Agenda — Jurupa Valley City Council, September 7, 2023 (part 8 of 9)

5.7.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to grading area and total building area. Total building area would be approximately 3.5 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project (see Table 5.7-2 above). The area graded would be very slightly less in this alternative than in the proposed Project; thus, grading effort would not differ substantially between the two scenarios. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Nearly 75 percent of project greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks.

Thus, operational GHG emissions are consider ed here to be proportional to trip generation. This alternative would increase trip generation by approximately 20 percent compared to the proposed Project (see Table 5.7- 3). Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated to be increased by approximately 20 percent in this alternative compared to the proposed Project . Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

5.7.2.8 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 inc lude commercial, storage, and residential uses. Storage uses may store substantial amounts of hazardous materials ; land use limitations for storage uses are to be determined. However, the use of hazardous materials in storage use areas is expected to be li mited to small amounts for cleaning and maintenance purposes. Residential uses would likewise utilize  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-34 June 2023
small quantities of hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes. The amounts of hazardous materials used by operation of this alternative would be slightly reduced by the deletion of industrial uses. Hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

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

The storage uses in this alternative are expected to use fewer hazardous materials than the industrial uses in the proposed Project. Otherwise, the amounts and types of water pollutants are not expected to differ substantially between the two scenarios. Each of the two scenarios would include LID, source control, and treatment control BMPs. Hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project , and less than significant for both scenarios.

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

5.7.2.11 Mineral Resources
The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the EMRSP. The California Geological Survey does not consider land designated for development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. Impacts would be similar for both scenarios.

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

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

Operational traffic noise impacts are assumed to be proportional to trip generation. Trip generation by this alternative would be increased by approximately 20 percent compared to that of the proposed  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-35 June 2023
Project, as shown above in Table 5.7-3. Traffic noise impacts would be increased by this alternative beyond the significant and unavoidable cumulative offsite roadway noise impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

5.7.2.13 Population and Housing
This alternative would add 525 additional housing units compared to the proposed Proj ect and would add 1,948 additional residents to the City of Jurupa Valley at the average household size in the City of 3.71 persons. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate 2,994 jobs, as shown below in Table 5.7-5. Population and employment estimates for this alternative are each within regional projections for the City of Jurupa Valley. Population and housing impacts of this alternative would be similar for this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

Table 5.7-5

ESTIMATED PROJECT OPERATIONAL EMPLOYMENT GENERATION - REDUCED INDUSTRIAL

USES ALTERNATIVE
Land Use Square Feet
Employees
Square feet per
employee1 Total
Phase I
Commercial 1,242,500
Shopping Center 200,000 275 727
Fast Food 12,500 275 45
Furniture Store/Warehouse 1,000,000 1,390 719
Business Park 30,000 854 35
Storage 750,000 1,390 540
Subtotal, Phase 1 2,066
Phase 2
Commercial 270,000
Hotel 110,000 2,007 55
Discount Store 180,000 275 655
Supermarket 60,000 275 218
Subtotal, Phase 2 928
Total 2,994
1 Employment density factors are for Riverside County. 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.
2 The 2 neighborhood commercial uses (discount store and supermarket) are here increased in building area by 50 percent compared to the proposed Project to reflect the increase in neighborhood commercial use from 20.3 to 30.3 acres.

Source: Natelson Company, 2001.

5.7.2.14 Public Services
Demands for public services are generated by the population in the agencies’ service areas except for police and fire protect ion, which are generated by the population plus the total building area. This alternative would add approximately 6,385 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley based on the average household size of 3.71 persons. This alternative would substitute 525 resident ial units, 750,000 square feet of storage uses, and 10 acres of neighborhood commercial uses for 1.5 million square feet of industrial uses; the difference in total building area would be minor. This alternative would  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-36 June 2023
generate slight increases in demands f or public services due to the increase in population. As with the proposed Project , with implementation of PPPs 4.14 -4 through 4.14 -7 and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, impacts to fire, police, parks, and library facilities would be less than significant. Impacts would be similar between the two scenarios.

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

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

5.7.2.15 Recreation
This alternative would add approximately 6,385 persons to the city of Jurupa Valley. At the City’s standard of three acres of parkland per 1,000 population this alternative would generate demand for approximately 19.2 acres o f parkland. This alternative would include 12.2 acres of open space, leaving a remaining need for approximately seven acres of parkland. As with the proposed Project , this alternative would be required to dedicate parkland and/or pay in-lieu fees for acquisition and/or improvement of parkland pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 7.25.020. Impacts would be slightly reduced in this alternative compared to those of the proposed Project, and would be less than significant for both scenarios.

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

Construction transportation impacts of this alternative w ould be very slightly reduced compared to those of the proposed Project.

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

5.7.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
This alternative, as with the proposed Project, would involve grading and construction on nearly the entire Project site. Tribal cultural resources could be present in site soils and could be damaged by soil disturbance during construction. Implementation of mitigation measure CUL-1, CUL-2 and TCR- 1 would reduce these impacts to less than significant; likewise for the proposed Project . Impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project.

5.7.2.18 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 6,385 residents plus 2,994 workers for a total of 9,379. 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, 716, is approximately 22 percent of that for the proposed Project. Utilities demands from operation of this alternative, therefore, are estimated at  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-37 June 2023
approximately 22 percent greater than those of the proposed Project . Impacts would be less than significant for each of the two scenarios.

5.7.3 Comparison of Alternative 4 to the Proposed Project Implementation of the Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative would slightly reduce impacts to aesthetics, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and onsite operational noise compared to impacts of the proposed Project.

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

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

5.7.4 Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives The Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative would achieve all of the objectives of the proposed Project as described in subsection 5.1.3.

5.8 Analysis of Alternative 5: No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative

5.8.1 Description of Alternative
In this alternative , all of the commercial, business park, and industrial uses in the Specific Plan (totaling 177 acres) are replaced with open space. The types of open space uses are undetermined but could include passive (natural) open space and/or a sports park. Commercial open space, such as a golf course, is not envisioned as part of this alternative. All of the open space would be developed in Phase 2 of this alternative, as would the open space in the proposed Specific Plan (Gorham, 2023).

See Table 5.8-1 below. This alternative is intended to reduce the significant and unavoidable VMT and air quality impacts of the proposed Project.

Table 5.8-1

LAND USE SUMMARY - NO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Acres Proposed
Res. Units
Proposed Sq. Ft.,
Non-res. Uses
Phase 1
Residential (High-Density) 10.4 302 ---
Public Improvements Streets 15.7 --- ---
Parkways 0.7 --- ---
Right-of-way 5.2 --- ---
Subtotal 21.6 --- ---
Total, Phase 1 32.0 302 ---
Phase 2
Residential (High-Density) 31.2 894 ---
Open Space 185.2 --- ---
Total, Phase 2 216.4 894 ---
Total 248.4 1,196 ---
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-38 June 2023
Land Use Acres Proposed
Res. Units
Proposed Sq. Ft.,
Non-res. Uses
Source: Gorham, 2023

5.8.2 Environmental Impacts

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

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

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

5.8.2.2 Air Quality
Construction emissions depend on construction effort including the proportion of the site graded and the total building area. This alternative would involve grading 63.2 acres, that is, approximately 25 percent of the Project site . Total building area for this alternative is estimated at approximately 1 .2 million square feet, that is, approximately 3 million square feet – or 72 percent – less than the proposed Project, as shown below in Table 5.8-2. This alternative would decrease construction air pollutant emissions.

Table 5.8-2

TOTAL BUILDING AREA - NO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Residential Units Square Feet
No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative
Residential 1,196 1,196,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 0
Total --- 1,196,000
Proposed Project
Residential 1,196 1,196,000
Nonresidential Uses --- 3,002,500
Total --- 4,198,500
Difference, Proposed Project less No
Commercial/Industrial Uses Alternative
--- -3,002,500
Percent Difference, Proposed Project less
No Commercial/Industrial Alternative
--- -71.5%
Source: Gorham, 2023
 SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-39 June 2023
Overall operational emissions are considered proportional to trip generation. Operation of this alternative is estimated to generate approximately 6,829 trips per day, that is, a reduction of 28,187 trips or 80.5 percent compared to the proposed Project. Operational emissions would be reduced by this alternative. The criteria pollutant emission by the proposed Project that is greatest compared to the threshold amount for that pollutant is nitrogen oxides (NO x); mitigated NOx emissions at project buildout would be 290.82 pounds per day compared to the threshold of 55 pounds per day. Emissions would be approximately 5.3 times the threshold. Thus, emissions would need to be reduced by approximately 81 percent to bring mitigated NO
x emissions below the significance threshold. The
percentage reduction in vehicle trips (80.5 percent) would be sufficient to reduce operational criteria emissions impacts of this alternative to less than significant , and would avoid the significant and unavoidable air quality impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

Table 5.8-3

TRIP GENERATION - NO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Residential
Units
Square Feet,
nonresidential
uses
Daily Trip Generation
Residential 1,196 --- 8,034
Internal Capture -1,205
Subtotal 6,829
Total 1,196 0 6,829
Proposed Project 35,016
Difference, Proposed Project less No
Commercial/Industrial Uses Alternative
-28,187
Percent Difference, Proposed Project
less No Commercial/Industrial
Alternative
-80.5%
Sources: Tarikere, 2023; Gorham, 2023

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

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

5.8.2.5 Energy
Construction energy use, taken to be proportional to total building area, would be approximately 72 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project (see Table 5.8-2 above).

Operation of this alternative would decrease electricity and natural gas demands, as shown below in Table 5.8-4. This alternative would also decrease operational transportation fuels use, taken to be  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-40 June 2023
proportional to vehicle trip generation, by approximately 80 percent (see Table 5.8 -3 above).

Overall, operational energy use by this alternative would be much lower than that of the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

Table 5.8-4

ESTIMATED ENERGY DEMANDS - NO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES ALTERNATIVE Land Use Utility Demand
Electricity Demand, KWh/yr
Residential 4,926,040
Proposed Project 24,724,770
Difference, Proposed Project less No Commercial/Industrial Uses Alternative 19,798,730 Natural Gas Demand, KWh/yr
Residential 15,861,600
Proposed Project 37,210,230
Difference, Proposed Project less No Commercial/Industrial Uses Alternative 21,348,630 Source: Leung, 2023

5.8.2.6 Geology and Soils
This alternative consists of development of approximately 25 percent of the Project site . In each of the two scenarios development would not exacerbate existing seismic hazards or hazards related to unstable soils. Impacts would be similar, and less than significant, for each of the two scenarios.

Regarding impacts on paleontological resources, ground disturbance may be to somewhat shallower depths in this alternative, as the maximum allowable building height for multifamily residences would be 50 feet compared to 75 feet for industrial and some commercial uses. Fossils are likely present in site soils at depths of 15 feet or greater. Impacts of this alternative on paleontological resources would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, and would be less than significant after mitigation in both scenarios.

5.8.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Construction greenhouse gas emissions are taken to be proportional to grading area and to total building area. Total building area would be approximately 72 percent lower in this alternative than in the proposed Project (see Table 5.8-2 above). The area graded would be approximately 75 percent less in this alternative than in the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

Nearly 75 percent of project greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks.

Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated here to be proportional to trip generation. This alternative would decrease trip generation by approximately 80 percent compared to the proposed Project (see Table 5.8-3 ). Thus, operational GHG emissions are estimated to be decreased by approximately 80 percent in this alternative compared to the proposed Project. Impacts would be significant and unavoidable for both scenarios.

5.8.2.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Construction hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be reduced in this alternative due to the reduced development footprint compared to the proposed Project.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-41 June 2023
The residential uses in this alternative would likely u tilize hazardous materials for cleaning and maintenance purposes and in smaller quantities than would be used by commercial and industrial uses in the proposed Project . Hazardous materials impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to the proposed Project and would be less than significant in both scenarios.

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

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

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

5.8.2.11 Mineral Resources
The Project site was designated for development in 2005 with approval of the EMRSP. The California Geological Survey does not consider land designated for development to be available for mining. No mine is identified on or near the Project site in the City of Jurupa General Plan. Neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause a loss of availability of a mine identified by the City of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, neither this alternative nor the proposed Project would cause significant impacts to the availability of mineral resources. Impacts would be similar for both scenarios.

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

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

Operational traffic noise impacts are assumed to be proportional to trip generation. Trip generation by this alt ernative would be decreased by approximately 80 percent compared to that of the  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-42 June 2023
proposed Project, as shown above in Table 5.8-3. Traffic noise impacts would be decreased by this alternative and would therefore avoid the significant and unavoidable cumulati ve offsite roadway noise impact that would occur under the proposed Project.

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

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

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

5.8.2.16 Transportation
Construction transportation impacts would be reduced compared with impacts of the proposed Project due to the greatly reduced grading quantity and total building area. This alternative would omit the regional retail uses that would generate the significant and unavoidable VMT) impact by the proposed Project . Therefore, VMT impacts of this alternative would be less than significant.

Mitigation measure TRANS-2, required for the proposed Project to reduce VMT impact from regional retail uses, would not be required for this alternative.

5.8.2.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Tribal cultural resources impacts of this alternative would be reduced compared to those of the proposed Project, as nearly 75 percent of the Project site under this alternative would remain open space. It is assumed that a small, to -be-determined portion of the 185 acres of open space in this alternative would be developed with active recreational uses such as a sports park, and that the  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-43 June 2023
remainder would be natural open space. Tribal cultural resources impacts of this alternative and the proposed Project would each be less than significant after mitigation.

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

5.8.3 Comparison of Alternative 5 to the Proposed Project Development of this alternative, compared to the propos ed Project , would reduce impacts on aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems. This alternative would avoid significant and unavoidable air quality and transportation impacts of the proposed Project.

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

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

5.8.4 Relationship of the Alternative to Project Objectives Development of the No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative would fully meet the following project objectives:
• Transform the area into a visually attractive, welcoming, and safe development and environment.
• Define the appropriate location, maximum intensity, an d mix of uses through new development standards.
• Create guidelines and standards for architecture that reinforces the unique character and identity of the City of Jurupa Valley characterized by high quality architectural forms and material and emphasize a Southern California lifestyle that maximizes the outdoor spaces. • Establish an open space plan that accommodates passive recreation amenities and areas for the community to gather for outdoor venues.
• 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.  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-44 June 2023
Development of this alternative would partially meet the following objectives:
• Respond to the physical and market-driven aspects of future development opportunities. • Encourage compatible land uses and interface with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives, and/or local streets. • Capitalize on predictable and marketable future development opportunities that provide the City with economic benefits through employment, tax revenu es and infrastructure improvements.
• Create a multimodal circulation network within the site to adequately service envisioned uses, and activities and contain vehicular impacts.
• Provide flexible parking standards to encourage parking facilities that meet th e parking demand for all users at all times, avoid excess and unnecessary parking, and ensure no overflow parking on public streets.
• Create a sustainable environment by incorporating strategies that minimize consumption of natural resources, conserve energy and water, incorporate natural systems and minimize the release of pollutants into the environment.

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

5.9 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines indicates that an analysis of alternatives to a project shall identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative among the alternatives evaluated in an EIR.

The CEQA Guidelines also state that should it be determined that the No Project/No Build Alternative is the Environmentally Superior Alternative, the EIR shall identify another Environmentally Superior Alternative among the remaining alternatives.

With respect to i dentifying an Environmentally Superior Alternative among those analyzed in this Draft EIR, the range of feasible alternatives includes:
• No Project/No Development Alternative (Alternative 1) • No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative (Alternative 2) • Reduced Commercial Uses Alternative (Alternative 3)
• Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative (Alternative 4)
• No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative (Alternative 5).

Table 5.3-1 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  SECTION 5.0 – ALTERNATIVES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 5-45 June 2023
comparison of each of the alternatives’ ability to meet the objectives of the Project . A more detailed description of the potential impacts associated with each alternative is provided above. Pursuant to § 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guideli nes, the analysis below addresses the ability of the alternatives to "avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects" of the Project.

Of the alternatives analyzed in this Draft EIR, Alternative 1, the No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all of the Project's significant environmental impacts, including the Project's significant and unavoidable air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative offsite roadway noise and vehicle miles traveled impacts. Although Alternative 1 would reduce most of the Project 's less- than-significant and less -than-significant-with-mitigation impacts , it would not meet any of the Project's objectives.

In accordance with the CEQA Guidelines requirement to identify an Environmentally Superior Alternative other than the No Project/No Build Alternative, a comparative evaluation of the remaining alternatives indicates that Alternative 5, the No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative, would be the Environmentally Superior Alternative . Alternative 5 would reduce three significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project to less than significant: operational air quality impacts, cumulative offsite roadway noise and vehicle miles traveled impacts.

As described in Section 5.8.4, Alternative 5 would fully meet four of the objectives for the Project, would only partially meet seven of the objectives, and would not meet the objective of f acilitating a balance of job-to-housing growth within the City of Jurupa Valley.

SECTION 6.0 - OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
 SECTION 6.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 6-1 June 2023

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 Significant Unavoidable Impacts
This section includes a description of the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed Project. § 15126.2(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that the EIR describe any significant impacts, including those that can be mitigated but not reduced to less-than-significant levels.

Potential environmental effects of the proposed Project and proposed mitigation measures are discussed in Sections 4.1 through 4.18 of this document. This EIR determined that there would be unavoidable significant adverse impacts related to air quality (Section 4.2) from operations and from Phase 1 operations and Phase 2 construction combined; greenhouse gas emissions (Section 4.7) ; cumulative offsite roadway noise (Sect ion 4.12); and vehicle miles traveled (Section 4.16) After implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed Project would still have significant environment effects, which would require the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations for these impacts.

6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The environmental effects of the proposed project are summarized in the Executive Summary and are analyzed in detail in Section 3, Environmental Impact Analysis, of this Draft EIR.

As mandated by the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental change that would result from implementation of the proposed project. Specifically, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), such an impact would occur if:
• The proposed project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources; • Primary and secondary impacts would generally commit future generations to similar uses; • The proposed project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents associated with the project; or • The proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).

The proposed project consists of a master planned residential community that would incl ude up to 1,192 dwelling units, 1.27 million square feet of light industrial uses, and 1.43 million square feet of business park uses. Implementation of the proposed project would require the long -term commitment of natural resources and land, as discussed in the following paragraphs.

Approval and implementation of actions related to the proposed project would result in an irretrievable commitment of nonrenewable resources such as energy supplies and other construction-related materials. The energy resource demands would be used for construction, heating, and cooling of buildings; transportation of people and goods; heating and refrigeration; lighting; and other associated energy needs.

Environmental changes with implementation of the proposed project would occur as the physical environment is altered through continued commitments of land and construction materials to urban development. There would be an irretrievable commitment of materials used in construction.

Nonrenewable resources would be committed primarily in the form of fossil fuels and would include  SECTION 6.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 6-2 June 2023
fuel, oil, natural gas, and gasoline used by vehicles and equipment associated with implementation of the proposed project. Refer to Section 3.6, Energy for detailed discussion of energy consumption.

The consumption of other nonrenewable or slowly renewable resources would result from the development of the proposed project. These resources would include but would not be limited to lumber and other forest products, sand and gravel, asphalt, steel, copper, lead, and water. These resources are available in abundance in the Riverside -San Bernardino region and the proposed project would not require a need for new supplies to be secured. Furthermore, the proposed project would be designed and constructed in accordance with the California Building Standards Code, which includes energy and water efficiency standards. Thus, excessive and wasteful consumption would not occur.

The proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant irreversible environmental damage because, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d), the proposed project does not meet any of the scenarios listed above. Irreversible damage is not anticipated from environmental accidents associated with the proposed project, as it would comp ly with all applicable local and State regulations regarding handling and storage of hazardous materials. While a large commitment to nonrenewable resources would be required, the proposed project would use the energy efficiently and would not result in the wasteful use of energy.

6.3 Growth Inducing Impacts
In compliance with CEQA regulations, this section discusses the growth inducing impacts of a project.

CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2(e) requires a discussion of potential growth inducing impacts of a project.

Growth-inducing impacts are defined by CEQA as the ways in which a project could directly or indirectly foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth. In addition, as discussed in the CEQA Guidelines, increases in the population may tax existing community service facilities, thus requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. It must not be assumed that growth in an area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

6.3.1 Population and Housing
The Project proposes development of 1,192 residential units that are estimated to house approximately 4,422 persons at project buildout. The Project site is already designated Specific Plan and the proposed Project would include the same number of residential units as are permitted under the existing Specific Plan. Therefore, proposed Project development would not remove an obstacle to population growth.

6.3.2 Employment
The proposed Project would have the potential to generate indirect population growth as a r esult of the temporary construction employment opportunities and employment opportunities associated with project operation.

The proposed Project would create temporary construction- related jobs. Due to the specialized nature and expertise of their work, construction workers remain at a job site for the time during which their specific skills are utilized to complete a particular phase of project construction.

Construction workers are not anticipated to relocate to the Project vicinity due to the temporary  SECTION 6.0 – OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 6-3 June 2023
nature of construction work. Therefore, project construction employment would not be considered growth inducing.

Project operation is estimated to generate jobs (see Section 4.13 for further discussion). Employment in the city of Jurupa Valley is forecas t to increase by approximately 4,200 between 2016 and 2045 (SCAG, 2020). Project-generated employment would not exceed the regional forecast for the City. The unemployment rate in Riverside County in March 2022 was estimated at 4.3 percent (EDD, 2022). It is anticipated that project employment would be absorbed from the regional labor force and would not attract substantial numbers of workers to move into the region. Therefore, employment impacts would be less than significant.

6.3.3 Utility Infrastructure Improvements
The Project site contains infrastructure such as water, sewer, gas and electrical service to the existing residences onsite. The Project proposes water, wastewater, and storm drainage improvements described in Section 2.5.2, Utilities. The utility improvements would serve only the Project site and would not extend into land not served by utilities other than portions of the Project site. Therefore, project development would not require utilities improvements that would be growth -inducing and impacts would be less than significant.

6.3.4 Conclusion
The proposed Project would not cause population growth exceeding the regional forecast for the City; would not extend infrastructure into areas not already designated for development; and would not remove an obstacle to population growth. While project development would generate employment, such employment would be within the regional forecast for the City. The Project site is an infill site in a part of Jurupa Valley that is already partly urbanized. Therefore , direct and indirect growth - inducing impacts of the Project would be less than significant.

SECTION 7.0 - REFERENCES
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-1 June 2023

7.0 REFERENCES
AEI (AEI Consultants), 2015. Limited Phase II Subsurface Investigation (Emerald Meadows; 237 Acres of Vacant Land), April 27, 2015.

AEI (AEI Consultants), 2019. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley), October 18, 2019.

AEI (AEI Consultants), 2022a. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Approximately 244 Acres of Vacant Land, Jurupa Valley, R iverside County, California 92509. July 15, 2022 (revised August 24, 2022).

AEI (AEI Consultants), 2022b. Limited Soil Sampling Investigation (SSI) at Emerald Meadows, Jurupa Valley, California 92509, November 2, 2022.

AEI (AEI Consultants), 2022c. Subsequent Soil Sampling Results, letter to Riverside County Department of Environmental Health’s Comments AEI Project No. 464653.

Albert A Webb Associates, 2021. 2020 Urban Water Management Plan for Rubidoux Community Services District, Adopted June 17, 2021 . Amended April 7 2022. Accessed online at https://www.rcsd.org/files/9b1733a1a/20210617+Board+Packet.pdf on October 13, 2022.

Albert A Webb Associates, 2022a. Water Master Plan for Rubidoux Community Services District. May 5, 2022. Adopted June 16, 2022 . Accessed online at
https://www.rcsd.org/files/248b24354/RCSD+WMP+May+5+2022.pdf on October 3, 2022.

Albert A Webb Associates, 2022b. 2022 Wastewater Master Plan for Rubidoux Community Services District. May 5, 2022. Adopted June 16, 2022 Accessed online at https://www.rcsd.org/files/8809baf58/RCSD+WWMP+-+May+5+2022.pdf on October 3, 2022.

Alta California Geotechnical Inc., 2015. Updated G eotechnical Report, Emerald Meadows Ranch Project, Rubidoux Area of the County of Riverside, California. Project number 1 -0159.

Prepared for LV Emerald Meadows, LLC. June 22, 2015.

Alta California Geotechnical Inc. , 2019. Updated Geotechnical Recommendations , The District at Jurupa Valley Project, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Project number 1 -0159-B. Prepared for EM Ranch, LLC. October 24, 2019.

Alta California Geotechnical Inc. , 2022. Updated Geotechnical Report, The District at Jurupa Valley Project, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Project number 1-0159-B. Prepared for EM Ranch, LLC. February 2May 4, 2022.

ARB (California Air Resources Board), 2004. Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel -Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling . Accessed on line at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/atcm-to-limit-vehicle-idling/about, on October 27, 2022.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-2 June 2023
ARB, 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change and Scoping Plan. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pd f, on O ctober 13, 2022.

ARB, 2022. Final 2022 Scoping Plan Update. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/carb- approves-unprecedented-climate-action-plan-shift-worlds-4th-largest-economy-fossil- fuels https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-05/2022-draft-sp.pdf, on October 13January 17, 2022
ARB, 2022a. Low Carbon Fuel Standard. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/low-carbon-fuel-standard/about o n October 13, 2022.

ARB, 2022b. Advanced Clean Cars Regulations . Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our- work/programs/advanced-clean-cars-program/about on October 13, 2022.

ARB, 2022c. Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act (SB 375) . Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-climate- protection-program/about o n October 13, 2022.

ARB, 2022d. Zero Emission s Vehicle (ZEV) Regulation. Accessed online at https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-moves-accelerate-100-new-zero-emission- vehicle-sales-2035 on F ebruary 7, 2023.

ASM ( ASM Affiliates, Inc.), 2022. Constraints -Level Cultural Resources Technical Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, Jurupa Valley, San Bernardino County, California. July 29, 2022.

ASTM (ASTM International), 2021. ASTM E1527 -21 Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process. Last Updated: Dec 21, 2021.

Accessed online at https://www.astm.org/e1527-

21.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMInOW8_aWm-gIVOG1vBB2v6g2yEAAYASAAEgJS2fD_BwE on September 20, 2022.

Bean, L. J., and Smith, C. R. , 1978a. Gabrielino. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 538 -549.

Handbook of the Indians of North America, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor.

Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Bean, L. J., and Smith, C. R. , 1978b. Serrano. In California , edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 570 -574.

Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Berger, E.H., Neitzel, R. and Kladden, C.A., 2010. Noise Navigator Sound Level Database with over 1,700 Measu rement Values. URL:
https://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/888553O/noise-navigator-sound-level-hearing- protection-database.pdf. Accessed September 13, 2022. (Cited in Kimley-Horn, 2022f.) BREEZE Software, 2021a. California Emissions Estimator Model. Appendix A. Calculation Details for CalEEMod. Prepared by BREEZE Software, a Division of Trinity Consultants (Trinity), Dallas, Texas, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. Prepared for California Air Po llution Control Association. CalEEMod Version  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-3 June 2023
2020.4.0. May 2021. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-a2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 on September 9, 2022.

BREEZE Software, 2021 b. California Emissions Estimator Model. Appendix E. Technical Source Documentation. Prepared by BREEZE Software, a Division of Trinity Consultants (Trnity), Dallas, Texas, in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and the California Air Districts. Prepared for California Air Pollution Control Association. CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0. May 2021. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/user-guide-2021/appendix-e2020-4-0.pdf?sfvrsn=6 o n June 23, 2022.

BREEZE Software, 202 2. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0.

Developed by BREEZE Software, a Division of Trinity Consultants. in collaboration with South Coast Air Quality Management District and other California Air Districts. Prepared for the Calif ornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association. May 2022. Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/download-model
in June 2022.

CAL FIRE (California Department of Forestry and Fire Prevention), 2022a. FHSZ Viewer. Accessed online at: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/, on February 11, 2022.

CAL FIRE, 2022b. Fire Perimeters Including the 2017 Fire Season. Accessed online at:
https://databasin.org/datasets/94c7fbe8ec2a406aa36c1138a8d0a21d, on February 11, 2022.

CAL FIRE, 2022c. California Fire Perimeters. Accessed online at:
https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/653647b20bc74480b335e31d6d81a52f?geometry=- 118.260%2C33.577%2C-117.639%2C33.677, on February 11, 2022.

CAL FI RE, 2022c. Wildland Urban Interface data. Accessed online at:
https://frap.fire.ca.gov/mapping/gis-data/
on November 11, 2022.

CalGEMS (California Geologic Energy Management Division), 2020. 2019 Annual Report of the State Oil and Gas Supervisor. Accessed online at:
https://filerequest.conservation.ca.gov/RequestFile/2836581, on February 8, 2022.

CalGEMS, 2022. Well Finder. Accessed online at:
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#openModal/- 117.36860/34.03707/12, on February 9, 2022.

California Building Standards Commission (CBSC), 2022. California Building Code. Section 1613:

Earthquake Loads. Accessed online at:
https://up.codes/tmp/viewer_export/juris_key/california/pub/california_building_code_ 2022/ref/1613
California Executive Department , 2021a. Drought Emergency Proclamation. Accessed online at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.21.21-Emergency- Proclamation-1.pdf, on March 25, 2022.
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-4 June 2023
California Executive Department , 2021a. Drought Emergency Proclamation. Accessed online at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/4.21.21-Emergency- Proclamation-1.pdf, on March 25, 2022.

California Executive Department , 2021b. Drought Emergency Proclamation. Accessed online at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10.19.21-Drought-SOE-1.pdf, on March 25, 2022.

California Execut ive Department , 2021b. Drought Emergency Proclamation. Accessed online at:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/10.19.21-Drought-SOE-1.pdf, on March 25, 2022.

California Legislative Information, 2002. Senate Bill 1389 (SB 1389). Accessed onlin e at:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/sen/sb_1351-
1400/sb_1389_bill_20020915_chaptered.html on O ctober 14, 2022.

California Legislative Information, 2008. Senate Bill No. 375 (SB 375). Approved by Governor September 30, 2008. Filed with Secretary of State, September 30, 2008. Accessed online at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200720080SB375 on October 26, 2022. California Legislative Information, 1976. Public Resource Code 30244 (PRC 30244). DIVISION 20. CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT [30000 - 30900], CHAPTER 3.

Coastal Resources Planning and Management Policies [30200 - 30270] ARTICLE 5. Land Resources [30240 – 30244](added by Stats. 1976, Ch. 1330). Accessed online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=30244& lawCode=PRC on M arch 21 , 2023.

California Legislative Information, 2011. Public Resource Code 5097.5 (PRC 5097.5). DIVISION 5.

PARKS AND MONUMENTS [5001 - 5873], CHAPTER 1.7. Archaeological, Paleontological, and Historical Sites [5097 - 5097.7], (Amended by Stats. 2010, Ch. 635, Sec. 1. (SB 1034) Effective Ja nuary 1, 2011.). Accessed online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=5097.5& lawCode=PRC on March 21, 2023.

California Legislative Information , 2021. Assembly Bill 758 (AB 758). Accessed online at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB758 on
October 14, 2022.

California Office of Historic Preservation, 2001. How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series #7. Available at:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1056/files/07_TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate% 20A%20Property%20to%20California%20Register.pdf.

CalRecycle, (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery), 2019. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates. Accessed onlin e at
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-5 June 2023
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastecharacterization/general/rates#disclaimer on October 4, 2022.

CalRecycle, 2021a. Jurisdiction Disposal and Alternative Daily Cover (ADC) Tons by Facility. Accessed online at
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/DisposalReporting/Destination/DisposalByFa cility on December 18, 2021.

CalRecycle, 2021b. SWIS Facility/Site Details: Badlands Sanitary Landfill. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2245?siteID=2367 on December 18, 2021.

CalRecycle, 2021c. SWIS Facility/Site Details: El Sobrante Landfill. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2280?siteID=2402, on December 18, 2021.

CalRecycle, 2021d. SWIS Facility/Site Details: Lamb Canyon Sanitary Landfill. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/SiteActivity/Details/2246?siteID=2368, on December 18, 2021.

CalRecycle, 2021e. Landfill Tonnage Reports. Accessed online at https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/LandfillTipFees/ on March 30, 2021.

Caltrans (California Department of Transportation), 2022. California Highway System. Accessed online at
https://caltrans.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=026e830c914c495 797c969a3e5668538 on August 19, 2022.

CAPCOA (California Air Pollution Control Officers Association), 2022. California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) version 2022.1, released in December 2022. Accessed online by Kimley-Horn at https://www.caleemod.com/
on February 22, 2023.

CASQA (California Stormwater Quality Association), 2019. California S tormwater Construction BMP Handbook: Construction. Accessed online at https://www.casqa.org/programs- initiatives/bmp-handbooks/construction o n March 22, 2023.

CCR (California Code of Regulations) Title 13 Section 2485, 2022. Accessed online at:
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2022-06/13_CCR_2485_OAL_06222022- 2_ADA_06272022_0.pdf on October 13, 2022.

CDE (California Department of Education), 2022. Dataquest. Accessed online at:
https://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/dataquest.asp on January 16, 2023.

CDF (California Department of Finance), 2022. E -5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2020- 2022. Accessed online at https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/Demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing- estimates-for-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/ on October 14, 2022.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-6 June 2023
CEC (California Energy Commission), 2021. California Natural Gas Service Areas. Accessed online at https://www.arcgis.com/home/item.html?id=c48ed23ea4354062b9b28fde209cd182, on December 18, 2020.

CEC (California Energy Commission), 2021a. 2021 Integrated Energy Policy Report Highlights.

Accessed online at https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy- policy-report/2021-integrated-energy-policy-report o n October 14, 2022.

CEC (California Energy Commission), 2022. 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Accessed online at 2022 Building Energy Efficiency Standards (ca.gov) on October 13, 2022.

CEC, 2022b. Senate Bill 100. Accessed online at https://www.energy.ca.gov/sb100 on October 13, 2022.

CEC, 2022a. Senate Bill 350. Accessed online at https://www.energy.ca.gov/rules-and- regulations/energy-suppliers-reporting/clean-energy-and-pollution-reduction-act-sb-350 on October 13, 2022.

CEC, 2022c. 2022 Integrated Energy Policy Report Update. Accessed online at https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2022- integrated-energy-policy-report-update o n February 7, 2023.

CGS (California Geological Survey), 2008a. Update of Mineral Land Classification for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production- Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Accessed online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR_206_Text.pdf on February 8, 2022.

CGS, 2008b. Updated Mineral Land Classification Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production- Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special Report 206, Plate 1. Accessed online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate1.pdf on February 8, 2022.

CGS, 2008c. Updated Aggregate Resource Sector Map for Portland Cement Concrete-Grade Aggregate in the San Bernardino Production- Consumption Region, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Special report 206, Plate 2. Accessed online at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_206/SR206_Plate2.pdf on February 8, 2022.

CGS, 2022. Data Viewer. Accessed online at https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs /DataViewer/ on July 9, 2022.

Christenson, Lynne N., and Ellen L. Sweet, 2008. Ranchos of San Diego County. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

City of Jurupa Valley, 2017. City of Jurupa Valley, California, 2017 General Plan. Prepared by the Planning Department, City of Jurupa Valley. Adopted 7th September 2017. Accessed online at https://www.jurupavalley.org/339/General-Plan on December 18, 2021.

City of Jurupa Valley. 2018. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online at:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/990
on February 11, 2022.
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-7 June 2023
City of Jurupa Valley, 2020. Environmental Review Guidelines and Thresholds of Significance. City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department. May 7. Accessed online at http://97.93.171.115/WebLink/0/edoc/47870/Res.%20No.%202020- 40%20(Adopting%20Jurupa%20Valley%20Environmental%20Review%20Guidelines%2 0and%20clarifying%20languge%20relating%20to%20Vehicle%20Miles%20Travelled% 20(VMT).pdf on September 8, 2022.

City of Jurupa Valley, 2022b. City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Map. Accessed online at https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/2284/2022-General-Plan-Land- Use-Map a ccessed on June 23, 2022.

City of Jurupa Valley, 2022c. City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Map. Accessed online at https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/2283/2022-Zoning-Map accessed on June 23, 2022.

City of Jurupa Valley, 2022d. Municipal Code. Accessed online at https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/codes/municipal_code on June 23, 2022.

City of Jurupa Valley, 2023. The District at Jurupa Valley Draft Specific Plan, SP21001, June 2023.

DRAFT.

City of Riverside Public Works Department, January 2020, Updated of the Integrated Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities. March 2023.

Cooperative Strategies, 2020. School Fee Justification Study, Jurupa Unified School District. Accessed online at https://jurupausd.org/our -
district/planning/Documents/Draft%20School%20Fee%20Justification%20Study.pdf#se arch=school%20fee%20justification on September 1, 2022.

County of Los Angeles, 2018. Draft Environmental Impact Report for Connect Southwest LA: A TOD Specific Plan for West Athens -Westmont. Accessed online at https://planning.lacounty.gov/southwest/eir
on January 16, 2023.

County of Riverside, 2015. County of Riverside General Plan. Prepared by the Planning Department, Riverside County. Adopted December 8, 2015. Accessed online at XXXXX on date… County of Riverside, 2018. County of Riverside Multi -Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan.

Emergency Management Department. July 2018. Accessed online at https://rivcoready.org/sites/emd.rivco.org/files/About%20EMD/pdf/FINAL%20PUBLIC %20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018%20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%2 0Mitigation%20Plan.pdf o n October 31, 2022.

County of Riverside, 2019. Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), Riverside County Operational Area (OA). Riverside County Emergency Management Department. August 2019. Accessed online at file:///C:/Users/bbreckenridge/Downloads/Attachment-23364.pdf on October 31,
2022.

DGS (California Department of General Services), 2022. 2022 C ALGreen Code. Accessed online at https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CAGBC2022P1 on October 13, 2022.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-8 June 2023
Dibblee, T.W., and Minch, J.A., 2004. Geologic map of the Riverside West/south 1/2 of Fontana quadrangles. Accessed online at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71756.htm on July 9, 2022.

DOC (California Departm ent of Conservation), 2016. California Important Farmland Finder.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control), 2022. Treatments Containing Perfluoroalkyl or Polyfluoroalkyl Substances for Use on Converted Textiles or Leathers. Accessed online at https://dtsc.ca.gov/scp/treatments-with-pfass/
on March 20, 2023.

DTSC (Department of Toxic Substances Control), 2023. Environmental Glossary. Accessed online at https://dtsc.ca.gov/glossary-of-environmental-terms/ on March 20, 2023.

Dumke, Glenn S., 1944. The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. Huntington Library, San Marino, California . On file at the San Bernardino County Museum, Archaeological Information Center, Redlands, California.

DWR (California Department of Water Resources), 2006. Bulletin 118 California's Ground Water:

Update 2003: Basin Report 8 -2.03, Riverside- Arlington Groundwater Subbasin (updated January 20, 2006). Available at https://data.cnra.ca.gov/dataset/bulletin -118-update- 2003-basin-reports. Downloaded on August 23, 2022.

DWR (Department of Water Resources), 2020. SGMA [Sustainable Groundwater Management Act] Data Viewer. Accessed online at:
https://sgma.water.ca.gov/webgis/?appid=SGMADataViewer#gwlevels, on July 9, 2022.

EDD (Employment Development Department), 2022. Labor Force and Unemployment Rate for California Counties. Accessed online at:
http://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/allsubs.xls, on May 3, 2022.

ELMT Consulting, Inc. and Bruyea Biological Consulting, 2023. Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Habitat Suitability Assessment. Prepared for Fennemore. June 2023.

Executive Order 13783, Promoting Energy Independence and Economic Growth. March 31, 2017.

URL: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/03/31/2017-06576/promoting- energy-independence-and-economic-growth.

FMCSA (Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration), 2023. Nine Classes of Hazardous Materials. Accessed online at:
https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Nine_Classes_of_Hazardous_ Materials-4-2013_508CLN.pdf, on March 20, 2023.

FMMP (Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program), 2022a. Program Overview. Accessed online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Program_Overview.aspx, on June 4, 2022.
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-9 June 2023
FMMP, 2022b. Important Farmland Categories. Accessed online at:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Important-Farmland- Categories.aspx, on June 4, 2022.

GEOS Institute, 2018. Open Letter to Decision Makers Concerning Wildfire in the West. Accessed online at: https://naturalresources.house.gov/download/letter-from-215-envrionmental- scientists-opposing-farm-bill-aug-27-2018&download=1, on February 11, 2022.

Gorham, Thomas, 2023. Email regarding District at Jurupa Valley project alternatives. Received January 10, 2023.

Guinn, James Miller, 1902. Historical and Biographical Record of Southern California: Containing a History of Southern California from its Earliest Settlement to the Opening Year of the Twentieth Century. Chapman Publishing Company, Chicago.

Gust, Sherri, 2004. Archaeological and Paleontological Assessment Report and Mitigation Plan for the EMR Project, Rubidoux, Riverside County, California. Submitted to UltraSystems Environmental, Inc. by Cogstone Resource Management, Inc.

Hanna, Paul Townsend, 1951. The Dictionary of California Land Names . The Automobile Club of Southern California, Los Angeles.

ICC (International Code Council, Inc.), 2022. 2022 California Building Code. California Code of Regulations, Title 24. Chapter 33. Accessed online at
https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/CABC2022P2/chapter-33-safeguards-during- construction on March 20, 2023.

Insurance Institute for Business and Home Safety (IBHS). 2018. Wildfire Demonstration (2011).

Accessed online at: https://disastersafety.org/ibhs/research-center-demo-wildfire-2011/, on February 11, 2022.

Jarayaj, Ravindran, Megha, Pankajshan Megha, and Sreedev, Puthur. 2017. Organochlorine pesticides, their toxic effects on living organisms and their fate in the environment. Interdisciplinary Toxicology 9(3-4), 90-100.

JHA Consulting, Inc., 2005. Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan No. 00337. Screencheck Draft No.

2. March 1, 2005. Accessed online at
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/1647/SP-337---Emerald- Meadows-Specific-Plan-PDF o n January 20, 2023.

Johnson, Kim Jarrell, 2005. Jurupa: Images of America. Arcadia Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Kariel, H.G. , 1991. Noise in Rural Recreational Environments. Canadian Acoustics 19(5):3 -10. URL:
https://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/699/405. Accessed September 13, 2022. (Cited in Kimley-Horn, 2022f.)
Kimley-Horn (Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.), 2022a. Traffic Impact Analysis for District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley. Prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. July 19, 2022.
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-10 June 2023
Kimley-Horn, 2022b . Project Specific Water Quality Management Plan for The District at Jurupa Valley. Prepared for EM Ranch Owner, LLC. October 13, 2021 (revised June 30, 2022).

Kimley-Horn, 2022c . District at Jurupa Valley, Tentative Map XX, City of Jurupa Valley, CA:

Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulics Report. Prepared for EM Ranch Owner, LLC. June 14, 2022.

Kimley-Horn, 2022d . Preliminary Sanitary Sewer Capacity Study for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared by Kimley -Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. December 2022.

Kimley-Horn (Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc.), 2023a. Air Quality Assessment, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. May 8, 2023.

Kimley-Horn, 2023b. Health Risk Assessment, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. March 14, 2023.

Kimley-Horn, 2023c. Traffic Analysis Memorandum for the proposed District at Jurupa Valley in the City of Jurupa Valley. Prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. March 13, 2023.

Kimley-Horn, 2023d. SB 743 VMT Analysis for Districts at Jurupa Valley In the City of Jurupa Valley.

Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Pranesh Tarikere, P.E., Orange, CA. January 2023.

Kimley-Horn, 2023e. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. May 8, 2023.

Kimley-Horn, 2023f. Acoustical Assessment, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc., Orange, CA for City of Jurupa Valley. May 2023.

Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher Drover, 1983. Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County:

The Case from CA-Ora-119A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1-34.

Krieger & Stewart (Krieger & Stewart Engineering Consultants), 2022. Water Supply Assessment and Written Verification for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Project on June 2022.

Krieger & Stewart, 2023. Memorandum responding to comments on the Water Supply Assessment for The District at Jurupa Valley.

Kroeber, A. L., 1976. Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York.

Kyle, Douglas E., Mildred Brook Hoover, Hero Eugene Rensch, Ethel Grace Rensch, and William M.

Abeloe, 2002. Historic Spots in California, fifth edition. Stanford University Press, California.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-11 June 2023
Leighton Consulting Inc., 2006. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, Jurupa Unified School District K-8 #1, Formerly known as Emerald Meadows Elementary, 2950 Wallace Street, Rubidoux, California, April 18, 2006, for the Jurupa Unified School District.

Lord, Kenneth, 2014. Cultural Resources Assessment of the Armstrong Road Project, City of Jurupa Valley, California . Prepared for the City of Jurupa Valley by First Carbon Solutions and Michael Brandman Associates.

LRPPG (Louis Robidoux Parkland & Pecan Grove) Consortium, 2023. About Louis Robidoux Parkland and Pecan Grove. Accessed online at https://www.louisrobidouxparkland.org/ on February 6, 2023.

LSA, 2016. City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Accessed online at https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/219/04-17-2017-2017- General-Plan-Final-Environmental-Impact-Report-Response-to-Comments-PDF on January 20, 2023.

Lugo, D. J. de C, 1950 (1877). Life of a Rancher (Vida de un Ranchero). 1877 document translated in Historical Society of Southern California Quarterly, Vol. 33.

MacKevett, Edward M., 1950. The Geology of the Jurupa Mountains, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, California. Master’s thesis. California Institute of Technology, Pasadena.

Mason, Roger, 1984. Eastern Corridor Alignment Study, Orange County, California. Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc., Huntington Beach, California.

McKenna, Jeanette A., 1986. Final Report of Archaeological Investigations at Sites ORA -858, CA-ORA- 859, and CA-ORA-698, Rancho de Los Alisos, Orange County, California. On file with McKenna et al., Whittier, California.

McWilliams, Carey, 1973. Southern California: An Island on the Land. Peregrine Smith, Santa Barbara and Salt Lake City.

Municode, 2023. City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.25.020: Park and recreation fees and dedications. Acces sed online at
https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT7SU_ CH7.25DE_S7.25.020PAREFEDE, on January 16, 2023.

MWH and Carollo, 2014. City of Riverside Capital Improvement Program and Rate Development Study. Accessed online at: https://riversideca.gov/publicworks/sewer/pdf/2014 -CIP- Rate-Study.pdf, on February 13, 2022.

NLM (National Library of Medicine), 2021. Toxtutor: Basic Terminology. Accessed online at:
https://www.toxmsdt.com/12-basic-terminology.html on March 20, 2023.

OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment), 2021. California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool: CalEnviroScreen 4.0. October 13, 2021. (Information for Census Tracts 6065040201 and 6065040204). Accessed online at https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 on October 7, 2022.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-12 June 2023
OES (Office of Emergency Services), 2021. California Electric Utility Service Territory. Accessed online at https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/016cc0adcc0442618b9c7cd33bfbaa2d_0 on December 18, 2021.

OHP (California Office of Historic Preservation), 2001. How to Nominate a Resource to the California Register of Historical Resources. Technical Assistance Series #7. Available at:
http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1056/
files/07_TAB%207%20How%20To%20Nominate%20A%20Property%20to%20Californi a%20Register.pdf.

OSU (Oregon State University), 2023. The Superfund Research Program: All About PAHs. Accessed online at https://superfund.oregonstate.edu/resources/all-about-pahs on March 20, 2023.

R&CS (Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC.), 2020. 2019-20 Development Impact Fee (DIFs) Calculation and Nexus Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/documentcenter/view/1679, on February 17, 2022.

RCAC (Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner), 2021. 2020 Riverside County Agricultura l Production Report. Accessed online at http://www.rivcoawm.org/Portals/0/PDF/2020 - Crop%20Report.pdf on February 8, 2022.

RCDEH (Riverside County Department of Environmental Health), 2022. Concurrence Letter to AEI Consultants regarding Subsequent Soil Sampling Results, letter to RCDEH, December 2022.

RCEMD (Riverside County Emergency Management Department), 2018. County of Riverside Multi - Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online at:
https://rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018% 20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf, on February 11, 2022.

RECON (RECON Environmental, Inc.), 2022. Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Results for The District at Jurupa Valley Project. Prepared for DO Capital Group. September 27, 2022.

RECON (RECON Environmental, Inc.), 202 3a. Biological Technical Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Project Site, Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared for EM Ranch Owner LLC. June 13, 2023.

RECON, 2023b. Aquatic Resource Delineation Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Project Site, Jurupa Valley, California. Prepared for EM Ranch Owner LLC. June 9, 2023.

Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner, 2018. Riverside/Corona Dis trict Acreage and Agricultural Crop Report, 2016. Accessed online at:
http://www.rivcoawm.org/Portals/0/Publications/District-Crop-Reports/2016-RV-Dist- Crop-Report.pdf, on February 10, 2022.

Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan: 2018 Five -Year Review Report. 2018.

Accessed online at
https://www.rcwaste.org/Portals/0/Files/Planning/CIWMP/2018- FiveYearReviewReport.PDF?ver=2020-02-04-171833-373 o n April 26, 2023.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-13 June 2023
RCEMD (Riverside County Emergency Management Department), 2018. County of Riverside Multi - Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Accessed online at https://rivcoemd.org/Portals/0/FINAL%20PUBLIC%20VERSION%20Riv_Co_%202018% 20Multi%20Jurisdictional%20Local%20Hazard%20Mitigation%20Plan.pdf on February 11, 2022.

RCTD (Riverside County Transportation Department), 2023. Mission Blvd Bridge Project. Accessed online at https://rcprojects.org/missionblvd
on February 28, 2023.

RJM Design Group, 2020. City of Riverside Comprehensive Park, Recreation & Community Services Master Plan. Prepared for City of Riverside Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department (PRCSD). Adopted February 4, 2020. Accessed online at:
https://www.riversideca.gov/park_rec/planning-projects/parks-master-plan-vision-2030 on February 5, 2023.

RWQCB (Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board), 1994, as amended. Water Quality Control Plan for the Santa Ana River Sasin (Basin Plan). Accessed online at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ on
August 23, 2022.

Salley, H. E., 1991. History of California Post Offices, Second Edition 1849-1990, edited by E. Patera. The Depot, La Mesa, California.

SAWPA (Santa Ana Watershed Protection Authority), 2018. One Water One Watershed Plan 2018 Update. Accessed online at https://www.sawpa.org/wp -
content/uploads/2019/02/OWOW-Plan-Update-2018-1.pdf on December 17, 2021.

SBCM (San Bernardino County Museum), 2022. Pale ontology Records Review for proposed site of District at Rubidoux Project, Riverside County, California; provided March 30, 2022.

Appended to Cultural Resources Technical Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, Jurupa Valley, San Bernardino County, California. Appended to SDNHM (San Diego Natural History Museum), 2022.

SCAG (Southern California Association of Governments), 2008. SCAG Regional Comprehensive Plan.

Accessed online at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file - attachments/f2008rcp_complete.pdf?1604263359 on June 9, 2022.

SCAG, 2020. City of Jurupa Valley Demographics. Accessed online at:
https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file-
attachments/f2008rcp_complete.pdf?1604263359 o n October 14, 2022.

SCAG, 2020a. SCAG Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

Accessed online at https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file - attachments/0903fconnectsocal-plan_0.pdf?1606001176 on June 30, 2022.

SCAG, 2022. About Us. Accessed online at https://scag.ca.gov/about-us , accessed on June 9, 2022.

SCAG, 2022a. Final 2023 Federal Transportation Improvement Program, Executive Summary, Volume I of III. Accessed online at: https://scag.ca.gov/sites/main/files/file- attachments/f2023-ftip-executive-summary.pdf?1664401336 o n February 7, 2023.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-14 June 2023
SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District), 2017. 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.

Accessed online at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air- quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality-management-plan/final-2016- aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15, accessed on July 13, 2022.

SCEDC (Southern California Earthquake Data Center), 2022. Earthquakes Information: Fault Name Index. https://scedc.caltech.edu/earthquake/faults.html.

SCGC (Southern California Gas Company), 2022. Gas Transmission and High Pressure Distributi on Pipeline Interactive Map - Riverside. Accessed online at:
https://socalgas.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=aaebac8286ea4e4 b8e425e47771b8138, on September 14, 2022.

SCGC, 2022a. Natural Gas Consumption. Accessed online at: https://www.socalgas.com/stay- safe/pipeline-and-storage-safety/natural-gas-transmission on October 14, 2022.

Scott, M. B., 1977. Development of Water Facilities in the Santa Ana River Basin, California, 1810-1968.

Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources, San Bernardino Valley Municipal Water District, Western Municipal Water District of Riverside County.

SDNHM (San Diego Natural History Museum), 2022, Paleontological Resources Technical Report, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan, City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, Prepared by: Department of PaleoServices San Diego Natural History Museum May 6, 2022 revised May 18, 2022.

SoCalGas (Southern California Gas Company) et. al.. 2022b, 2022 California Gas Report. Accessed online at:
https://www.socalgas.com/sites/default/files/Joint_Utility_Biennial_Comprehensive_Calif ornia_Gas_Report_2022.pdf o n February 7, 2023.

Surface Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), 2004. Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands. Accessed online at
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/smgb/Guidelines/Documents/ClassDesig.pdf on
January 16 2023.

SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Bo ard). 2018. 2018 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List and 305(b) Report). Accessed online at https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/20 18_integrated_report.html o n August 23, 2022.

SWRCB (California State Water Resources Control Board), 2022. Total Maximum Daily Load Program.

Available at
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/background.html.

Accessed on August 23, 2022.

T & B Planning, Inc., 2021. Draft Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2020110449) for the Rubidoux Commerce Park Project. Prepared for Proficiency Rubidoux, LLC. October 2021.  SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-15 June 2023
Tang, Bai, Michael Hogan, Casey Tibbet, and Josh Smallwood, 2004. Historical/ Archaeological Resources Evaluation Report: Site CA -RIV-5513H (33-5648) A Segment of the Jurupa Ditch, Rubidoux, Riverside County, California . Submitted to Cogstone Resource Management, Inc. by CRM TECH.

Tarikere, Pranesh, 2023. Email received by Thomas Gorham regarding project trip generation.

January 10, 2023.

Thomson Reuters Westlaw, 2023. California Code of Regulations. Title 8. Industrial Relations.

Thomson Reuters. Accessed online at
https://govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Browse/Home/California/CaliforniaCodeofRegulation s?guid=IDC2EA8505A0E11EC8227000D3A7C4BC3&originationContext=documenttoc&tr ansitionType=Default&contextData=(sc.Default) o n March 20, 2023.

Toulouse, Julian H., 1971. Bottle Makers and Their Marks. The Blackburn Press, New Jersey.

UltraSystems (UltraSystems Environmental), 2005. Emerald Meadows Ranch Draft Environmental Impact Report, SCH No. 2004031007. Prepared for County of Riverside Planning Department. February 2005.

United States Department of Agriculture, 2022. Natural Resources Conservation Service, Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm USCB (U.S. Census Bureau), 2022. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD). OnTheMap.

Accessed online at http://onthemap.ces.census.gov/ on October 21, 2022 USDOT (U.S. Department of Transportation), 2022. Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards.

Accessed online at https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/usdot-announces- new-vehicle-fuel-economy-standards-model-year-2024-
2026#:~:text=The%20new%20Corporate%20Average%20Fuel,fuel%20efficiency%20sta ndards%20to%20date o n October 13, 2022.

USEIA (Unites States Energy Information Administration). 2021. Transportation Energy. Accessed online at https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/data-and-statistics.php on October 14, 2022.

USEIA (Unites States Energy Information Administration), 2022. Cali fornia State Energy Profile.

Accessed online at: https://www.eia.gov/state/print.php?sid=CA on February 7, 2023.

USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2022. Energy Independence and Security Act.

Accessed online at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-energy- independence-and-security-act o n October 13, 2022.

USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), 2022. Areas of Land Subsidence in California. Accessed online at https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html on July 9, 2022.

Walker, Clifford, 1986 Back Door to California: The Story of the Mojave River Trail. Mojave River Valley Museum Association. On file, San Bernardino County Museum, Archaeological Information Center, Redlands.
 SECTION 7.0 – REFERENCES 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 7-16 June 2023
Wallace, William J. , 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology.

Southwestern Journal of Archaeology 11(3):214-230.

Warren, Claude N. , 1968. Cultural Traditions and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1(3):1-14.

WRCOG (Western Riverside Council of Governments), 2014. Subregional Climate Action Plan. Final Report. September. Accessed online at
https://wrcog.us/DocumentCenter/View/188/Subregional-Climate-Action-Plan-CAP- PDF?bidId= on September 8, 2022.

WSC, 2021. Riverside Public Utilities 2020 Urban Water Management Plan. Accessed online at https://wuedata.water.ca.gov/public/uwmp_attachments/6732221305/RPU%20Final% 202020%20UWMP%5Fwith%20Appendices%2Epdf on August 1, 2022.

SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-1 June 2023

8.0 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
§ Section
°F degrees Fahrenheit
a.m. ante meridiem
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standard
AB Assembly Bill
AB 52 California Assembly Bill 52
ACM(s) Asbestos-Containing Material(s)
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
ADT Average Daily Traffic
AIA Airport Influence Area
ALUC Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
APA Administrative Procedure Act
APE Area of Potential Effects
AQMP Air Quality Management Plan
ARB Air Resources Board
BACT Best Available Control Technology
BGs Block Groups
BMPs Best Management Practices
BSA Biological Study Area
CAA Clean Air Act
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model
CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CALGreen California Green Building Standards
Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council
CalRecycle California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery CAOs Cleanup and Abatement Orders
CARB California Air Resource Board
CARE Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy
CBC California Building Code
CBSC California Building Standards Code
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CCR California Code of Regulations
CC & Rs Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions
CDE California Department of Education
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-2 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
CDF California Department of Finance
CDL Clandestine Drug Lab
CEC California Energy Commission
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFC California Fire Code
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CGS California State Geological Survey
CH4 Methane
CHRIS California Historic Resources Information System
CHMIRS California Hazardous Materials Reporting System
City City of Jurupa Valley
CIWMP Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan
CMP Construction Management Program
CMPBP City of Jurupa Valley Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CO Carbon Monoxide
CO2 Carbon Dioxide
CO2e CO2 equivalent
C2H3CI10 Vinyl Chloride
CR Commercial Retail
CRIAs Community Revitalization and Investment Authorities CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CRMP Cultural Resource Monitoring Program
CTR Commute Trip Reduction
CUPA Certified Unified Program Agency
CWA Clean Water Act
dB Decibel
dBA A-Weighted Decibel Scale
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation DEIR Draft Environmental Impact Report
DHS Department of Health Services
DJSP District at Jurupa Specific Plan
DMR Division of Mine Reclamation
DOC California Department of Conservation
DPM Diesel Particulate Matter
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-3 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
DU Dwelling Units
DWR California Department of Water Resources
EAA Experimental Aircraft Association
EIC Eastern Information Center
EIFDs Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIR/EIS Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement EIS Environmental Impact Statement
EMRSP Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
ERR Environmental Review Record
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESL Environmental Screening Level
EV Electric Vehicle
EVSE Electric Vehicle Supply Equipment
FARR Final Archeological Resources Report
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zones
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FWPCA Federal Water Pollution Control Act
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographic Information System
GWP Global Warming Potential
HAZWOPER Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response HFCs Hydrofluorcarbons
HRA Health Risk Assessment
HREC Historical Recognized Environmental Conditions
HSC Health and Safety Code
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
HWCL Hazardous Waste Control Law
Hz Hertz
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
IEPR California's Integrated Energy Policy Report
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
IS Initial Study
JARPD Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-4 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
JUSD Jurupa Unified School District
LAMP Local Agency Management Program
LBP Lead-based Paint
L90 Noise level that is exceeded 90 percent of the time at a given location.

LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
Ldn Day-Night Average Noise
Leq Equivalent Noise Level
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LHMP Local Hazard Mitigation Plan
LOS Level of Service
LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
LST Localized Significance Threshold
LUE Land Use Element
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MDR Medium Density Residential
MDP Master Drainage Plan
mgd Million Gallons Per Day
MHDR Medium High Density Residential
MLD Most Likely Descendant
MM Mitigation Measure
MMI Modified Mercalli Intensity
MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
mph Miles Per Hour
MPOs Metropolitan Planning Organizations
MRZ Mineral Resource Zone
MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems permit
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
AMSL Above Mean Sea Level
MT Metric tons
N2O Nitrous Oxide
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
ND Not Detected
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology
NO2 Nitrogen Dioxide
NOI Notice of Intent
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-5 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
NOx Nitrogen Oxides
NOP Notice of Preparation
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
NZE Near Zero Emission
O3 Ozone
OCPs Organochlorine Pesticides
OEHHA The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment OHP Office of Historic Preservation
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
p.m. Post Meridiem
PAHs Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PEA Preliminary Endangerment Assessment
Pb Lead
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
PDF Project Design Features
PFAS Per-and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances
PFCs Perfluorocarbons
PFOA Perfluorooctanoic Acid
PFOS Perfluorooctane Sulfonic Acid
phf Peak Hour Factor
PM Particulate Matter
PM10 Respirable Particulate Matter
PM2.5 Fine Particulate Matter
PPP Plans, Polices, and Programs
PPV Peak Particle Velocity
PRC Public Resources Code
RAW Removal Action Work Plan
RCNM Roadway Construction Noise Model
RCDEH Riverside County Department of Environmental Health RCFD Riverside County Fire Department
RCLS Riverside County Library System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRPOSD Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District RCSD Rubidoux Community Services District
REC Recognized Environmental Condition
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Assessment
RMS Root Mean Square
ROG Reactive Organic Gases
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-6 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
RPS Renewables Portfolio Standard
RPU Riverside Public Utilities
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RTP/SCS Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy RWQCP Riverside Water Quality Control Plant
SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District
SCE Southern California Edison Company
SCH State Clearinghouse
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SFNA School Facilities Needs Analysis
SF6 Sulfur Hexafluoride
SLF Sacred Lands File
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SMGB Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
SO2 Sulfur Dioxide
SO4-2 Sulfates
SoCalGas Southern California Gas Company
SRA State Responsibility Area
SSI Supplemental Site Investigation
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TAC Toxic Air Contaminant
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TPA Transit Priority Area
TRUs Transport Refrigeration Units
TTCP Traditional Tribal Cultural Places
USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
USTs Underground Storage Tanks
VdB Vibration Decibels
VCP Voluntary Cleanup Program
VDECS Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy
 SECTION 8.0 – ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 8-7 June 2023
Acronym/Abbreviation Term
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
VOC Volatile Organic Compounds
VSL Vapor Screening Level
WAIRE Warehouse Action and Investments to Reduce Emissions WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WMWD Western Municipal Water District
WQCs Water Quality Certifications
WQMP Water Quality Management Plan
WSA Water Supplies Assessment
WUI Wildland-urban Interface
ZE Zero Emission
ZEVs Zero-Emission Vehicles

SECTION 9.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS
 SECTION 9.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 9-1 June 2023

9.0 LIST OF PREPARERS

9.1 Lead Agency
Ernest Perea, CEQA Administrator
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
Kevin Carr, M.S., Senior Project Manager
Lindy Wellenbrock, Environmental Planner
Maria Tooker, Environmental Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
T: (951) 332-6464 x215
E: [email protected]

9.2 Project Applicant’s Representative
Jennifer Brooks, Project Manager
DO Capital Partners
484 S. San Vicente Blvd.

Los Angeles, CA 90048
T: (310) 441-5001
E: [email protected]

9.3 UltraSystems Environmental Inc.

9.3.1 Environmental Management Team
Betsy Lindsay, MURP, Principal-in-Charge
Michael Milroy, M.S., Senior Project Manager
Victor Paitimusa, B.A., Deputy Project Manager
Robert Reicher, MBA, B.S., Environmental Consultant
Margaret Partridge, MURP, AICP, Former Project Manager

9.3.2 Technical Staff
Jim Aidukas, B.S., Senior Project Manager
Biological Technical Reports, Peer Review
Amir Ayati, B.S., Staff Scientist
Noise
Billye Jean Breckinridge, B.A., Senior Planner
Mapping, QA/QC
Steven Borjeson, B.A., Senior Planner
Alternatives
Charlene Burge, B.S., Senior Biologist
 SECTION 9.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 9-2 June 2023
Biological Technical Reports, Peer Review
Allison Carver, B.S., B.A., Senior Biologist
Geology & Soils
Megan Doukakis, M.A., Archaeological Technician
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Gulben Kaplan, M.S., B.S., GIS Analyst
Mapping
Swarnalatha Kumaresan, M.S., B.Eng., Environmental Engineer Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Brandie Metcalf, M.S., M.A., Senior Marketing Specialist List of Preparers, Word Processing
Stephen O’Neil, M.A., RPA, Cultural Resources Manager
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
Bhavik Shah, B.Eng., Intern
Noise
Isha Shah, M.S., Staff Scientist/Engineer
Recreation
Andrew Soto, B.A., Word Processor
Word Processing/Technical Editing
Michael Rogozen, D.Env., Senior Principal Engineer
Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, Noise
Michelle Tollett, B.S., ISA, Senior Biologist
Biological Resources

9.3.3 Subconsultants
John Anderson, Senior Planner – Impact Sciences | Aesthetics, Air Quality, GHG, Peer Review

9.3.4 Technical Team – Project Applicant Consulting Firms Adam Bennett, Division Lead - AEI Consultants | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Elizabeth A. Cobb, Planning and Land Development Services - Kimley-Horn | Acoustical, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment , Health Risk Assessment, Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, and Traffic Impact Analysis
Alex Fromer, Biologist - Recon | Biological Technical Report Krieger & Stewart Engineering Consultants | Water Supply Assessment  SECTION 9.0 – LIST OF PREPARERS 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 9-3 June 2023
Brian Leung, Planner - Kimley-Horn | Acoustical, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment, Health Risk Assessment, Hydrology and Hydraulics Report, and Traffic Impact Analysis Richard Lucera, P.E. - Kimley-Horn | Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Mark Reader, Land Development Partner - Kimley-Horn | Acoustical, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Assessment , Health Risk Assessment, Hydrology and Hydraulics Report , and Traffic Impact Analysis
Fernando Ruiz, Civil Engineering Associate - Alta California Geotechnical, Inc. | Geotechnical Report Gerry Scheid, Senior Biologist - Recon | Aquatic Resource Delineation Report Sherri Andrews, M.A., RPA - ASM | Constraints-level Cultural Resources Technical Report

SECTION 10.0 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
 SECTION 10.0 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 10-1 June 2023

10.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION
This section provides a list of federal, state, and local agencies and organizations contacted during preparation of the EIR.

Table 10.0-1
Agencies and Organizations Contacted
Agency Contact Person Address Contact Information
State Agencies
California Department
of Justice
Rob Swanson, Deputy
Attorney General
1300 I Street, 15 th Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814
T: (916) 210-2750
Native American Tribal Organizations
Native American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC)
Andrew Green
Cultural Resources
Analyst
1550 Harbor Blvd.

Suite 100
West Sacramento, CA
95691
T: (916) 373-3714
E: [email protected]
Gabrieleño Band of
Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas,
Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA 91723
T: (626) 926-4131
E: [email protected]
Yuhaaviatama of San
Manuel Nation
Jessica Mauck,
Director of Cultural
Resources

Ryan Nordness
26569 Community
Center Drive
Highland, CA, 92346
T: (909) 864 - 8933
E: [email protected]
Soboba Band of
Luiseno Indians
Joseph Ontiveros,
Cultural Resource
Department
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
T: (951) 654-4198
E: [email protected]
Local and Regional Agencies
ALUC Riverside Jackie Vega, Urban
Regional Planner I

4080 Lemon Street
14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
T: (951) 955-5132
City of Riverside
Community
Development
Department
Scott Watson, Historic
Preservation Officer
3900 Main Street, #5
Riverside, CA 92522
T: (951) 782-5649
E: [email protected]
City of Fontana
Planning Department
Rina Leung, Senior
Planner
8353 Sierra Avenue,
Fontana, CA 92335
T: (909) 350-6566
E: [email protected]
City of Colton
Development Services
Department
Planning Division
David Alvarez, Senior
Planner
659 N. La Cadena Drive
Colton, CA 92324
T: (909) 370-5596
E: [email protected]
City of Eastvale
Planning Department
12363 Limonite Avenue
Eastvale, CA 91752

City of Norco Planning
Department
2870 Clark Avenue
Norco, CA 92860

County of Riverside
Department of
Environmental Health
Kristine Kim,
Supervising Env.

Health Specialist
3880 Lemon Street
Suite 200
Riverside, CA 92501
T: (951) 955-8980
E: [email protected]
 SECTION 10.0 – CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 10-2 June 2023
Agency Contact Person Address Contact Information
County of Riverside
Fire Department
Adria Reinertson,
Deputy Fire
Marshal/Office of the
Fire Marshal
2300 Market St., Ste 150
Riverside, CA 92501
T: (951) 955-5272
RCA/Riverside County
Transportation
Commission
Tricia Campbell 4080 Lemon Street, 3rd
Floor
Riverside, CA 92501
T: (951)787-7141
E: [email protected]
Southern California
Association of
Governments (SCAG)
Anita Au, Senior
Regional Planner

900 Wilshire Boulevard,
Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90017
T: (213) 236-1874
E: [email protected]
South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
Lijin Sun, Program
Supervisor, CEQA IGR
Planning, Rule
Development & Area
Sources
21865 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-
4178
E: [email protected]

SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-1 June 2023

11.0 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

11.1 Introduction
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires all state and local agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs whenever approval of a project relies upon a mitigated negative declaration or an environmental impact report (EIR). The monitoring or reporting program must ensure implementation of the measures being imposed to mitigate or avoid the significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the mitigated negative declaration or EIR.

The mitigation measures will be implemented by the Project proponent or other agencies such as the City of Jurupa Valley at different times during the implementation of the Project. Some mitigation will require implementation prior to the issuance of any permits, while other measures will be implemented during construction, and others throughout all the phases. The following table lists the potentially significant environmental impacts, the mitigation measures, the level of significance after mitigation, the responsible parties and monitoring parties, and the phase in which mitigation is to be implemented. The areas requiring mitigation are:
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
• Cultural Resources
• Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Noise
• Transportation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
Those environmental topics for which there are less than significant impacts without mitigation are discussed in their respective sections of this document but are not included in the table below because no mitigation is warranted. Those environmental topics include:
• Aesthetics
• Energy
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Land Use and Planning
• Mineral Resources
• Population and Housing
• Public Services (Fire Protection, Schools, and Libraries) • Recreation
• Utilities and Service Systems

In addition to mitigation measures, the Project includes Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs) for the following environmental topics, which are listed in the table below:
• Aesthetics
• Air Quality
• Biological Resources
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-2 June 2023
• Cultural Resources
• Energy
• Geology and Soils
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• Hydrology and Water Quality
• Noise
• Public Services
• Recreation
• Tribal Cultural Resources
• Utilities and Service Systems

The table also includes Project Design Features (PDFs) for Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Quality, and Utilities and Service Systems.
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-3 June 2023
Table 11.0-1

DRAFT MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

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

Development Standards of the Specific Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and South
Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
During construction
and operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-2: Rule 402 (Nuisance). This Rule prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
and operation
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-4 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-3: Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This rule is intended to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the
ambient air from anthropogenic (manmade) fugitive dust
sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or
mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or manmade condition capable of generating
fugitive dust. Some specific requirements of Rule 403 that apply to all construction projects, regardless of the size of their disturbed areas, are addressed below:
• No person shall cause or allow emissions of fugitive
dust to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source or to exceed 20
percent opacity if the dust emission is a result of a
moving motorized vehicle.
• Apply applicable Best Available Control Measures in
Table 1 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust
emissions during active operation.
• No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed
50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as
the difference between upwind and downwind
samples collected on high volume PM samplers or
other USEPA approved equivalent method for PM10
monitoring at the Project limits for a five hour period during the time of Active Operations. Sampling will
only occur if a complaint is reported to the SCAQMD,
in which case the decision to conduct sampling will
be made by SCAQMD, and SCAQMD will conduct
sampling.
• No person shall allow track out to extend 25 feet or
more in cumulative length from the point of origin
from an active operation, and all track out from an
active operation shall be removed at the end of each
workday or evening shift.
• No person shall conduct an active operation with a
disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-5 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-5: Rule 481 (Spray Coating Operations) applies to all spray painting and spray coating operations and equipment. This rule would apply to the application of architectural coatings to the exterior and interior or of the building walls.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-6: Rule 1108 (Cutback Asphalt) governs the sale, use, and manufacturing of asphalt and limits the VOC content in asphalt used in the SoCAB. This rule would
regulate the VOC content of asphalt used during
construction. Therefore, all asphalt used during
construction of the proposed Project must comply with
SCAQMD Rule 1108.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-7: Rule 1113 (Architectural Coatings). The purpose of this rule is to limit the VOC content of
architectural coatings used in the District and applies to any person who supplies, sells, markets, offers for sale, or manufactures any architectural coating that is intended to be field applied within the District and any person who applies, stores at a worksite, or solicits the application of any architectural coating within the District.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-8: Rule 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents) governs the manufacture, sale,
and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application
equipment and other solvent cleaning operations by
limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-6 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
used during the construction phase must comply with this rule,
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP4.2-9: Rule 1186 (PM10 Emissions From Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations) limits
the presence of fugitive dust on paved and unpaved roads and sets certification protocols and requirements for
street sweepers that are under contract to provide
sweeping services to any federal, State, county, agency or special district such as water, air, sanitation, transit, or school district.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-10: Rule 1403 (Asbestos Emissions from Demolition/Renovation Activities) specifies the work
practice requirements to limit asbestos emissions and
exposure from building demolition and renovation
activities. Requirements include asbestos surveying;
notification; asbestos-containing material (ACM) removal procedures and time schedules; ACM handling and
cleanup procedures; and storage, disposal, and landfilling requirements for asbestos-containing waste material
(ACWM).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-11: Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source Rule). Rule 2305 was adopted by the SCAQMD Governing
Board on May 7, 2021, to reduce NOX and particulate
matter emissions associated with warehouses and mobile
sources attracted to warehouses. This rule applies to all existing and proposed warehouses over 100,000 square
feet located in the SCAQMD. Rule 2305 requires
warehouse operators to track annual vehicle miles
traveled associated with truck trips to and from the
warehouse. These trip miles are used to calculate the
warehouse’s WAIRE (Warehouse Actions and Investments
to Reduce Emissions) Points Compliance Obligation.

WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction
measures and warehouse operators are required to
submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction
strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During operation
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-7 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
emission (ZE) or near zero emission (NZE) trucks; require ZE/NZE truck visits; require ZE yard trucks; install on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure; install onsite energy systems; and install filtration systems in residences,
schools, and other buildings in the adjacent community.

Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance
Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee.

Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling
infrastructure in communities nearby.

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

These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
(residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste in accordance with § 4.408.1
(residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d)
PDF 4.2-1: Industrial Land Use Buffer. Where there are industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any industrial building to any residential building. The buffer area can be used as open Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-8 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-2: Specific Plan Section 2.6.3 Truck Circulation. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles.

Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at Rubidoux Boulevard
would enter the development via Frontage Road, 30th
Street and B Street to access the Industrial and
Commercial Retail Land Use areas. The circulation plan
incorporates a roundabout at the intersection of A Street, B Street and Wallace Avenue so as to deter truck traffic, redirecting truck traffic away from the residential land uses. Additionally, gateway monuments will be
implemented, which will create flexibility in height of vehicles acceptable to enter roadways. The following
exhibits shows the planned truck traffic routes based on site plan and street design. (see Figure 2-4 and 2-5 for Inbound and Outbound Truck Circulation Plan)
Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-3: Specific Plan Section 2.7.8, Roundabout. A Roundabout will be located at the intersection of Wallace Street, and future A Street and B Street. The Roundabout provides a significant traffic control measure to deter truck traffic, while providing an amenity to the
community.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-5: Landscaped Paseo. Adjacent to Industrial. As shown on Specific Plan Figure 2-2-Open Space Plan, the
southern boundary of the Industrial Land Use Area
includes an expansive landscaped paseo to screen and
buffer from the adjacent Residential Land Use Area to the south.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and
construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-6: Truck Routes. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and
passenger vehicles. Trucks exiting from the SR-60 at
Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-9 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-7: 10 Hour Limit for Construction Equipment.

The construction plans and specifications shall prohibit off-road diesel powered construction equipment from
being in the "on" position for more than 10 hours per day during Project construction.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-8: Model Year 2010 Fleet. The Project Applicant/Developer /Tenant shall require that all
facility-owned and operated fleet equipment with a gross vehicle weight rating greater than 14,000 pounds
accessing the site meet or exceed 2010 model-year
emissions equivalent engine standards as currently
defined in California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025. Facility operators which own vehicles subject to Section 2025 shall maintain records on-site demonstrating compliance with this
requirement and shall make records available for
inspection by the local jurisdiction, air district, and state upon request.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-9: ZE Trucks by 2030. The Project Applicant/Developer/Tenant shall require that all heavy- duty trucks entering or operated on the Project site to be zero-emission beginning in 2030, if such trucks are widely available and economically feasible.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During operation
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-10 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-10: LEED Buildings. The Project will achieve certification of compliance or demonstrate equivalency
with LEED green building standards.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-11: MERV 13 Filters within 500 Feet of TAC Source. Projects that will introduce sensitive receptors within 500 feet of freeways and other sources should
consider installing high efficiency of enhanced filtration units, such as Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value
(MERV) 13 or better. Installation of enhanced filtration units can be verified during occupancy inspection prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-12: MERV Filters Program. Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
a. Disclose potential health impacts to prospective
sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to
freeways or other sources of air pollution and the
reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when
windows are open or residents are outside.
b. Identify the responsible implementing and
enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced
filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
c. Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for
running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
d. Provide information to residents on where MERV
filters can be purchased.
e. Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or
every six months) for replacing the enhanced
filtration units.
f. Identify the responsible entity such as future
residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or
property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration
units are replaced on time.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
construction and
operation
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-11 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
g. Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost -sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced filtration units.
h. Set criteria for assessin g progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
i. Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.

4.3 Biological Resources
Threshold a): Would the
project have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
PPP 4.3-1: The Project Applicant is required to pay
MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established
and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal
Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.3-1: Night Lighting: Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the
adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate
shielding being incorporated in project design.

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

4.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold c): Would the
project disturb human
remains, including those
interred outside of
dedicated cemeteries?
PPP 4.4-1: The Project is required to comply with the
applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et seq.

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

4.5 Energy
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-12 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-13 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-5: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
(residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste in accordance with § 4.408.1
(residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in
readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410
(residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide designated parking for any combination of
low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool
vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking
spaces are required to be designated in accordance
with § 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential), Designated Parking
for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green
Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction
shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential
construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

8.05, project design and construction must comply with
current California Building Code requirements which
address general geologic, seismic, and soil constraints for new buildings, including ground shaking. Prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following note is included on grading and building plans, and project contractors shall be required to ensure
compliance with the note. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction
contractors.
“Construction activities shall occur in accordance with all applicable requirements of the California Code of
Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (also known as the California Building Standards Code or the California Building Code) in effect at the time of construction.”
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-15 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold a): Would the
project generate
greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on
the environment?
PPP 4.7-1: The Project shall be designed in accordance
with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). CALGreen is updated
on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2023. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-16 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
(residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste in accordance with § 4.408.1
(residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in
readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410
(residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction
shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential
construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold a): Would the
project create a
significant hazard to the
public or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or disposal
of hazardous materials?
PPP 4.8-1: Business Emergency Plans. As required by
Health and Safety Code § 25507, a business shall establish and implement a business plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of a hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the
regulations adopted pursuant to § 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a
hazardous material that has a quantity at any one time
above the thresholds described in § 25507(a) (1) through (6).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-2: Regulations Governing Transport of Hazardous materials and Hazardous Wastes. Any
project-related hazardous materials and hazardous
wastes will be transported to and/or from the Project site in compliance with any applicable state and federal
requirements, including the U.S. Department of
Transportation regulations listed in the Code of Federal Regulations (Title 49, Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), California Department of Transportation standards, and the California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration standards.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-18 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-3: Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste Generation, Transportation, Treatment, and Storage.

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-4: Regulations governing Underground Storage Tank (UST) Repairs and/or Removals. Any
project-related underground storage tank (UST) repairs
and/or removals will be conducted in accordance with the California UST Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations). Any unauthorized release of hazardous materials will require release reporting,
initial abatement, and corrective actions that will be
completed with oversight from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control,
Riverside Fire Department, South Coast Air Quality
Management District and/or other regulatory agencies, as necessary. Any project-related use of existing USTs will also have to be conducted (i.e., used, maintained and
monitored) in accordance with the California UST
Regulations (Title 23, Chapter 16 of the California Code of Regulations).

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-7: Construction Near Utility or Electric Lines.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

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

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § B (1), any person performing
construction work in the City shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment. The City
Engineer shall identify the best management practices
(BMPs) that may be implemented to prevent such
deterioration and shall identify the manner of
implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of
BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants
to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by the City Engineer (T & B
Planning, 2021).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City
Engineer
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.9-2: As required by Municipal Code Chapter

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

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

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

The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be
implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall
identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City
Engineer
Prior to City and
County approvals
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-21 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by
the City Engineer. The BMPs may include, but are not
limited to, the following and may, among other things,
require new developments or redevelopments to do any
of the following:
• Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous
soil and low-lying areas undisturbed by:
o Incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open
space into the Project design;
o Using porous materials for or near driveways,
drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads
and walkways; and
o Incorporating detention ponds and infiltration
pits into the Project design (T & B Planning,
2021).
• Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip
filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement
or other approved green infrastructure and French
drains by:
o Installing rain-gutters oriented towards
permeable areas;
o Modifying the grade of the property to divert
flow to permeable areas and minimize the
amount of storm water runoff leaving the
property;
o Designing curbs, berms, or other structures such
that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped
areas;
o Maximize storm water storage for reuse by using
retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns,
or other structures to store storm water runoff
for reuse or slow release;
o Rain gardens may be proposed in-lieu of a water
quality basin when applicable and approved by
the City Engineer (T & B Planning, 2021).
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-22 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, § E, any person, or entity that owns or operates a commercial and/or industrial facility(s) shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. All such
facilities shall be subject to a regular program of
inspection as required by this chapter and any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
issued by the State Water Resource Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat. Code Section
13000 et seq.), Title 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act), any applicable state or federal regulations
promulgated thereto, and any related administrative
orders or permits issued in connection therewith (T & B Planning, 2021).

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/State
Water Resources Control
Board and City of Jurupa
Valley
During operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.9-1: The Project-specific WQMP must be implemented throughout project design, construction,
operation, and maintenance.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/State
Water Resources Control
Board and City of Jurupa
Valley
Project design,
construction,
operation, and
maintenance
PDF 4.9-2: Bio Clean Modular Wetlands would be
installed to capture runoff from the Project site and would filter stormwater via infiltration to remove 80 percent of TDS and 90 percent of hydrocarbons before runoff would
enter the municipal storm drain system and/or the Santa Ana River. The Project water quality Operations and
Maintenance Plan would include periodic maintenance of
the Modular Wetlands as recommended by the
manufacturer.

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
PDF 4.9-4: Sidewalks and paved areas must be swept or
pressure washed regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. Wash-water containing cleaning agents Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During operation
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-23 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
or degreasers would be collected and discharged into the sanitary sewer and not to a storm drain.

4.12 Noise
Threshold a): Would the
project result in
generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
PPP 4.12-1: In order to ensure compliance with General
Plan Policy NE 3.4 Construction Equipment, it shall be
required that all construction equipment utilize noise
reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.12-2: In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.5 Construction Noise, commercial
construction activities shall be limited within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and high noise-generating construction activities shall be limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

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

4.14 Public Services
Threshold a): Would the
project result in
generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
PPP 4.14-1: The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes,
ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire
prevention and suppression measures relating to water
improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire
extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates,
combustible construction, water availability, and fire
sprinkler systems.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/
Riverside County Fire
Department
During project
design
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-24 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
Threshold a) (Cont’d)
[Parks]
PPP 4.14-6: Parkland Dedication Required for New
Residential Subdivisions. The Project shall implement
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Policy COS 8.6 requiring that parkland or open space dedication and improvement occur prior to, or Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-25 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
concurrent with, construction, as a condition of approval of new residential subdivisions.

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

7.25.020.

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

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-26 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

7.25.020.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
4,16 Transportation
Threshold b): Would the
project conflict or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision?
PDF 4.16-1: The project shall provide, if approved by the City Engineer, Class III bike route along Crestmore Road from 34th Street to Mission Boulevard by placing bike
route signs and optional shared roadway markings
(sharrow) along Crestmore Road.

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City
approval
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-27 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold b) (Cont’d) PDF 4.16-4 All future projects will incorporate the following design improvements as applicable, which
include, but are not limited to improving streets with
curb, gutter sidewalk, and landscaping; traffic calming devices; and multi-use pedestrian trails and bike
paths/lanes.

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

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a): Would the
project cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section
21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and
scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a
California Native
American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources, or in
a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code §
5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion
From 4.4 Cultural Resources
PPP 4.4-1: The Project is required to comply with the
applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley
During construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-28 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
and 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.

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During operation
Threshold c): Would the
project result in a
determination by the
wastewater treatment
provider which serves or
may serve the project that
it has adequate capacity
to serve the project’s
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 Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-29 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
projected demand in
addition to the provider’s
existing commitments?
available at the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to serve the Project.

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.18-1: The Project shall provide a landscaping and irrigation plan for review and approval by City staff. The landscape plan shall be designed for the intended function of the Project and for the efficient use of water. The
landscape plan shall address conditions of the Specific Plan area such as controlling erosion, filtering
stormwater, screening of unsightly elements, creating
shade, and softening the appearance of walls or
structures. Both the landscaping and irrigation plans shall incorporate water conservation features.

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

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

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2 Air Quality
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):

Would the Project conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
MM AQ-1: Mitigation Measures (applicable to all
Specific Plan uses). Minimize Construction Emissions.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to
incorporate the following measures to minimize
construction emissions.
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley City
Engineer; project
architects for projects
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-30 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions
standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified
Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

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

This equipment shall be used when commercial
models that meet the construction needs of the
proposed Project are commercially available from
local suppliers/vendors. The determination of
commercial availability of such equipment shall be
made by the City, based on applicant-provided
evidence from expert sources, such as construction
contractors in the region.
• The maximum daily disturbance area (actively
graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained
according to manufacturer specifications.
• All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery
vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when
not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three
minutes in any one hour.
• Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year
2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
• Information on ridesharing programs shall be made
available to construction employees.
• During construction, lunch options shall be provided
onsite.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number
and person to contact regarding dust complaints per
SCAQMD Standards.
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-31 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM AQ-2: Low VOC Paint. During construction, the
Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints
which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory
VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all
architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints
shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley Building and Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Building and Safety
Department; project
architects for projects
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
During Construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-32 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the
following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.
• Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a
household hazardous waste center; do not mix
leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in
use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only.

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

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Mobile Sources
Emissions
MM AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for
all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage
single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative Significant and
Unavoidable
Project civil engineers;
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to the issuance
of building permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-33 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Division for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being
rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant or
subsequent property manager shall notify and offer
to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials
describing public transit, ridesharing, and
nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the
vicinity of the development. The materials shall be
approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. The materials
shall be provided no later than the time the rental
agreement is executed. This information shall be
submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Division for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational Emissions
MM AQ-4: Prohibition of Fireplaces. The installation of wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces shall be
prohibited. The purpose of this measure is to limit
emissions of ROG, NOX, particulate matter and visible
emissions from wood-burning and natural gas fireplaces
used for supplemental heat, or ambiance and does not
apply to HVAC systems. This prohibition shall be noted on the deed and/or lease agreements for future property
owners/tenants to obey.

Significant and
unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley During preparation
of deeds and lease
agreements Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational Emissions
MM AQ-5: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements
include contractual language that all landscaping
equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All residential and non- residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to
accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for
landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure does not apply to
open space areas that are maintained by the Park’s
Significant and
unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
During preparation
of deeds and lease
agreements
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-35 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
District or City of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are
required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules
regulating landscape equipment.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects
operational emissions
MM AQ-6: Warehouse Mitigation Measures (Electrical
Rooms). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
tenant improvements, the Planning Department shall
confirm that the Project is designed to include the
following:
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently
sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to
supply power for the future installation of electric
vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.

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

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

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
for tenant
improvements
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-36 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM AQ-7: TRUs to be Plug-in-Capable. Prior to the
issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning
Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements
include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that
requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be
provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any
onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration
units while their truck is stopped. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM AQ-8: Truck Rule Signage. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall
confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks
within the Project site shall have a sign posted those
states the following:
• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. • Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five
minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission
is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air
Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the
importance of being a good neighbor by not parking
in residential areas.

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

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-37 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM AQ-9: Energy Efficiency for Trucks (Carl Moyer
Program). Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the
Project plans and specifications shall include
requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor
trucks for the industrial buildings include energy
efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer
Program—including truck modernization, retrofits,
and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance
tires— to reduce fuel consumption. This mitigation
measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit for any residential, commercial, or industrial
building, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications for the residential,
commercial, and industrial buildings shall include electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and parking
spaces at each building for employees and the public to use as required by the CalGreen Code in effect at the time of permit issuance. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell
approvals.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM AQ-11: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the
Project plans and specifications show the following:
• All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including
yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and
forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-38 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM AQ-12: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule
2305). The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during
operations. Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis. Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their
reporting process and is required for all warehouse
projects greater than 100,000 square feet.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
warehouse project
tenants
During project
operations
Operational emissions:
residential projects
MM AQ-13: Residential Mitigation Measures: Prior to
the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that the Project is designed to prohibit natural gas use within residential structures.

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

Would the project result
in a cumulatively
considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant
for which the project
region is non-attainment
under an applicable
federal or state ambient
air quality standard?
Implementation of mitigation measures AQ-1 through
AQ-13
Significant and
Unavoidable
See MMs AQ-1 through
AQ-13 above
See MMs AQ-1
through AQ-13 above
Threshold 4.2.8 (c):

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

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

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

11.  SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-39 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
substantial pollutant
concentrations?

4.3 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):

Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.?
BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To
remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503
and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If
vegetation removal activities must occur during this BIO- MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To
remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503
and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey to determine the presence or absence of breeding migratory birds, including raptors within the impact footprint. If nests or breeding activities are located on the survey area, an avoidance buffer area would be
required around the nesting site. The width of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and biological monitoring would be required during construction until
the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional
measures would be required (RECON, 2023a, p. 33).

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
during the breeding season, areas restricted from
such activities shall be staked or fenced under the
supervision of a qualified biologist; OR
• At least two weeks prior to the commencement of
construct ion activities, under the direction of a
qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures
(e.g., noise monitoring, installation of berms or walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels
resulting from construction activities will not exceed
60 dB(A) Leq at the edge of habitat occupied by least
Bell’s vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of
construction activities and the construction of
necessary attenuation facilities, noise monitoring
shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat
area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60
dB(A) Leq. If the noise attenuation techniques
implemented are determined to be inadequate by the
qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the
end of the breeding season (September 16).
o Construction noise monitoring shall continue to
be monitored at least twice weekly on varying
days, or more frequently depending on the
construction activity, to verify that noise levels at
the edge of occupied habitat are maintained
below 60 dB(A) L
eq or to the ambient noise level
if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. If not, other
measures shall be implemented in consultation
with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to
reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) L
eq or to
the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60
dB(A) Leq. Such measures may include, but are
not limited to, limitations on the placement of
construction equipment and the simultaneous
use of equipment.
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-41 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: A pre-
construction survey shall be required within 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If western burrowing owls are present, one of the following mitigation
measures from the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2003) shall also be
required:
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction
Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site contains or is part
of an area that supports less than 35 acres of suitable habitat, or the survey reveals that the site and
surrounding area support fewer than three pairs of
western burrowing owls, the on-site western
burrowing owls shall be passively or actively
relocated following accepted protocols; or
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction
Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site, including adjacent
areas, supports three or more pairs of western
burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of
suitable habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSCHP
Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the
area with long-term conservation value and western
burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site
(RECON, 2023a, p. 30).

Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Within 30 days
before beginning of
construction
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM BIO-3 Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP
requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the
MSHCP, A qualified project biologist shall monitor
construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of
concern outside the Project footprint (Riverside County, 2003).
• A biological monitor shall monitor activities that
result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and
special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected species observed during the
pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
During the
appropriate
blooming season
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-42 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
shall also be conducted periodically during
construction activities to ensure no new nests are
built during any vegetation removal or building
demolition activities between February 1 and
September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure
that all Best Management Practices (BMPs),
avoidance, protection and mitigation measures
described in the relevant project permits and reports
are in place and are adhered to.
• The biological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily halt all construction activities and all
non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or
nesting birds are identified and would be directly
affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate
resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary,
the biological monitor shall relocate the individual
outside of the work area where it shall not be
harmed. Work can continue at the location if the
applicant and the consulted resource agency
determine that the activity will not result in adverse
effects to the species.
• The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is located within the Project site. Written notification shall be made within 15
days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and must include; location of the carcass, a
photograph, cause of death (if known), and other
pertinent information.
•
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM BIO-3 Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP
requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the
MSHCP, a qualified project biologist shall monitor
construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of
concern outside the Project footprint.

Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to
commencement of
project construction
and throughout the
duration of
construction
activities involving
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-43 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• A biological monitor shall monitor activities that
result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and
special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected species observed during the
pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring
shall also be conducted periodically during
construction activities to ensure no new nests are
built during any vegetation removal or building
demolition activities between February 1 and
September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure
that all Best Management Practices (BMPs),
avoidance, protection and mitigation measures
described in the relevant project permits and reports
are in place and are adhered to.
• The biological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily halt all construction activities and all
non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or
nesting birds are identified and would be directly
affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate
resource agency and consult if needed. If necessary,
the biological monitor shall relocate the individual
outside of the work area where it shall not be
harmed. Work can continue at the location if the
applicant and the consulted resource agency
determine that the activity will not result in adverse
effects to the species.
• The appropriate agencies shall be notified if a dead or injured protected species is located within the Project site. Written notification shall be made within 15
days of the date and time of the finding or incident (if known) and must include; location of the carcass, a
photograph, cause of death (if known), and other
pertinent information.
tree or vegetation
removal
Threshold 4.3.8 (b) and
(c):

MM BIO-4 Prior to City and County approvals,
including the issuance of a Riverside County
Flood Control District (RCFCD)
Less than significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
Prior to City and
County approvals
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-44 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Encroachment Permit, and prior to ground
disturbance and construction of the Project,
the applicant shall obtain or provide
documentation that an Agency declines
jurisdiction of any features and a permit is
not required:
a. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual
permit for the permanent fill of 3.10 acres
and 4,462 linear feet of Waters of the U.S. or
documentation that a Section 404 permit is
not required (i.e. Army Corps declines
jurisdiction or definition of Water of US
changes pursuant to
Sackett vs.

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

The Project Applicant would be responsible for
complying with all permit conditions. Such
conditions may include, but are not limited to,
implementation of best manag ement 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
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-45 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

a. \
Threshold 4.3.8 (f):

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

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

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

4.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.4.8 (b):

Would the project Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
MMf 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
Less than significant Project proponent and
qualified archaeologist
During project
construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-46 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
Resources Consultant List, has been contracted to
implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
(CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to
cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring
Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and
Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this
measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written
evidence that monitoring was completed shall be
provided to the Jurupa valley Planning Department. If any resources(s) are significant, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR
-2
shall apply.

Threshold 4.4.8 (b):
continued
MM CUL-2: Treatment Plan. A Treatment Plan shall be
prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist
to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The Treatment Plan shall be in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for
historical resources and Public Resources Code
§21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not
feasible, treatment may include implementation of
archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the
resource along with subsequent laboratory processing
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
Less than significant Project proponent, tribal
monitor, and/or
qualified archaeologist
During project
construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-47 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
identify the date(s) and contact persons involved. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and
submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Department and the Eastern Information Center,
University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation,
Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of
Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

4.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.6.8 (f):

Would the Project directly
or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
MM PALEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. The
following note shall be included on any Grading Plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-
disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas to be graded or excavated in excess of fifteen feet. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities shall be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as shown on a grading plan. Paleontological
monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not
present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified
paleontological personnel to have a low potential to
contain or yield fossil resources.”
Less than Significant Project Applicant and
qualified paleontologist
or paleontological
monitor/City of Jurupa
Valley
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
during construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-48 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.6.8 (f)
(Cont’d)
Paleontological Resource Impact Management Plan.

The following note shall be included on any grading plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground - disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot- holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) for the area to be graded. The PRIMP shall include the met hods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the Project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification,
curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading
pursuant to the
recommendations provided in Paleontological Assessment
prepared by the San Diego Museum of Natural History on
March 30, 2022 (Technical Appendix D12 to this EIR) and the criteria identified below.

Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity (as identified in MM 4.6-1) shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. The performance standards set forth in the PRIMP shall include:
a) If paleontological resources are encountered during
the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological
monitor shall have the authority to halt construction
activities and temporarily redirect work at least 50
away from the area of the find in order to assess its
significance.
b) In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered when a paleontological monitor is not
present, work in the immediate area of the find shall
be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted

 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-49 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
to assess the find for si gnificance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed.
c) Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent
collection of a scientific institution.
d) Identification and curation of specimens into a
professional, accredited public museum repository
with a commitment to archival conservation and
permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western
Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet,
California 92543). The paleontological program
should include a written repository agreement prior
to the initiation of mitigation activities.
e) At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results
of the monitoring program, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to
accurately record their original location.”

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):

Would the project
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
Implementation of MMs AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13
described above
Significant and
unavoidable
See MMs MMs AQ-3, AQ-
4, and AQ-5
See MMs MMs AQ-3,
AQ-4, and AQ-5
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM GHG-1: Renewable Energy Generation. Prior to
issuance of each building’s permit for each development phase, the Project shall be required to install solar
photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable
electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar- Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-50 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access,
pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and
exclude skylight area.

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

Each building shall include an electrical system and other infrastructure sufficiently sized to accommodate the PV arrays. The electrical system and infrastructure must be clearly labeled with noticeable and permanent signage.

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

Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM GHG-2: Building Energy Efficiency. Prior to the
issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or
successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) standards or meet or
exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards in effect at the time of building permit application in order to exceed 2023 Title 24 energy efficiency standards by a minimum of 15
percent.

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

Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-51 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.8.8 (d):

Would the project be
located on a site which is
included on a list of
hazardous materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code §
65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a
significant hazard to the
public or the
environment;
MM HAZ-1: Site Remediation Management Plan: In
accordance with the December 15, 2022 Standard
Voluntary Agreement entered into between the Project
Applicant and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), prior to issuance of project grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide written verification to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating DTSC approval of: 1) a Supplemental Site Investigation (SSI) Work Plan; and 2) a Removal Action Work Plan (RAW) or Remedial Action
Work Plan (RAP) if removal action is appropriate.

The SSI Work Plan will include a Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan which provides
protocols for sampling to ensure that on-site soils are fully characterized, to the extent practicable, and to ensure proper classification of on
-s
ite soils for on-site reuse or
for off-site disposal. The SSI Work Plan shall comply with ASTM Standard E-1903 and DTSC requirements, as
applicable.

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

The Removal Action Work Plan will include components
such as:

Less than Significant Project Applicant and
qualified environmental
remediation contractor/
City of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-52 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

The RAP summarizes the results of the site
characterization, risk evaluation and feasibility study and sets forth in detail appropriate steps to remedy soil,
surface water and groundwater contamination at the Site and adjacent areas. In addition, the RAP shall contain a schedule for implementation of all proposed removal and remedial actions.

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM HAZ-2: Post Remediation
Requirements/Restrictions: Prior to issuance of
building permits for construction of project buildings on a particular parcel where remediation was required, the
Project Applicant shall provide a copy or copies of a deed restriction or land use covenant, if required by the DTSC, which has been recorded over the parcel for which a
building permit is sought. The deed restriction or land use Less than Significant Project Applicant / City
of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
construction of
project buildings on
a particular parcel
where remediation
was required
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-53 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
covenant shall serve as a land use control to limit the use of the parcel to permissible uses based upon applicable screening levels and shall be in a form approved by the DTSC and recorded pursuant to California Health and
Safety Code Section 25395.99.

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM HAZ-3: Post Remediation Clearance
Determination:, the Project Applicant shall provide
written verification from DTSC to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Director demonstrating either: 1) that the parcel has been remediated sufficiently to allow safe occupancy of buildings thereon; or 2) issuance of a “No Further
Action” letter or equivalent for the parcel. The written verification shall serve to indicate that the parcel is suitable for the intended development based upon
screening levels appropriate for the relevant land use
exposure scenario, or other risk methodology required by the DTSC, and that no further investigation or remediation is required other than any long
-te
rm operation and
maintenance requirements or monitoring that may be
required by DTSC or other regulatory agencies.

Less than Significant Project Applicant / City
of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of a
Certificate of
Occupancy for any
project building on a
particular parcel
where remedial
activities under the
oversight of the
DTSC occurred

4.12 Noise
Threshold 4.12-8 (a):

Would the project result
in generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
MM NOI-1: Construction Noise Mitigation Plan. Prior to
issuance of grading and/or building permits, a note shall be provided on grading and building plans indicating that, during grading and construction, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible for requiring
contractors to implement the following measures to limit construction-related noise:
• The construction contractor shall limit commercial
construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet
of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m.
and 6:00 p.m., and limit high-noise-generating
construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

Less than Significant Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-54 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all
internal combustion engine-driven equipment is
equipped with mufflers that are in good condition
and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary
noise-generating equipment as far as possible from
sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin
or are near a construction project area. In addition,
the Project contractor shall place such stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
Project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit
unnecessary idling (no more than 5 minutes) of
internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum
extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging
areas to maximize the distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction.
• For construction activity within 50 feet or impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive
receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be
installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary
noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of
construction activities that would require the use of
heavy construction equipment. The barrier shall be
located between the construction zone and all
adjacent sensitive receptor land uses. The temporary
sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that
shall meet the City’s construction noise threshold of
55 dBA Lmax as measured at the façade of the
sensitive receptor land uses. The noise barrier shall
be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and
holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class
(STC) of 25 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a  SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-55 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

0.75-inch-thick plywood wall or (b) a hanging
blanket/curtain with a surface density or at least 2
pounds per square foot. For either configuration, the
construction side of the barrier shall have an exterior lining of sound absorption material with a Noise
Reduction Coefficient (NRC) rating of 0.7 or higher.

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

Stationary Source Operational Noise Reduction Plan.

Prior to issuance of building permits, the property
owner/developer shall be responsible to implement the
Less than Significant Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-56 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
following measures to limit on-site operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed large scale, mixed-use, or master-
planned developments shall demonstrate compliance
with Noise Policy NE 1.9 and NE 1.10 of the City’s
Noise Element by incorporating acoustic site
planning to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
that adequately minimizes potential noise impacts to
adjacent land uses to meet the City’s standards
shown in General Plan Figure 7-3. In addition, such
projects shall demonstrate compliance with Noise
Policy NE 3.1 of the City’s Noise Element, such
projects and shall submit an Operational Noise
Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review
and approval. The plan shall identify specific
techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary
operational noise to ensure compliance with the
noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of
the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features
may include, but are not limited to, locating
stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by
structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or
by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
• Any future commercial or industrial development
projects that would include stationary noise sources,
such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate
compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s
Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise
Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review
and approval. The plan shall identify specific
techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary
operational noise to ensure compliance with the
noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of
the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features
may include, but are not limited to, locating
stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by
structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-57 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

4.16 Transportation
Threshold 4.16 (a):

Would the Project conflict
MM TRANS-1: Transportation Demand Management
Program. Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the
Less than significant General contractor and
construction manager
Prior to construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-58 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:
• Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any
phase, the Project Applicant shall consult with the
Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) on the need to
provide infrastructure to connect the Project with
transit services and to relocate the existing bus stop
on northbound Rubidoux Boulevard at Frontage
Road southward to the intersection of Rubidoux
Boulevard and proposed A Street. The applicant shall
fund such relocation. The Project Applicant shall fund
a study on behalf of RTA to determine whether
adding bus service along proposed A Street in the
Project site would be warranted by potential
ridership and be practicable for RTA. Evidence of
compliance with this requirement may include
correspondence from the local transit provider(s)
regarding the potential need for installing bus
turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.
• Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any
commercial use, future tenants in employment-
generating land uses developed pursuant to the
proposed Project shall implement measures
including, but not be limited to, the following: ride-
matching assistance; preferential carpool parking;
flexible work schedules for carpools; transportation
coordinators; providing a web site or message board
for each project
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-59 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.17.8 (a):

Would the project cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
Implementation of MMs CUL-1 and CUL-2 Less than significant Construction manager/ Qualified Archaeologist
and local Native
American representative
During construction
 SECTION 11.0 – MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM  7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 11-60 June 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section
21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and
scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a
California Native
American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local
register of historical
resources as defined in
Public Resources Code §
5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported
by substantial evidence,
to be significant pursuant
to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1.

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

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

1. Preservation–in-place, if feasible this is the preferred option. Preservation in place means avoiding the
resources, leaving them in the place where they were
found with no development affecting the integrity of
the resources.

2. Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The measures for reburial shall be culturally appropriate as determined through consultation with the consulting
Tribe(s)and include, at least, the following: Measures to protect the reburial area from any future impacts in
perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required cataloguing and recordation have been completed on the
cultural resources, with the exception that sacred and
ceremonial items, burial goods, and Native American
human remains are excluded. No cataloguing, analysis, or other studies may occur on human remains grave goods,
and sacred and ceremonial items. The designated 10’ x 10’ location for reburial shall be in a predetermined area that is limited in accessibility, not subject to erosion or
flooding, and may require the incorporation of natural
deterrents such as prickly plants, etc. The final artifact inventory associated DPR forms and location of the
reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV
Report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with CHRIS
System at the Eastern Informational Center, at UC
Riverside, under a confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Request. Copies of the Phase IV Report
shall also be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.”

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

SECTION 12.0 – RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR
 SECTION 12.0 – RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 12-1 June 2023

12.0 RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR
This section includes a list of agencies, organizations, and individuals to whom notification of availability of the Draft EIR was sent. Refer to Appendix A4, Distribution List.

12.1 Agencies and Organizations
Adria Reinertson, Deputy Fire Marshall, County of Riverside Fire Department Adriana Mendoza-Ramos, Esq. Regional Manager, Local Public Affairs, Southern California Edison Alma Marquez, Executive Director, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) Andrew Salas, Chairman, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation Arnold Rodriguez, General Manager, Santa Ana River Company Betsy Dionne, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Brandy Salas, Admin Specialist, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation City of Colton Planning Department
City of Eastvale Planning Department
City of Fontana Planning Department
City of Norco Planning Department
City of Riverside Planning Department
Colby Diguid, General Manager, Jurupa Area Recreation & Park District (JARPD) County of Riverside Clerk
County of Riverside Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) County of Riverside Sheriff’s Department
Daniel Ramirez-Cornejo, Program Manager, Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG) Daniel Zerda, Principal Planner, Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation
Genevieve Cross, Senior Advisor, Southern California Edison George R. Hanson, Engineering Manager, City of Riverside Inland Empire Waterkeeper
 SECTION 12.0 – RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 12-2 June 2023
Jessica Mauck, Cultural Resources Analyst, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Joan Licari, Chair of the San Gabriel Valley Task Force, Angeles Chapter, Sierra Club Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians Jurupa Valley Station
Kristine Kim, Environmental Health Specialist IV, County of Riverside Dept. of Environmental Health Lijin Sun, CEQA IGR Program Supervisor, South Coast Air Quality Management District Mauricio Alvarez, Planning Analyst, Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) Nick Eller, Legal Advertising/Public Notices, Riverside Press-Enterprise Peter Quintana, Southern California Gas Co.

Robin Griffin, Asst. Superintendent’s Secretary, Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) Rosa Clark, Local Development & Intergovernmental Review, Caltrans District 8 Seungwon Won, Ph.D., P.E., Development Engineer, Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) Sharon Johnson, Senior Engineering Technician, Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD)
Soboba Band Of Luiseño Indians
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG)
Stacey Oborne, Senior Paralegal, Lozeau Drury LLP
Wendy Worthey, Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)  SECTION 12.0 – RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 12-3 June 2023

12.2 Recipients Emailed on March 31, 2022
The following individuals received an email consisting of the NOP for the proposed Project.

12.3 Commenters Who Commented During the NOP Public Review Period and Included their Contact Information
• ALUC – Jackie Vega, Urban Regional Planner I
• California Department of Justice – Rob Swanson, Deputy Attorney General • Californians Allied for a Responsible Economy ("CARE CA") - Jeff Modrzejewski, Executive • City of Riverside, Community Development Department - Scott Watson, Historic Preservation Officer
 SECTION 12.0 – RECIPIENTS OF THE EIR 
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Page 12-4 June 2023
• County of Riverside – Kristine Kim, Supervising Env. Health Specialist • Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District - Kevin Cunningham, Environmental Project Manager
• City of Fontana - Rina Leung, Senior Planner
• Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation - Andy Salas, Chairman • Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) - Andrew Green, Cultural Resource Analyst • RCA/Riverside County Transportation Commission - Tricia Campbell • Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) - Anita Au, Senior Regional Planner • South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) - Lijin Sun, Program Supervisor,

CEQA IGR
• SoCal Gas (SCGC)
• Southwest Carpenters - Mitchell M. Tsai, Esq.
• Yuhaaviatama of San Manuel Nation - Ryan Nordness

ATTACHMENT NO. 5

Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) Direct Link:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/3019/MA212 69-The-Distrcit-FEIR-82823

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
(SCH # 2022040044)

FOR

THE DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY

PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

City of Jurupa Valley
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

Prepared by:

UltraSystems Environmental Inc.
16431 Scientific Way
Irvine, CA 92618
Telephone: 949.788.4900
Fax: 949.788.4901

August 2023
Project: 7124

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page i August 2023

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... I-1

1.1 Organization of the Final EIR ........................................................................................................... I-1

1.2 Public Review Process ........................................................................................................................ I-3

1.3 Overview of the Project ...................................................................................................................... I-3

1.3.1 Project Location ..................................................................................................................... I-3

1.3.2 Proposed Uses ........................................................................................................................ I-4

1.3.3 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals .................................................................... I-6

1.4 Areas of Concern ................................................................................................................................... I-7 II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ............................................................................................................ II-1

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... II-1

2.2 Matrix of Comments Received in Response to the Draft EIR ............................................. II-2

2.3 Bracketed Comment Letters ............................................................................................................ II-3

2.4 Comments and Responses ............................................................................................................. II-19 III. REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ........................ III-1

3.1 Corrections and Additions to Draft EIR Sections and Appendices ................................ III-1

3.1.1 Section 1.0 Executive Summary ................................................................................... III-1

3.1.2 Section 2.0 Introduction and Purpose ....................................................................... III-1

3.1.3 Section 3.0 Project Description .................................................................................... III-1

3.1.4 Section 4.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... III-3

3.1.5 Section 4.2 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... III-3

3.1.6 Section 4.12 Noise .............................................................................................................. III-5

3.1.7 Section 5.0 Alternatives ................................................................................................... III-5

3.1.8 Section 11.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .......................... III-5

3.1.9 Appendices ............................................................................................................................ III-6

3.2 Effect of Corrections and Revisions ............................................................................................ III-6 IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ................................................... IV-1

4.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... IV-1

4.2 Organization ......................................................................................................................................... IV-1

4.3 Administrative Procedures and Enforcement ....................................................................... IV-1

4.4 Program Modification ...................................................................................................................... IV-2

4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................................... IV-3

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1.3-1 – Proposed Land Use Summary ............................................................................................................ I-4 Table 1.3-2 – Ministerial Permits and Approvals .................................................................................................. I-6 Table 2.2-1 - Matrix of Comments Received in Response to the Draft EIR ................................................ II-2 Table 3.4-1 – Proposed Land Use Summary ......................................................................................................... III-2 Table 3.6-1 – Ministerial Permits and Approvals ............................................................................................... III-3 Table 4.2-25 - Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations ...................................................................................... III-4

❖ TABLE OF CONTENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page ii August 2023

APPENDICES

Appendix FEIR-1 NOA The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Appendix FEIR-2 NOA –Email Blast to Commentors/Interested Parties Appendix FEIR-3 NOA - Agency/Organization Email Blast
Appendix FEIR-4 NOA - County Clerk Recorder Posting
Appendix FEIR-5 NOA – Newspaper Publication
Appendix FEIR-6 Newspaper Proof
Appendix FEIR-7 Bracketed Draft EIR Comment Letters
Appendix FEIR-8 Freeway Sign Declassification Exhibit
Appendix FEIR-9 Draft EIR Appendix D24- Freeway Signs Declassification Approval Appendix FEIR-10 Supplemental Letter Memorandum

I. Introduction
❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-1 August 2023
I. INTRODUCTION
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15089, the City of Jurupa Valley, the Lead Agency, must prepare a Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) before approving a project. The purpose of a Final EIR is to provide an opportunity for the lead agency to respond to comments made by the public and agencies regarding The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Project Draft EIR. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, this Final EIR includes revisions to the Draft EIR; a list of persons, organizations, and agencies that provided comments on the Draft EIR; comments and recommendations received regarding the Draft EIR; and responses to significant environmental points raised in the comments received. The Final EIR also includes a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

This Final EIR constitutes the second part of the EIR for the Project and is intended to be a companion to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR for the Project, which circulated for public review and comment from June 16, 2023 to July 31, 2023, constitutes the first part of the EIR and is incorporated by reference and bound separately.

1.1 Organization of the Final EIR
This Final EIR is organized into the following four sections:

Section I. Introduction—This section describes the purpose of the Final EIR, outlines the contents of the Final EIR, summarizes the Final EIR process, and provides a summary of the proposed Project.

Section II. Responses to Comments—This section provides a matrix depicting those individuals and entities that commented on the Draft EIR and the issues that they raised. This matrix is followed by verbatim numbered copies of the comments followed by numbered responses to each of the written comments made about the Draft EIR. Copies of the full original comment letters (bracketed) are provided in Appendix FEIR-7 of this Final EIR.

Section III. Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections—This section provides a list of revisions made to the Draft EIR based on public comments and other items requiring revision.

These changes are minor and do not add significant new information that would affect the analysis or conclusions presented in the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states:

New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation include, for example, a disclosure showing that:
• A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted t hat reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-2 August 2023
• A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5(b) states that “[r]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.”
As detailed in this Final EIR, neither the comments submitted on the Draft EIR, the responses to these comments, nor the corrections and additions presented in Section III of this Final EIR, constitute new significant information warranting recirculation of the Draft EIR as set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. Rather, the Draft EIR is comprehensive and has been prepared in accordance with CEQA.

Section IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP)—This section provides the full MMRP for the proposed Project. The MMRP lists project design features and mitigation measures by environmental topic and identifies the level of significance after mitigation, the responsible party/monitoring party and the implementation stage.

This Final EIR includes the following appendices:

Appendix FEIR-1: NOA The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR — This appendix to the Final EIR includes a copy of the NOA for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR.

Appendix FEIR-2. NOA Email Blast to Commentors/Interested Parties — This appendix to the Final EIR includes the email that was sent to commentors/interested parties about the availability of the Draft EIR for public review.

Appendix FEIR -3. NOA Email Blast to Public Agencies/Organizations — This appendix to the Final EIR includes the email that was sent to Public Agencies/Organization about the availability of the Draft EIR for public review.

Appendix FEIR-4: NOA - County Clerk Recorder Posting— This appendix to the Final EIR includes the copy of the NOA posted by the County Clerk about the availability of the Draft EIR for public review.
❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-3 August 2023
Appendix FEIR-5: The Press-Enterprise Newspaper Confirmation — This appendix to the Final EIR includes the Newspaper confirmation of publishing the proposed Project’s NOA on June 16, 2023.

Appendix FEIR -6: The Press -Enterprise Newspaper Proof — This appendix to the Final EIR includes the Newspaper proof of publishing the Project’s NOA on June 16, 2023.

Appendix FEIR -7: Bracketed Draft EIR Comment Letters — This appendix to the Final EIR includes copies of all written comments received on the Draft EIR.

Appendix FEIR-8: Freeway Sign Declassification Exhibit— This appendix to the Final EIR includes an exhibit to illustrate and support the response to Comment A-9.

Appendix FEIR -9: Draft EIR Appendix D24 - Freeway Signs Declassification Approval — This appendix to the Final EIR includes the Appendix D24 that was referenced in the Draft EIR and also to support the response to Comment A-9.

Appendix FEIR-10: Supplemental Letter Memorandum— This appendix to the Final EIR includes a Supplemental Letter Memorandum of analysis to support the response to Comment A-31.

1.2 Public Review Process
In accordance with CEQA, the environmental review process for the Project commenced with solicitation of comments from identified responsible and trustee agencies, as well as interested parties on the scope of the DEIR, through a Notice of Preparation (NOP) process. The NOP was circulated for public comment to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research, responsible agencies, owners, City of Jurupa Valley addresses, and other interested parties on March 31, 2022 to April 29, 2022 . The NOP also provided notice that a scoping meeting for the proposed project was scheduled to occur on April 20, 2022, 2020 at 2:00 PM at the City of Jurupa Valley, City Council Chamber located at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA. The NOP was Appendix A2 in the Draft EIR and the public comments received on the Initial Study were included as Appendix C2 in the Draft EIR.

Consistent with the requirements of Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft EIR was submitted to the State Clearinghouse, Office of Planning and Research for distribution to state agencies and was circulated for a 45-day public review commencing on June 16, 2023, and ending on July 31, 2023 . A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR was published in The Press -Enterprise Newspaper on Ju ne 16, 2023, and emailed to those interested parties who attended the scoping meeting and/or requested notice. The Draft EIR was made available for review on the City of Jurupa Valley’s website (https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68) and at the City of Jurupa Valley’s City Hall at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA . Following the Draft EIR public comment period, this Final EIR has been prepared and includes responses to the com ments raised regarding the Draft EIR.

1.3 Overview of the Project

1.3.1 Project Location
The City of Jurupa Valley covers approximately 43.5 square miles within the County of Riverside. The City is bordered by unincorporated County of San Bernardino and the City of Fontana to the north, the City of Riverside to the east and south, and the City of Eastvale to the west. The Project site is ❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-4 August 2023
approximately 248 acres of predominately vacant land located in the eastern portion of the City of Jurupa Valley, near the Santa Ana River and State Route 60 (SR -60), in the County of Riverside (the “Project site”). Additionally, the Project site is generally bordered by SR -60 to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, 34 th Street to the south, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the wes t. Internal to the Site is Wallace Street where it crosses 34th Street to the south and continues northeast to northwest, intersecting with Hall Avenue near the northern site boundary. Hall Avenue is also located within the Specific Plan area between Frontage Road to the west and Wallace Street to the east; Hall Avenu e continues north over SR-60.

1.3.2 Proposed Uses
The proposed Project consists of a new Specific Plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) (“Specific Plan”) that would replace the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (SP-337) and EIR (SCH 2004031007) that was approved by Riverside County in 2005, prior to the City’s incorporation. The new Specific Plan would permit development of up to 1,192 new residential units; approximately 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial land uses (including war ehouse and logistic uses); a hotel with conference and hospitality area; and approximately 11 acres of parks and open space (the “Project”). The proposed Specific Plan includes the following land use components as noted below in Table 1.3-1.

Table 1.3-1

PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Gross
Acreage1
Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)2
Hotel
Rooms3
Dwelling
Unit

COMMERCIAL

Neighborhood 20.4 160,000 --- ---
Retail5 70.3 1,200,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.1 --- ---
Tourist 5.9 112,500 160 ---
Commercial Sub-Total 97.7 1,472,500 160 ---

RESIDENTIAL

High Density Residential2 42.0 --- --- 1,196
25+ du/acre

Residential Sub-Total 42.0 --- --- 1,196

BUSINESS PARK

Business Park4 6.8 30,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.0 --- ---
Business Park Sub-Total 7.8 30,000 --- ---

INDUSTRIAL/LOGISTICS

Industrial 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---
Industrial Sub-total 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---

OPEN SPACE

Open Space 11.1 --- --- ---
Open Space Sub-Total 11.1 --- --- ---

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

Public Streets 15.8 --- --- ---
Public Parkway - --- --- ---
Public Facility 6.6 --- --- ---
Public Imp Sub-Total 22.4 --- --- ---
❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-5 August 2023
TOTALS 248.3 acres 3,002,500 SF 160 Rooms 1,196 Units
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2023.

Notes:

1. Gross Acreage includes Existing Non-Conforming properties. Future redevelopment of the non-conforming properties would default to the respective Specific Plan land use designation. Gross Acreages is inclusive of roadway and access easements. Gross Averages are rounded to the nearest tenths based on the TTM.

2. Hotel Square Feet is estimated for purpose of FAR calculation only. Subsequent development applications may exceed the total square feet, provided that the maximum Land Use FAR is not exceeded.

3. Hotel Rooms are the basis of trip generation for technical study purpose and represents the maximum number of hotel rooms within the Land Use area.

4. Adjustments to Commercial Tourist and Business Park total square feet can be made if the maximum FAR is maintained and in accordance with Section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 as appropriate, and Section 5.5.2.

5. Includes 52.4 acres of Commercial Retail-Integrated Overlay.

The uses within the Specific Plan include the following:

Residential. The residential area of the Specific Plan would consist of 1,192 new dwelling units including both multi-family and single-family unit types, and assumed 4 existing units, on 42 acres.

The residential uses would be clustered in the southeast portion of th e Project site adjacent to existing residential uses and away from the adjacent freeway. The Specific Plan would include requirements for community amenities (i.e., pools, children play area, social gathering spots, etc.) for the residents, and traffic cal ming devices designed to divert truck traffic away from the proposed residential neighborhoods as well as existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Project site. Buffer areas will be required between residential uses and any industrial and warehousing uses.

Commercial. The commercial area of the Specific Plan would include Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Retail, and Commercial Tourist land uses. The Commercial Neighborhood would include a neighborhood shopping center to serve the local area with a grocery store, restaurants, retail stores, and community services. The Commercial Retail area would be designated for larger big-box retailers to serve regional consumers that may include furniture and product showrooms with on -site assembly and inventory storage. The Commercial Retail area would also include an integrated -use overlay to allow a business that combine their various business operations into a single business operation at one site including a traditional “brick and mortar” retail showroom for display and sale of products to the public and may include product assembly/light manufacturing; warehousing; customer pick-up and/or shipping/receiving. The Commercial Tourist area would include a hotel, exhibit/concert hall, tourist visitor ce nter, or other hospitality and entertainment-related uses. The total commercial area would encompass approximately 98 acres.

Industrial & Business Park. The industrial area would have a maximum of 1.5 million square feet of building area intended to provi de a wide range of industrial uses including research and development; light manufacturing, assembly and processing of manufactured goods and materials; warehousing and distribution including e-commerce, high-cube logistics and cross-dock facilities. on approximately 67 acres. An approximately 30,000 square foot business park intended for research and development, technology centers, corporate offices, clean industry, and supporting retail uses would be included on approximately 8 acres. There would be an o pen space buffer between the industrial/logistics use and the residential uses to the south. Truck traffic into and out of this area would be prohibited from traveling into the proposed and existing residential areas.

Open Space. The Project would provide approximately 11 acres of both active and passive open space for residents, employees, and visitors in the form of neighborhood parks, urban parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off -street trails. The Open ❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-6 August 2023
Space L and Use Area also incorporates landscape buffers and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater.

Signage and Monuments. 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.

Circulation. The circulation system would be designed to minimize traffic on the adjacent neighborhood streets and provide for efficient circulation throughout the Project site and divert truck traffic away from the proposed and existing residential neighborhoods. Through the EIR process on -site and off -site improvements aimed to improve traffic flows on the adjacent local roadways and the adjoining SR -60 are evaluated. Project street improvements would include both on-site and off -site roadways as well as the vacation of certain existing roads or portions of street rights-of-way within the Project site boundaries.

Infrastructure/Utilities. The Project would be required to install sewer, water, storm drain and dry utilities throughout the site in size and capacity to meet the requirements of the development. The EIR analyzes both on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements required for the Project.

1.3.3 Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals
Each development project undertaken pursuant to the Specific Plan would require a Site Development Permit; a may require an additional Tentative Tract Map or a Conditional Use Permit(s) depending on the proposed land use types. Table 1.3-2 identifies ministerial permits and approvals required from the City, other public agencies and/or quasi -public agencies (utilities) necessary for the construction of the Project.:

Table 1.3-2

MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Jurupa Valley Building & Safety
Division Building Permits, and Demolition Permits.

Riverside County Fire Department
Building plan check and approval. Review for compliance with the California Fire Code, California Building Code, California Health & Safety Code and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. Plans for fire detection and alarm systems, and automatic sprinklers.

City of Jurupa Valley Public Works
Department
Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements and Tree Removal Permit.

Rubidoux Community Services District
[water service and sewer service]
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide water supply and sewer connections to new
development.

Southern California Edison Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide electrical connection to new development.

CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Permit

❖ INTRODUCTION ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page I-7 August 2023

1.4 Areas of Concern
Based on the comment letters received regarding the Draft EIR , which are included in Appendix FEIR-7 of this Final EIR, issues known to be of concern include, but are not limited to: traffic, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions . Comments were also provided re garding other environmental topics addressed in the Draft EIR.

II. Responses to Comments
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-1 August 2023
II. RESPONSES TO COMMENTS

2.1 Introduction
Sections 21091(d) and 21092.5 of the Public Resources Code (PRC) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088 govern the lead agency’s responses to comments on a Draft EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15088(a) states: “The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.” In compliance with these requirements, this section of the Final EIR provides the responses to each of the written comments received with regards to the Draft EIR.

Section 2.2, Matrix of Comments Received in Response to the Draft EIR , includes a matrix that provides a summary of the environmental issues raised by each commenter regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Draft EIR Project.

Additionally, Section 2.3, Comment Letters, provides a response to each written comment raised.

Copies of the original comment letters are provided in Appendix FEIR-7 of this Final EIR.

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-2 August 2023

2.2 Matrix of Comments Received in Response to the Draft EIR Table 2.2-1
Letter ID
COMMENTER Date
Comment
Received

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

AESTHETICS/VISUAL IMPACTS

AIR QUALITY

BIOLOGICLAL RESOURCES &

WILDLIFE & WILDERNESS

CULTURAL & TRIBAL RESORUCES
(INCLUDING HISTORICAL

RESOURCES)

GEOLOGY AND SOILS/GRADING

GREEHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

HAZARDS (INCLUDING FIRE

HAZARDS ) AND HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

HYDROLOGY/DRAINAGE/WATER

QUALITY

LAND USE AND PLANNING

SPECIFIC PLAN
NOISE

POULATION AND HOUSING
PUBLIC SERVICES- P0LICE

PROTECTION

PUBLIC SERVICES- FIRE

PROTECTION

PUBLIC SERVICES- SCHOOLS

PUBLIC SERVICES- LIIBRARIES

PUBLIC SERVICES- PARKS AND

RECREATION

TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC/

EMERGENCY ACCESS

TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

UTILITIES- WASTEWATER & SEPTIC

UTILTIES- STORMWATER

UTILITIES- SOILD WASTE

UTILITIES- WATER SUPPLY &

GROUNDWATER

WILDFIRE
ENERGY

ALTERNATIVES

EQUESTRIAN LIFESTYLE & RURAL

TRANQUILITY

FEDERAL, STATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
A Matthew Taylor, Principal Planner
City of Riverside, Community Development
Department, Planning Division
3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 (951)
826- 5944, [email protected]
July 31, 2023

X X X X X X X X X X X X

ORGANIZATIONS
B Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law, Executive
Director,
Advocates for the Environment
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040,
(818) 650-0030 X101, [email protected]
July 31, 2023
X
C Stephanie Papayanis, Attorneys for Southwest
Regional Council of Carpenters
Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 381-9248, [email protected]
July 30, 2023 This letter indicated support for the project as a whole and no specific areas of the document were identified.

INDIVIDUALS
No individuals commented
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-3 August 2023

2.3 Bracketed Comment Letters

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-4 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-5 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-6 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-7 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-8 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-9 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-10 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-11 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-12 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-13 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-14 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-15 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-16 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-17 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-18 August 2023

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-19 August 2023

2.4 Comments and Responses

COMMENT LETTER A
Matthew Taylor, Principal Planner
City of Riverside, Community Development Department, Planning Division 3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 Phone: (951) 826- 5944, [email protected] This comment below was received in the form of a pdf letter attached to an email from Matthew Taylor sent on July 31, 2023.

Comment A-1
Dear Mr. Gorham: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan project. The City of Riverside (City) unders tands that the proposed The District at Jurupa Valley project consists of a new specific plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) that would replace the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and EIR that was approved by Riverside County in 2005. We also understand that the new specific plan will permit the development of up to 1,192 residential units; 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial land uses; a hotel with conference and hospitality area; and 7 acres of parks and open space.

Response to Comment A-1:

This is introduction information. Comment noted.

Comment A-2:

MM AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction – TDM Requirements for Non -Residential Uses: Begins with “The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider” – Consultation is not an effective or adequate measure to reduce vehicle trip generation associated with the project. The actual reduction in vehicle trips generated by the act of “consultation” must be quantified. If this is not possible, the mitigation measure should be modified to require specific action on the part of the Project Applicant related to multimodal transit accessibility and/or readiness that can be shown to have a measurable effect on trip generation.

Response to Comment A-2:

The requirement for consulting with the local transit provider in Draft EIR MM AQ-3 is just one of the numerous Traffic Demand Management (TDM) measures. This particular measure is recommended by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in their TDM Ordinance Guide (2009).

Consulting with the transit service provider would facilitate the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services (including installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site). This measure is not directly responsible for a reduction in vehicle trips or trip lengths; however, it would support the overall TDM plan required in MM AQ -3. The TDM plan required by MM AQ-3 also requires non -residential uses to include measures such as ride -matching assistance, preferential carpool parking, flexible work schedules for carpools, half -time transportation coordinators, providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride-sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities. The measures may be updated as new methods become available. The emissions ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-20 August 2023
reductions from MM AQ -3 were quantified in CalEEMod 2022 using the methods, criteria, and formulas within the C alifornia Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity: Designed for Local Governments, Communities, and Project Developers (2021).

Comment A-3
MM TRANS -1: Transportation Demand Management Program – 1. Consultation with Riverside Transit Authority: The Project Application shall fund a study on behalf of RTA to determine whether adding bus service would be warranted – Evidence of compliance should be completion and publication of the study itself – not merely correspondence between the Applicant and the transit agency.

Response to Comment A-3
There is bus service to the project site on Rubidoux Boulevard at Frontage Road. Draft EIR Section

4.16.6 includes the Public Transit Impact Analysis that discusses the potential for future bus routes into and through the Project site. This analysis states that the Project is proposing additional bus stops in the Project site and would place thos e bus stops in locations approved by the Riverside Transit Authority as part of the site specific planning phases. The Commentor is citing to only a single portion of MM TRANS-1 and does not include the full text of that portion of the mitigation measure.

MM TRANS-1, below in full, as written requires “correspondence from the transit agency regarding the need for installing bus turnouts, shelters or bus stops at the site.” The mitigation measure as written has definite and measurable compliance terms and no modifications are necessary.

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 transportation demand management plan requirements. These requirements may be accomplished through recordation of covenants, conditions and restrictions and/or the formation of a transportation management association which assumes responsibility for implementation and monitoring of the transportation demand management measures or other measures deemed acceptable by the City.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:

Prior to the issuance of a building permit for any phase, the Project Applicant shall consult with the Riverside Transit Authority (RTA) on the need to provide infrastructure to connect the Project with transit services and to relocate the existing bus stop on northbound Rubidoux Boulevard at Frontage Road southward to the intersection of Rubidoux Boulevard and proposed A Street. The applicant shall fund such relocation. The Project Applicant shall fund a study on behalf of RTA to determ ine whether adding bus service along proposed A Street in the Project site would be warranted by potential ridership and be practicable for RTA. Evidence of compliance with this requirement may include correspondence from the local transit provider(s) regarding the potential need for installing bus turnouts, shelters, or bus stops at the site.

Prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for any commercial use, future tenants in employment- generating land uses developed pursuant to the proposed Project shal l implement measures including, but not be limited to, the following: ride-matching assistance; preferential carpool parking; flexible work schedules for carpools; transportation coordinators; providing a web site or message ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-21 August 2023
board for coordinating rides; d esignating 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 esti mated VMT reduction of not less than 8.3 percent. This list may be updated as new methods become available.

Comment A-4:

The Commenter states that the Project Description does not state the total acreage within the Commercial Retail designation that will receive the Integrated Use Overlay, nor does it disclose what quantity of the anticipated 1.2 million square feet of development in the Commercial Retail designation is attributable to development within the Integrated Use Overlay.

Response to Comment A-4:

The Commercial Retail-Integrated Use designation is a General Plan overlay which will be applied to

52.4 acres of the Commercial Retail Use area, as shown on the revised Table 3.4-1 on page 3-1 and in the second paragraph text on page 3-9 within the Errata.

Comment A-5:

The commenter states that based on the intent and typical uses allowed within the CR – Integrated Use Overlay, this is describing primarily industrial land use with a strong orientation toward logistics and goods movement uses with a nominal amount of ancillary retail activity.

Response to Comment A-5:

Strictly by way of example, a furniture store such as Ashley, Living Spaces, Mathis Brothers, Ikea, etc. would meet the criteria and intent for inclusion within the CR – Integrated Use Overlay. These types of businesses are not considered “industrial” simply because their merchandise (i.e., larger furniture items) requires additional stockroom/warehousing area that is ancillary to the retail sale of furniture to customers, which often requires home delivery to local customers due to the nature of the items sold. This type of use is properly classified as commercial and is illustrative of the t ypes of uses contemplated within the CR – Integrated Use Overlay.

In addition, as discussed more fully in response to Comment A -6, due in part to the way that the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) operates, and the inputs required, the Draft EIR conservatively assumed that 900,000 square feet of the Overlay area could include industrial warehouse uses and modeled potential impacts based on that assumption. As a result, the Draft EIR conservatively did not assume commercial uses for the entirety of the Overlay. Because the Draft EIR already provided a conservative analysis, there is no need to revise the EIR to address the issue raised in the comment.

Comment A-6:

The commenter reiterates the breakdown of proposed uses within the Specific Pla n area and claims that based on land use assumptions provided in the Traffic Impact Analysis, the Project involves an additional approximately 900,000 square feet of industrial land use activity outside of the Industrial land use designation – which must b e assumed to be anticipated within the Retail - Integrated Use Overlay as none of the other proposed land use districts would permit these types of uses. ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-22 August 2023
Response to Comment A-6:

Refer to Response A-5, above. The commenter accurately points out that the T raffic Impact Analysis includes 900,000 square foot of warehouse which would be part of an Commercial Retail - Integrated Use and is listed in Table 2A, Summary of Project Trip Generation Estimates -The District at Jurupa Valley-Phase 1, of the TIA under th e Residential and Commercial Uses heading as "Furniture Warehousing". For purposes of the air quality analysis, the air quality report based emissions on the following Land Use Types identified in the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod):

Industrial-Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail: = 2,250,000 SF.

Industrial-Refrigerated Warehouse-No Rail = 150,000 SF.

Total = 2,400,000 SF.

Of this total, up to 900,000 SF was conservatively modeled to analyze air emissions generated by retail with light ma nufacturing, assembly, warehouse and distribution uses as permitted by the Integrated Use Overlay on a portion of the Commercial Retail use area. CalEEMod does not have a specific land use category to describe a combination furniture store/warehouse use. T herefore, it was necessary to use a combination of Commercial -Home Improvement Superstore and Industrial - Unrefrigerated Warehouse-No Rail to accurately model the air emissions.

The Integrated Retail use would be permitted by the Specific Plan within the Commercial Retail Zone within the boundaries of the Overlay. The components would comprise a Commercial Integrated – retail uses, including the warehouse component, have been properly identified and analyzed in the Draft EIR. More specifically, the technical reports supporting the Draft EIR conservatively did not assume commercial uses for the entirety of the Overlay, and instead assumed and analyzed potential industrial warehouse uses on 900,000 square feet of the Overlay area. Because the Draft EIR already provided a conservative analysis, there is no need to revise the EIR to address the issue raised in the comment.

Comment A-7:

The commenter incorrectly states that based on Comments A-4 to A-6, the Draft EIR must be revised and recirculated to analyze th e potential environmental impacts of 2.4 million square feet of industrial (logistics, goods movement, warehousing, etc.) development – not 1.5 million square feet of industrial and 1.2 million square feet of “commercial retail” development.

Response to Comment A-7:

Refer to Responses A-4 to A-6. Industrial - only uses are not proposed within the CR – Integrated Use Overlay. Total commercial development will not exceed the 1.2 million square feet as stated in the EIR, regardless of the overlay classificati on. The technical analyses within the Draft EIR accounted for the maximum possible development. The impact conclusions of the Draft EIR remain unchanged and represent a conservative, worst-case scenario. The maximum square footage and characteristics of al l proposed land uses were accurately included within the Project Description. Therefore, providing clarification regarding the precise acreage intended for the Commercial Retail Integrated Use overlay does not trigger the need for recirculation. ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-23 August 2023
Comment A-8:

The commenter states that the Draft EIR Project Description states that the Project involves four free- standing freeway -oriented billboard signs – three digital and one static. Figure 3.4 -9, however, depicts three combination digital and static sign l ocations and one existing freestanding sign (type not specified). The Project Description, the corresponding Figure, or both should be revised to correct this discrepancy.

Response to Comment A-8:

Clarifying text has been added to the Errata, Page 3-12, last paragraph, under Section 3.4.3, Signage and Monuments.

Comment A-9:

The commenter states that the Project Description also does not indicate whether the proposed freeway signage will permit off -site advertising for hire or if it will be limited to on-site signage for tenant identification purposes. The Project Description should be revised to clarify and, if off -site advertising for hire is proposed, the EIR should address potential visual and aesthetic impacts of billboard signage in the appropriate sections of the EIR. Mitigation for potential impacts related to light pollution and traffic safety hazards that stem from digital billboard signage should be identified and applied as necessary. CalTrans should be listed as a Trustee/Responsi ble Agency and the required Landscaped Freeway Declassification and Outdoor Advertising Permit requests listed as required discretionary approvals for the Project.

Response to Comment A-9:

Signage is discussed in Section 3.9 of the Draft Specific Plan. As discussed at Section 3, page 26 of the Specific Plan, a Master Sign Program (MSP) will provide standards for freeway signs for both Project tenant identification (on -premises) and non -tenant off-premises advertising (billboards). Caltrans review will be required for any billboards located within 660 feet of Caltrans right -of-way. Freeway sign lighting is discussed at page 4.1-27 of the EIR as follows:

“Section 4.9.2, Lighting and Display Requirements, of the Specific Plan requires that all digital billboa rds must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning
brightness, including, without limitation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, and as amended and that signs are to be oriented primarily for viewing from the freeway and shall be oriented, and adequately shielded if necessary, to prevent the trespass of light and glare upon any residential land use (within 500 feet of the sign), including those in mixed -use districts, as exists on the date of building permit issuance.

With implementation of PPP 4.1.3, impacts would be less than significant.”

The preceding text in the Draft EIR mistakenly refers to Section 4.9.2 of the Specific Plan for the Lighting and Display Requirements; this is actually included within Section 4.10.1 (4) of the Sp ecific Plan; this correction is reflected within the Errata of this Final EIR. For ease of reference, relevant text found at Section 4, page 51-52 of the Specific Plan is provided here:
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-24 August 2023

4.10.1 General Design Requirements for Freestanding Freeway Signs

2. Each freestanding freeway sign must be oriented primarily for viewing from the freeway and shall be oriented, and adequately shielded if necessary, to prevent the trespass of light and glare upon any residential land use (within 500 feet of the sign), as exists on the date of building permit issuance.

4. Lighting and Display Requirements

a. All freestanding freeway signs where determined applicable must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning brightness, including, without limit ation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, and as amended.

b. Signs shall establish a maximum foot -candle over ambient light levels as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director to confirm compliance with 4a above.
c. The display brightness shall be controlled by a photocell or light sensor that adjusts the brightness to the required level based on ambient light conditions without the need for human input. Use of other brightness adjustment methods, such as timer - or calendar- based systems, shall only be used as a backup system.

d. The display shall be factory -certified as capable of complying with the above brightness standards. Such certification shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Building Agency, or his/her designee.

e. The sign owner shall provide to the City, upon request, certification by or compensation for an independent contractor to verify that the brightness levels of the digital billboard follow industry standards.

f. All signs shall be equipped with a control system that, in the event of a display or control malfunction, "freezes" the display on either a single, unchanging message, or a blank screen. An emergency shutoff switch shall be provided.

g. Any sign area not comprising the digital displa y panel is prohibited, except for identification of the “City of Jurupa Valley” as determined by the Master Sign Program.

This area includes, but is not limited to, static sign area, appendages, cutout letters, and figures. A frame surrounding the display panel up to twelve (12) inches in width shall be permitted; it shall not contain any sign copy or graphics and shall not count toward the sign area.

h. Where screen transitions are used, such transitions shall not give the appearance of moving text or images. The sign copy shall not use flashing, intermittent or moving lights or produce the optical illusion of movement or use animation.

i. Each sign copy shall be displayed for a minimum of four (4) seconds. The still images may not move or present the ap pearance of motion and may not use flashing, scintillating, blinking, or traveling lights or any other means not providing constant illumination. ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-25 August 2023
Transition or blank screen time between one (1) still image and the next may not exceed one (1) second.

j. Signage shall have dimming capabilities during flex alert to cut back or shift electricity during peak hours.

6. Prohibited Features

Freeway oriented billboards shall not contain any of the following features:

a. Moving parts.

b. Lights that flash, shimmer, glitter or give the appearance of flashing, shimmering or glittering.

Exceptions to this restriction include time, temperature and smog index units.

c. Walls or screens at the base of the sign which create a hazard to public safety or provide an attractive nuisance.

d. Copy which simulates any traffic sign in a manner which confuses the public.

e. Devices which emit audible sound, or odor or particulate matter.

CalTrans is already listed as a responsible and trustee agency in the Draft EIR on page 2-9 in Table

2.6-1 as “ Responsible for issuance of encroachment permits if required ”. The words “ and Outdoor Advertising Permit” were added to the right column.

Commenter’s request to list CalTrans as a Trustee/Responsible Agency and to include an Outdoor Advertising Permit as a required discretionary approval for the Project has been incorporated into the Errata of this Final EIR (page 3 -23, Table 3.6 -1). Appendi x FEIR -8 includes a freeway sign classification exhibit for illustration. On January 18, 2023, Caltrans approved a declassification of the Landscaped Freeway designation for the relevant segment of the Route 60 Freeway. A copy of the approval letter and a map of the declassified segment are included in the Errata as Appendix D24 (included in Appendix FEIR-9).

Comment A-10:

Commenter expresses concern that views of the Project site may be negatively impacted as seen from higher elevations along the hiking trail that ascends the northern face of Mount Rubidoux, and requests that the Draft EIR evaluate how views onto the Project site from higher elevations on the Mount Rubidoux hiking trail could be impacted by development of buildings up to 75 feet in heigh t in this area. The commenter states that photo simulations, cross -sections and other simulated, schematic, or diagrammatic illustrations of areas affected by this scale of development should be provided to substantiate these conclusions. Appropriate mitig ation measures, up to and including limitations of allowed building height, should be applied as necessary.

Response to Comment A-10:

Mount Rubidoux is located approximately one mile to the east of the Project site. From this distance, and particularly at higher elevations as suggested by the commenter, the proposed Project buildings would not obstruct views from this vantage point. The mere fact that Project buildings may be visible ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-26 August 2023
from higher elevations on the Mount Rubidoux hiking trail would not resul t in a potentially significant impact under CEQA under the applicable thresholds of significance, as the Project site itself is not considered a scenic vista. (See Draft EIR at 4.1 -7 to 4.1 -10). Photo simulations and additional renderings are not warranted; “CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commentors.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15204). No further response is necessary.

Comment A-11:

The commenter claims that t he Draft EIR does not address whether the Master Sign Program 1) includes off -site advertising for hire (i.e., billboards); 2) whether such billboards will require Declassification of a Classified Landscaped Freeway by CalTrans; and 3) whether such billboards will further require, and would comply with the specific regulations for, an Outdoor Advertising Permit from CalTrans (California Business and Professions Code Sections 5200-5486 and California Code of Regulations Sections 2240-2519). The Draft EIR should be revised to address compliance with these State regulations as they apply to the Project and its proposed freeway signage. Appropriate mitigation measures should be identified and applied as necessary.

Response to Comment A-11:

Refer to Response A-9.

Comment A-12:

The commenter expresses concern that with regard to Draft EIR Section 4.17 (Cumulative Impacts), buildings constructed within the Project area may potentially obstruct views of Mount Rubidoux from within the Project site, from State Route 60, and from other adjacent areas. The Draft EIR should be revised to address these potential impacts or provide substantial evidence to the contrary.

Response to Comment A-12:

The individual, Project -level impact to views of Mt. Rubidoux was found to be less than significant based on the analysis contained at Draft EIR page 4.1-10. Therefore, the Draft EIR properly concluded that the Project, in conjunction with other planned or approved projects, would not have cumulatively considerable impacts on scenic vistas.

Comment A-13:

The City of Riverside’s comment letter was provided April 29, 2022, not April 29, 2023 as stated in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment A-13:

This correction has been made within the Errata of this FEIR page 4.2-8.

Comment A-14:

The commenter reiterates its assertion that the quantity of industrial land uses described in the Air Quality Analysis disagrees with the summary of land uses provided in Chapter 3.0 (Project Description). The EIR should be revised to accurately describe an d analyze the potential ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-27 August 2023
environmental impacts of the total quantity of industrial land uses contemplated as part of the Project
Response to Comment A-14:

Refer to Responses A-4 to A-7.

Comment A-15
Project Design Feature 4.2 -10 – LEED Buildings . This Project Design Feature does not specify which level of LEED Certification buildings constructed within the Project will be required to attain; as such, it is ineffective as a Project Design Feature in that it lacks the necessary specificity to quantify the anticipated reduction in any environmental impact.

Response to Comment A-15
The Industrial building on the Project will be designed to meet an equivalent of LEED® Certification level which requires 40-49 points. Text in PDF 4.2-10 on pages 4.2-21 and in the MMRP Table (Table

11.0-1) on the top of page 11-10 were modified for clarification to now read:

“PDF 4.2-10 LEED Buildings. The Project will be designed to demonstrate equivalency with the LEED green building standards as “certified” for the industrial buildings.” Comment A-16:

MM AQ-3 – Vehicle Trip Reduction – TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses begins with “The Project Applicant shall consult with the local transit service provider” – consultation does nothing to mitigate vehicle trip generation associated with the project. The actual reduction in vehicle trips, and concomitant reductions in air quality pollutants, generated by the act of “consultation” must be quantified. If this is not possible, the mitigation measure should be modified to require specific action on the part of the Project Applicant related to multimodal transit accessibility and/or readiness that can be shown to have a measurable effect on trip generation and air quality impacts.

Response to Comment A-16:

Refer to Response A-2.

Comment A-17:

The commenter expresses concern that nighttime lighting related to the proposed freestanding digital billboard signage nearest to the Santa Ana River might have a detrimental impact to sensitive species or habitat that could require mitigation either during construction or operation of the Project and that the Project Design Feature which states that “Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropria te shielding being incorporated in project design,” is not substantiated. The commenter states that potential impact of nighttime lighting emanating from the digital billboard proposed for this location on sensitive species and habitat must be evaluated an d reduced to the extent feasible through changes to the Project design, up to and including the relocation of this proposed digital billboard sign, or adequately mitigated.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-28 August 2023
Response to Comment A-17:

Section 4.10.1 of Specific Plan provides for general design requirements for the freestanding freeway signs. These include the following:
4a. All freestanding freeway signs where determined applicable must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning brightness, including, without limitation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, and as amended. 4b. Signs shall establish a maximum foot -candle over ambient light levels as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director to confirm compliance with 4a above.

A lighting study will be re quired to be completed as part of the final Project approvals and will address the compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, which include the requirement to protect the biological integrity of the MSHCP conserved lands as detailed in Section 4. 3, Biological Resources, MSHCP Section 6.1.4 addresses requirements related to indirect impacts for projects within or adjacent to a MSHCP Criteria Area, Criteria Cell, or Conservation Area. A portion of Criteria Cell 187 falls within the Project area. In addition, the Project area’s eastern boundary is adjacent to Public/Quasi-Public Conservation Lands associated with the Santa Ana River channel. As such, the Project would be required to be in compliance with the guidelines described in Section 6.1.4 of th e MSHCP which states: “Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incorporated in project design. This also complies with City Municipal Code Section 9.145.050.(14), which requires that all site lighting be shielded to prevent glare and direct illumination on adjoining properties (RECON, 2023a, p. 37). In the proposed Specific Plan, Section 3.7, Lighting Requirements (City of Jurupa Valley, 2022a; Sect ion 3, p. 20), includes the following requirements that comply with City Municipal Code Section 9.145.050.(14). These are included as PDF 4.1-5, PDF 4.1-6, and PDF 4.1-7, in Section 4.1, Aesthetics. • Orientation: All exterior lighting fixtures shall be di rected downward to illuminate pedestrian pathways and parking areas and avoid unnecessary glare and light pollution.

However, up lighting effects to promote nighttime identity and character are allowed provided such exterior lighting features utilize indirect or hidden lighting.

Implementation of these requirements, which will be applied to the digital billboards as applicable and verified by a study and coordination with City staff prior to the issuance of building permits will ensure that the digital bill boards, especially the easternmost sign located closest to the Santa Ana River, will not significantly impact sensitive species and habitats within the conserved lands.

Comment A-18:

The commenter states that the proposed digital billboard sign located adjacent to the Santa Ana River will be up to 65 feet in height, which clearly exceeds the limitations prescribed by the Municipal Code.

The EIR does not address how potential impacts related to an illuminated sign in this location will be adequately mitigated or reduced through compliance with the Municipal Code. Additional mitigation measures, up to and including relocation of this proposed digital billboard sign, should be identified, and applied.

Response to Comment A-18:

As stated in Section 3.9 of the Specific Plan: “The regulating signage document for the Specific Plan will be a Master Sign Program (MSP). Project level signage will require a site -specific Sign Plan in ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-29 August 2023
conformance with the MSP and in accordance with Sections 3.8, 4.8 and 5.5.4 of the S pecific Plan. In the event of conflict between the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code and the Specific Plan, the Specific Plan shall prevail.” (Emphasis added). The MSP required per the Specific Plan will regulate lighting and require that each freestanding freeway sign must be oriented primarily for viewing from the freeway and shall be oriented, and adequately shielded, if necessary, to prevent the trespass of light and glare on residential uses. In addition, the MSP has established lighting and display require ments such as (a) Lighting and Display Requirements: All freestanding freeway signs where determined applicable must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning brightness, including, without limitation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466 .5, and as amended, (b) Signs shall establish a maximum foot -candle over ambient light levels as determined appropriate by the Community Development Director to confirm compliance with 4a above, (c ) The display brightness shall be controlled by a photocel l or light sensor that adjusts the brightness to the required level based on ambient light conditions without the need for human input. Use of other brightness adjustment methods, such as timer - or calendar-based systems, shall only be used as a backup sys tem, (d) The display shall be factory-certified as capable of complying with the above brightness standards. Such certification shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of the Planning and Building Agency, or his/her designee, and (h) Where sc reen transitions are used, such transitions shall not give the appearance of moving text or images. The sign copy shall not use flashing, intermittent or moving lights or produce the optical illusion of movement or use animation. Establishment of the above Lighting and Display requirements will ensure that any proposed Digital Billboards will be compliant with all regulatory code provisions in place. Refer also to Responses A -9 and A -17; no further response or mitigation measures are required.

Comment A-19:

Table 4.7-5, Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities. The analysis provided in the Draft EIR does not substantiate how or why the Project is consistent with the Goal of the SCAG RTP -SCS.

Discussion is limited to how the Project does not violate localized thresholds for criteria pollutants but goes no further to discuss how the project supports healthy and equitable communities. The Draft EIR should be revised to include additional analysis as to whether and, if so, how the project is consistent with this Goal.

Response to Comment A-19:

The discussion of consistency with SCAG RTP/SCS Goal 6 is focused on the Project’s potential to affect healthy and equitable communities. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would not generate emissions that would negatively affect healthy and equitable communities because the Project does not exceed health-related localized air quality thresholds.

The way a community is designed impacts the likelihood that a person will bike or walk to school, work, or local shops; have access to healthy food or parks; and breathe air that is free of pollutants.

The project includes 11.1 acres of open space. The Open Space land use area accommodates open spaces areas for residents, employees, and visitors in the form of neighborhood parks, urban parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off -street trails. The Open Space Land Use Area also incorporates landscape buffers and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater . The Project’s circulation plan includes street, pedestrian, and bicycle facility improvements that would allow easy access to the other proposed mixed -uses. The Project incorporates community serving pedestrian and bicycle pathways through a multi -use tr ail and sidewalks along A and B Streets. The Project proposes healthy communities’ components including pedestrian paths and bicycle trails.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-30 August 2023
Furthermore, the Project would implement mitigation measures that include, but are not limited to, MM AQ-3 which requires implementation of a TDM program to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and encourage public transit. These measures support reductions in mobile emissions and more equitable transportation options.

Comment A-20:

The commenter states that the Project proposes demolition of existing housing units and as such, the Draft EIR should address applicable California statutes related to preservation and replacement of existing housing units pursuant to Senate Bills 330 and 8 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). Spe cifically, projects that propose to remove existing housing units are obligated to identify whether any of the units proposed for removal are Protected Units pursuant to the Statute and, if so, provide an accounting of the Households Income Level and plans for replacement of the removed housing units at the same income level.

Response to Comment A-20:

This comment is inapplicable; the homeowners of the single -family residences proposed for demolition voluntarily negotiated the sale of their properties and are therefore able to purchase replacement housing elsewhere. As discussed in the EIR, the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) determined that there is a need for 4,497 housing units in order to meet the City’s housing needs. The proposed Proje ct 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. The City has further established incentives and standards to encourage the development of affordab le housing in its 2021-2029 Housing Element. No further response is necessary.

Comment A-21:

The commenter reiterates its concern that the Draft EIR should evaluate whether the units proposed for demolition are occupied by lower -income households and, if so, propose a plan to replace the demolished units with units that are affordable to households with the same income level as the eliminated units.

Response to Comment A-21:

Refer to Response A-20.

Comment A-22:

The Draft EIR states the following:
“David Murray, principal 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 Secti on

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.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-31 August 2023
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.”
Response to Comment A-22:

The trail network is described in the Specific Plan, Section 2.6.4, Trail Network. As described, the Specific Plan will provide multi-use pedestrian trails and bike paths/lanes as a means of connecting residents, visitors, 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 proposed Project will facilitate trail travel between the District of Jurupa Valley and Riverside with a network of trails through a combination of multi -use trail (Class I), pedestrian walkways and bike routes. A Class III bike route will be improved along Crestmore Road that will provide connection from Mission Boulevard to 34th Street and to the proposed Class I multi-use trail that will run through the Project, ultimately connecting with existing Hall Avenue.

As detailed in Section 4.16, Transportation, the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project identifies the improvement and continuation of Santa Ana River trail along the east side of Santa Ana River (City of Riverside). The County of Riverside, in cooperation with the Cities of Riverside and Jurupa Valley, is planned to replace the existing Mission Bo ulevard Bridge over the Santa Ana River.

The proposed project will accommodate two 12 -foot lanes, two 14-foot lanes, two 8-foot shoulders, and a 4-foot median. A 12- foot 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. Construction of the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement is estimated to start Winter of 2023, with completion in Winter of 2026.

Comment A-23:

Consistency with the City of River side’s Trails Master Plan is not substantively discussed or addressed in Section 4.15 (Recreation). The Draft EIR should be revised to address this comment.

Response to Comment A-23:

As noted in Response to A -22, the proposed Project facilitates trail tra vel between the District of Jurupa Valley and Riverside. A Class III bike route will be improved along Crestmore Road that will provide connection from Mission Boulevard to 34th Street and to the proposed Class I multi-use trail that will run through the Project. By way of Crestmore Road, pedestrians and bicyclists are connected to the Santa Ana River Trail. The City of Riverside currently accommodates a multiuse trail along the east side of Santa Ana River and extends north and south from Mission Boulevard.

Comment A-24:

Connections to local, County -adjacent trail systems is not substantively discussed or addressed in Section 4.15 (Recreation). The Draft EIR should be revised to address this comment.

Response to Comment A-24:
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-32 August 2023
As noted in Response to A -22, the proposed Project facilitates trail travel between the District of Jurupa Valley and Riverside. A Class III bike route will be improved along Crestmore Road that will provide connection from Mission Boulevard to 34th Street and to the proposed Class I multi-use trail that will run through the Project. The proposed trail system would provide connections to the County trail networks as described in Response to A -22. With regard to the local trail network, the Project would pro vide an extension of existing trails and pathway from Mission Boulevard, and Rancho Jurupa Park.

Comment A-25:

Section 4.16.1 (Existing Conditions) does not substantively discuss or address how the project will or will not facilitate trail travel between the Project and the City of Riverside, nor does it address how the Project will or will not interface with the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project. The Draft EIR should be revised to address this comment.

Response to Comment A-25:

As noted in Res ponse to A -22, the proposed Project facilitates trail travel between the District of Jurupa Valley and Riverside. A Class III bike route will be improved along Crestmore Road that will provide connection from Mission Boulevard to 34th Street and to the proposed Class I multi-use trail that will run through the Project. By way of Crestmore Road, pedestrians and bicyclists are connected to the Santa Ana River Trail. The Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement was designed and funded in advance of the Project. Co nstruction of the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement is estimated to start Winter of 2023, with completion in Winter of 2026.

Comment A-26:

With regard to Alternative 4 (Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative), the commenter states that the description of “storage” uses is not specific enough to facilitate an adequate comparison between what the Project proposes and what this Alternative would provide. Further to this point, the Draft EIR states that “industrial use in the Specific Plan was used to calculate proportion for storage in this alternative.” This suggests that, despite the Draft EIR’s claim that “long-term commercial or industrial storage that would involve far fewer truck trips than, for example, fulfillment center use,” the land use evaluated i n this Alternative is still industrial in nature and should be evaluated as such; alternatively, the Draft EIR should be revised to analyze a project alternative that does not actually involve any industrial land uses as the name of this Alternative sugges ts it attempts to do. The Draft EIR further does not substantiate how or why “long -term commercial or industrial storage would involve far fewer truck trips” than other industrial land uses described in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment A-26:

The type of long-term commercial or industrial storage contemplated by this alternative would include self-storage, including boat, RV and/or heavy equipment storage. These examples have been included within the Errata of this Final EIR for clarification (page 5-29). The Draft EIR accurately states that these uses would involve far fewer truck trips, as storage facilities are typically accessed by passenger vehicles and light -duty trucks rather than heavy trucks. Therefore, characterizing this alternative as including “reduced” industrial uses is accurate, as storage uses are less intense than other types of industrial development. Alternative 5 (No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative) does not include any industrial uses. (Draft EIR at 5-37). No further response is necessary. ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-33 August 2023
Comment A-27:

The commenter states that Alternative 4 does not legitimately exclude industrial uses, but Table 5.7- 3 (Trip Generation Estimate – Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative) still includes one million square feet of industrial ware house uses. The comment also states that the analysis may overestimate the trip generation, and, by extension, potential greenhouse gas emissions impacts of an Alternative to the Project that genuinely excludes industrial uses.

Response to Comment A-27:

As explained in Draft EIR Section 5.7 (page 5 -29), Alternative 4 is a reduced industrial uses alternative and would not eliminate warehouses. The 900,000 square feet of warehouse under Regional Commercial in Table 5.7 -3 is representative of a furniture ware house, which would be retained in the alternative. Therefore, the comment incorrectly indicates that this analysis may overestimate trip generation and associated greenhouse gas emissions impacts. Also, refer to Response A-26 regarding the type of storage in this alternative.

Comment A-28:

The commenter reiterates that the Draft EIR should be revised to include an alternative that does not include any industrial land uses, whether or not those uses are located within the Commercial land use designation wit h the Integrated Use Overlay or not, and the corresponding analysis should be revised to provide a true comparison between the proposed Project and an alternative that does not include any industrial land uses, be they warehousing, logistics, manufacturing , or any other type of industrial use.

Response to Comment A-28:

Refer to Response A -26. Alternative 5 (No Commercial and Industrial Uses Alternative) does not include any industrial uses. (Draft EIR at 5-37). No further response is necessary.

Comment A-29:

The focused traffic analysis memo indicates that “This memo augments the original District at Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) completed by Kimley-Horn dated July 2022.” However, it appears that the City of Riverside PW Traffic Division has not received the original TIA for review. Considering project’s vicinity from the Mission Inn Boulevard, the Traffic Engineering Division would like to review and comment on the TIA.

Response to Comment A-29:

The focused traffic analysis memo was included and circulated as part of the Notice of Preparation circulated March 31, 2022.

Comment A-30:

The focused traffic analysis does not include the roadway segment of Mission Inn and intersections located in the City of Riverside(i.e., Mt Rubidoux Dr ive at Mission Inn Boulevard.) Please add a roadway volume to capacity ratio analysis for all traffic scenarios along Mission Inn Boulevard between Crestmore Road and Redwood Drive.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-34 August 2023
Response to Comment A-30:

Roadway segment analysis is not required for tr ansportation impacts per CEQA Guidelines Section CEQA 15064.3. which pertains to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and accessibility for transit, bicycle, and pedestrian modes of travel. However, for informational purposes, the intersection analysis (LOS) was determined to be adequate for the analysis of local circulation.

Comment A-31:

Please also include the intersection of Mission Inn Boulevard and Redwood Drive as one of the study area intersections in the traffic study.

Response to Comment A-31:

At the commenter’s request, additional analysis was completed for this intersection, which indicates that with the Project and the addition of a growth factor and cumulative projects, additional delay would occur above the City’s threshold of two seconds. Level of Service (LOS) would remain LOS E (refer to the Supplemental Letter Memorandum included within the RTC FEIR as Appendix FEIR-10).

This additional analysis and Supplemental Letter Memorandum are for informational purposes only and do not change the text or mitigation in the Draft EIR nor do they change the results of the Draft EIR.

Consistent with the 2018 CEQA Guidelines update and Senate Bill 743, vehicle miles traveled replaced LOS for pu rposes of determining significance under CEQA. Therefore, impacts to intersection LOS delay no longer constitute a significant transportation impact under CEQA. The City of Riverside 2025 General Plan Map (Figure CCM -4) does not depict Redwood Drive, as it is not designated as an arterial. Therefore, City of Riverside General Plan Policy CCM -2.3 does not apply to Redwood Drive as a local street:

Policy CCM-2.3: Maintain LOS D or better on Arterial Streets wherever possible. At key locations, such as City A rterials that are used by regional freeway bypass traffic and at heavily traveled freeway interchanges, allow LOS E at peak hours as the acceptable standard on a case -by-case basis. (Emphasis added).

Even as to Mission Inn Avenue (which is classified as a n arterial), the language of Policy CCM -2.3 is not mandatory, as it simply encourages that this LOS be achieved “wherever possible”. Furthermore, City of Riverside General Plan Policy CCM -2.2 recognizes that short -term delays at peak hours may be tolerated when balanced with other considerations:

Policy CCM-2.2: Balance the need for free traffic flow with economic realities and environmental and aesthetic considerations, such that streets are designed to handle normal traffic flows with tolerances to allow for potential short-term delays at peak-flow hours.

This policy was likely due to the conclusions of the City of Riverside 2025 General Plan EIR (certified in 2007, prior to SB 743 and the 2018 update to the CEQA Guidelines), which acknowledged significant and unavoidable City -wide transportation impacts related to the following thresholds:
increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system; and exceedance, either individually or cumulatively , a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways (see City of Riverside General Plan EIR at pages 5.15-24 to 5.15-36; 5.15-41). ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-35 August 2023
Reasoning for these significant and unavoidable impact con clusions included the fact that “the City will experience a higher rate of growth in travel than the southern California region as a whole, which reflects the fact that portions of the City are still growing more rapidly than the rate at which the remaining region is developing” and that “[the] comparison between existing and proposed Project traffic indicate an increase in traffic which is substantial, at least 50 percent, in relation to the existing traffic load” (Id. at 5.15-24 to -25).

Therefore, even if the additional delay at the Mission Inn Boulevard/Redwood Drive intersection constituted a significant impact under CEQA (which it does not), any such impact would have already been accounted for and disclosed within the City of Riverside’s General Plan EIR. The overall LOS will remain unchanged. No new impacts under CEQA have been identified for the Project, and recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required simply due to the fact that the requested intersection analysis has been provided for informational purposes.

Even if a general plan contains an LOS standard and a project is found to exceed that standard, that conflict should not be analyzed under CEQA. CEQA is focused on planning conflicts that lead to environmental impacts. Auto delay, on its own , is no longer an environmental impact under CEQA. (See Pub. Resources Code § 21099(b)(2).) However, this impact will be addressed with a condition of approval imposed by the City of Jurupa Valley, as discussed in the Supplemental Letter Memorandum.

Comment A-32:

The trip distribution for residential and retail components only shows 5% and 2% traffic routed through Mission Inn Boulevard which seems unreasonable considering the Mission Bridge Project which will improve traffic circulation.

Response to Comment A-32:

As stated in Response A -30, trip distribution for purposes of Level of Service (LOS) analysis is not required under CEQA. However, for informational purposes, with the Project’s proximity to SR -60, Project trips are anticipated to utilize the freeway, as it relates to the residential and regional retail.

Local retail is anticipated to attract a small percentage trips from Riverside, which is approximately 5%.

Comment A-33:

The Truck Circulation Plan shows that the trucks will not utilize Missi on Inn Avenue/Mission Boulevard. However, the study does not address which measures will be implemented to restrict heavy vehicle traffic on Mission Inn Avenue/Mission Boulevard towards the City of Riverside. The City of Jurupa Valley should implement heav y vehicle restrictions to limit heavy vehicle traffic on Mission Inn Avenue/Mission Boulevard towards the City of Riverside.

Response to Comment A-33:

Section 2.6.3, Truck Circulation, of the Specific Plan describes the traffic control measures to direct trucks. Street designs will be implemented to discourage trucks from entering or traveling through the Residential Land Use Area or on existing 34th Street (which connects to Mission Boulevard).

Traffic calming devices will also be incorporate and include the following:
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-36 August 2023
• A gateway treatment at A Street along Rubidoux Avenue, which should have height restriction element;
• A roundabout shall be a design feature included at the intersections of Wallace Avenue and A Street; and
• Bike lanes will be included within the multi-use trail network along A Street, B Street, and Wallace south of future roundabout.

The combination of the above will direct truck traffic to commercial corridors, promote lower speeds adjacent to the Residential Land Use Areas and provide a means to improve pedestrian and vehicular safety.

❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-37 August 2023

COMMENT LETTER B
Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law, Executive Director,
Advocates for the Environment
10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040,
(818) 650-0030 X101, [email protected]
This comment below was received in the form of a pdf letter attached to an email from Dean Wallraff, sent on July 31, 2023:

Comment B-1:

The commenter provides background information about Advocates for the Environment.

Response to Comment B-1:

The comment provides introductory statements and does not include any specific comments on the Draft EIR. The City acknowledges t he comment as an introduction to comments that follow. No further response is required or necessary.

Comment B-2:

The commenter states their understanding of the proposed Project and the Project location.

Response to Comment B-2:

This comment does not present substantive comment on the Draft EIR’s analysis and no revisions to the Draft EIR are required in response to this general comment.

Comment B-3:

The comment is a heading generally stating the commenter’s opinion that the City should require the Project to be net-zero.

Response to Comment B-3:

Refer to Response B-4.

Comment B-4:

The commenter states that because there is a California state policy requiring the state to be net zero by 2045, it makes no sense to construct new buildings that are not net zero.

Response to Comment B-4:

It appears that the commenter is referring to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan for A chieving Carbon Neutrality (2022 Scoping Plan) which lays out a path to achieve targets for carbon neutrality and reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 85 percent below 1990 levels no later than 2045, as directed by Assembly Bill 1279. The comme nter has provided no specific data to support the statement that the buildings (both residential and non - ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-38 August 2023
residential) will not be built in compliance with the 2022 Scoping Plan. Appendix D of the 2022 Scoping Plan provides a framework for local jurisdictions to determine consistency with the Plan. As discussed in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, the Project implements several features that contribute to meeting the goals of Assembly Bill 1279 , including but not limited to, providing EV charging infrastructure; is located on an infill site that is surrounded by existing urban uses that is presently served by existing utilities and essential public services (e.g., transit, streets, water, sewer); does not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands; provides transit -supportive densities (minimum of 20 residential dwelling units per acre); and is in proximity to existing transit stops (within a half mile). (Also refer to Response B-5).

A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Technical Report prepare d by Kimley Horn evaluated that Project impact significance was determined by comparing project design and sustainability features to priority GHG reduction strategies outlined in the 2022 California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Ne utrality (2022 Scoping Plan), adopted for achieving statewide emissions reduction goals outlined in Assembly Bill (AB) 1279, and local plans to achieve GHG targets.

Specifically, the project is compared 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D, Local Actions, and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) goals. The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan identifies three priority areas that local jurisdictions should prioritize when creating a CAP and implementing sustainability measures associated with projects.

The three priority areas are: 1. T ransportation Electrification 2. VMT Reduction and 3. Building Decarbonization.

Transportation Electrification. Table 3 in the 2022 Scoping Plan, Appendix D, notes that to be clearly consistent with the State’s goals, projects should provide EV charging infrastructure that, at minimum, meets the most ambitious voluntary standard in the CALGreen code. The Project is consistent with this attribute as MM GHG -2 requires project EV charging to meet CALGreen Tier 2 standards (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39).

VMT Reduction. The Scoping Plan notes that to be consistent with the VMT reduction attribute, projects should be locate d on sites that are surrounded by existing urban uses and reuses or redevelops previously undeveloped or underutilized land; do not result in the loss or conversion of natural and working lands; and consist of transit -supportive densities (minimum of 20 re sidential dwelling units per acre). The proposed Project is surrounded by existing urban uses, does not result in the loss of natural and working lands (i.e., it would redevelop underutilized vacant disturbed land, with limited previous development of olde r residential properties), and has a density of approximately 30 dwelling units per acre. Additionally, the Project site is located in close proximity to existing transit routes and the Riverside City Center. Furthermore, MM AQ -3 (see the Project Air Quality Assessment) would reduce mobile source emissions through the implementation of a TDM program (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 39-40).

Building Decarbonization. Building decarbonization involves maximizing energy efficiency and eliminating use of fossil fuel ener gy. MM GHG -1 requires the Project to include renewable solar energy, MM GHG -2 requires the Project to meet CALGreen Tier 2 energy efficiency standards, MM AQ-5 requires the use of electric landscape equipment, MM GHG-3 requires electric Energy Star rated appliances, and MM AQ -13 prohibits natural gas use in residential structures (Kimley -Horn, 2023c, p. 40).

The proposed Project would include the ARB 2022 Scoping Plan Appendix D key residential and mixed-use project attributes as design features or mitigation (refer to MM GHG-1 through MM GHG- ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-39 August 2023
4). As noted above, these measures include EV charging stations, TDM measures, transit -supportive densities, and building decarbonization, as well as prohibiting wood -burning fireplaces, requiring solar panels, requiri ng energy conserving appliances, and requiring low -flow toilets and faucets (Kimley-Horn, 2023c, p. 40).

The city has not adopted a net zero threshold for land development projects where the vast majority of operational GHG emissions result from mobile -source emissions. As discussed in Response to Comment B-16, it is not currently feasible to entirely mitigate the Project’s mobile-source emissions due to current jurisdictional and technological constraints. Nonetheless, the City is still requiring all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions to the maximum extent practicable and anticipates that the Project’s GHG emissions will reduce over time as more stringent regulations come into effect and technology improves and becomes more widespread.

Comment B-5:

The commenter refers to two unrelated development projects which voluntarily chose to be “net - zero”, and refers to text in the 2017 CARB Scoping Plan that indicates that no net additional increase in GHG emissions is an appropriate overall objective.

Response to Comment B-5:

With regard to the projects referenced by the commenter, the 2022 CARB Scoping Plan notes that “…the Newhall and Tejon Ranch projects do not necessarily represent the type of development that California most needs to simultaneously tackle the housing and c limate crises…”. The 2022 CARB Scoping Plan notes that a number of key State actions should be accounted for in local target-setting, including zero -emission light -duty vehicles (relevant to transportation electrification); smart growth/VMT reduction (rele vant to vehicle miles traveled reduction); and new and existing residential and commercial buildings (relevant to building decarbonization). 1 The Scoping Plan cautions using net-zero targets and specifically notes that jurisdictions considering a net-zero target should carefully consider the implications it may have on emissions in neighboring communities and beyond. Appendix D page 18 of the Scoping Plan states the following:

Jurisdictions should also avoid creating targets that are impossible to meet as a basis to determine significance. For example, a net -zero target may imply that the GHG emissions of any project that are not reduced or offset to zero would be considered potentially significant. This may lead to undue burdens and frustrate project appr oval processes, which may be particularly problematic for residential development in climate-smart, infill areas. In addition, some jurisdictions have more land capacity to remove and store carbon, while others host GHG-emitting facilities that serve necessary functions and will take time to transition to new technology (e.g., municipal wastewater treatment plants, landfills, energy generation facilities).

Local governments have the discretion to adopt targets that apply to their jurisdictions as long as those targets are supported by substantial evidence.2

1 California Air Resources Board, 2022 Scoping Plan for Achieving Carbon Neutrality, Appendix D: Local Actions, Page 15, November 2022.
2 Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15183.5.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-40 August 2023
Draft EIR page 4.7 -24 through page 4.7 -28 discusses the Project’s consistency with CARB’s 2022 Scoping Plan. As discussed in the Draft EIR, the Project would provide EV Charging infrastructure that wo uld exce ed building code requirements ( MM GHG -2) to facilitate transportation electrification; reduce VMT by providing high density residential development with a mix of uses and surrounded by existing development and requiring a Transportation Demand Mana gement (TDM) plan ( MM AQ -3); and facilitate building decarbonization by requiring energy efficient buildings exceeding building code standards ( MM AQ-5) and prohibiting the use of natural gas in residential structures (MM AQ-13).

As described above and in the Draft EIR, Project mitigation includes EV charging stations, TDM measures, transit-supportive densities, and building decarbonization, as well as prohibiting wood - burning fireplaces, requiring solar panels, requiring energy conserving appliances, and requiring low-flow toilets and faucets to minimize GHG emissions and ensure consistency with the State GHG reduction goals outlined in the CARB Scoping Plan.

The Project would be directly affected by the outcomes of existing regulations to reduce vehicle a nd energy emissions (vehicle trips and energy consumption would be less carbon intensive due to statewide compliance with future low carbon fuel standard amendments and increasingly stringent Renewable Portfolio Standards).

Comment B-6:

The commenter reiterates its position that the Project should be net-zero.

Response to Comment B-6:

Refer to Response to Comment B-4.

Comment B-7:

The comment is a heading generally stating the commenter’s opinion that the Project’s GHG impacts must be fully mitigated.

Response to Comment B-7:

See below for responses to specific comments.

Comment B-8:

The comment discusses the Project-related GHG emissions and mitigation measures presented in the Draft EIR, and generally states that there are other re adily available mitigation measures to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions.

Response to Comment B-8:

The Draft EIR requires the implementation of all feasible and enforceable mitigation measures designed to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. The comment generally indicates other mitigation measures are available. See below for responses to specific comments.

Comment B-9:
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-41 August 2023
The commenter attempts to quantify the Project’s lifetime GHG emissions as a basis for suggesting that additional mitigation is warranted.

Response to Comment B-9:

The comment incorrectly applies an estimate for warehouse lifetime to the entire project.

Warehousing is just one component of the Project, which also includes residential, retail, hotel, and business park. Additional ly, according to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a), mitigation measures must be feasible, roughly proportional, not inappropriately deferred, capable of being monitored or reported, fully enforceable, and based on substantial evidence. They must als o have a nexus to a legitimate governmental interest. Commenter does not suggest any such additional mitigation measures meeting this criteria that have not already been included for the Project.

Comment B-10:

The comment is a heading generally stating t he commenter’s opinion that the EIR identifies ineffective and insufficient mitigation.

Response to Comment B-10:

Refer to Response B-11.

Comment B-11:

The commenter claims that MM AQ-133 (sic) is vague and unenforceable.

Response to Comment B-11:

It is assumed that the commenter is referring to MM AQ-13, which specifically prohibits the use of natural gas in residential development and enforcement and verification is tied to building permits.

The building permit application process requires the submittal of plans for City review. As required by MM AQ -13, the City Building Department would confirm that plans do not show natural gas connections for residential development before permits can be issued. This measure is verified by the City through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and enforced t hrough the development review and building inspection process. The comment does not provide any evidence that MM AQ-13 is vague and unenforceable.

Comment B-12:

The comment generally indicates that some of the GHG mitigation measures only apply to air quality and would not reduce GHG emissions.

Response to Comment B-12:

The comment does not identify a specific mitigation measure. See below for responses to specific comments.

Comment B-13:
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-42 August 2023
The comment incorrectly states that MM GHG-5 is not likely to have a large impact of GHG emissions (sic).

Response to Comment B-13:

Presumably, commenter intended to state that MM GHG -5 would not have a large impact on GHG emissions. However, using all e lectric landscape equipment will progressively lower the Project’s carbon footprint as California increasingly obtains its electricity from renewable sources.

Comment B-14:

The comment is a heading generally stating the commenter’s opinion that the infea sibility finding lacks substantial evidence.

Response to Comment B-14:

Refer to Response B-16.

Comment B-15:

The comment makes a general statement that there are other readily available mitigation measures to further reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. This comment is an introduction to comments that follow.

Response to Comment B-15:

Refer to Response B-16.

Comment B-16:

The commenter provides examples of additional mitigation measures it claims to be feasible.

Response to Comment B-16:

The best available emissions control technology suggested in the comment include requiring fleets to use alternative fuel types, limiting the use of heavy duty -diesel trucks, requiring the use of non - diesel fuels, and requiring the use of zero-emission commercial vehicles. The suggested measures are directed at reducing vehicle emissions. The Draft EIR includes numerous mitigation measure to reduce vehicle emissions. For example, MM AQ -3 through MM AQ -13 would be implemented to reduce operational emissions to the gre atest amount feasible. MM AQ -3 incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, MM AQ-4 prohibits the use of natural gas and wood burning fireplaces, and MM AQ-5 requires the use of electric landscape equipment. However, eve n with mitigation, operational emissions would remain above the SCAQMD’s thresholds for ROG, NOX, and CO. In addition, MM AQ-6 through MM AQ-12 are related to warehouse operations. MM AQ-6 requires the buildings’ electrical room to be sufficiently sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to supply power for the future installation of electric vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site and supply power to trailers with transport refrigeration units (TRUs) during the loading/unloading of refrigerated goods. MM AQ-7 requires all TRUs entering the Project site to be plug -in capable. MM AQ-8 requires that a ll truck access gates and loading docks within the Project site shall have a sign posted that requires the driver to turn off ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-43 August 2023
their engines when not in use. MM AQ -9 requires that vendor trucks for the industrial buildings include energy efficiency improvem ent features through the Carl Moyer Program. MM AQ -10 requires residential, commercial, and industrial buildings to provide electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and a minimum of 12 percent carpool parking spaces at each building. MM AQ-11 requires all outdoor cargo handling equipment shall be zero emission/powered by electricity and standard emergency generators to be Tier 4 certified. MM AQ -12 requires industrial tenants to comply with the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). MM AQ-13 would prohibit natural gas use in residential structures.

As noted on Draft EIR page 4.2 -19 and page 4.7 -9, SCAQMD Rule 2305 would require the implementation of reduction strategies for the proposed warehouse, which include requiring ZE/NZE truck vi sits, ZE yard trucks (already required by MM AQ-11), on-site ZE charging/fueling infrastructure, on-site energy systems, among others. Warehouse operators that do include enough measures would be required to pay a mitigation fee. Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling infrastructure in communities nearby.

Additionally, the Draft EIR includes mitigation measure in Section 4.7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, that would reduce emissions. MM GHG -1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions . MM GHG -2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further improve energy efficiency (i.e., exceed the mandatory measures of the State Building Code); MM GHG-3 requires the residential projects to utilize energy efficient appliances; and MM GHG-4 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills.

Also, the State of California is regulating and requiring the use of cleaner trucks. C ARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation, which was adopted by CARB in 2008, requires that all diesel truck fleets operating in California adhere to an aggressive schedule for upgrading and replacing heavy -duty truck engines.

Beginning January 1, 2023, all heavy tru cks operating on California roads must have engines that meet 2010 emissions standards. Lighter trucks (those with a gross vehicle weight rating of 14,001 to 26,000 pounds) adhered to a similar schedule and were all replaced by 2020. Furthermore, in mid- 2022, CARB passed a landmark rule that will require all trucks sold in California to be zero-emission by 2045. 3 As stated by CARB, “The ‘Heavy -Duty Low NO X Omnibus Regulation’ will require manufacturers to comply with tougher emissions standards, overhaul engine testing procedures, and further extend engine warranties to ensure that emissions of NOX are reduced. CARB then-Chair Mary D. Nichols is quoted stating that “[t]his regulation ensures that conventional diesel trucks will run as cleanly as possible at every point in their duty cycle. It takes a significant bite out of smog -forming pollution in every region in the state….”.4
The imposition of additional mitigation measures by the City to control mobile source GHG emissions above and beyond those presen ted in the Draft EIR are either not feasible or are not necessary because the progression toward clean truck technologies is already occurring as regulated by the State. Compliance with State regulations as well as MM AQ-6 (EV truck charging infrastructure), MM AQ-7 (TRUs to be plug-in capable), and MM AQ-9 (energy efficiency for trucks/Carl Moyer Program) assure that the warehouse component of the Project will be highly progressive in attracting clean trucks.

3 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/california-adopts-strong-new-regulation-further-reduce-smog-forming-pollution- heavy-duty
4 Ibid.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-44 August 2023
While mitigation measures are included to reduc e mobile source emissions from heavy -duty trucks to the extent feasible, it is important to note that both the Project Applicant, future tenants, and the City are limited in their ability to regulate and enforce the types of vehicles that would access the Project site, and current industry practices and technological constraints preclude the inclusion of a mitigation measure that places in broad strokes restrictions on the types of trucks that would access the Project.

First, the vast majority of trucks tra veling throughout the State and nation are diesel -fueled, as currently permitted by State and federal laws and regulations. CARB and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are the only two agencies empowered to regulate mobile sources (i.e., automobiles and trucks). These agencies have consistently set more stringent regulations to reduce mobile source emissions and are expected to continue to do so; however, current regulations do allow for the use of diesel-fueled trucks, and the City nor Project Applic ant do not have the jurisdictional authority to regulate the types of vehicles that would access the Project site. If CARB’s desire is to require cleaner- than-presently-required engines, it is within CARB’s ability to do so. At present, CARB’s Truck and Bus Regulation is in place, which would require the Project’s future building tenants to comply with the applicable phase-in timelines required by state regulation to ensure that any heavy trucks serving the Project would meet engine requirements. Additionally, in June 2020, CARB adopted the Advanced Clean Trucks Regulation that requires truck manufacturers to transition from diesel trucks and vans to electric zero-emission trucks beginning in 2024. By 2045, every new truck sold in California will be required to be zero-emission. When commercial availability of electric-powered long-haul trucks is more readily available in the future, it is expected that such trucks will be part of the Project’s operation, and mitigation measures are in place to require that the Project is accommodating of these vehicles in the future with electric charging infrastructure (MM AQ-6).

Additionally, the regional and nation -wide goods movement sector inherently relies on a combination of various truck fleets composed of primarily diesel-powered trucks to deliver goods to their destinations. Warehouse tenants typically rely on a mix of both corporate fleets and independent owner -operator trucks to deliver goods to their destinations. While some tenants of industrial facilities have t heir own fleets, many tenants rely on a mix of both corporate fleets and independent owner-operators, and they can thus not control the types of trucks that are accessing their facilities.

Current technologies further preclude the inclusion of mitigation measures that place exclusions on the types of vehicles that would access the Project site, beyond those regulations currently enacted by the State. The City acknowledges that the transporta tion sector is making strides in developing technologies that will reduce air pollutant and GHG emissions over time, and the City will promote and advance their use as they are developed and implemented on a wide scale; however, many of these advancements, such as electric trucks that would eliminate and/or substantially reduce the Project’s air pollutant and GHG emissions, are in their early stages and not yet commercially available or viable in mass. The suggestion to require prospective tenants to mainta in a fully alternatively fueled or electrified fleet that powers itself through solar panels on warehouse roofs is not yet feasible given the lack of availability of electric heavy -duty trucks. Moreover, there is not yet a sufficient network of electric ve hicle charging stations in the region to support long -distance haul tips. While the market share of electric heavy -duty trucks is anticipated to increase significantly in the coming years, placing a restriction on vehicles accessing the Project site would not be feasible.

Nonetheless, it is anticipated that the current mitigation measures that would be required of the Project will lead to discrete reductions in mobile-source emissions in the short-term, as well as lay a foundation for substantial reductions in air pollutant and GHG emissions in the future by providing ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-45 August 2023
the necessary infrastructure for the electrification of the goods movement sector. However, the City at this time cannot exclude diesel heavy -duty trucks, which are currently legal to operate i n California, from accessing the Project.

Comment B-17:

The comment asserts that there are mitigation measures available beyond those listed in the Draft EIR that could be imposed on the Project to reduce GHG emissions.

Response to Comment B-17:

The City has carefully considered all public comments suggesting additional mitigation measures including those suggested in the comment, and has identified all feasible mitigation measures.

Specifically, the comment identifies solar panels, solar water he aters, automatic light switches as possible mitigation measures. Draft EIR MM GHG-1 requires the installation of photovoltaic solar panels to offset energy emissions. MM GHG-2 requires the Project to meet or exceed CALGreen Tier 2 standards to further impr ove energy efficiency, MM GHG -3 requires the residential projects to utilize energy efficient appliances, and MM GHG-4 requires the Project to divert 75 percent of waste from landfills. Therefore, the Draft EIR incorporates the measures suggested by the co mment.

Meeting or exceeding CALGreen Tier 2 standards require homes to meet stringent efficiency standards including water heating and lighting. The City has imposed every mitigation measure that is feasible and is within its jurisdictional authority to impose and enforce.

Comment B-18:

The comment generally indicates existing mitigation measures can be strengthened and more measures may be added to the extent feasible.

Response to Comment B-18:

The comment does not identify specific measures. Refer to Response B-19 below.

Comment B-19:

The comment suggests that as MM AQ -5 requires landscaping equipment to be 100 percent electrically powered, other industrial equipment should also be required to be electrically powered.

The commenter also states that the prohibition of natural gas should be extended to commercial and industrial structures as well, and claims that there is no basis for why diversion of 75% of landfill waste is the maximum extent feasible for the Project.

Response to Comment B-19:

This is already required by Draft EIR MM AQ-11. MM AQ-11 requires All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity.

MM AQ-13 – prohibits natural gas usage in residential structures MM GHG-3 – requires energy efficiency for residential appliances ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-46 August 2023
MM GHG-4 requires diverting 75 percent of landfill waste to be consistent with the State’s goal established in AB 341. The comment speculates that further diversion c ould be feasible but does not provide a recommendation or any support for that claim.

Comment B-20:

The commenter suggests that the Project could go beyond the mandatory measures of the California Green Building Standards Code and incorporate voluntary measures as mitigation.

Response to Comment B-20:

MM GHG -2 requires the project to meet the Tier 2 voluntary standards of the Green Building Standards Code. The Tier 2 voluntary standards add additional requirements beyond the mandatory and Tier 1 voluntary measures. Therefore, pursuant to MM GHG-2 the Project would go beyond the mandatory measures and incorporated voluntary measures, as requested in the comment. The comment also suggests including green roof strategies; however, the comment does not provid e indicate if this measure would be feasible in Jurupa Valley. Additionally, roof space would be occupied by solar panels, mechanical equipment, and skylights, which limit the feasibility of green roofs for the Project.

Comment B-21:

The commenter states that the Project should implement incentives to provide free or reduced parking rates for registered carpools or vanpools, provide on-site carsharing vehicles or bikes, allow for flexible or alternative work hours and provide access to convenient services within walking distance of the site.

Response to Comment B-21:

Draft EIR MM AQ-3 incorporates implementation of a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. MM AQ -3 requires the TDM plan to discourage single -occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking.

The TDM plan is required to include various measures to incentivize carpooling, including ride - matching assistance, preferential carpool parking, flexible work sched ules for carpools, half -time transportation coordinators, providing a web site or message board for coordinating rides, designating adequate passenger loading and unloading and waiting areas for ride -sharing vehicles, and including bicycle end of trip facilities. Additionally, MM AQ-10 requires residential, commercial, and industrial buildings to provide electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and a minimum of 12 percent carpool parking spaces at each building.

Comment B-22:

The comment makes an other general statement that there are other available mitigation measures to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions beyond those identified in the Draft EIR.

Response to Comment B-22:

The commenter is referred to Response to Comment B -16 for a summary of all mitigation measures that would reduce GHG emissions.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-47 August 2023
Comment B-23:

The comment is a heading generally stating the commenter’s opinion that solar panel installation is a feasible mitigation measure.

Response to Comment B-23:

Refer to Response B-24.

Comment B-24:

The comment requests solar panels.

Response to Comment B-24:

Draft EIR MM GHG-1 requires renewable energy generation (i.e., solar photovoltaic panels). Plans Policies, and Programs (PPP) 4.7-4 is a requirement in the California Building Code. MM GHG-1 goes beyond the building code requirement of requiring the buildings to be solar ready. The Project’s mitigation requires installation of solar panels on the entire solar ready zone (as defined by Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code). The comment incorrectly states that Draft EIR relies on an arbitrary 15 percent roof area.

Comment B-25:

The comment incorrectly states that the Draft EIR does not comment on the feasibility of solar mitigation measures.

Response to Comment B-25:

As stated in response B -24, Draft EIR MM GHG-1 requires installation of s olar panels on the entire rooftop solar ready zone (i.e., the maximum available roof space).

Comment B-26:

The comment is a heading generally stating the commenter’s opinion that offsets are feasible.

Response to Comment B-26:

Refer to Response B-27.

Comment B-27:

The commenter claims that the City can meet the additionality requirement by using a carbon registry which tracks offsets to ensure that they are additional and have not been claimed by anyone else.

Response to Comment B-27:

The comment asserts, without elaboration, that “[t]here are many available sources for the purchase of CEQA-compliant offsets …”. Although it is true that it is possible to purchase carbon offsets, even offset credits purchased from CARB -approved offset project registrie s have been determined in ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-48 August 2023
certain circumstances to not adequately assure that purchased offset credits accurately and reliably represent actual emissions reductions, or to not guarantee that such reductions are not already required by law. As discussed in the Draft EIR (pages 4.7 -18 through 4.7-19), this is due to the fact that “over -crediting” can occur based on the generation of credits from actions that would have happened regardless of the offset program. If an offset program generates credits from redu ctions that would have happened regardless of the offset program, and this causes the protocols to generate more credits than actual reductions in emissions, the emitter’s emissions are not truly offset, 5 and therefore would not be considered adequate mitigation under CEQA.

In addition, it should be noted that the vast majority of emissions that will be generated by the Project, including mobile emissions and energy emissions, are subject to the California Cap and Trade program, which places an economy-wide “cap” on major sources of GHG emissions, such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities and transportation fuels. For example, “’Fuel suppliers’ are responsible for the carbon pollution from fuels under the Cap -and-Trade Program” and thus must acquire “allowances” to cover all carbon pollution from such fuels. 6 They may also purchase certain approved offsets to fulfill up to 8 percent of their compliance obligation. 7 Given that more than 95 percent of the emissions that will be generated by the Project are covered by Cap and Trade and thus are already subject to a regulatory program that includes offsets, Rather (Refer to Response B -4 for Consistency with 2022 Scoping Plan). The City has authority as lead agency under CEQA to exercise discretion in determining the efficacy of mitigation measures.

Comment B-28:

The commenter suggests that the City has enforcement authority related to carbon offsets.

Response to Comment B-28:

Refer to Response to Comment B -16 and B -27. Neither the City nor Project Applicant have the jurisdictional authority to regulate the types of vehicles that would access the Project site. CARB currently implements regulations to reduce emissions from mobile sources, which make up the majority of the Project’s emissions.

Comment B-29:

The commenter claims that CEQA does not restrict mitigation to local measures and that the Project can also create its own measures to sequester GHG emissions or offset Project emissions, such as a conservation easement or restoration.

Response to Comment B-29:

The Project includes 11.1 acres of open space, which would be dedicated as public park space. Also, refer to Response to Comment B-5. The Project is consistent with the local actions identified by CARB to be consistent with GHG reduction goals by i mplementing transportation electrification, VMT

5 Stockholm Environment Institute and Greenhouse Gas Management Institute. Carbon Offset Guide. How Carbon Offset Programs Address Additionality. Website: https://www.offsetguide.org/high-quality- offsets/additionality/high-quality-offsets-additionality-how-carbon-offset-programs-address-additionality/. 6 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/cap-and-trade/guidance/faq_fuel_purchasers.pdf 7 https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/2020/d075328.html ❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-49 August 2023
reduction, and building decarbonization measures. Additionally, refer to Response to Comment B-16 and B-27.

Comment B-30:

The commenter reiterates its position that the City should require the Project Applicant to purchase carbon offsets.

Response to Comment B-30:

Refer to Response to Comment B-27 through B-29 regarding GHG offsets.

Comment B-31:

The commenter provides concluding remarks and states that additional feasible mitigation should be considered an d that the lead agency has not met its burden of showing that such measures are infeasible. The commenter states that the DEIR should be amended to reflect all feasible mitigation as well as a reasonable range of alternatives, to mitigate the Project’s “fair share” of GHG emissions.

Response to Comment B-31:

Refer to Response to Comment B-16 regarding mitigating all of the Project’s significant GHG impacts to the fair share extent. The City has imposed every mitigation measure in Draft EIR that is feasible and is within the jurisdictional authority of the City of Jurupa Valley to impose and enforce. The commenter has not suggested any additional feasible mitigation that would lessen the Project’s impacts.

Comment B-32:

The commenter requests to be added to the Project’s interest list to receive Project updates.

Response to Comment B-32:

The City acknowledges this request and affirms that commenter is on the City’s public notification list for Project-related public notices.
❖ RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page II-50 August 2023

COMMENT LETTER C
Stephanie Papayanis, Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue, Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101
(626) 381-9248, [email protected]
This comment below was received in the form of a pdf letter attached to an email from Stephanie Papayanis, Attorneys for Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters, on letterhead of Mitchell M. Tsai, sent on July 30, 2023.

Comment C-1:

On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Jurupa Valley’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) (SCH No. 2021030401) for the District at Jurupa Valley Project (MA21269) (SP21001) (SCH #: 2022040044) (“Project”).

Response to Comment C-1:

Introduction information. Comment noted.

Comment C-2:

SWMSRCC would like to express its support for this Project. After further reviewing this Project, SWMSRCC believes that the Project will benefit the environment and the local economy by practicing protocols that will protect worker health and safety and will incorporate adequate environmental mitigation.

Should the City have any questions or concerns, the City should feel free to contact my office.

Response to Comment C-2:

Comment expresses support for the project so no further response is required.

III. Revisions, Clarifications, and Corrections to the
Draft EIR
❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-1 August 2023
III. REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR This section of the Final EIR provides changes to the Draft EIR that have been made to revise, clarify, or correct the environmental analysis for the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan (Project). Changes in this section are a result of comments received in response to the Draft EIR. The changes detailed in this section do not result in the Project creating any new or increased significant environmental impacts.

This section contains the following sub-sections: Section 3.1, Corrections and Additions to Draft EIR Sections and Appendices; and Section 3.2, Effect of Corrections and Revisions.

Added text is shown underlined and deleted text in strikeout.

3.1 Corrections and Additions to Draft EIR Sections and Appendices

3.1.1 Section 1.0 Executive Summary
Section 1.0 Executive Summary, 1.1, Project Overview, Discretionary Permits, third bullet on page 1-1:

Two places in the Draft EIR (page 1-1 and page 3 -1) state that following “Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Plan Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan to the new District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan ”. This statement is incorrect and was deleted with strikethrough in this Final EIR Errata. The existing zoning for the project site is already designated as “Specific Plan” and will remain as such, therefore no actual change of zone designation is required. • Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Plan Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan to the new District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan

3.1.2 Section 2.0 Introduction and Purpose
Section 2.6, Responsible and Trustee Agencies, Page 2-9, Table 2.6-1, in response to Comment A- 9:

California Department of Transportation
(CalTrans)
Responsible for issuance of encroachment permits if
required and Outdoor Advertising Permit.

3.1.3 Section 3.0 Project Description
Section 3.1, Introduction and Project Background, third paragraph, third bullet, page 3-1:

Two places in the Draft EIR (page 1-1 and page 3 -1) state that following “Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Plan Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specifi c Plan to the new District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan ”. This statement is incorrect and was deleted with strikethrough in this Final EIR Errata. The existing zoning for the project site is already designated as “Specific Plan” and will remain as such, therefore no actual change of zone designation is required. • Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Plan Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan to the new District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan ❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-2 August 2023
Section 3.4.2, Proposed Land Uses, Page 3-7, Table 3.4-1, in response to Comment A-4:

Notes were added to Table 3.4-1 for clarification.

Table 3.4-1

PROPOSED LAND USE SUMMARY
Land Use Gross
Acreage1
Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)2
Hotel
Rooms3
Dwelling
Unit

COMMERCIAL

Neighborhood 20.4 160,000 --- ---
Retail5 70.3 1,200,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.1 --- ---
Tourist 5.9 112,500 160 ---
Commercial Sub-Total 97.7 1,472,500 160 ---

RESIDENTIAL

High Density Residential2 42.0 --- --- 1,196
25+ du/acre

Residential Sub-Total 42.0 --- --- 1,196

BUSINESS PARK

Business Park4 6.8 30,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.0 --- ---
Business Park Sub-Total 7.8 30,000 --- ---

INDUSTRIAL/LOGISTICS

Industrial 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---
Industrial Sub-total 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---

OPEN SPACE

Open Space 11.1 --- --- ---
Open Space Sub-Total 11.1 --- --- ---

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

Public Streets 15.8 --- --- ---
Public Parkway - --- --- ---
Public Facility 6.6 --- --- ---
Public Imp Sub-Total 22.4 --- --- ---
TOTALS 248.3 acres 3,002,500 SF 160 Rooms 1,196 Units
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2023.

Notes:

2. Hotel Square Feet is estimated for purpose of FAR calculation only. Subsequent development applications may exceed the total square feet, provided that the maximum Land Use FAR is not exceeded.

3. Hotel Rooms are the basis of trip generation for technical study purpose and represents the maximum number of hotel rooms within the Land Use area.

4. Adjustments to Commercial Tourist and Business Park total square feet can be made if the maximum FAR is maintained and in accordance with Section 2.5.3 and 2.5.4 as appropriate, and Section 5.5.2.

5. Includes 52.4 acres of Commercial Retail-Integrated Overlay

Section 3.4.2, Proposed Land Uses, Page 3-9, second paragraph, in response to Comment A-4:
❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-3 August 2023
Commercial rRetail-Integrated uUse is an 52.4-acre overlay that is incorporated into the Commercial Retail area of the Project.

Section 3.4.3, Signage and Monuments, Page 3-12, last paragraph, in response to Comment A-8:

Four free -standing signs along SR -60 are proposed, consisting of three double -sided electronic digital-display static billboard signs and one existing double -sided static display billboard sign. The maximum heights for each type of sign would be 65 feet. The total display area per pylon would be 14 feet x 48 feet, for a total of 672 square feet, per side. The locations of proposed freestanding signs are shown on Figure 3.4-9.

Section 3.6, Discretionary and Ministerial Approvals, Page 3 -23, Table 3.6 -1, in response to Comment A-9:

Table 3.6-1

MINISTERIAL PERMITS AND APPROVALS
Agency Permit or Approval
City of Jurupa Valley Building & Safety
Division Building Permits, and Demolition Permits.

City of Jurupa Valley Public Works
Department
Approval for proposed offsite utility improvements and Tree Removal Permit.

Rubidoux Community Services District
[water service and sewer service]
Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide water supply and sewer connections to new
development.

Southern California Edison Company Letter of authorization/consent for proposed improvements to provide electrical connection to new development.

CalTrans Outdoor Advertising Permit

3.1.4 Section 4.1 Aesthetics
Section 4.1.6, Environmental Impact Analysis, under threshold d), Page 4.1 -27, fourth paragraph, first sentence, in response to Comment A-9:

Section 4.9.2 4.10.1 (4), Lighting and Display Requirements, of the Specific Plan requires that all digital billboards must comply with all applicable laws and regulations concerning brightness, including, without limitation, California Vehicle Code Section 21466.5, and as amended and that signs are to be oriented primarily for viewing from the freeway and shall be oriented, and adequately shielded if necessary, to prevent the trespass of light and glare upon any residential land use (within 1,000 feet of the sign), including those in mixed-use districts, as exists on the date of building permit issuance. With implementation of PPP 4.1.3, impacts would be less than significant.

3.1.5 Section 4.2 Air Quality
Section 4.2.2, Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments, Page 4.2-8, sixth paragraph, in response to Comment A-13:
❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-4 August 2023
• City of Riverside. Letter from David Murray, Principal Planner, Planning Division dated April 29, 202 32, expressing concerns with cumulative impacts, such as traffic, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions and that all cumulative and regional impacts be fully analyzed and mitigated.

Section 4.2.6, Environmental Impact Analys, under threshold a), A.1 Plans, Policies, Programs (PPPs), and Project Design Features (PDFs), Page 4.2 -21, fifth paragraph , PDF 4.2 -10, in response to comment A-15:

PDF 4.2-10 was revised in two places in the document; on page 4.2 -10, in the fifth paragraph, and in the MMRP table (Table 11.0-1) at the top of page 11-10.

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

Section 4.26, Environmental Impact Analysis, under threshold c), Table 4.2-25, page 4.2-50.

Table 4.2-25 was not completely updated in the Draft EIR to match the revised Figure 4.2-3 shown on page 4.2-51. Therefore, this new table 4.2-25 is added to this FEIR Errata to replace the previous one that did not include all the locations shown on Figure 4.2-3.

Table 4.2-25

EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTOR LOCATIONS

Tabe in the Draft EIR deleted with strikethrough shown below.

Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project1 Single-family residence Within the Project boundary
Single-family Residences Adjacent to the south and southwest Life Church of God in Christ South of the Project site
Single-family Residences 110 feet to the northwest
Ina Arbuckle Elementary School 470 feet to the southwest Mission Middle School 3,500 feet to the west
Fairmount Park 2,300 feet to the east

New Table 4.2-25 replaced in Final EIR shown below in underline.

Receptor No. Receptor Description Distance and Direction from the Project1, 2 1 Single-family Residential: NAP 1 Adjacent to the Project site 2 Single-family Residential: NAP 2 Adjacent to the Project site 3 Single-family Residential Adjacent to the south and southwest 4 Single-family Residential Approximately 110 feet to the west 5 Multi-family Residential Approximately 110 feet to the west 6 Multi-family Residential Approximately 200 feet to the south 7 Live Church of God in Christ Adjacent to the south
8 New Century Baptist Church Adjacent to the southeast
9 Mt. Calvary Missionary Baptist Church Approximately 60 feet to the south ❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-5 August 2023
10 Life Church of God in Christ Approximately 200 feet to the southwest 11 Ina Arbuckle Elementary School Approximately 470 feet to the southwest 12 Fairmount Park Approximately 2,300 feet to the east
Source: Kimley-Horn, 2023b.

Notes:

1. Distance calculated from Project site property line to sensitive receptor property line.

Refer to Figure 4.2-3, Existing Sensitive Receptor Locations, for the sensitive receptor location (Kimley-Horn, 2023b, Exhibit 4).

3.1.6 Section 4.12 Noise
Section 4.12.6 Environmental Impact Analysis, under threshold a), A.2 Impact Analysis, Construction Impacts, Offsite Traffic Noise, page 4.12-15, sixth paragraph.

The sentence introducing the list of scenarios modelled for traffic volumes was incorrect. It stated four scenarios were modelled but six scenarios were actually modelled and listed below it. The sentence was revised as follows in this Final EIR Errata.

Offsite noise from existing and with -project traffic volumes was modeled in four six scenarios (Kimley-Horn, 2023f):

3.1.7 Section 5.0 Alternatives
Section 5.7, Analysis of Alternative 4: Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative, 5.7.1, Description of Alternative, Page 5-29, fourth paragraph, in response to Comment A-26:

In this alternative the industrial uses in the proposed Specific Plan are replaced wi th residential, 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 type of long-term commercial or industrial storage contemplated by this alternative would include self -storage, including boat, RV and/or heavy equipment storage. The proportions of residential, storage, neighborhood commercial, and open space uses in the area converted from industria l use in this alternative would be the same as those for the four land use types in the proposed Specific Plan ; industrial use in the Specific Plan was used to calculate proportion for storage in this alternative. That is, the 67.3 acres of industrial use in the Specific Plan would be converted to 21 .0 acres of residential, 37 .0 acres of storage, 10 .0 acres of neighborhood commercial, and three acres of open space. The additional residential use in this alternative would be at the same density as the resid ential 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.

3.1.8 Section 11.0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MMRP table (Table 11.0-1) at the top of page 11-10, under 4.2 Air Quality, threshold a), PDF 4.2- 10, in response to Comment A-15:

PDF 4.2-10 was revised in two places in the document; on page 4.2 -10, in the fifth paragraph, and in the MMRP table (Table 11.0-1) at the top of page 11-10.

❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-6 August 2023
Threshold a)
(Cont’d)
PDF 4.2-10: LEED Buildings. The
Project will achieve certification of
compliance or be designed to
demonstrate equivalency with LEED
green building standards as “certified”
for the industrial buildings.

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

MMRP table (Table 11.0-1) at the bottom of page 11-55, under 4.12 Noise, threshold a), MM NOI- 2:

The threshold in the left column was missing and the mitigation heading text “MM NOI -2:” was missing from the second column and are now added as shown by the underline below and in section IV of this FEIR document. Just these two headings were added for clarification. There was no change to the mitigation text in the table.

Threshold

4.12-8 (a):
continued
MM NOI-2: Stationary Source
Operational Noise Reduction
Plan. Prior to issuance of building
permits,

….

(the rest of the mitigation text is
shown in the table in Section IV. of
this document)
Less than
Significant
Qualified noise control
professional/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to
issuance of
building
permits

3.1.9 Appendices
Appendix D24 – Caltrans Declassification Request Evaluation Report Appendix D24 – Caltrans Declassification Request Evaluation Report, as listed on page 2 -8 was not included in the Draft EIR and is being provided in this Final EIR Errata.

On January 18, 2023, Caltrans approved a declassification of the Landscaped Freeway designation for the relevant segment of the Route 60 Freeway. A copy of the approval letter and a map of the declassified segment are included in th is Final EIR Errata as Appendix D24 (included as Appendix FEIR-9).

No other revisions to the Draft EIR text are necessary or proposed.

3.2 Effect of Corrections and Revisions
The above technical corrections clarify and refine the EIR and provide supplemental information to the decision-makers and the public. CEQA requires recirculation of a Draft EIR only when “significant new information” is added to a Draft EIR after public notice of the availability of the Draft EIR has occurred (refer to California Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5), but before the EIR is certified. Section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines specifically states:
❖ REVISIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, AND CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR❖ 7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page III-7 August 2023
New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible wa y to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
• A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
• A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
• A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. • The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 also provides that “[r]ecirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR... A decision not to recirculate an EIR must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.”
The information added pursuant to th is Errata does not contain significant new information that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the Project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the Applicant has declined to adopt. Additionally, information provided in this Errata does not present a feasible Project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed in the EIR. All of the information added pursuant to this Errata merely clarifies, corrects, adds to, deletes, or makes insignificant modifications to information in the EIR. The City of Jurupa Valley has reviewed the information in this Errata and has determined that it does not change any of the basic findings or conclusions of the EIR, does not constitute “significant new information” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5, and does not require recirculation of the Draft EIR.

IV. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-1 August 2023
IV. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

4.1 Introduction
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which requires a Lead Agency to adopt a “reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” Additionally, Section 15097(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that a public agency adopt a program for monitoring or reporting mitigation measures and project revisions, which it has required to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. This MMRP has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the State CEQA Guidelines. This MMRP has been updated based on changes made earlier in this Final EIR. New text is shown in underline and deleted text is shown in strikeout in the MMRP below.

The City of Jurupa Valley is the Lead Agency for the Project and is therefore responsible for administering and implementing the MMRP. A public agency may delegate reporting or monitoring responsibilities to another public agency or to a private entity that accepts the delegation; however, until mitigation measures have been completed, the Lead Agency remains responsible for ensuring implementation of mitigation measures in accordance with the MMRP.

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been prepared to address the potential environmental impacts of the Project. The evaluation of the Project’s impacts in the EIR applies mitigation measures (MMs) needed to avoid or redu ce potentially significant environmental impacts. This MMRP allows for monitoring implementation of the MMs required for the Project.

4.2 Organization
As shown on the following pages, each identified PDF and MM for the Project is organized by environmental impact area, with the following details:
• Responsible Party—the party that is responsible for implementing the project design feature or mitigation measure.
• Monitoring Party—the agency to which reports involving feasibility, compliance, implementation, and development are made.
• Implementation Stage—the phase of the Project during which mitigation measure shall be monitored.

4.3 Administrative Procedures and Enforcement
This MMRP shall be enforced throughout all phases of the Project, as applicable . The project Applicant shall be responsible for implementing each MM and shall be obligated to provide certification, as identified below, to the applicable monitoring and enforcement agencies.

Furthermore, the Applicant shall maintain records demonstrating compliance with each MM. Such records shall be made available to the City of Jurupa Valley upon request.

During the construction phase and prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall retain an independent Construction Monitor (either via the City or through a third -party consultant), ❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-2 August 2023
approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, who shall be responsible for monitoring implementation of MMs during construction activities consistent with the monitoring p hase and frequency set forth in this MMRP.

The Construction Monitor shall also prepare documentation of the Applicant’s compliance with the PDFs during construction every 90 days in a form satisfactory to the City of Jurupa Valley . The documentation must be signed by the Applicant and Construction Monitor and be included as part of the Applicant’s Compliance Report. The Construction Monitor shall be obligated to immediately report to the Enforcement Agency any non -compliance with the MMs within two businesses days if the Applicant does not correct the non -compliance within a reasonable time of notification to the Applicant by the monitor or if the non -compliance is repeated. Such non -compliance shall be appropriately addressed by the Enforcement Agency.

4.4 Program Modification
After review and approval of the final MM RP by the Lead Agency, minor changes and modifications to the MMRP are permitted, but can only be made subject to approval by the Lead Agency. The Lead Agency, in conjunction with any appropriate agencies or departments, will determine the adequacy of any proposed change or modification. This flexibility is necessary in light of the nature of the MMRP and the need to protect the environment. No changes will be permitted unless the MMRP continues to satisfy the requirements of CEQA, as determined by the Lead Agency.

The Project shall be in substantial conformance with the PDFs contained in this MMRP. The enforcing departments or agencies may determine substantial conforma nce with MMs in the MM RP, at their discretion and within reason. If the department or agency cannot find substantial conformance, a MM is allowed to be modified or deleted as follows: the enforcing department or agency, or the decision maker for a subsequent discretionary project related approval finds that the modification or deletion complies with CEQA, including CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, which could include the preparation of an addendum or subsequent environmental clearance, if necessary , to analyze the impacts from the modifications to or deletion of the MMs. Any addendum or subsequent CEQA clearance shall explain why the MM is no longer needed, not feasible, or the other basis for modifying or deleting the MM. Under this process, the modification or deletion of a MM shall not, in and of itself, require a modification to any Project discretionary approval unless the City of Jurupa Valley also finds that the change to the MM results in a substantial change to the Project or the non -environmental conditions of approval.

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

4.5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

Development Standards of the Specific Plan.

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

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

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and South
Coast Air Quality
Management District
(SCAQMD)
During construction
and operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-2: Rule 402 (Nuisance). This Rule prohibits discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other material which cause injury,
detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable
number of persons or to the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
and operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-4 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-3: Rule 403 (Fugitive Dust). This rule is intended to reduce the amount of PM entrained in the
ambient air from anthropogenic (manmade) fugitive dust
sources by requiring actions to prevent, reduce, or
mitigate fugitive dust emissions. Rule 403 applies to any activity or manmade condition capable of generating
fugitive dust. Some specific requirements of Rule 403 that apply to all construction projects, regardless of the size of their disturbed areas, are addressed below:
• No person shall cause or allow emissions of fugitive
dust to remain visible in the atmosphere beyond the
property line of the emission source or to exceed 20
percent opacity if the dust emission is a result of a
moving motorized vehicle.
• Apply applicable Best Available Control Measures in
Table 1 of Rule 403 to minimize fugitive dust
emissions during active operation.
• No person shall cause or allow PM10 levels to exceed
50 micrograms per cubic meter when determined as
the difference between upwind and downwind
samples collected on high volume PM samplers or
other USEPA approved equivalent method for PM10
monitoring at the Project limits for a five hour period during the time of Active Operations. Sampling will
only occur if a complaint is reported to the SCAQMD,
in which case the decision to conduct sampling will
be made by SCAQMD, and SCAQMD will conduct
sampling.
• No person shall allow track out to extend 25 feet or
more in cumulative length from the point of origin
from an active operation, and all track out from an
active operation shall be removed at the end of each
workday or evening shift.
• No person shall conduct an active operation with a
disturbed surface area of five or more acres, or with a daily import or export of 100 cubic yards or more of
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant and
construction
contractor/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-5 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-8: Rule 1143 (Consumer Paint Thinners & Multi-Purpose Solvents) governs the manufacture, sale,
and use of paint thinners and solvents used in thinning of coating materials, cleaning of coating application
equipment and other solvent cleaning operations by
limiting their VOC content. This rule regulates the VOC content of solvents used during construction. Solvents
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-6 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

WAIRE Points are earned based on emission reduction
measures and warehouse operators are required to
submit an annual WAIRE Report which includes truck trip data and emission reduction measures. Reduction
strategies listed in the WAIRE menu include acquire zero Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley and
SCAQMD
During operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-7 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

Warehouse operators that do not earn a sufficient number of WAIRE points to satisfy the WAIRE Points Compliance
Obligation would be required to pay a mitigation fee.

Funds from the mitigation fee will be used to incentivize the purchase of cleaner trucks and charging/fueling
infrastructure in communities nearby.

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design and operation
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.2-13: Cal Green Code. The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California
Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part
11). CALGreen is updated on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2023. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements
include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
(residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste in accordance with § 4.408.1
(residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d)
PDF 4.2-1: Industrial Land Use Buffer. Where there are
industrial uses adjacent to residential, there is a required 750-foot buffer area from any industrial building to any residential building. The buffer area can be used as open Not applicable because
this is an SC.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-2: Specific Plan Section 2.6.3 Truck Circulation. The Specific Plan is designed to minimize the interaction between truck trips and passenger vehicles.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-7: 10 Hour Limit for Construction Equipment.

The construction plans and specifications shall prohibit off-road diesel powered construction equipment from
being in the "on" position for more than 10 hours per day during Project construction.

Not applicable because
this is an SC.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PDF 4.2-12: MERV Filters Program. Develop an ongoing monitoring, inspection, and maintenance program for the MERV filters.
a. Disclose potential health impacts to prospective
sensitive receptors from living in close proximity to
freeways or other sources of air pollution and the
reduced effectiveness of air filtration systems when
windows are open or residents are outside.
b. Identify the responsible implementing and
enforcement agency to ensure that enhanced
filtration units are installed on-site before a permit of occupancy is issued.
c. Disclose the potential increase in energy costs for
running the HVAC system to prospective residents.
d. Provide information to residents on where MERV
filters can be purchased.
e. Provide recommended schedule (e.g., every year or
every six months) for replacing the enhanced
filtration units.
f. Identify the responsible entity such as future
residents themselves, Homeowner’s Association, or
Not applicable because
this is a PDF
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
construction and
operation
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-11 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
property managers for ensuring enhanced filtration
units are replaced on time.
g. Identify, provide, and disclose ongoing cost-sharing strategies, if any, for replacing the enhanced
filtration units.
h. Set criteria for assessing progress in installing and replacing the enhanced filtration units; and
i. Develop a process for evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced filtration units.

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.5-5: The Project shall be designed in accordance with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). The Building Official, or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
(residential) and § 5.303 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 65
percent of the nonhazardous construction and
demolition waste in accordance with § 4.408.1
(residential) and § 5.408.1 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide storage areas for recyclables and green
waste and adequate recycling containers located in
readily accessible areas in accordance with § 4.410
(residential) and § 5.410 (nonresidential) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.
• Provide designated parking for any combination of
low-emitting, fuel efficient and carpool/van pool
vehicles. At least eight percent of the total parking
spaces are required to be designated in accordance
with § 5.106.5.2 (nonresidential), Designated Parking
for Clean Air Vehicles, of the California Green
Building Standards Code Part 11.
• To facilitate future installation of electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE), residential construction
shall comply with §4.106.4 (residential electric
vehicle charging) of the California Green Building
Standards Code Part 11 and nonresidential
construction shall comply with § 5.106.5.3
(nonresidential electric vehicle charging) of the
California Green Building Standards Code Part 11.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold a): Would the
project generate
greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or
indirectly, that may have
a significant impact on
the environment?
PPP 4.7-1: The Project shall be designed in accordance
with the applicable California Green Building Standards (CALGreen) Code (24 CCR, Part 11). CALGreen is updated
on a three-year cycle; the 2022 CALGreen went into effect January 1, 2023. The Building Official or designee shall ensure compliance prior to the issuance of each building permit. These requirements include, but are not limited to:
• Design buildings to be water-efficient. Install water- efficient fixtures in accordance with § 4.303
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
During project
design
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-16 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-3: Regulations Governing Hazardous Waste Generation, Transportation, Treatment, and Storage.

Any project-related hazardous waste generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal will be conducted in compliance with the Subtitle C of the
Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-18 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (Code of
Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 263), including the management of non-hazardous solid wastes and
underground tanks storing petroleum and other
hazardous substances. The Project will be designed and
constructed in accordance with the regulations of the
RCDEH, which serves as the designated Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) and which implements state and
federal regulations for the following programs: (1)
Hazardous Waste Generator Program, (2) Hazardous
Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Program, (3) California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP), (4) Above Storage Tank (AST) Program, and (5) Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Program.

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-5: Regulations Governing Asbestos- Containing Materials (ACMs) or Lead-Based Paint
(LBP). Any project-related demolition activities that have the potential to expose construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) or lead- Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-19 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Not applicable because
this is a PPP
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to City and
County approvals
Threshold a) (Cont’d) PPP 4.8-7: Construction Near Utility or Electric Lines.

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

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

4.14 Public Services
Threshold a): Would the
project result in
generation of a
substantial temporary or
permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in
the vicinity of the project
in excess of standards
established in the local
general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable
standards of other
agencies?
[Fire]
PPP 4.14-1: The Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes,
ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire
prevention and suppression measures relating to water
improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire
extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates,
combustible construction, water availability, and fire
sprinkler systems.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

7.25.020.

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

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

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

7.25.020.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold a): Would the
project cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section
21074 as either a site,
feature, place, cultural
landscape that is
geographically defined in
terms of the size and
scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a
California Native
American tribe, and that
is:
i) Listed or eligible
for listing in the
California Register of
Historical Resources, or in
a local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code §
5020.1(k); or
ii) A resource
determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion
and supported by
substantial evidence, to
be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code § 5024.1.

In applying the criteria
From 4.4 Cultural Resources
PPP 4.4-1: The Project is required to comply with the
applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

MITIGATION MEASURES

4.2 Air Quality
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):

Would the Project conflict
with or obstruct
implementation of the
applicable air quality
plan?
MM AQ-1: Mitigation Measures (applicable to all
Specific Plan uses). Minimize Construction Emissions.

Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to
incorporate the following measures to minimize
construction emissions.
• All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment
greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air
Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions
standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified
Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the
option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in
applicable bid documents and successful
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley City
Engineer; project
architects for projects
developed pursuant to
the Specific Plan
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-30 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply
such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified
tier specification or model year specification), and
CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if applicable)
shall be provided to the City at the time of
mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.

This equipment shall be used when commercial
models that meet the construction needs of the
proposed Project are commercially available from
local suppliers/vendors. The determination of
commercial availability of such equipment shall be
made by the City, based on applicant-provided
evidence from expert sources, such as construction
contractors in the region.
• The maximum daily disturbance area (actively
graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
• Construction equipment shall be properly maintained
according to manufacturer specifications.
• All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery
vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when
not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three
minutes in any one hour.
• Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year
2010 or newer if diesel-fueled.
• Information on ridesharing programs shall be made
available to construction employees.
• During construction, lunch options shall be provided
onsite.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number
and person to contact regarding dust complaints per
SCAQMD Standards.
• All construction contractors shall be provided
information on the South Coast Air Quality
Management District Surplus Off-road Opt-In “SOON”
funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of
off-road diesel vehicles.
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-31 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• The Project shall demonstrate compliance with
SCAQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and
provide appropriate documentation to the City of
Jurupa Valley.
• All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging
areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads)
shall be watered two times per day.
• All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
• All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet- power vacuum
street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-
power sweeping shall be prohibited.
• All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or
driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved
shall be completed as soon as possible.
• Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
• A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the
telephone number and the name of the person to
contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints.

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

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM AQ-2: Low VOC Paint. During construction, the
Project shall utilize “Super-Compliant” low VOC paints
which have been reformulated to exceed the regulatory
VOC limits (i.e., have a lower VOC content than what is required) put forth by SCAQMD’s Rule 1113 for all
architectural coatings. Super-Compliant low VOC paints
shall be no more than 10g/L of VOC. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the City of Jurupa Valley Building and Safety Department shall confirm that plans include the
following specifications:
• All architectural coatings will be super-compliant low VOC paints.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• Recycle leftover paint. Take any leftover paint to a
household hazardous waste center; do not mix
leftover water-based and oil-based paints.
• Keep lids closed on all paint containers when not in
use to prevent VOC emissions and excessive odors.
• For water-based paints, clean up with water only.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Mobile Sources
Emissions
MM AQ-3: Vehicle Trip Reduction. Develop a qualifying
Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)/ Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) plan to reduce mobile emissions for
all uses. The TDM plan shall be approved by the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the issuance of building permits and incorporated into the Project’s Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs). The TDM plan shall discourage
single-occupancy vehicle trips and encourage alternative modes of transportation such as carpooling, taking transit, walking, and biking. The following measures shall be
incorporated into the TDM plan.

TDM Requirements for Non-Residential Uses:

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

TDM Requirements for Residential Units:
• Owner-Occupied Units. Upon a residential dwelling
being sold or offered for sale, the Project Applicant
shall notify and offer to the buyer or prospective
buyer, as soon as it may be done, materials describing
public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized
commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of
the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no
later than the close of escrow. This information shall
be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Division for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.
• Rental Units. Upon a residential dwelling being
rented or offered for rent, the Project Applicant or
subsequent property manager shall notify and offer
to the tenant or prospective tenant, materials
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-34 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
describing public transit, ridesharing, and
nonmotorized commuting opportunities in the
vicinity of the development. The materials shall be
approved by the City of Jurupa Valley. The materials
shall be provided no later than the time the rental
agreement is executed. This information shall be
submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Division for review and approval, prior to the
issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

Significant and
unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley During preparation
of deeds and lease
agreements
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational Emissions
MM AQ-5: Electric Landscape Equipment. Prior to the
issuance of occupancy permits, the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and
Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements
include contractual language that all landscaping
equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. All residential and non- residential properties shall be equipped with exterior electrical outlets to
accommodate this requirement. This requirement shall be included in the third-party vendor agreements for
landscape services for the building owner and tenants, as applicable. This mitigation measure does not apply to
open space areas that are maintained by the Park’s
District or City of Jurupa Valley. Those entities are
required to comply with applicable State and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules
regulating landscape equipment.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects
operational emissions
MM AQ-6: Warehouse Mitigation Measures (Electrical
Rooms). Prior to the issuance of a building permit for
tenant improvements, the Planning Department shall
confirm that the Project is designed to include the
following:
• The buildings’ electrical room shall be sufficiently
sized to hold additional panels that may be needed to
supply power for the future installation of electric
vehicle (EV) truck charging stations on the site.

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

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of a building permit
for tenant
improvements
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM AQ-7: TRUs to be Plug-in-Capable. Prior to the
issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning
Department shall confirm that tenant lease agreements
include contractual language that requires all Transport Refrigeration Units (TRUs) entering the Project site be plug-in capable. Electrical hookups shall be provided as part of the tenant improvements for any tenant that
requires cold storage. The electrical hookups shall be
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-36 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
provided at loading bays for truckers to plug in any
onboard auxiliary equipment and power refrigeration
units while their truck is stopped. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell approvals.

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Warehouse projects:
operational emissions
MM AQ-8: Truck Rule Signage. Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy permit, the Planning Department shall
confirm that all truck access gates and loading docks
within the Project site shall have a sign posted those
states the following:
• Truck drivers shall turn off engines when not in use. • Truck drivers shall shut down the engine after five
minutes of continuous idling operation (pursuant to
Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 2485). Once the vehicle is stopped, the transmission
is set to “neutral” or “park”, and the parking brake is engaged.
• Telephone numbers of the building facilities manager
and CARB to report violations.
• Signs shall also inform truck drivers about the health effects of diesel particulates, the California Air
Resources Board diesel idling regulations, and the
importance of being a good neighbor by not parking
in residential areas.

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

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
MM AQ-9: Energy Efficiency for Trucks (Carl Moyer
Program). Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the
Project plans and specifications shall include
requirements (by contract specifications) that vendor
trucks for the industrial buildings include energy
efficiency improvement features through the Carl Moyer
Program—including truck modernization, retrofits,
and/or aerodynamic kits and low rolling resistance
Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-37 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions
MM AQ-10: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit for any residential, commercial, or industrial
building, the Planning Department shall confirm that the Project plans and specifications for the residential,
commercial, and industrial buildings shall include electric vehicle (passenger car) charging stations and parking
spaces at each building for employees and the public to use as required by the CalGreen Code in effect at the time of permit issuance. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant improvements and not the building shell
approvals.

Significant and
Unavoidable
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division;
project proponents;
project architects
Prior to the issuance
of tenant occupancy
permits
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM AQ-11: Prior to the issuance of a tenant occupancy
permit, the Planning Department shall confirm that the
Project plans and specifications show the following:
• All outdoor cargo handling equipment (including
yard trucks, hostlers, yard goats, pallet jacks, and
forklifts) are zero emission/powered by electricity.

Each building shall include the necessary charging
stations for cargo handling equipment. Note that
SCAQMD Rule 2305 (Warehouse Indirect Source
Rule) Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce
Emissions (WAIRE) points may be earned for
electric/zero emission yard truck/hostler usage. This
mitigation measure applies only to tenant
improvements and not the building shell approvals.
• All standard emergency generators (i.e. non-cold
storage generators) shall meet California Air
Resources Board Tier 4 Final emissions standards. A
copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) documentation (certified tier specification)
and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit (if
applicable) shall be provided to the City.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
Threshold 4.2.8 (a):
continued
Operational emissions:
warehouse projects
MM AQ-12: Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule
2305). The Project tenants shall comply with the SCAQMD Warehouse Indirect Source Rule (Rule 2305). This rule is expected to reduce NOX and PM10 emissions during
operations. Emission reductions resulting from this rule were not included in the Project analysis. Compliance with Rule 2305 is enforced by the SCAQMD through their
reporting process and is required for all warehouse
projects greater than 100,000 square feet.

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

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

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

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

11. 4.3 Biological Resources
Threshold 4.3.8 (a):

Would the project have a
substantial adverse effect,
either directly or through
habitat modifications, on
BIO-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey: To
remain in compliance with the MBTA and CFGC § 3503
and § 3503.5, no direct impacts shall occur to any nesting birds, including raptors, their eggs, chicks, or nests during the breeding season (February 1 to September 15). If
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to
commencement of
project construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-39 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or
special-status species in
local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or
by the California
Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.?
vegetation removal activities must occur during this
breeding season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre- construction survey to determine the presence or absence of breeding migratory birds, including raptors within the impact footprint. If nests or breeding activities are located on the survey area, an avoidance buffer area would be
required around the nesting site. The width of the buffer shall be determined by a qualified biologist, and biological monitoring would be required during construction until
the young have fledged. If no nesting birds are detected during the pre-construction survey, no additional
measures would be required (RECON, 2023a, p. 33).

The following measures are recommended to avoid
indirect impacts to adjacent sensitive riparian birds,
specifically least Bell’s vireo, that could be present in the riparian habitat located within 500 feet of the project site in the adjacent Santa Ana River (RECON, 2023, pp. 33 and 34).
• Between March 15 and September 15, no
construction activities shall occur within any portion
of the site where construction activities would result
in noise levels exceeding 60 dB(A) Leq (hourly noise
equivalent of 60 A-weighted decibels [dB(A)] or less)
at the edge of occupied least Bell’s vireo habitat. Prior to the commencement of any construction activities
during the breeding season, areas restricted from
such activities shall be staked or fenced under the
supervision of a qualified biologist; OR
• At least two weeks prior to the commencement of
construct ion activities, under the direction of a
qualified acoustician, noise attenuation measures
(e.g., noise monitoring, installation of berms or walls) shall be implemented to ensure that noise levels
resulting from construction activities will not exceed
60 dB(A) Leq at the edge of habitat occupied by least
Bell’s vireo. Concurrent with the commencement of
construction activities and the construction of
necessary attenuation facilities, noise monitoring
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-40 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
shall be conducted at the edge of the occupied habitat
area to ensure that noise levels do not exceed 60
dB(A) Leq. If the noise attenuation techniques
implemented are determined to be inadequate by the
qualified acoustician or biologist, then the associated construction activities shall cease until such time that adequate noise attenuation is achieved or until the
end of the breeding season (September 16).
o Construction noise monitoring shall continue to
be monitored at least twice weekly on varying
days, or more frequently depending on the
construction activity, to verify that noise levels at
the edge of occupied habitat are maintained
below 60 dB(A) Leq or to the ambient noise level
if it already exceeds 60 dB(A) Leq. If not, other
measures shall be implemented in consultation
with the biologist and the City, as necessary, to
reduce noise levels to below 60 dB(A) Leq or to
the ambient noise level if it already exceeds 60
dB(A) Leq. Such measures may include, but are
not limited to, limitations on the placement of
construction equipment and the simultaneous
use of equipment.

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
2 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey: A pre-
construction survey shall be required within 30 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. If western burrowing owls are present, one of the following mitigation
measures from the MSHCP (WRCRCA 2003) shall also be
required:
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction
Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site contains or is part
of an area that supports less than 35 acres of suitable habitat, or the survey reveals that the site and
surrounding area support fewer than three pairs of
western burrowing owls, the on-site western
burrowing owls shall be passively or actively
relocated following accepted protocols; or
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Within 30 days
before beginning of
construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-41 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• Based on the results of the Pre-Construction
Burrowing Owl Survey, if the site, including adjacent
areas, supports three or more pairs of western
burrowing owls, supports greater than 35 acres of
suitable habitat, and is non-contiguous with MSCHP
Conservation Area lands, at least 90 percent of the
area with long-term conservation value and western
burrowing owl pairs shall be conserved on-site
(RECON, 2023a, p. 30).

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM BIO-3 Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP
requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the
MSHCP, A qualified project biologist shall monitor
construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of
concern outside the Project footprint (Riverside County, 2003).
• A biological monitor shall monitor activities that
result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and
special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected species observed during the
pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring
shall also be conducted periodically during
construction activities to ensure no new nests are
built during any vegetation removal or building
demolition activities between February 1 and
September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure
that all Best Management Practices (BMPs),
avoidance, protection and mitigation measures
described in the relevant project permits and reports
are in place and are adhered to.
• The biological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily halt all construction activities and all
non-emergency actions if sensitive species and/or
nesting birds are identified and would be directly
affected. The monitor shall notify the appropriate
Less Than Significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
During the
appropriate
blooming season
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-42 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold 4.3.8 (a):
continued
MM BIO-3 Biological Monitor: Per the MSHCP
requirements stated in Volume 1, Appendix C of the
MSHCP, a qualified project biologist shall monitor
construction activities for the duration of the Project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to
avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of
concern outside the Project footprint.
• A biological monitor shall monitor activities that
result in tree or vegetation removal to minimize the
likelihood of inadvertent impacts to nesting birds and
special-status wildlife species, with special attention given to any protected species observed during the
pre-construction breeding bird surveys. Monitoring
shall also be conducted periodically during
construction activities to ensure no new nests are
built during any vegetation removal or building
demolition activities between February 1 and
September 15. The biological monitor shall ensure
that all Best Management Practices (BMPs),
avoidance, protection and mitigation measures
described in the relevant project permits and reports
are in place and are adhered to.

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

Threshold 4.3.8 (b) and
(c):

MM BIO-4: Prior to City and County approvals, including the issuance of a Riverside County Flood Control District (RCFCD) Encroachment Permit, and prior to ground
disturbance and construction of the Project, the
applicant shall obtain or show documentation that an
Agency declines jurisdiction of any feature:
a. A Section 404 CWA General or Individual permit for
the permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet
of Waters of the U.S. or documentation that a Section
404 permit is not required (i.e. Army Corps declines
jurisdiction or definition of Water of US changes
pursuant to Sackett vs. Environmental Protection
Agency);
b. A Section 401 CWA Water Quality Certification from
the RWQCB for water quality impacts related to the
permanent fill of 3.10 acres and 4,462 linear feet of
Waters of the U.S.; and certification in conjunction
Less than significant Qualified biologist;
project proponent; and
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Division
Prior to City and
County approvals
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-44 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
with the USACE 404 permit or a Waste Discharge
Requirement permit pursuant to Porter-Cologne Act.
c. A Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA)
from CDFW to authorize permanent impacts to 3.10
acres and 4,462 linear feet as CDFW Streambed, and

1.43 acres as CDFW Riparian.

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

In addition, the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW are expected
to require compensatory mitigation for impacts to
jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including
riparian habitat. The amount of required compensatory
habitat acreage would be based on the functions and
values of impacted features. Habitat compensation would be provided at a ratio of up to 3:1 of created to filled or disturbed in-kind habitat, pending coordination with the agencies. This ratio may be reduced through the permit
process if the agencies find that a different ratio is
sufficient to mitigate impacts to jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. and State, including riparian habitat. If there is a change in the law where one or more of these Permits is not required, evidence of that change shall be submitted to the Planning Department for its review and
concurrence.

Threshold 4.3.8 (f):

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

4.4 Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.4.8 (b):

Would the project Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance
of an archaeological
resource pursuant to §
15064.5?
MM CUL-1: Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
(CRMP). Prior to issuance of any grading permit, the
Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of
Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified
professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural
Resources Consultant List, has been contracted to
implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Program
(CRMP). The CRMP shall identify the details of all ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to
cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of a CRMP along with the executed copies of Monitoring
Agreements with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation, either individually or collectively, shall be
provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. At the conclusion of monitoring, if resource(s) are determined to be less than significant, written evidence that monitoring was
completed shall be provided to the Jurupa valley Planning Department. If any resources(s) are significant, Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall apply.

Less than significant Project proponent and
qualified archaeologist
During project
construction
Threshold 4.4.8 (b):
continued
MM CUL-2: Treatment Plan. A Treatment Plan shall be
prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist
to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The Treatment Plan shall be in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for
historical resources and Public Resources Code
§21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall include a statement that the preparation of the Treatment Plan was discussed with the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-
Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba
Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel
Nation. The statement shall identify the date(s) and
contact persons involved. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of
Jurupa Valley Planning Department and the Eastern
Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians, Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation.

4.6 Geology and Soils
Threshold 4.6.8 (f):

Would the Project directly
or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
MM PALEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. The
following note shall be included on any Grading Plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-
disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas to be graded or excavated in excess of fifteen feet. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities shall be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as shown on a grading plan. Paleontological
monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove
samples of sediments that are likely to contain the
remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be
reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not
present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined Less than Significant Project Applicant and
qualified paleontologist
or paleontological
monitor/City of Jurupa
Valley
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
during construction
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-47 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

The following note shall be included on any grading plan:
“Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-
disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program
(PRIMP) for the area to be graded. The PRIMP shall
include the methods that will be used to protect
paleontological resources that may exist within the
Project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and
preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading pursuant to the recommendations provided in
Paleontological Assessment prepared by the San Diego
Museum of Natural History on March 30, 2022 (Technical
Appendix D12 to this EIR) and the criteria identified
below.

Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity (as identified in MM 4.6-1) shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. The performance standards set forth in the
PRIMP shall include:
a) If paleontological resources are encountered during
the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological
monitor shall have the authority to halt construction
activities and temporarily redirect work at least 50
away from the area of the find in order to assess its
significance.
b) In the event that paleontological resources are
encountered when a paleontological monitor is not
present, work in the immediate area of the find shall

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted
to assess the find for significance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed.
c) Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic
level possible, cataloged, and curated into the
permanent collection of a scientific institution.
d) Identification and curation of specimens into a
professional, accredited public museum repository
with a commitment to archival conservation and
permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western
Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet,
California 92543). The paleontological program
should include a written repository agreement prior
to the initiation of mitigation activities.
e) At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a
report of findings shall be prepared to document the
results of the monitoring program, including lists of
all fossils recovered and necessary maps and
graphics to accurately record their original location.”

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):

Would the project
generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly
or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact
on the environment?
Implementation of MMs AQ-3, AQ-4, AQ-5, and AQ-13
described above
Significant and
unavoidable
See MMs AQ-3, AQ-4,
and AQ-5
See MMs AQ-3, AQ-4,
and AQ-5
Threshold 4.7.8 (a):
continued
MM GHG-1: Renewable Energy Generation. Prior to
issuance of each building’s permit for each development phase, the Project shall be required to install solar
photovoltaic (PV) panels or other source of renewable
electricity generation on-site, based on the maximum roof area available for solar (i.e., solar-ready zone). The solar- ready zone shall comply with Section 110.10 of the 2022 California Energy Code and shall comply with access,
Significant and
unavoidable
Project Applicant/City of
Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-49 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
pathway, ventilation, and spacing requirements, and
exclude skylight area.

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

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Threshold 4.8.8 (d):

The SSI Work Plan will include a Quality
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) Plan which provides
protocols for sampling to ensure that on-site soils are fully characterized, to the extent practicable, and to ensure proper classification of on-site soils for on-site reuse or for off-site disposal. The SSI Work Plan shall comply with ASTM Standard E-1903 and DTSC requirements, as
applicable.

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

The Removal Action Work Plan will include components
such as:

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM HAZ-2: Post Remediation
Requirements/Restrictions: Prior to issuance of
building permits for construction of project buildings on a particular parcel where remediation was required, the
Project Applicant shall provide a copy or copies of a deed restriction or land use covenant, if required by the DTSC, which has been recorded over the parcel for which a
building permit is sought. The deed restriction or land use Less than Significant Project Applicant / City
of Jurupa Valley
Prior to issuance of
building permits for
construction of
project buildings on
a particular parcel
where remediation
was required
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-52 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

Threshold 4.8.8 (d)
(Cont’d)
MM HAZ-3: Post Remediation Clearance
Determination:, the Project Applicant shall provide
written verification from DTSC to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Director demonstrating either: 1) that the parcel has been remediated sufficiently to allow safe occupancy of buildings thereon; or 2) issuance of a “No Further
Action” letter or equivalent for the parcel. The written verification shall serve to indicate that the parcel is suitable for the intended development based upon
screening levels appropriate for the relevant land use
exposure scenario, or other risk methodology required by the DTSC, and that no further investigation or remediation is required other than any long-term operation and
maintenance requirements or monitoring that may be
required by DTSC or other regulatory agencies.

4.12 Noise
Threshold 4.12-8 (a):

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
• The construction contractor shall ensure that all
internal combustion engine-driven equipment is
equipped with mufflers that are in good condition
and appropriate for the equipment.
• The construction contractor shall locate stationary
noise-generating equipment as far as possible from
sensitive receptors when sensitive receptors adjoin
or are near a construction project area. In addition,
the Project contractor shall place such stationary
construction equipment so that emitted noise is
directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the
Project site.
• The construction contractor shall prohibit
unnecessary idling (no more than 5 minutes) of
internal combustion engines.
• The construction contractor shall, to the maximum
extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging
areas to maximize the distance between
construction-related noise sources and noise-
sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction.
• For construction activity within 50 feet or impact pile driving within 285 feet of any noise-sensitive
receptors, a temporary noise barrier shall be
installed by the applicant/developer. This temporary
noise barrier shall be installed prior to the onset of
construction activities that would require the use of
heavy construction equipment. The barrier shall be
located between the construction zone and all
adjacent sensitive receptor land uses. The temporary
sound barrier shall provide a reduction in noise that
shall meet the City’s construction noise threshold of
55 dBA Lmax as measured at the façade of the
sensitive receptor land uses. The noise barrier shall
be a minimum height of 8 feet and be free of gaps and
holes and must achieve a Sound Transmission Class
(STC) of 25 or greater. The barrier can be either (a) a ❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-54 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE
implement the following measures to limit on-site
operational stationary noise source impacts:
• Any proposed large scale, mixed-use, or master-
planned developments shall demonstrate compliance
with Noise Policy NE 1.9 and NE 1.10 of the City’s
Noise Element by incorporating acoustic site
planning to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
that adequately minimizes potential noise impacts to
adjacent land uses to meet the City’s standards
shown in General Plan Figure 7-3. In addition, such
projects shall demonstrate compliance with Noise
Policy NE 3.1 of the City’s Noise Element, such
projects and shall submit an Operational Noise
Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review
and approval. The plan shall identify specific
techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary
operational noise to ensure compliance with the
noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of
the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features
may include, but are not limited to, locating
stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by
structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls) or
by using equipment that has a quieter noise rating.
• Any future commercial or industrial development
projects that would include stationary noise sources,
such as loading, shipping, or parking facilities within 200 feet of a residential parcel, shall demonstrate
compliance with Noise Policy NE 3.3 of the City’s
Noise Element and shall submit an Operational Noise
Reduction Plan to the Planning Director for review
and approval. The plan shall identify specific
techniques and measures to reduce on-site stationary
operational noise to ensure compliance with the
noise performance standards of Section 11.05.040 of
the Municipal Code. Noise reduction design features
may include, but are not limited to, locating
stationary noise sources on the site to be shielded by
structures (buildings, enclosures, or sound walls).
❖ MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ❖
7124/The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Final EIR Page IV-56 August 2023

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

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

4.16 Transportation
Threshold 4.16 (a):

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

4.17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.17.8 (a):

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

ISSUE AREA OR

THRESHOLD

PLANS, POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (PPPS), PROJECT DESIGN

FEATURES (PDFS) OR MITIGATION MEASURES (MMS)

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE

AFTER MITIGATION

RESPONSIBLE

PARTY/MONITORING
PARTY

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

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

Reburial of the resources on the Project property. The
measures for reburial shall be culturally appropriate as determined through consultation with the consulting
Tribe(s)and include, at least, the following: Measures to protect the reburial area from any future impacts in
perpetuity. Reburial shall not occur until all required cataloguing and recordation have been completed on the
cultural resources, with the exception that sacred and
ceremonial items, burial goods, and Native American
human remains are excluded. No cataloguing, analysis, or other studies may occur on human remains grave goods,
and sacred and ceremonial items. The designated 10’ x 10’ location for reburial shall be in a predetermined area that is limited in accessibility, not subject to erosion or
flooding, and may require the incorporation of natural
deterrents such as prickly plants, etc. The final artifact inventory associated DPR forms and location of the
reburial shall be included in a confidential Phase IV
Report. The Phase IV Report shall be filed with CHRIS
System at the Eastern Informational Center, at UC
Riverside, under a confidential cover and not subject to a Public Records Request. Copies of the Phase IV Report
shall also be provided to the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, Morongo Band of Mission Indians,
Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians, and Yuhaaviatam of San
Manuel Nation.”
Less than significant Project Applicant and
Project Archaeologist/
and local Native
American representative
Prior to issuance of
grading permit, prior
to ground-disturbing
activities
Exhibit C
❖ APPENDICES ❖

APPENDICES

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-1
NOA The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan

1 NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)

PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN
State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044

DATE: June 16, 2023
TO: Responsible Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties

PROJECT TITLE: The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan CASE NO: MA21269/Specific Plan No. SP21001 – The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan
Notice is hereby given that the City of Jurupa Valley (City) as Lead Agency has prepared a DEIR, under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Project identified below.

We are requesting comments on the DEIR.

AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIR
Electronic copies of the DEIR are available for public review on the following website:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68. The DEIR , a ppendices, and related documents are in the folder labeled “MA21269-The District at Jurupa Valley”. The DEIR will also be available for public review at the following location during regular business hours.

City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

DATES AND PUBLIC COMMENT
The public comment period on the DEIR begins on June 16, 2023, and closes at 5:00 p.m. on July 31, 2023. Any person wishing to comment on the DEIR may do so. The public comment period will be 45 days. Comments and related material must be submitted on or before July 31, 2023, using one of the methods in the ADDRESSES section of this Notice of Availability.

PROJECT LOCATION
The City of Jurupa Valley covers approximately 43.5 square miles within the County of Riverside.

The City is bordered by unincorporated County of San Bernardino and the City of Fontana to the north, the City of Riverside to the east and south, and the City of Eastvale to the west. The Project site is approximately 248 acres of predominately vacant land located in the eastern portion of the City of Jurupa Valley, near the Santa Ana River and State Route 60 (SR -60), in the County of

2 Riverside (the “Project site”). (See attached Exhibit 1, Regional Location Map and Exhibit 2, Local Vicinity Map).

The Project site is generally bordered by SR-60 to the north, the Santa Ana River to the east, 34th Street to the south, and Rubidoux Boulevard to the west. Internal to the Site is Wallace Street where it crosses 34 th Street to the south and continues northeast to northwest , intersecting with Hall Avenue near the northern site boundary. Hall Avenue is also located within the Specific Plan area between Frontage Road to the west and Wallace Street to the east; Hall Avenue continues north over SR-60.

The Specific Plan area inclu des the following 94 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 178-252- 003 and 178-252-004, 178-261-001 and 178-261-002; 178-262-001 through -008; 178-290-005; 178-290-009; 178-300-001 through -008; 178-310-001 and 178-310-002; 178-310-004 though - 009; 178-310-011 through -015; 178-310-023 through -026; 178-310-028; 178-310-031 through - 033; 178-310-041; 178-310-042; 178-310-044; 178-310-046; 178-310-051; 179-130-003 and 179-130-004; 179-130-006 through -008; 179-170-001; 179-170-003 and 179-170-004; 179-170- 005; 179-170-007 and 179 -170-008; 179 -170-016; 179 -170-018; 179 -170-020; 179 -230-010; 179-270-001; 179-270-011 through 179-270-018; 179-270-024; 179-270-028; 179-270-033 and 179-270-034; 179 -310-001; 179-310-004; 179-310-005; 179-340-001; 179-340-002; 179-340- 005; 178-310-017; 178-310-043; 178-310-045; 179-170-015; 178-310-040; 178-310-018; 178- 310-047; 178-310-049; 178-310-030; 178-310-003; 178-310-039 and 178-310-034 (See attached Exhibit 3).

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Project consists of a new Specific Plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) (“Specific Plan”) that would replace the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (SP-337) and EIR (SCH 2004031007) that was approved by Riverside County in 2005, prior to the City’s incorporation.

The new Specific Plan would permit development of up to 1,192 new residential units; approximately 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial land uses (including warehouse and logistic uses); a hotel with conference and hospitality area; and approximately 11 acres of parks and open space (the “Project”). The proposed Specific Plan includes the following land use components as shown in Table 1 below and depicted in Exhibit 4 attached.

Table 1
Specific Plan Land Use Summary
Land Use Gross
Acreage
Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)
Hotel
Rooms
Dwelling
Unit

COMMERCIAL

Neighborhood 20.4 160,000 --- ---
Retail 70.3 1,200,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.1

--- ---
Tourist 5.9 112,500 160 ---
Commercial Sub-Total 97.7 1,472,500 160 ---

RESIDENTIAL

High Density Residential 42.0 --- --- 1,196
25+ du/acre

Residential Sub-Total 42.0 --- --- 1,196

3 Land Use Gross
Acreage
Non- Residential
Square Feet (SF)
Hotel
Rooms
Dwelling
Unit

BUSINESS PARK

Business Park 6.8 30,000 --- ---
Existing Non-Conforming 1.0

--- ---
Business Park Sub-Total 7.8 30,000 --- ---

INDUSTRIAL/LOGISTICS

Industrial 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---
Industrial Sub-total 67.3 1,500,000 --- ---

OPEN SPACE

Open Space 11.1 --- --- ---
Open Space Sub-Total 11.1 --- --- ---

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS

Residential. The residential area of the Specific Plan would consist of 1,192 new dwelling units including both multi-family and single-family unit types, and assumed 4 existing units, on 42 acres.

The residential uses would be clustered in the southeast portion of the Project site adjacent to existing residential uses and away from the adjacent freeway. The Specific Plan would include requirements for community amenities (i.e., pools, children play area, social gathering spots, etc.) for the residents, and traffic calming devices designed to divert truck traffic away from the proposed residential neighborhoods as well as existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Project site. Buffer areas will be required between residential uses and any industrial and warehousing uses.

Commercial. The commercial area of the Specific Plan would include Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Retail, and Commercial Tourist land uses. The Commercial Neighborhood would include a neighborhood shopping center to serve the local area with a grocery store, restaurants, retail stores, and community services. The Commercial Retail area would be designated for larger big-box retailers to serve regional consumers that may include furniture and product showrooms with on-site assembly and inventory storage. The Commercial Retail area would also include an integrated-use overlay to allow a business that combine their various business operations into a single business operation at one site including a traditional “brick and mortar” retail showroom for display and sale of products to the public and may include product assembly/light manufacturing; warehousing; customer pick -up and/or shipping/receivin g. The Commercial Tourist area would include a hotel, exhibit/concert hall, tourist visitor center, or other hospitality and entertainment- related uses. The total commercial area would encompass approximately 98 acres.

Industrial & Business Park . The industrial area would have a maximum of 1.5 million square feet of building area intended to provide a wide range of industrial uses including research and development; light manufacturing, assembly and processing of manufactured goods and materials; w arehousing and distribution including e -commerce, high-cube logistics and cross - dock facilities. on approximately 67 acres. An approximately 30,000 square foot business park intended for research and development, technology centers, corporate offices, clean industry, and supporting retail uses would be included on approximately 8 acres. There would be an open

4 space buffer between the industrial/logistics use and the residential uses to the south. Truck traffic into and out of this area would be prohibited from traveling into the proposed and existing residential areas.

Open Space. The Project would provide approximately 11 acres of both active and passive open space for residents, employees , and visitors in the form of neighborhood parks, urban parks, recreational facilities, community centers, play areas, greenbelts, and off-street trails. The Open Space Land Use Area also incorporates landscape buffers and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater.

Signage and Monuments . The Project would include standards for sig nage 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.

Circulation. The circulation system would be designed to minimize traffic on the adjacent neighborhood streets and provide for efficient circulation throughout the Project site and divert truck traffic away from the proposed and existing residential neighborhoods. Thro ugh the EIR process on-site and off -site improvements aimed to improve traffic flows on the adjacent local roadways and the adjoining SR-60 are evaluated. Project street improvements would include both on-site and off-site roadways as well as the vacation of certain existing roads or portions of street rights-of-way within the Project site boundaries.

Infrastructure/Utilities. The Project would be required to install sewer, water, storm drain and dry utilities throughout the site in size and capacity to meet the requirements of the development.

The EIR analyzes both on-site and off-site infrastructure improvements required for the Project.

Project Phasing. The Project would be phased through multiple projects over many years. Phase 1 is envisioned to start with demolition in 2023, with completion of buildings in 2025. Start of construction of Phase 2 is envisioned with grading in 2026; building completion will be in 2028 Required Entitlements. The following entitlements are required for the proposed Project:

1. New Specific Plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) and repeal of the existing Emerald Meadows Specific Plan (SP-337).

2. General Plan Amendment to change the underlyi ng land use designations to accommodate the proposed multi -use Project; create a new General Plan Overlay, the "Commercial Retail -Integrated Use Overlay and establish the Commercial Retail - Integrated Use Overlay on a portion of the Project site; and to est ablish the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlay Zone on a portion of the Project site.

3. Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Plan Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan to the new District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan

4. Development Agreement to vest the Project and allow for the orderly development within the Specific Plan area.

5. Tentative Maps(s) to subdivide the Project site into several parcels with varying land uses and including street vacations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 provides that if a Lead Agency determines that an EIR will clearly be required for a project, an Initial Study is not required. The DEIR prepared for the proposed Project is a full-scope EIR, and has included each of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G topical issue areas listed below.

5 • Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resources • Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Energy • Recreation
• Geology and Soil • Transportation
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Tribal Cultural Resources
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Wildfire

The DEIR addressed the short -term and long -term effects of the proposed Project on the environment. The DEIR evaluated the potential for the proposed Project to cause direct and indirect growth-inducing impacts, as well as cumulative impacts. Alternatives to the proposed Project were also evaluated in the DEIR.

Mitigation measures for those impacts that are determined to be potentially significant are included in the DEIR. And, a mitigation monitoring and report program (MMRP) has been developed as required by Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines.

ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS
Mail:

City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Telephone: 951-332-6464

Email: [email protected]
Hand Delivery:

Same as mail address directly
above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions regarding this notice, please reach out to the point of contact below, in writing or via email:

Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Telephone: 951-332-6464
Email: [email protected]

6 Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map

7 Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map

8 Exhibit 3: Parcel Map

9 Exhibit 4: Conceptual Land Use Plan

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-2
NOA –Email Blast to Commentors/Interested Parties

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE

REFER TO THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION WITHIN THE NOA.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL.

Thomas Gorham| Principal Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY |
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] | jurupavalley.org

From: Thomas Gorham
Bcc: [email protected]
Subject: FW: Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044 Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 5:09:00 PM
Attachments: DJV NOA_to City_2023-06-16.pdf

As Lead Agency, the City of Jurupa Valley (City) is requesting your comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Project (State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044).

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE

REFER TO THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION WITHIN THE NOA.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL.

Thomas Gorham| Principal Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY |
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] | jurupavalley.org

From: Thomas Gorham
Bcc: Robert Swanson; [email protected]; Ted Beckwith; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044 Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 5:26:00 PM
Attachments: DJV NOA_to City_2023-06-16.pdf

Thomas Gorham| Principal Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY |
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] | jurupavalley.org

From: Thomas Gorham
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2023 5:10 PM
Subject: FW: Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE

REFER TO THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION WITHIN THE NOA.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL.

Thomas Gorham| Principal Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY |
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] | jurupavalley.org

From: Thomas Gorham
Bcc: Molly Greene; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Marcotte, Eugenie; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: FW: Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044 Date: Friday, June 16, 2023 6:01:00 PM
Attachments: DJV NOA_to City_2023-06-16.pdf
Hello,

IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS AND/OR QUESTIONS RELATED TO THIS PROJECT, PLEASE

REFER TO THE ATTACHED NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) AND THE CONTACT INFORMATION WITHIN THE NOA.

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY DIRECTLY TO THIS EMAIL.

Thomas Gorham| Principal Planner
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY |
8930 Limonite Avenue | Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected] | jurupavalley.org

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-3
NOA - Agency/Organization Email Blast

EMAIL BLAST LIST June 16, 2023:

Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044

Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission
[email protected];

CalTrans District 8
Local Development & Intergovernmental
Review
[email protected];
[email protected];

City of Riverside
[email protected];
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected];

Riverside County Clerk
[email protected]
Riverside County Fire Department
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District
[email protected];

Riverside County Sheriff
Jurupa Valley Station
[email protected]

Inland Empire Waterkeeper

[email protected]

Jurupa Unified School District
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];

Riverside Transit Authority
[email protected];

Lozeau | Drury LLP
[email protected];
[email protected]

Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District
[email protected]
Rubidoux Community Services District
[email protected]

Riverside County Department of
Environmental Health
[email protected]

[email protected]
www.rivcoeh.org
[email protected]

Southern California Association of
Governments
Attn: Intergovernmental Review
[email protected];

SCE
Genevieve Cross, SCE, Third Party
Environmental Review
[email protected];

So Cal Gas
SoCalGasTransmissionUtilityRequest@sempra
utilities.com;
[email protected]
m;
[email protected];

SCAQMD
Lijin Sun
CEQA IGR Program Supervisor
[email protected];

WRCOG
[email protected];;
[email protected]

Department of Justice
California Attorney General’s Office, DEJ
[email protected]

Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
[email protected];
[email protected]

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians- Kizh
Nation
[email protected];
[email protected];

Yuhaaviatam of San Manuel Nation
[email protected]
[email protected]

EMAIL BLAST LIST June 16, 2023:

Notice of Availability The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan DEIR SCH # 2022040044

Western Riverside County
Regional Conservation Authority

[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai, Attorney At Law
[email protected]
[email protected];
[email protected];
[email protected];

CCAEJ
[email protected];
[email protected]

Sierra Club:

[email protected]

City of Norco:
[email protected]

City of Fontana:
[email protected]

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-4
NOA - County Clerk Recorder Posting

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-5
NOA - Newspaper Publication

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-6
Newspaper Proof

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

Jurupa Valley City CouncilSeptember 7, 2023

Jurupa Valley City Council
September 7, 2023