied in the RCSD Master Plan, the Specific Plan is not expected to require any additional downstream improvements or facility upgrades. Sufficient wastewater treatment capacity is available in the region for project wastewater generation, and impacts would be less than significant.

Table 4.18-4

ESTIMATED PROJECT WASTEWATER GENERATION
Use Generation Rate
(gpd/acre)
Area (acre) Average Daily
Flow (gpd)
Commercial Subtotal 500 92.1 46,050
High Density Residential Subtotal 4,200 47.8 200,760
Business Park Subtotal 500 7.4 3,700
Industrial Subtotal 500 72.1 36,050
Public/Open Space Subtotal 500 0 0
Total 219.4a 286,560
The acreage here is less than the entire 246.8-acre Project site because some land uses that don’t generate wastewater—such a as roadways and the stormwater basin—are omitted.

Source: Kimley-Horn 2022d
Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-11 June 2023
C.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

C.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts on wastewater treatment systems are less than significant.

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

Under the City’s local significance threshold, a project may have a significant impact if it does not participate in programs intended to meet waste diversion requirements of the General Plan as stated below:
• CSSF 2.67 Waste Diversion. Achieve at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of75%.
• State legislation (AB 341) mandates businesses and public entities generating four (4) cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings with five (5) units or more to recycle.

Or
Threshold e): Would the project Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Under the City’s local significance threshold, a project may have a significant impact if it does not participate in individual programs (i.e. solid waste pickup, recycling) identifi ed the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP) which was prepared in accordance with the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989, Chapter 1095 (AB 939).

D.1 & E.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs) Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)
See discussion under A1 above
Project Design Features (PDFs)
See discussion under A.1 above
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-12 June 2023
D.2 & E.2 Impact Analysis
Development would increase solid waste generation by an estimated 38,823 pounds (19.4 tons) per day, as shown below in Table 4.18-5 below. Sufficient solid waste disposal capacity is available in the region for project solid waste generation. The three landfills serving the City of Jurupa Valley have a total remaining capacity of approximately 10,000 tons per day (see Table 4.18-2 above).

Table 4.18-5

ESTIMATED PROJECT SOLID WASTE GENERATION
Land Use Proposed
Residential
units
Proposed
nonresidential
uses
Units Solid Waste Generation,
pounds per day
Per unit1 Total
Residential
Multi-family residential 1,192 0 units 10 11,920
Commercial
Commercial/retail 0 212,500 sf 0.006 1,275
Showroom and
assembly/warehouse
0 1,000,000 sf 0.01 10,000
Hotel 0 160 rooms 2.8 448
Subtotal 0 11,723
Industrial and Business Park
Warehouse Logistics Center 0 1,500,000 sf 0.01 15,000
Business Park 0 30,000 sf 0.006 180
Subtotal 0 15,180
Open Space
Parks and open space 0 10 acres No
generation
factor is
available
0 Total
38,823
1 Source: CalRecycle, 2019.

Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by comparing solid waste disposal rates for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. Target disposal rates for the City of Jurupa Valley are 5.3 pounds per day (ppd) for residents and

15.4 ppd for employees. Actual disposal rates in 2020, the latest year for which data are a vailable, were 4.3 ppd per resident and 13.2 ppd per employee (CalRecycle, 2021a), which are consistent with AB 939.

City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, mandates at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of 75percent . Project construction would involve recycling and/or salvaging construction and demolition waste in accordance with the policy.

Based on the analysis above, project impacts regarding solid waste disposal would be less than significant.

Level of Significance Before Mitigation: Impacts on solid waste disposal capacity would be less than significant.
 SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-13 June 2023
D.3 & E.3 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation measures are required.

D.4 & E.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
Impacts on solid waste systems are less than significant without mitigation.

4.18.7 Cumulative Impacts
Water Supplies
The area considered for cumulative impacts on water supplies is the RCSD service area, approximately eight square miles in the east end of the City of Jurupa Valley, with an estimated population of 36,827. Approximately 123 acres (or 0.2 square mile) of RCSD’s service area is in unincorporated San Bernardino County; the balance is in the City of Jurupa Valley (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021). The population of RCSD’s service area is estimated to increase to 61,794 in 2045, an increase of 24,967 or approximately 68 percent. Water demands in RCSD’s service area are estimated to increase from 7,960 afy in 2025 to 12,886 afy in 2045, an increase of 4,926 afy or approximately 62 percent (Albert A Webb Associates, 2021). RCSD forecasts that it will have sufficient water supplies to meet demands in its service area over the 2025 -2045 period, which includes all other projects in the service area. All other p rojects will be required to make a demand determination which will be evaluated against the water supply identified in the UWMP,.

A demand determination for the Project, incorporating the current proposed land use plan and updated residential water use assumptions is already included in the RCSD’s 2022 Water Master Plan (Albert A Webb Associates, 2022a). According to the calculations in Appendix E of the WSA, the maximum anticipated total project water demand of approximately 612 afy is considerably less than the 1,100 afy estimated for the Project by the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the Project’s water demand has been included in RCSD’s most recently adopted UWMP, with a substantial safety factor. For these reasons, cumulative water supply impacts would be less th an significant, and project impacts on water supplies would not be cumulatively considerable.

Wastewater
The area considered for cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment facilities is the RWQCP service area, which encompasses the cities of Riverside, Jur upa Valley and Eastvale, part of the west end of the city of Moreno Valley, and the community of Highgrove in unincorporated Riverside County. The proposed Project is projected to generate approximately 286,650 gpd average, an increase of approximately 1.0 percent compared to estimated wastewater generation by buildout of existing General Plan land use designations for the Project site. Wastewater flows to the RWQCP are estimated to increase from 25.4 mgd in 2020 to 40 mgd in 2035 (WSC, 2021; MWH and Caroll o, 2014). Other projects would increase wastewater generation in the RWQCP service area. The RWQCP has capacity of 46 mgd, sufficient to accommodate forecast growth in the region through 2035(WSC, 2021). The Plant receives domestic, commercial, and industrial wastewater from a 87.4-square mile service area that includes the City of Jurupa Valley.. The Plant is capable of generating tertiary effluent compliant with nitrified Title 22 standards for groundwater recharge, stream augmentation of the Santa Ana River, and landscape irrigation. The current design capacity of the Plant is 40 million gallons per day (mgd) on an average annual basis. The maximum total average daily flow (ADF) was 34.0 mgd in the year 2005 based on annual averages for the time period 20 00 to 2012. At the completion of a Phase  SECTION 4.18 – UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 4.18-14 June 2023
1 expansion project, the Plant will be able to treat up to 46 mgd, which is higher than the projected flow rate for the year 2035. Future expansion may increase Plant capacity to 52 mgd (Carollo, 2019).

Therefore, cumulative impacts on wastewater treatment capacity would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Stormwater Drainage
The proposed drainage system would have capacity to convey runoff from a 100-year, 24-hour storm to the existing drain in Mission Boulevard and to the Santa Ana River (see Section 4.9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional information) Other projects in the Watershed would add impervious surfaces and thus could increase runoff from the resp ective Project sites. Other projects within the Watershed would be required to comply with regulations set forth by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and by agencies in San Bernardino, Riverside and Orange counties. Compliance with existin g drainage requirements would reduce cumulative impacts on surface water and drainage to less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

Solid Waste Disposal
The City’s waste haulers use a variety of County landfills in t he area. The solid waste generated by construction and operation of the Project would represent a nominal portion of daily disposal capacities at existing landfill facilities as discussed above.

In 2019, 82,917 tons of solid waste were landfilled from the City of Jurupa Valley (CalRecycle, 2020a).

Proposed Project development would increase solid waste generation by an estimated 38,823 pounds (19.4 tons) per day. Population and employment in the City are forecast to increase by approximately 18 percent and 16 percent, respectively, between 2016 and 2045 (see Section 3.0, Environmental Setting). Taking the population forecast (18 percent) for a conservative estimate, solid waste disposal from the City is estimated to increase from 82,917 tons per year (that is, approximately 227 tons per day) landfilled in 2019 to approximately 97,842 tons per year, or approximately 268 tons per day. The three landfills serving Jurupa Valley have total remaining capacity of just over 10,000 tons per day, so the increase would represent less than three percent of total capacity. Cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and project impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Burrtec and Waste Management oversee regional waste diversion programs and contracts for the solid waste recycling collection services provided within this area of the County. Cumulative projects listed in Table 3 -1 consist predominantly of industrial, commercial and residential uses and would generate solid waste that would increase demand on solid waste facilities to receive, process, and dispose solid waste. Several regional la ndfills are located in the Project vicinity, with a combined remaining capacity of at least 262 million cubic yards. Existing solid waste facilities provide sufficient capacity to serve cumulative development. Therefore, the proposed Project, in conjunction with identified cumulative projects in the area, would result in a less than significant cumulative impact related to solid waste generation and landfill capacity. Additionally, the proposed Project’s incrementation contribution to the less than significant cumulative impact would not be cumulatively considerable. According to the Riverside County Waste Department of Waste Resources, the Integrated Waste Management plan 2018-Five Year Review Report states that there is enough combined disposal capacity for the region for at least the next 15 years (Department of Waste Resources, 2018).

SECTION 5.0 - ALTERNATIVES
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-1 June 2023

5.0 ALTERNATIVES

5.1 Introduction
An essential aspect of the environmental review process under CEQA is the identification and analysis of alternatives to a proposed project. Specifically, Public Resources Code (PRC) § 21001 states that the environmental review process is intended to assis t public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of proposed projects and the feasible alternatives which will avoid or substantially lessen such significant effects. In addition, PRC § 21002.1 (a) states, in part, that the purp ose of an environmental impact report is to identify the significant effects on the environment of a project, identify alternatives to the project, and indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.

Section 15126.6 of C EQA provides guidance regarding the consideration and discussion of project alternatives in an EIR. More specifically, CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(a) states the following:

An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.

Furthermore, the CEQA Guidelines advise that project alternatives be selected primarily based on the ability to avoid or substantially lessen significant impacts relative to those of the proposed project, even if the alternatives would impede, to some extent, the attainment of the project objectives, or would even be more costly. The CEQA Guidelines further instruct that the identification of alternatives be guided by a "rule of reason," so that only those alternatives necessary to permit a reasoned choice are addressed. In selecting project alternatives for analysis, potential alternatives must be feasible. CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(f)(1) states that:

Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries . . . and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site [. . .]
In addition, the CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e) requires an analysis of a "no project" alternative, and § 15126.6(f)(2) requires an evaluation, if feasible, of alternative location(s) for the project. Based on the alternative s analysis, an environmentally superior alternative is then designated. If the No Project/No Build Alternative ends up as the “environmentally superior alternative ,” then the EIR shall identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

Under CEQA, the goal of identifying the environmentally superior alternative is to assist decision- makers in considering project approval. However, CEQA does not require an agency to select the environmentally superior alternative (CEQA Guidelines § 15042- 15043). Specifically, CEQA Guidelines § 15043 states that a public agency may approve a project even though the project would  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-2 June 2023
cause a significant effect on the environment if the agency makes a fully informed and publicly disclosed decision that:
(a) There is no feasible way to lessen or avoid the significant effect (see CEQA Guidelines § 15091); and
(b) Specifically identified expected benefits from the project outweigh the policy of reducing or avoiding significant environmental impacts of the project (see CEQA Guidelines §15093).

As stated in CEQA Guidelines § 15093(a):

CEQA requires the decision -making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits, of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered “acceptable.”
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6, the following section discusses a reasonable range of alternatives that would “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen potential significant impacts of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.”

5.1.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts

The proposed Project was analyzed for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental topic areas discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18. The results of the analysis demonstrate that the proposed Project would result in the following significant and unavoidable impacts:
• Project-level Air pollutant emissions: ROG, NOx, and CO emissions from construction would exceed SCAQMD thresholds during construction of Phase 2 overlapped with Operations of Phase 1. Emissions from project operations would exceed the SCAQMD ’s regional significance thresholds for ROG, NOx and CO at buildout, thus resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact.
• Cumulative Off -Site Roadway Noise: P roject-generated traffic volumes would meet the cumulative noise impact criteria for multiple roadway segments and mitigation to reduce the Project’s mobile off -site noise is not feasible. Thus, cumulative operational noise impacts from related pr ojects, in conjunction with Project -specific noise impacts, would be cumulatively considerable and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. • Cumulative Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions from project operation would exceed the City’s significance thr eshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. This is considered cumulative because GHG emissions are by nature a cumulative, global impact. • Project-Level Vehicle Miles Traveled: Operation of proposed regional retail uses would generate a net increase in citywide vehicle miles traveled.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-3 June 2023

5.1.2 Summary of Proposed Specific Plan
The proposed District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a) will serve both a regulatory and planning function, guiding the necessary community design, infrastructure, and public service requirements in a coordinated and logical process. The proposed Project would permit development of 1,192 residential units consisting of a mix of single-family and multi-family units on approximately 42.0 acres; approximately 3.0 million square feet of employment-generating land uses on 173.7 acres, including 1.5 million square feet of industrial/logistics uses on 68.2 acres and 1.5 million square feet of commercial and business park uses on 105.5 acres; 11.1 acres of open space ; and 22.4 acres of roadways, other public improvements, and facilities (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a, Table 1-1 Land Use, Section 1–p. 3).

5.1.3 Proposed Specific Plan Objectives
The applicant’s objectives for the proposed Project are:
• Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities.
• Transform the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment.
• Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity and mix of uses through new development standards.
• Create guidelines and standards for architecture that reinforces the unique character and identity of the City of Jurupa Valley characterized by high quality architectural forms and material and emphasize a Southern California lifestyle that maximizes the outdoor spaces.
• Encourage compatible land uses and interface with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives and/or local streets. • Facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley. • Capitalize on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues and infrastructure improvements.
• Establish an open space plan that accommodates passive recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.
• Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, activities and contain vehicular impacts. • Provide flexible parking standards to encourage parking facilities that meet the parking demand for all users at all times, in order to avoid excess, unnecessary parking and ensuring no overflow parking into public streets.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-4 June 2023
• Create guidelines and standards for safe and efficient vehicular and pedestrian movement; and minimize impacts of truck traffic and circulation throughout the site and adjoining areas.
• Establish infrastructure improvements for water, sewer, storm drains, utilities, roads, intersections and other facilities to adequately support development. • Create a sustainable environment by incorporating strategies that minimize consumption of natural resources, conserve energy and water, incorporate natural systems and minimize release of pollutants into the environment.

5.2 Alternatives Considered and Rejected as Infeasible
According to CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(c), an EIR should identify any alternatives that were considered for analysis but rejected as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons for their rejection.

The factors that may be used to eliminate an alternative from detailed consideration may include the alternative's failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, the alternative's infeasibility, or the alternative's inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Alternatives to the Project that have been considered and rejected as infeasible include the following:

Alternative Project Site:
• The Project proposes to develop an approximately 248-acre site within the City with several land use types. Due to the size of the Project, significant and unavoidable impacts under the topics of air quality ( ROG, NOX and CO construction and operational emissions) , GHG emissions noise (cumulative offsite roadway noise) and VMT generated by the regional retail uses would not be avoided or substantially reduced by placing the Project in another location.

Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts of the Project are related to its operational aspects and are not site specific. Therefore, relocation of the Project would not substantially reduce these impacts.
• Regarding the feasibility of finding another potential vacant location for the Project, vacant areas of the City are generally hilly and therefore less amenable to developme nt than the proposed Project site. Development of buildings with large footprints (e.g. industrial uses) would require a great amount of grading on hilly topography. In addition, vacant land in the City – especially south of the SR-60 – is not close to a freeway, as the proposed Project site is.

Vacant land south of the SR-60 is also closer to sensitive land uses than the proposed Project site is; thus, environmental impacts could be greater than those of the proposed Project. • Furthermore, the Project Appl icant does not hold ownership control over any other parcels of land in or near the Project site that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed Project. Therefore, because an alternative location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project, and because the Project Applicant does not have ownership control over, and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over, any other parcels of land in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the Project, an alternative location alternative is not feasible. Accordingly, this alternative is not further considered in the Draft EIR.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-5 June 2023
No Residential Land Use Alternative:
• The City considered an alternative in which the residenti al component of the proposed Project was deleted; in this scenario the entire project —other than roadways and a stormwater detention basin—would be employment-generating land uses. The proportions of employment-generating land uses in this alternative are similar to the proportions of such land uses out of total employment -generating land uses in the proposed Project —that is, approximately 136 acres commercial uses, and 112.4 acres industrial and business park uses.

This alternative was proposed in response to the jobs -housing ratio for the city of Jurupa Valley, which is housing-rich and is expected to remain housing -rich through 2045. The City rejected this alternative, as it would have only partially achieved several of the objectives of the proposed Project.

5.3 Overview of Selected Alternatives
As discussed above, alternatives are identified to reduce the significant impacts of a proposed project.

Based on the analyses provided in Section 4.0, Environmental Impact Analysis , of this Draft EIR, implementation of the Project would result in significant impacts that cannot be feasibly mitigated with respect to Air Quality (Section 4.2), Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Section 4.7), and vehicle miles traveled (specific to regional retail and other uses; Section 4.16).

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would still have significant environmental effects, which would necessitate the adoption of a Statement o f Overriding Considerations for impacts regarding air quality and greenhouse gas emissions.

Therefore, the alternatives to the Project , listed below, were selected for evaluation based on the significant environmental impacts of the Project, the basic obje ctives established for the Project as presented in Section 2.0 of this Draft EIR, and the feasibility of the alternatives considered. Each of these alternatives is described in the sections that follow. • Alternative 1: No Project/No Development Alternative
• Alternative 2: No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative • Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Uses Alternative
• Alternative 4: Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative
• Alternative 5: No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(d), each alternative was assessed at a level of detail necessary to determine if the overall environmental impacts would be less, similar, or greater than the corresponding impacts of the proposed Project . Furthermore, each alternative was evaluated to determine whether the Project's basic objectives, identified in Section 2.0 of this Draft EIR, would be significantly attained by the alternative. The evaluation of each of the alternatives follows the process described below:

1. An alternative’s n et environmental impacts for each environmental issue area were determined assuming that the alternative would implement the same project design features and mitigation measures identified in Section 4.0.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-6 June 2023

2. The post-mitigation significant and non- significant environmental impacts of an alternative and the Project were compared for each environmental issue area as follows:
• Less: If the net impact of an alternative would be clearly less adverse or more beneficial than the impact of the Project, the comparative impact was determined to be "less." • G reater: If the net impact of an alternative would clearly be more adverse or less beneficial than the Project, the comparative impact was determined to be "greater." • Sim ilar: Where the impact of an alternative and project would be roughly equivalent, the comparative impact was determined to be "similar."

3. The comparison of the impacts is followed by a general discussion of whether the underlying purpose and basic project objectives are feasibly and substantially attained by the alternative.

Table 5. 3-1 on the following page provides a summary of the description of alternatives and a comparison of the different project components. Table 5.3-2 provides a summary comparison, by environmental topic, of the Project impacts and the impacts of each of the alternatives. Table 5. 3-3 provides a summary comparison of each of the alternatives’ ability to meet the goals and objectives of the Project.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-7 June 2023
Table 5.3-1

SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES

Proposed Project
Alternative 1:

No Project/No Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

No Project/Existing Specific Plan
Alternative
Alternative 3:

Reduced Commercial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 4
Reduced Industrial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 5:

No Commercial and Industrial Uses
Alternative
Brief
Description
The proposed Project includes
a revised specific plan with
several land uses for the
development of 248. 3 acres in
the northeast part of the City of
Jurupa Valley.

This alternative would involve the
continuation of existing conditions
on the site; therefore, buildings
would remain on the Project site and
no new buildings or uses would be
constructed or demolished.

This alternative involves development
of a Specific Plan for mixed uses —
mostly residential— on 278.45 acres
mostly consisting of the proposed
Project site (JHA Consulting Inc., 2005,
p. III-8).

This alternative consists of the
proposed Project less all 12 million
square feet of regional retail uses in
the proposed Project, to be replaced
by residential uses ( 797 units in

56.9 acres) and 14 acres of open
space. This alternative would
include a total of 1,993 residential
units (Gorham, 2023).

This alternative consists of the
proposed Project less all 1.5 million
square feet of industrial uses in the
proposed Project. Industrial uses would
be replaced by residential (525 units in
21 acres); warehouse
(37 acres and
750,000 square feet of building area);
neighborhood commercial (10 acres
and 80,000 square feet of building
area); and open space (4 acres) uses
(Gorham, 2023).

In this alternative the commercial,
business park, and industrial uses in
the p
roposed Specific Plan (totaling
177 acres) are replaced with open
space. The types of open space uses are
undetermined but could include
passive (natural) open space and/or a
sports park. This alternative would
include a total of 185 acres of open
space (Gorham, 2023).

Existing Uses to
Remain
4 residential units. The Project site would remain
undeveloped and vacant except for
11 single- family residences in the
central part of the site and two
garages on the southeast site
boundary.

No existing uses would remain 4 residential units. 4 residential units. 4 residential units.

Proposed Land
Uses and Square
Feet
Residential: 1,196 residential
units on 42.0 acres (including 4
existing units).

Commercial Retail: a
neighborhood shopping center
(including a grocery store,
restaurants, retail stores, and
community services), an area
designated for big- box
retailers, and a hotel. The total
retail area would encompass
approximately 97.7 acres.

Business Park : approximately
30,000 square feet on 7.8 acres
(1.0 acre is existing).

Industrial:
approximately 1.5
million square feet of building
area on 67.3 acres
Open Space: 11
.1 acres (City of
Jurupa Valley, 2023).

The buildings on site would remain
as single-family residential units. No
change translates to no impact on
the Project site.

Residential: 1,196 units on 178.76
acres
Commercial: 186,000 square feet on

20.4 acres
Church: 2 5 acres
Elementary School: 12 acres
Parks: 17.55 acres
Roadways and rights-of-way: 24 acres
(JHA Consulting Inc., 2005, p. III-8).

Residential: 1,993 units on 98.5
acres
Business Park: 30, 000 square feet
on 7.8 acres
Industrial: 1.5 million square feet
on 68.2 acres
Open Space: 22. 2 acres
Roadways and rights -of-way: 21.6
acres (Gorham, 2023)
Residential: 1,721 units on 62.6 acres
Business Park: 30,000 square feet on

7.8 acres
Commercial: 1,612, 500 square feet on
107.1 acres
Storage: 750,000 square feet on 37
acres
Open Space: 12 .2 acres (Gorham, 2023)
Residential: 1,196 units on 41.6 acres
Open Space: 185.2 acres
Roadways and rights -of-way: 21.6
acres (Gorham, 2023)

Number of
parking spaces
The proposed Specific Plan
would apply flexible parking
standards to encourage
parking facilities that meet the
parking demand for all users
at all times.

Approximately 22 (2 per existing
residential unit)
This alternative would use flexible
parking standards as the proposed
Project would.

This alternative would use flexible
parking standards as the proposed
Project would.

This alternative would use flexible
parking standards as the proposed
Project would.

This alternative would comply with
Specific Plan parking standards for
included land u ses (e.g., 2 parking
spaces per single -family residential
unit).

Sources: City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a; JHA Consulting Inc., 2005; Gorham, 2023.

 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-8 June 2023
Table 5.3-2

COMPARISON SUMMARY OF PROJECT IMPACTS AND ALTERNATIVES IMPACTS Environmental Topic Proposed Project
Alternative 1:

No project/No Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

No Project/Existing Specific
Plan Alternative
Alternative 3:

Reduced Commercial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced Industrial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 5:

No Commercial and
Industrial Uses Alternative
Aesthetics
Construction
Scenic Vistas LTS Less (no impact) Less (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Less (LTS) Visual Character LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Light and Glare LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Operation
Scenic Vistas LTS Less (no impact) Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Visual Character LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Slightly reduced (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Light and Glare LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Slightly reduced (LTS) Reduced (LTS) Less (LTS) Air Quality
Construction
Regional Emissions LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Greater (SU) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Localized Emissions LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Unknown- not analyzed Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Toxic Air Contaminants LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Unknown- not analyzed Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Operation
Regional Emissions SU Less (no impact) Similar (SU) Reduced (SU) Greater (SU) Less (LTS) Toxic Air Contaminants LTS Less (no impact) Unknown- not analyzed Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Biological Resources
Construction LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Greater (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Operation LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Cultural Resources
Historic Resources No impact Similar (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) No Impact No Impact Similar (no impact) Archaeological Resources LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Reduced (LTS w/Mitigation) Energy
Construction LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Operation LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Greater (LTS) Less (LTS) Geology and Soils
Geology and Soils LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Paleontological Resources LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Reduced (LTS w/Mitigation) Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction SU Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Less (SU) Similar (SU) Less (SU) Operation SU Less (no impact) Similar (SU) Similar (SU) Greater (SU) Less (SU) Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Construction LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Operation LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Operation LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Slightly reduced (LTS) Less (LTS) Land Use and Planning
Land Use Consistency LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Mineral Resources
Regional Resources LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Local Resources No impact Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Noise
Construction
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-9 June 2023
Environmental Topic Proposed Project
Alternative 1:

No project/No Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

No Project/Existing Specific
Plan Alternative
Alternative 3:

Reduced Commercial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced Industrial Uses
Alternative
Alternative 5:

No Commercial and
Industrial Uses Alternative
Onsite Noise LTS w/ mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Onsite Vibration LTS w/ mitigation Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Operation
Onsite Noise LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Reduced (LTS w/Mitigation) Reduced (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS)
Offsite Noise (cumulative
offsite roadway noise) SU Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Less (LTS) Increased (SU) Less (LTS) Population and Housing
Construction and Operation LTS Less (no impact) Greater (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Slightly greater (LTS) Public Services
Fire Protection Services LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Police Protection Services LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Schools LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Parks LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Libraries LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Recreation
Construction and Operation LTS Less (no impact) Less (LTS) Reduced (LTS) Slightly reduced (LTS) Similar (LTS) Transportation
Construction LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Operation
Vehicle Miles Traveled SU Less (no impact) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS) Similar (SU) Less (LTS) Bicycle, Pedestrian, and
Vehicular Safety LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Tribal Cultural Resources
Construction LTS w/Mitigation Less (no impact) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Similar (LTS w/Mitigation) Less (LTS w/Mitigation) Operation No Impact Less (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Similar (no impact) Utilities and Service Systems
Construction LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Operation LTS Less (no impact) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Similar (LTS) Less (LTS) Source: UltraSystems, 2022.

Notes:

Similar= the alternative would have similar impacts as the Project Less= the alternative would have a lesser impact than the Project Greater= the alternative would have more of an impact than the Project SU= Significant and Unavoidable Impact
LTS= Less than significant
LTS w/Mitigation= Less than significant with mitigation

 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-10 June 2023
Table 5.3-3

COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND THEIR ABILITY TO MEET PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Project Objective Proposed Project
Alternative 1:

No Project/No Development
Alternative
Alternative 2:

No Project/
Existing Specific Plan
Alternative
Alternative 3:

Reduced Commercial
Uses Alternative
Alternative 4:

Reduced Industrial
Uses Alternative
Alternative 5:

No Commercial and
Industrial Uses Alternative

1. Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met

2. Transform the area into a visually attractive and safe development and environment. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met

3. Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity, and mix of uses through new development standards. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met

6. Facilitate a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Partially Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective not met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Partially Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met

8. Establish an open space plan that accommodates passive recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully met

9. Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, activities and contain vehicular impacts. Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met

10. Provide flexible parking standards to encourage parking facilities that meet the parking demand for all users at all times, avoid excess, unnecessary parking, and ensure no overflow parking on public streets.

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully Met Objective Fully met

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

Objective Fully Met Objective Not Met Objective Fully Met Objective Partially Met Objective Fully Met Objective partially met Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a

 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-11 June 2023

5.4 Analysis of Alternative 1 – No Project/No Development Alternative

5.4.1 Description of Alternative
In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines, the No Project Alternative for a develop ment project on an identifiable property consists of the circumstances under which the Project does not proceed. Section 15126.6(e)(3)(B) of the CEQA Guidelines states in part that, “in certain circumstances, the No Project Alternative means ‘no build’ wherein the existing environmental setting is maintained.” Accordingly, for the purposes of this analysis, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative, assumes that the Project would not be approved. The 11 single -family residential buildings would remain on site and the site would not be redeveloped.

5.4.2 Environmental Impacts

5.4.2.1 Aesthetics
Under the No Project /No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain nearly vacant , resulting in no impacts related to aesthetics, light, and glare. Therefore, the No Project, No Development Alternative would have reduced direct impacts on aesthetics, light, and glare as compared with the proposed Project . The Draft EIR determined that aesthetic impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant and would not require mitigation

5.4.2.2 Air Quality
Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no ground disturbance both within the Project site and within the areas pr oposed for off -site improvements; therefore, no construction impacts to air quality would occur under this alternative. During operation, there would be no impacts related to air quality as the none of the residential, commercial industrial, business park, public facilities, and circulation land uses would be developed. Thus, there would be no impacts related to air quality under this alternative. The DEIR determined that the proposed Project (after mitigation) would have less than significant construction impacts and significant and unavoidable operational impacts (and significant and unavoidable combined Phase I operational and Phase 2 construction impacts) related to air quality; therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have reduced impacts on air quality as compared with the proposed Project.

5.4.2.3 Biological Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not remove any vegetation, including existing shrubs and trees, or existing buildings on the Project site. No new buildings would be constructed that may impact plant and/or wildlife species. Therefore, this alternative would have no construction impact on biological resources. such. This alternative would not involve operation of new land uses, and would not cause operational impac ts to biological resources. Impacts of this alternative would be less when compared to the Project, which would be less than significant after mitigation.

5.4.2.4 Cultural Resources
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve ground disturbance, and thus would not cause impacts on archaeological resources. Impacts to archaeological resources would be reduced by this alternative and would be less than significant after mitigation for the proposed  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-12 June 2023
Project. No historical resources were identified onsite. This alternative would not involve demolition.

Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause impacts on historical resources.

5.4.2.5 Energy
Under the No Project/ No Development Alternative, the Project site would remain nearly vacant; therefore, the site would not require any additional near -term or long -term energy resources.

Accordingly, although the Project would result in less than significant impacts associat ed with energy, the No Project/No Development Alternative would have no impact related to energy use.

5.4.2.6 Geology and Soils
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve soil disturbance or grading on the existing Project site , and would not caus e any degree of soil loss greater than under existing conditions. The potential for seismically- induced ground settlement, liquefaction, lateral spreading, expansive soils, and landslides would remain as they are. Therefore, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not cause or exacerbate geologic hazards related to fault rupture, strong seismic shaking, liquefaction, seismically induced settlement, soil stability, subsidence, or expansive soils,.

No impacts related to geology and soils would occur under Alternative 1, and thus impacts would be less when compared to the less-than-significant impacts of the Project.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not cause potential impacts to paleontological resources due to construction. Alternative 1 would have a lesser impact on paleontological resources than the Project, which would have less-than-significant impacts after mitigation.

5.4.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The No Project/No Development Alternative would include no demolition or new construction and existing onsite buildings would remain closed,.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop new uses on the Project site .

Therefore, no new GHG emissions would be generated and new impacts beyond existing conditions associated with global climate change would not occur. The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable (after mitigation) GHG impacts of the Project. Therefore, GHG emissions impacts of this alternative would be less when compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

5.4.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not involve demolition, grading, or other construction activities. Therefore, this alternative would not have the potential to uncover subsurface hazards. This alternative would not use or release hazardous materials, or generate hazardous waste, during construction.

This alternative would involve continuing the limited residential use. While the exact future tenants of the Project site are unknown, it is expected that the various commercial and residential uses in the proposed Project would use minimal hazardous material, while the proposed industrial uses would use more hazardous materials, making it more hazardous than the existing residential dw ellings.

However, impacts under the No Project/No Development Alternative would still be less than the less- than-significant impacts of the Project after mitigation.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-13 June 2023

5.4.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative does not propose construction and no construction impacts on hydrology and water quality would occur. Continued operation of existing land uses onsite would not adversely affect hydrology and water quality. No impacts would occur, and impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed Project.

5.4.2.10 Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Development Alternative would involve no development site improvements on the Project site . This alternative would have no land use or planning impacts. Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, there would be no changes to the existing residential use. No land use approvals or permits would be required. Therefore, Alternative 1 would not cause any conflicts with existing land use plans and policies. Impacts wo uld be less than the less -than- significant impacts of the Project.

5.4.2.11 Mineral Resources
Mining is prohibited under the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan. However, since there would be no development under Alternative 1, there would be no use or construction of buildings over the existing site. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have no impact on the potential availability of regional or local mineral resources, and impacts would be less than the proposed Project, which would be less than significant.

5.4.2.12 Noise
No new construction activities would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative.

Therefore, no construction-related noise or vibration would be generated onsite or offsite. Therefore, no onsite or offsite construction noise or vibration impacts would occur under Alternative 1.

The No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop new uses on the Project site , and would not change existing site operations. No new stationary or mobile noise sources would be introduced on or near the Project site. Therefore, no impacts associated with operational onsite or offsite noise would occur under No Project/No Development Alternative, and long -term impacts would be less when compared to the less -than-significant noise impacts of the Project after mitigation, as well as the Project’s significant and unavoidable cumulative impact due to offsite roadway noise.

5.4.2.13 Population and Housing
In this alternative the existing 1 1 residences onsite would remain in operation; however, the 1, 185 additional residences that would be developed on the site as part of the proposed Project would not be developed. This alternative would not cause any adverse impact, and impacts would be reduced compared to impacts of the proposed Project, which would be less than significant.

5.4.2.14 Public Services
Implementation of this alternative would not gene rate demands for public services and therefore would not require construction or expansion of public services facilities. No impact would occur, and impacts would be reduced compared to the less-than-significant impacts of the proposed Project.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-14 June 2023

5.4.2.15 Recreation
This alternative would not develop 11.1 acres of parks and open space. This alternative also would not develop residences onsite that would generate demand for parks. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not cause impacts to park facilities, and impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, which would be less than significant.

5.4.2.16 Transportation
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not include demolition or the development of any new buildings onsite. Therefore, Alt ernative 1 would not generate vehicle trips associated with heavy-duty construction equipment, haul trucks, or construction worker vehicles. Thus, no construction-related traffic impacts would occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative, Since the No Project/No Development Alternative would not develop new or additional land uses on the Project site, the operation of Alternative 1 would not generate any additional vehicle trips or alter existing access or circulation within the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur with respect to operational traffic, including VMT or intersection LOS. Therefore, Alternative 1 would eliminate the Project 's significant and unavoidable operational impacts. Impacts under the No Project/No Development Alternative would be less when compared to those of the Project.

5.4.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Grading and other earthwork activities would not occur under the No Project/No Development Alternative. Therefore, there would be no potential for Alternative 1 to uncover subsurface tribal cultural resources during construction. No impacts on tribal cultural resources would occur, and impacts would be less than those of the proposed Project , which would have less than significant impacts after mitigation.

5.4.2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
This alternative would not involve construction and thus would not generate construction demands for water, wastewater treatment, or solid waste disposal. This alternative would not cause construction impacts on utilities . The No Project/No De velopment Alternative would not develop land uses on the Project site and thus would not generate operational utilities demands. Impacts would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, which would be less than significant.

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

5.4.4 Relationship of Alternative 1 to Project Objectives Under the No Project/No Development Alternative, no new development would occur. Therefore, this alternative would not meet any of the Pro ject’s objectives listed in subsection 5.1.3 above .  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-15 June 2023
Overall, the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet the Project ’s objectives of creating the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan to serve both regulatory and planning function s, guiding the necessary community design, infrastructure, and public service requirements in a coordinated and logical process on the Project site.

5.5 Analysis of Alternative 2 – No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative

5.5.1 Description of Alternative
Alternative 2, the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, consists of buildout and operation of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (EMRSP), the current General Plan designation for the Project site . The EMRSP permits development of 1,196 residential units, 186 ,000 square feet of commercial retail space, an elementary school, a church, 15.3 acres of parkland, and related infrastructure such as roadways and streetlights. The residential units would consist of 667 single - family detached residential units, 273 single-family attached townhomes, and 256 multi-family units.

Acreage by land use for the EMRSP consists of 1 78.76 acres residential uses, 20.0 acres commercial uses, 37.0 acres institutional uses (church and elementary school), 1 7.6 acres parks, and 24.7 acres roadways and rights -of-way (JHA Consulting Inc., 2005) . The EMRSP spans approximately 278.45 acres, that is, approximately 31 acres more than the proposed Project site, as the EMRSP extends to 34 th Street along its entire southern boundary while parts of the southern boundary of the proposed Project site are north of 34th Street.

5.5.2 Environmental Impacts

5.5.2.1 Aesthetics
The EIR for the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan determined that EMRSP implementation would have had no impact on scenic vistas. Impacts of the proposed Project on scenic vistas would be less than significant. Therefore, this alternative would reduce impacts on scenic vistas compared to those of the proposed Project. EMRSP policies promoting a visually attractive community include 25-foot-wide parkways along several major roads; and parks creating “view windows” along streetscapes. EMRSP implementation would conform with EMRSP policies.

Alternative 2 would include similar types of outdoor lighting compared to the proposed Project. Thus, impacts of this alternative on nighttime views are expected to be generally similar to those of the proposed Project.

Structure exteriors in this alternative would be built of low- glare materials, as with th e proposed Project, based on the types of land uses proposed in each scenario. Therefore, impacts of this alternative on daytime views would be generally similar to those of the proposed Project.

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

Operational impacts of this alternative regarding regional emissions would be significant and unavoidable. Corresponding operational impacts of the proposed Project would also be significant  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-16 June 2023
and unavoidable after mitigation, as would combined Phase 1 operational and Phase 2 construction impacts. Impacts during operation would be similar for the two scenarios.

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

5.5.2.4 Cultural Resources
It was determined that no historic resources, as defined by CEQA, are present in the Project site (ASM, 2022). See Appendix D7 . All of the historic resources identified during the course of the cultural resources investigation have either been destroyed, or have been determined to be ineligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources. Therefore, Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would similarly have no impact on historical resources.

No archaeological resources were identified onsite during the cultural resources investigation for the proposed Project. Alternative 2 would involve the same type of ground disturbance that the proposed Project would, but including a larger area, and thus would have similar potential impacts on archaeological resources, which would be less than significant after mitigation.

5.5.2.5 Energy
The site of Alternative 2 is 31 acres larger than the proposed Project site, However, the development intensity and length of construction for Alternative 2 would be less than the proposed Project .

Therefore, construction energy use by this alternative is expected to be reduced compared to that of the proposed Project.

Operational energy use would be reduced in this alternative, as development intensity would be lower in this alternative than for the proposed Project . Nonresidential (commercial, church, and elementary school) uses in this alternative would total 57 acres including 186,000 square feet of commercial uses; the proposed Project would include slightly over 3.1 million square feet of commercial and industri al land uses on approximately 161 acres. Impacts would be less than significant in both scenarios.

5.5.2.6 Geology and Soils
Alternative 2 would involve ground disturbance on the entire Project site as would the proposed Project, and both are located in the same a rea. Both scenarios would be subject to the geotechnical engineering report recommendations as a condition of the building permit that would be issued by the City of Jurupa Valley and enforced by the City Building Department. Therefore, the impacts of Alternative 2 regarding seismic hazards and hazards arising from unstable soils would be the same as for the proposed Project, which would be less than significant. Alternative 2 would include ground disturbance on the entire Project site, the same as for the proposed Project. Therefore, the potential impacts of Alternative 2 on fossil resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project , and both would be less than significant after mitigation.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-17 June 2023

5.5.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for GHG emissions. GHG emissions were not estimated in the EIR for Alternative 2. GHG emissions of this alternative are therefore assessed here qualitatively based on the land use intensity and expected length of construction of this alternative, which would be reduced compared to that of the proposed Project.

The proposed Project would include approximately 3.1 million square feet of commercial and industrial uses on about 161 acres. Alternative 2 would include 57 acres of nonresidential (commercial, church, and elementary school) including 186,000 square feet of commercial uses. GHG emissions impacts of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. As GHG impacts of the proposed Project would be far gr eater than the 3,000 M TCO 2e significance threshold, this
assessment assumes that operational GHG impacts of this alternative would also be significant and unavoidable after mitigation.

5.5.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Alternative 2 would involve the same demolition and area of ground disturbance as the proposed Project. Development of Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would both require the same soil remediation for benzo(a)pyrene and lead in part of the east half of the Project site . Buildings onsite, due to their age, may contain asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.

All proposed land uses in each of the two scenarios would be required to comply with numerous existing regulations governing the storage, use, transport, and disposal of haz ardous materials and hazardous wastes. Operational impacts of each of the two scenarios would be similar as they would both be less than significant after regulatory compliance and mitigation.

5.5.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Construction hydrology and water q uality impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant after preparation and implementation of a S torm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for each development project. Construction water quality impacts of this alternative were also determined to be less than significant.

The hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative were found to be less than significant after compliance with County standards governing runoff. Water quality impacts of the proposed Project were found to be less than significant after implementation of the Project Water Quality Management Plan. Alternative 2 would include storm drains and detention basins that would protect against 100-year floods. The proposed Project would include infiltration basins and e xtension of a culvert that together would protect against 100 -year floods. This alternative would increase impermeable surfaces onsite; however, the increase would not be large enough to substantially reduce natural groundwater recharge into the groundwater basin, and project groundwater impacts would be less than significant. Overall, hydrology and water quality impacts of the two scenarios would be similar as both would be less than significant.

5.5.2.10 Land Use and Planning
Alternative 2 sets forth the EMRSP and the current City of Jurupa Valley General Plan designation and zoning policies for the Project site, and is consistent with the City land use policies governing the site.

The proposed Project would also be consistent with the General Plan and zoning policies for the site,  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-18 June 2023
as well as consistent with the SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). Therefore, the impacts of the two scenarios respecting land use regulation would be similar and less than significant.

5.5.2.11 Mineral Resources
The Project site contains two mineral resource sectors, E-20 and E-22, in the eastern half of the site.

Although mining is prohibited under the existing EMRSP and also would be prohibited under the proposed Project, the potential resources still e xist onsite. Alternative 2 and the proposed Project would both include ground disturbance and development of the entire Project site , Therefore, implementation of this alternative would have similar impacts as the proposed Project on the potential availability of regional and local mineral resources, which would be less than significant.

5.5.2.12 Noise
Construction noise impacts of Alternative 2 were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Construction impacts of the proposed Project were determined to be less than significant with the exception of cumulative offsite roadway noise, which would be significant and unavoidable. Impacts of Alternative 2 would therefore be greater than those of the proposed Project.

The main sources of onsite operational noise would be mechanical equipment, truck movements and idling, landscape maintenance activities, and parking. The EMRSP EIR did not analyze operational noise from onsite sources. Onsite operational noise impacts of the proposed Project were determined to be less than significant after implementation of mitigation. Impacts from onsite operational noise from this alternative cannot be evaluated here. Given that impacts of the proposed Project were found to be less than significant after implementation of PPPs, it cannot be assumed that such impacts of this alternative would be less than significant without mitigation.

Offsite operational noise would consist of traffic noise. Such cumulative impacts of the proposed Project were determined to be significant and unavoidable. Therefore, impacts of Alternative 2 would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project.

5.5.2.13 Population and Housing
The proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding population and housing.

Alternative 2 would have a similar impact regarding adding population in the City of Jurupa Valley— 4,422 persons —as it would involve development of the same number of residential units. This alternative is estimated to generate 950 operational jobs, much less than the 3,243 for the proposed Project. In both scenarios project -generated population and employment would each be within regional forecast for the city of Jurupa Valley for the 2016-2045 period, and impacts would be less than significant in each scenario.

5.5.2.14 Public Services
Demands for fire protection and police protection are generated by the number of people in an area plus the total building area on the site. As this alternative would involve development of substantially less nonresidential land uses than the proposed Project would, along with the same number of residential units, this alternative would generate slightly lower demands for fire and police facilities and services.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-19 June 2023
Impacts of this alternative on school and library facilities would be the same as those of the proposed Project because both of those impacts are generated by the populations (or households, in the case of schools) in the facilities’ service areas. Each of these two scenarios would involve development of 1,196 residential units and would thus add the same population to the Project site.

While this alternative would generate the same demand for park facilities that the proposed Project would, this alternative would involve development of more parkland (15.3 acres) than the proposed Project would (11.1 acres). Parkland developed by the proposed Project would not meet demands generated by residents who would live in the Project, and the proposed Project would be required to dedicate land and/or pay fees to compensate for the remaining required parkland. This alternative, by contrast, would develop enough parkland to meet demands generated by residents of this alternative. Therefore, impacts of this alterna tive on park facilities would be slightly reduced in this alternative and less than significant in both scenarios.

Impacts would be slightly reduced for this alternative and would be less than significant for both scenarios.

5.5.2.15 Recreation
Alternative 2 would develop 15.3 acres of parks. The proposed Project includes 11.1 acres of proposed open space. Each of the two scenarios would generate similar demands for parks, as each includes the same number of housing units. Alternative 2 would create a demand for 9.2 acres of parkland, and would thus develop a surplus of 6.1 acres of parkland relative to project -generated demand; impacts would be less than significant. The proposed Project would generate a demand for

13.3 acres of parkland.60 The proponent of the proposed Project would thus be required to dedicate land and/or pay in -lieu fees to make up the difference of 2.2 acres in required parkland. Impacts of the proposed Project would be less than significant after dedication of land and/ or payment of fees.

Impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

5.5.2.16 Transportation
It is expected that Alternative 2 would require less construction effor t than the proposed Project, as this alternative includes substantially reduced nonresidential land uses. Construction traffic impacts of Alternative 2 would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, and would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

Operation of Alternative 2 is estimated to generate 21,702 daily vehicle trips compared to 35,016 total trips and 36,525 passenger -car-equivalent (PCE) trips estimated for the proposed Project . 61 VMT was not estimated in the 2005 EIR for the EMRSP, as VMT was not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Environmental Checklist at that time. No comparison of VMT impacts between the two scenarios is possible. The only metric available for comparing operational transportation impacts between the two scenarios is trip generation. Based on trip generation, impacts of this alternative would be somewhat reduced compared to those of the proposed Project. VMT impacts of the proposed Project would be significant and unavoidable. Operationa l transportation impacts of

60 The Emerald Meadows Ranch DEIR used smaller household sizes in calculating population at buildout than the present EIR does for the proposed project, thus the lower acreage of parkland required. The City’s requirement of three acres of parkland per 1,000 persons applies to each scenario. 61 Truck trips are multiplied by 1.5 for two-axle trucks, 2.0 for 3-axle trucks, and 3.0 for 4+-axle trucks to convert truck trips to passenger car equivalent (PCE) trips.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-20 June 2023
this alternative were determined to be less than significant after mitigation, i.e. , reduced compared to the proposed Project.62 Therefore, Alternative 2 would have less impacts.

5.5.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Alternative 2 would involve the same ground disturbance that the proposed Project would, and thus would have similar potential impacts on tribal cultural resources, which would be less than significant after mitigation for both scenarios.63

5.5.2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Construction solid waste disposal and diversion by this alternative would comply with City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, which mandates construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of at least 75 percent. Construction solid waste disposal impacts of the proposed Project would comply with the same policy; impacts would be less than significant for both scenarios.

Water demand under this alternative was estimated at 1,319 acre -feet per year (afy; UltraSystems, 2005, p. 3.4-50). Water demand by the proposed Project is estimated at 612 afy or 546,000 gallons per day (gpd). The R ubidoux Community Services District (RCSD), identified as the water supplier for both scenarios, determined that it had sufficient water supplies f or the respective scenario.

Impacts were identified as less than significant in each scenario.

Wastewater generation by this alternative was estimated at approximately 339,200 gpd (UltraSystems, 2005, p. 3.4- 51), Wastewater generation by the proposed Proje ct is estimated at 286,560 gpd. Wastewater treatment for both scenarios would be provided by Riverside Public Utilities (RPU)’s Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP), which was determined to have adequate capacity to treat wastewater from each of the two scenarios. Impacts were found to be less than significant in each scenario.

Solid waste generation by the EMRSP alternative was estimated at approximately 4.65 tons per day (UltraSystems, 2005, p. 3.4 -75). Proposed project solid waste generation was estimated at 38,823 pounds per day or about 19.4 tons per day. For each scenario it was determined that landfills in the region have sufficient capacity for project solid waste generation, and impacts were determined to be less than significant in each scenario.

5.5.3 Comparison of Alternative 2 to the Proposed Project The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would reduce impacts on energy use, noise, recreation, and transportation compared to impacts of the proposed Project . Impacts of this alternative on aesthetics, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems would a ll be similar to those of the proposed Project . This alternative would increase impacts on air quality and slightly increase impacts on biological resources, population and housing, compared to those of the proposed Project.

62 The metric used for alternative 2 operational transportation impacts was level of service, an assessment of intersection and roadway segment operations based on average seconds of delay per vehicle. 63 Tribal cultural resources were not addressed in the EMRSP EIR, as they were not included in the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G at the time it was prepared.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-21 June 2023

5.5.4 Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Under the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, most of the Project objectives would be fully met as described in subsection 5.1.3. However, this alternative would only partially meet facilitating a balance of job -to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley and capitalizing on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenues, and infrastructure improvements.

5.6 Analysis of Alternative 3: Reduced Commercial Uses Alternative

5.6.1 Description of Alternative
This alternative would eliminate the regional retail uses in the proposed Specific Plan (70. 3 acres totaling 1.2 million square feet of building area which would be developed in Phase 1). The 70.3 acres includes 1.1 acre of existing non- conforming use. Commercial uses would be replaced with residential and open space uses in the same proportions as in the proposed Specific Plan, amounting to 56.9 acres residential uses and 14.0 acres of open space. The residential uses would be designated High Density Residential (HDR) , permitting single -family attached and detached residences — including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, patio homes, and zero lot line homes —at density of u p to 14 .0 units per acre. This alternative envisions that the average density in the residential uses added would be about 12.5 units per acre, that is, half of the 25 .0 units per acre of the residential uses in the proposed Specific Plan. The area designated HDR in this alternative would permit development of up to approximately 797 residential units. The residential units are allotted into Phases 1 and 2 in the same proportions as the residential units in the proposed Specific Plan, that is, 25 percent in Phase 1 and 75 percent in Phase 2 (Gorham, 2023). This alternative is intended to reduce VMT and air quality impacts of commercial uses in the proposed Specific Plan. See Table

5.6-1 below.

Table 5.6-1

LAND USE SUMMARY - REDUCED COMMERCIAL USES ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Acres
Proposed
Residential
Units
Proposed Square
Feet,
Nonresidential Uses
Phase 1
Residential 24.6 502 ---
Business Park Business Park 6.8 --- 30,000
Existing Nonconforming 1.0 ---
Subtotal 7.8 --- 30,000
Industrial 68.2 --- 1,500,000
Public Improvements

streets 15.7 --- ---
parkways 0.7 --- ---
right-of-way 5.2 --- ---
subtotal 21.6 --- ---
Total, Phase 1 126.1 499 1,530,000
Phase 2
Residential 73.9 1,491 ---
Commercial Neighborhood 20.3 --- 160,000
Tourist (160 hotel rooms) 5.9 --- 112,500
Subtotal 26.2 --- 272,500
Open Space 22.2 --- ---
Total, Phase 2 122.3 1,491 272,500
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-22 June 2023
Land Use Acres
Proposed
Residential
Units
Proposed Square
Feet,
Nonresidential Uses
Total 248.4 1,993 1,802,500
Source: Gorham, 2023

5.6.2 Environmental Impacts

5.6.2.1 Aesthetics
Impacts of this alternative on scenic vistas would be similar to those of the proposed Specific Plan.

This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site , as would the Specific Plan.

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

Operational impacts of this alternative on visual character would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Specific Plan. As noted above, building heights in some portions of the Project site may be reduced somewhat in this alternative compared to the Specific Plan. Signage would be reduced in this alternative, as all of the regional commercial uses proposed in the Specific Plan would be deleted.

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

5.6.2.2 Air Quality
Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 3.796 million square feet, that is, approximately 403,000 square feet, or 9.6 percent, lower than the proposed Project, as shown below in Table 5.6-2 . Therefore, this alternative is estimated to slightly decrease construction air pollutant emissions.

Table 5.6-2

TOTAL BUILDING AREA - REDUCED COMMERCIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Residential Units Square Feet
Reduced Commercial Alternative
Residential 1,993 1,993,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 1,802,500
Total --- 3,795,500
Proposed Project
Residential 1,196 1,196,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 3,002,500
Total --- 4,198,500
Difference, Proposed Project less Reduced
Commercial Alternative
-403,000
Percent Difference, Proposed Project less
Reduced Commercial Alternative
-9.6%
Source: Leung, 2023.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-23 June 2023
Localized construction emissions impacts depend on the rate of emissions in pounds per day and the distances of sensitive receptors from emissions sources. The total construction effort in this alternative would be slightly less than that of the proposed Project, and the distances from sensitive receptors to emissions sources would be the same in this alternative as in the proposed Project .

Therefore, localized emissions impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant after mitigation for both scenarios.

Overall emissions are considered proportional to trip generation. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate approximately 32,368 trips per day, that is, a reduction of 2,648 trips or 7. 6 percent compared to the proposed Project (see Table 5.6-3 below). Operational emissions would be slightly reduced by this alternative and would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

Table 5.6-3

TRIP GENERATION - REDUCED COMMERCIAL USES ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Residential
Units
Square Feet,
nonresidential
uses
Daily Trip Generation
Residential 1,993 --- 13,388
Internal Capture -2,008
Subtotal 11,380
Business Park --- 30,000 373
Hotel (160 rooms) 1,278
Internal capture -192
Subtotal 1,086
Discount Store 120,000 6,464
Supermarket 40,000 3,754
Internal Capture -563
Pass-by -68
Subtotal 3,123
Fast food 12,500 5,844
Industrial --- 1,500,000 4,076
Public Park (22.2 acres) 22
Total 1,993 1,802,500 32,368
Proposed Project 35,016
Difference, Proposed Project less
Reduced Commercial Alternative
-2,648
Percent Difference, Proposed Project
less Reduced Commercial Alternative
-7.6%
Source: Tarikere, 2023; Gorham, 2023

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

5.6.2.4 Cultural Resources
This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site except for four houses, as would the proposed Project. The proposed Project was found to have no impact on historical resources, as  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-24 June 2023
most of such resources identified on the Project site have been demolished or been determined ineligible for the CRHR. Impacts of this alternative on historical resources would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

No archaeological resources were identified in the field survey of the Project site or in previous cultural resources surveys. However, archaeological resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by project ground-disturbing activities. Impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant after mitigation for the proposed Project and would be similar for this alternative.

5.6.2.5 Energy
Construction energy use, taken to be proportional to total building area, would be approximately 10 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project (see Table 5.6-2 above).

Operation of this alternative would slightly decrease electricity and natural gas demands, as shown below in Table 5.6-4. This alternative would also slightly decrease operational transportation fuels use, taken to be proportional to vehicle trip generation (see Table 5.6-3 above). Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be slightly less than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

Table 5.6-4

ESTIMATED ENERGY DEMANDS - REDUCED COMMERCIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Change in Land Use
Intensity (units or
square feet)
Change in Utility Demand
Per unit Total
Electricity Demand, KWh/yr
Residential +797 units 4,118.8 +3,282,654
Commercial -1.2 million square feet 6.44 -7,730,899
Net Change Not applicable Not applicable -4,448,245
Proposed Project Not applicable Not applicable 24,724,770 Total, Reduced Commercial
Uses Alternative
Not applicable Not applicable 20,276,525
Natural Gas Demand, kBTU/yr
Residential +797 units 13,262 10,569,979
Commercial -1.2 million square feet 7.29 -8,748,803
Net Change Not applicable Not applicable -1,821,177
Proposed Project Not applicable Not applicable 37,210,230 Total, Reduced Commercial
Uses Alternative
Not applicable Not applicable 35,389,053
Source: Leung 2023

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

Fossils are likely present in site soils at depths of 15 feet or greater. Each of the two scenarios would involve ground disturbance on nearly the entire Project site to depths up to approximately 40 feet below ground surface (bgs). Impacts of each of the two scenarios on paleontological resources would be similar, and less than significant after mitigation.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-25 June 2023

5.6.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to total building area, and would be approximately 10 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project (see Table 5.6-2 above). Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

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

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

This alternative would include industrial, residential, and some commercial uses. Industrial uses would likely use, store, transport, and dispose of substantial amounts of hazardous materials.

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

5.6.2.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site, as would the proposed Project.

This alternative and the proposed Project would each involve implementation of construction BMPs to minimize construction water quality impacts. Neither scenario would exacerbate flood hazards.

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

5.6.2.10 Land Use and Planning
This alternative would also be a Specific Plan; the proposed land u se types and intensities in this alternative would conform with City of Jurupa Valley general plan and zoning policies upon approval of the Specific Plan. The same is true of the proposed Project . Land use and planning impacts would be similar and less than significant in both scenarios.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-26 June 2023

5.6.2.11 Mineral Resources
The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (EMRSP) by the County of Riverside.64 The California Geological Survey does not consider land designated for development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. No impact would occur in either scenario.

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

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

Trip generation by this alternative would be reduced by approximately 7.6 percent compared to that of the proposed Project, as shown above in Table 5.6-3 . Traffic noise impacts, assumed to be proportional to trip generation, would be slightly reduced by this alternative and would be less than the proposed Project’s significant and unavoidable cumulative offsite roadway noise impacts.

5.6.2.13 Population and Housing
This alternativ e would add 797 additional housing units compared to the proposed Project and would add 2,957 additional residents to the City of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size in the City of 3.71 persons. Operation of this alternative is estimated to g enerate 1,750 jobs, as shown below in Table 5.6-5. Population and employment from this alterative would each be within regional projections for the City of Jurupa Valley, and impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

Table 5.6-5

ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT GENERATION - REDUCED COMMERCIAL

USES ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Square Feet
Employees
Square feet per
employee1 Total
Phase I
Business Park 30,000 854 35
Industrial 1,500,000 1,390 1,079
Subtotal, Phase 1 1,114
Phase 2
Hotel 110,000 2,007 55
Neighborhood Commercial 160,000 275 581

64 Land use entitlements granted by Riverside County were transferred to the City of Jurupa Valley upon incorporation of the city.
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-27 June 2023
Land Use Square Feet
Employees
Square feet per
employee1 Total
Subtotal, Phase 2 636
Total 1,750

5.6.2.14 Public Services
Demands for public services are generated by the population in the agencies’ service areas except for police and fire protection, which are generated by the population plus the total building area. This alternative would add approximately 7,394 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size of 3.71 persons. This alternative would substitute 797 residential units for 1.2 million square feet of regional retail uses; the difference in total building area would be minor. This alternative would generate slight increases in demands for public services due to the increase in population. As with the proposed Project, with implementation of PPPs 4.14- 4 through 4.14- 7 and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, impacts to fire, police, parks, and library facilities would be less than significant. Impacts would be similar between the two scenarios.

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

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

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

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

Construction transportation impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.

This alternative would omit the regional retail u ses that would generate the significant and unavoidable VMT impact in the proposed Project . Mitigation measure TRANS -2, required for the proposed Project to reduce VMT impact from regional retail uses, would not be required for this alternative, and VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-28 June 2023

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

5.6.2.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Operational utility demands of this alternative are estimated here based on service population (numbers of residents plus workers) compared to those of the proposed Project. The service population of this alternative would be 7,394 re sidents plus 1,750 workers for a total of 9,144. The service population of the proposed Project would be 4,422 residents plus 3,241 workers for a total of 7,663. The difference in service population, 1,481, is approximately 19.3 percent of that for the proposed Project. Utilities demands from operation of this alternative, therefore, are estimated at approximately 19 percent greater than those of the proposed Project. Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

5.6.3 Comparison of Alternative 3 to the Proposed Project This alternative would reduce the following impacts compared to those of the proposed Project:
• Air quality (impacts would remain significant and unavoidable for this alternative and the proposed Project)
• Energy (impacts would be less than significant for this alternative and the proposed Project) • Greenhouse gas emissions (impacts would be significant and unavoidable for this alternative and the proposed Project)
• Recreation (impacts would remain less than significant, as would be proposed Project impacts).
• Transportation (VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant, and this alternative would avoid the significant and unavoidable VMT impacts of the proposed Project)
• Utilities (this alterna tive would de crease water, wastewater, and natural gas demands compared to those of the proposed Project).

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

The impacts that would be similar for this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project include Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils , Hazards and  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-29 June 2023
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use . Mineral Resources , Noise (construction and onsite operational impacts), Public Services, and Tribal Cultural Resources.

5.6.4 Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives The Reduced Commercial Uses alternative would fully meet most of the Project objectives as described in subsection 5.1.3. This alternative would to a lesser degree still c reate a sustainable environment by incorporating strategies that minimize consumption of natural resources, conserve energy and water, incorporate natural systems and minimize the release of pollutants into the environment. By deleting commercial uses wi thin the Specific Plan, this alternative would require longer trips for residents to reach commercial uses offsite, most of which would be vehicular trips.

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

This alternative would increase residential uses, and decrease employment -generating uses, compared to the proposed Project. The City of Jurupa Valley is already forecast to be housing -rich through the year 2045; development of this alternative would make the City even more housing-rich.

5.7 Analysis of Alternative 4: Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative

5.7.1 Description of Alternative
In this alternative the industrial uses in the proposed Specific Plan are replaced with r esidential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses. The storage use would be long -term commercial or industrial storage that would involve far fewer truck trips than, for example, fulfillment center use. The proportions of residential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses in the area converted from industrial use in this alternative would be the same as those for the four land use types in the proposed Specific Plan; industrial use in the Specific Plan was used to calculate proportion for storage in this alternative. That is, the 67.3 acres of industrial use in the Specific Plan would be converted to 21 .0 acres of residential, 37 .0 acres of storage, 10 .0 acres of neighborhood commercial, and three acres of open space. The add itional residential use in this alternative would be at the same density as the residential uses in the proposed Specific Plan (i.e., 25 units per acre) and would all be developed in Phase 2 (Gorham, 2023). See Table 5.7-1 below.

Table 5.7-1

LAND USE SUMMARY - REDUCED INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Acres
Proposed
Residential
Units
Proposed Square
Feet, nonresidential
uses
Phase 1
Residential (High-Density) 10.4 302 ---
Business Park Business Park 6.8 --- 30,000
Existing Nonconforming 1.0 ---
Subtotal 7.8 --- 30,000
Storage 37 --- 750,000
Commercial Retail 69.8 --- 1,200,000
Existing nonconforming 1.1 ---
Subtotal 70.9 --- 1,200,000
Public Improvements

streets 15.7 --- ---
parkways 0.7 --- ---
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-30 June 2023
Land Use Acres
Proposed
Residential
Units
Proposed Square
Feet, nonresidential
uses
right-of-way 5.2 --- ---
subtotal 21.6 --- ---
Total, Phase 1 147.7 302 1,980,000
Phase 2
Residential (High-Density) 52.2 1,419 ---
Commercial Neighborhood 30.3 --- 240,000
Tourist (160 hotel rooms) 5.9 --- 112,500
Subtotal 36.2 --- 352,500
Open Space 12.2 --- ---
Total, Phase 2 100.6 1,419 352,500
Total 248.3 1,721 2,332,500
Source: Gorham, 2023

5.7.2 Environmental Impacts

5.7.2.1 Aesthetics
Impacts of this alternative on scenic vistas would be similar to those of the proposed Specific Plan.

This alternative would involve development of the entire Project site , as would the Specific Plan.

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

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

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

5.7.2.2 Air Quality
Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 4.054 million square feet (i.e., approximately 145,000 square feet or 3.5 percent) less than the proposed Project . See Table 5.7-2 below. This alternative is estimated to very slightly decrease construction air pollutant emissions.

Impacts would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

Table 5.7-2

TOTAL BUILDING AREA - REDUCED INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Residential Units Square Feet
Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative
Residential 1,721 1,721,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 2,332,500
Total --- 4,053,500
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-31 June 2023
Proposed Project
Residential 1,196 1,196,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 3,002,500
Total --- 4,198,500
Difference, Proposed Project less Reduced
Industrial Uses Alternative
--- -145,000
Percent Difference, Proposed Project less
Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative
--- -3.5%
Source: Leung 2023

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

Trip generation by the reduced industrial alternative is estimated to be 41,895, an increase of 6,879 trips or approximately 19.7 percent of proposed Project trip generation, as shown in Table 5.7-3 below. Operational air pollutant emissions would be increased by nearly 20 percent by this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project and would be significant and unavoidable in both scenarios.

Table 5.7-3

TRIP GENERATION ESTIMATE - REDUCED INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Residential
Units
Square Feet,
nonresidential
uses
Daily Trip Generation
Residential 1,721 --- 11,561
Internal Capture -1,734
Subtotal 9,827
Business Park --- 30,000 373
Hotel (160 rooms) 1,278
Internal capture -192
Subtotal 1,086
Regional Commercial (furniture retail
and warehouse)
--- 1,000,000 2,169
Regional Commercial (Shopping Center) --- 200,000 7,402 Internal Capture -1,110
Pass-by -127
Subtotal 6,165
Discount Store 180,000 9,696
Supermarket 60,000 5,631
Internal Capture -845
Pass-by -102
Subtotal 4,685
Fast food 12,500 5,844
Storage --- 750,000 2,038
Public Park (12.2 acres) 12
Total 1,721 2,332,500 41,895
Proposed Project 35,016
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-32 June 2023
Land Use Residential
Units
Square Feet,
nonresidential
uses
Daily Trip Generation
Difference, Proposed Project less
Reduced Commercial Uses Alternative
-6,879
Percent Difference, Proposed Project
less Reduced Commercial Uses
Alternative
-19.7%
Source: Tarikere, 2023; Gorham, 2023

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

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

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

5.7.2.5 Energy
Operation of this alternative would slightly decrease electricity and natural gas demands, as shown below in Table 5.7-4. However, this alternative would increase operational transportation fuels use, taken to be proportional to vehicle trip generation (see Table 5.7-3 above). Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be slightly greater than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

Table 5.7-4

ESTIMATED ENERGY DEMANDS - REDUCED INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Change in Land Use
Intensity (units or
square feet)
Change in Utility Demand
Per unit Total
Electricity Demand, KWh/yr
Residential +525 units 4,118.8 2,162,350
Neighborhood
Commercial
+120,000 square feet 6.44 773,090
Industrial/Storage -750,000 square feet 6.75 -5,059,500 Net Change Not applicable Not applicable -2,124,060
Proposed Project Not applicable Not applicable 24,724,770  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-33 June 2023
Total, Reduced
Industrial Uses
Alternative
Not applicable Not applicable 22,600,710
Natural Gas Demand, kBTU/yr
Residential +525 units 13,262 6,962,659
Neighborhood
Commercial
+120,000 square feet 7.29 773,090
Industrial/Storage -750,000 square feet 6.93 -5,059,500 Net Change Not applicable Not applicable 2,676,249
Proposed Project Not applicable Not applicable 37,210,230 Total, Reduced
Industrial Uses
Alternative
Not applicable Not applicable 34,533,981
Source: Leung 2023

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

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