Jurupa Valley City Council
September 7, 2023

DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR) DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (DEIR)

PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN PROPOSED DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044 State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044 State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044 State Clearinghouse Number 2022040044 DATE: DATE: DATE: DATE: June 16, 2023
TO: TO: TO: TO: Responsible Agencies, Organizations, and Interested Parties PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT TITLE: The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan CASE NO: CASE NO: CASE NO: CASE NO: MA21269/Specific Plan No. SP21001 – The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan
Notice is hereby given that the City of Jurupa Vall ey (City) as Lead Agency has prepared a DEIR, under the California Environmental Quality Ac t (CEQA) for the proposed Project identified below. We are requesting comments on the DEIR.

AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIR AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIR AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIR AVAILABILITY OF THE DEIR Electronic copies of the DEIR are available for pub lic review on the following website:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68. The DEIR, appendices, and related documents are in the folder labeled “MA2126 9-The District at Jurupa Valley”. The DEIR will also be available for public review at th e following location during regular business hours.

City of Jurupa Valley
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

DATES AND PUBLIC COMMENT DATES AND PUBLIC COMMENT DATES AND PUBLIC COMMENT DATES AND PUBLIC COMMENT The public comment period on the DEIR begins on Jun e 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 materi al 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 PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION PROJECT LOCATION The City of Jurupa Valley covers approximately 43.5 square miles within the County of Riverside. The City is bordered by unincorporated C ounty 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 acr es 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”). (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 34th Street to the south an d continues northeast to northwest, intersecting with Hall Avenue near the northern sit e 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 includes the following 94 As sessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs): 178- 252-003 and 178-252-004, 178-261-001 and 178-261-00 2; 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 179-270-0 34; 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 PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed Project consists of a new Specific Plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) (“Specific Plan”) that would replace the Emer ald 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 u p to 1,192 new residential units; approximately 3 million square feet of commercial a nd industrial land uses (including warehouse and logistic uses); a hotel with conferen ce 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 Table 1 Table 1 Table 1
Specific Plan Land Use Summary Specific Plan Land Use Summary Specific Plan Land Use Summary Specific Plan Land Use Summary Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2023
Residential Residential Residential Residential . The residential area of the Specific Plan would c onsist 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 clustere d 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 ameni ties (i.e., pools, children play area, social gathering spots, etc.) for the residents, an d traffic calming devices designed to divert truck traffic away from the proposed residential ne ighborhoods as well as existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Pr oject site. Buffer areas will be required between residential uses and any industrial and warehousing uses.

Commercial Commercial Commercial Commercial . The commercial area of the Specific Plan would in clude Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Retail, and Commercial Tou rist land uses. The Commercial Neighborhood would include a neighborhood shopping center to serve the local area with a grocery store, restaurants, retail stores, and comm unity services. The Commercial Retail area would be designated for larger big-box retaile rs to serve regional consumers that may include furniture and product showrooms with on-sit e assembly and inventory storage. The Commercial Retail area would also include an integr ated-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 s howroom for display and sale of products to the public and may include product assembly/ligh t manufacturing; warehousing; customer pick-up and/or shipping/receiving. The Com mercial 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 Industrial & Business Park Industrial & Business Park Industrial & Business Park . The industrial area would have a maximum of 1.5 m illion 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; warehousing and distribution i ncluding e-commerce, high-cube logistics and cross-dock facilities. on approximate ly 67 acres. An approximately 30,000 square foot business park intended for research and development, technology centers, corporate offices, clean industry, and supporting r etail uses would be included on approximately 8 acres. There would be an open space buffer between the industrial/logistics use and the residential uses to the south. Truck tr affic into and out of this area would be prohibited from traveling into the proposed and existing residential areas.

Open Space Open Space Open Space Open Space . The Project would provide approximately 11 acres of both active and passive open space for residents, employees, and visitors i n 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 incorpora tes landscape buffers and other water quality management practices to treat stormwater.

Signage and Monuments Signage and Monuments Signage and Monuments Signage and Monuments . The Project would include standards for signage t hat could be installed within each land use area. Signage standa rds may include but not be limited to commercial/industrial signs (wall and monument), di rectional signage, entry features/monuments, and freeway-oriented signs, inc luding Project pylon signs and billboards. The goal would be to provide a comprehe nsive and cohesive approach to signage throughout the Project site.

Circulation Circulation Circulation Circulation . The circulation system would be designed to minim ize traffic on the adjacent neighborhood streets and provide for efficient circ ulation throughout the Project site and divert truck traffic away from the proposed and exi sting residential neighborhoods.

Through the EIR process on-site and off-site improv ements 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-sit e roadways as well as the vacation of certain existing roads or portions of street rights-of-way within the Project site boundaries.

Infrastructure/Utilities Infrastructure/Utilities Infrastructure/Utilities Infrastructure/Utilities . The Project would be required to install sewer, w ater, 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 Project Phasing Project Phasing Project Phasing . The Project would be phased through multiple proj ects over many years.

Phase 1 is envisioned to start with demolition in 2 023, 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 Required Entitlements Required Entitlements 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 underlying l and 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 P roject site; and to establish the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overla y on a portion of the Project site.

3. Change of Zone to modify the existing Specific Pl an Zone from the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan to the new The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan

4. Development Agreement to vest the Project and all ow for the orderly development within the Specific Plan area.

5. Tentative Maps(s) to subdivide the Project site i nto several parcels with varying land uses and including street vacations.

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES . CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 provides that if a Lead Agency determines that an EIR will clearly be requi red for a project, an Initial Study is not required. The DEIR prepared for the proposed Projec t is a full-scope EIR, and has included each of the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G topical issue areas listed below. • Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forestry Resources • Mineral Resourc es • 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 Serv ice Systems • Hydrology and Water Quality • Wildfire
The DEIR addressed the short-term and long-term eff ects 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 cumula tive impacts. Alternatives to the proposed Project were also evaluated in the DEIR.

Mitigation measures for those impacts that are dete rmined 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 ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS ADDRESSES FOR COMMENTS Mail: Mail: Mail: Mail: Hand Delivery: Hand Delivery: Hand Delivery: Hand Delivery:

City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Dept. Sa me as mail address directly Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner above, between 9 a. m. and 5 p.m., 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Monday through Friday, except Telephone: 951-332-6464 City observed holidays.

Email: Email: Email: Email: [email protected]

CONTACT INFORMATION CONTACT INFORMATION CONTACT INFORMATION 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 Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Telephone: 951-332-6464
Email: [email protected]
Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map Exhibit 1:Regional Location Map Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Map Exhibit 3: Parcel Map Exhibit 3: Parcel Map Exhibit 3: Parcel Map Exhibit 3: Parcel Map

Exhibit 4: Conceptual Land Use Plan Exhibit 4: Conceptual Land Use Plan Exhibit 4: Conceptual Land Use Plan Exhibit 4: Conceptual Land Use Plan Press-Enterprise Press-Enterprise Press-Enterprise Press-Enterprise Published: 6/16/23 Published: 6/16/23 Published: 6/16/23 Published: 6/16/23 ❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-7
Bracketed Draft EIR Comment Letters

3900 Main Street, Riverside, CA 92522 | Phone: (951) 826-5371 | RiversideCA.gov Community Development
Department
Planning Division
July 31, 2023
Thomas Gorham
Principal Planner
Community Development Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Subject: City of Riverside’s Review of a Notice of Availability of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for The District at Jurupa Valley
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) understands 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.

The City has reviewed the DEIR, and we wish to provide the following comments:

Community & Economic Development Department – Planning Division • Executive Summary
o 1.4 Summary of Environmental Impacts
▪ Table 1.0-1 Impacts and Mitigation Measures
• 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 t he Project Applicant related to multimodal transit accessibility and/or readiness that can be shown to have a measurable effect on trip generation.
• 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. • 3.0 Project Description
o 3.4.2 Proposed Land Uses
▪ The Project Description indicates the Project includes 70.3 acres designated for Retail development within the Commercial land use category, with a maximum development yield of 1.2 million square feet. Figure 3.4-1 (Land Use Plan) indicates that some portion of the Commercial Retail land use designation is proposed to have the CR – Integrated Use Overlay. 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.
▪ The P roject Description goes on to describe the intent and typical uses allowed within the CR – Integrated Use Overlay, which are described as having “a traditional ‘brick and mortar’ retail showroom for display and sale of products to the public and may include the following business operations:
product assembly/light manufacturing; warehousing; customer pick -up and/or shipping/receiving. Each individual Commercial Retail -Integrated Use shall have a minimum of 10 percent of its total floor area occupied by a retail showroom.” This describes a primarily industrial land use with a strong orientation toward logistics and goods movement uses with a nominal amount of ancillary retail activity.
▪ The Air Quality Analysis prepared for the Project (Appendix D1) reference s the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared for the Project and describes a sum total of 2.4 million square feet (msf) of industrial land uses (1.65 msf Warehousing,

0.3 msf High Cube Fulfillment Center – Non-sort, 0.3 msf High Cube Fulfillment Center – Sort; a nd 0.15 msf High Cube Cold Storage). Table 3.4 -2 of the Project Description only describes 1.5 million square feet of development within the Industrial land use designation. This means that, based on land use assumptions provided in the Traffic Impact Anal ysis, the Project involves an additional approximately 900,000 square feet of industrial land use activity outside of the Industrial land use designation – which must be assumed to be anticipated within the Retail - Integrated Use Overlay as none of the ot her proposed land use districts would permit these types of uses. ▪ The Project Description, and the subsequent analysis within the EIR, must be revised to address this fact. The EIR must analyze the 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. Cumulative impacts must be further reevaluated to address this discrepancy . This mischaracterization of proposed land uses is significant and rises to the level of requiring revision and recirculation of the Draft EIR. • 3.4.3 Signage and Monuments
o The Project Description states 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 locations and one existing freestanding sign (type not specified). The Project Description, the corresponding Figure, or both should be revised to correct this discrepancy.

o 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 re lated 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/Responsible Agency and the required Landscaped Freeway Declassification and O utdoor Advertising Permit requests listed as required discretionary approvals for the Project. • 4.1 Aesthetics
o 4.1.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
▪ Threshold (a) - Views of Future Development on the Project Site from the City of Riverside
• The Draft EIR fails to discuss how 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. Despite the width of the Santa Ana River and the height of associated dikes and berms, the proposed Project allows for industrial and logistics land uses to be developed up to a height of 75 feet above finished grade in the Industrial land use designation, which is located directly adjacent to the Santa Ana River. At a minimum, the Draft EIR should 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 height in this area. Photosimulations, cross-sections and other simulated, schemat ic, or diagrammatic illustrations of areas affected by this scale of development should be provided to substantiate these conclusions. Appropriate mitigation measures, up to and including limitations of allowed building height, should be applied as necessary.
▪ Threshold (c) – Freeway signs
• The Draft EIR states that subsequent discretionary approvals for the project will include a Site Development Permit for a Master Sign Program. This section of the 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.
• 4.1.7 – Cumulative Impacts
o The Draft EIR states in this section that “The EIR also evaluated impacts to views of Mount Rubidoux in the City of Riverside because it is within one mile of the Project site and is considered a scenic resource by the City of Riverside. Due to the project site’s distance from these resources, intervening development, and topography

relative to these scenic resources [including] Mount Rubidoux.” The Draft EIR fails to substantiate this claim through any evidence. With a permitted building height of 75 feet within the Industrial and use classification – located directly adjacent to the Santa Ana River between the Project site and Mount Rubidoux – buildings constructed within this 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 rev ised to address these potential impacts or provide substantial evidence to the contrary.
• 4.2 Air Quality
o 4.2.2 Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
▪ The City of Riverside’s comment letter was provided April 29, 2022, not April 29, 2023 as stated in the Draft EIR.
o 4.2.4 Methodology – Area Sources.
▪ As summarized in comments provided on Section 3.4.2 (Proposed Land Uses) above, the quantity of industrial land uses described in the Air Quality Analysis disagrees with the summary of land uses provided in Chap ter 3.0 (Project Description). The EIR should be revised to accurately describe and analyze the potential environmental impacts of the total quantity of industrial land uses contemplated as part of the Project.
o 4.2.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
▪ 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.
▪ 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. • 4.3 Biological Resources
o 4.3.6 Environmental Impact Analysis
▪ Threshold (a) – Project Design Features
• PDF 4.3 -1 – The Draft EIR fails to evaluate or discuss how nighttime lighting related to the proposed freestanding digital billboard signage nearest to the Santa Ana River might or might not have a detrimental impact to sensitive species or habitat that co uld require mitigation either during construction or operation of the project. This PDF states that “Night lighting will be directed away from MSHCP Conservation Areas, including the adjacent Santa Ana River corridor, with appropriate shielding being incor porated in project design,” but fails to substantiate this statement. The potential impact of nighttime lighting emanating from the digital billboard proposed for this location

on sensitive species and habitat must be evaluated and 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.
▪ Threshold (f) – F.2 – Impacts Analysis
• Lighting – The Draft EIR states that the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires that “Pole -mounted, building -mounted, or tree -mounted lighting fixtures shall be no more than 30 feet in height to minimize direct glare beyond the parking lot or service area” and further concludes that the Project will have no significant impact s after mitigation under this threshold. However, the Project Description indicates 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 Mu nicipal 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.
• 4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
o 4.7.6 Environmental Impacts Analysis
▪ Threshold (b) - Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Consistency
• Table 4.7-5, Goal 6: Support healthy and equitable communities o 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.
• 4.13 Population and Housing
o 4.13.3 Regulatory Framework – California Housing Element Law ▪ The Project proposes demolition of existing housing units. As such, the Draft EIR should address applicable California statutes related to preservation and replacement of existin g housing units pursuant to Senate Bills 330 and 8 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019). Specifically, 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 th e 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. ▪ Threshold (b)
• The Project proposed demolition of 11 existing housing units. Pursuant to California Senate Bills 330 and 8 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), 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 a ffordable to households with the same income level as the eliminated units. • 4.16 Recreation

o 4.16.2 – Notice of Preparation/Scoping Comments
▪ 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 Section 4.15.6, Environmental Impact Analysis, in Section 4.15, Recreation.
• Discuss trail connection to local, County and adjacent jurisdiction trail systems. This topic is discussed in Section 4.15, Recreation. • Discuss the Mission Boulevard Bridge Replacement project and the trail facilities to be included in the District Plan to facilitate trail trave l between the Project area and Riverside. This topic is discussed in Section 4.16.1, Existing Conditions, above.”
▪ Consistency with the City of Riverside’s Trails Master Plan is not substantively discussed or addressed in Section 4.15 (Recreation). The Draf t EIR should be revised to address this comment.
▪ 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.
▪ 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.
• 5.0 Alternatives
o 5.7 Analysis of Alternative 4: Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative ▪ The Draft EIR describes this Alternative as replacing proposed industrial uses with “storage” uses, plus some additional residential and open space uses.

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 in 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 ac tually involve any industrial land uses as the name of this Alternative suggests 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 industria l land uses described in the Draft EIR.
▪ 5.7.2.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• The Draft EIR states that “Nearly 75 percent of project greenhouse gas emissions would be from passenger cars and trucks. Thus, operational GHG emissions are considered here to be pro portional to trip generation. This alternative would increase trip generation by approximately 20 percent compared to the proposed Project.” However, the Alternative analyzed in this scenario does not legitimately exclude industrial uses and, in fact, Tabl e 5.7 -3 (Trip

Generation Estimate – Reduced Industrial Uses Alternative) still includes one million square feet of industrial warehouse uses (categorized, for some reason, under “Regional Commercial”). This 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.
• 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 with 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.

Public Works Department – Traffic Engineering Division:

Appendix D – Technical Reports, Studies, and Assessments • Section D20.1 – Traffic Impact Analysis Memo May 2023 o Page – Introduction:
▪ 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.
o Page 11 – Analysis, Scenarios and Methodology:
▪ 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 Drive 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.
▪ Please also include the intersection of Mission Inn Boulevard and Redwood Drive as one of the study area intersections in the traffic study. o Page 24 & 25 - Figures 8B & 8C:
▪ 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. o Page 27-28 – Figures 9A & 9B:
▪ The Truck Circulation Plan shows that the trucks will not utilize Mission 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 heavy vehicle restrictions to limit heavy vehicle traffic on Mission Inn Avenue/Mission Boulevard towards the City of Riverside.

The City of Riverside appreciates your consideration of the comments provided in this letter.

Should you have any questions regarding t his letter, please contact me at (951) 826- 5944, or by e-mail at [email protected].

We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this proposal and look forward to working with you in the future.

Sincerely,
Matthew Taylor
Principal Planner
cc: Patricia Lock Dawson, Mayor
Riverside City Council Members
Mike Futrell, City Manager
Rafael Guzman, Assistant City Manager
Jennifer A. Lilley, Community & Economic Development Director Maribeth Tinio, City Planner
Gilbert Hernandez, Public Works Director
Phaedra Norton, City Attorney

10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] July 31, 2023 Thomas Gorham Principal Planner City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Via U.S. Mail and email to [email protected] re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report on The District at Jurupa Valley Project, SCH No. 2022040044 Dear Mr. Gorham: Advocates for the Environment submits the comments in this letter regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the District at Jurupa Valley Project (Project). We are a non-profit public-interest law firm, that uses environmental law to fight to improve the environment in California. The Project Site is located at the intersection of Hall Avenue and Wallace Street, within the City of Jurupa Valley (City), Kern County, and would affect a total of 247.2 acres of land. The Project entails the construction of 1,192 new residential units, 3 million square feet of warehouse, commercial, and industrial uses, and a hotel. The resulting warehouse would employ approximately 3,779 employees. We have reviewed the DEIR released in June 2023 and submit comments regarding the sufficiency of the DEIR’s Greenhouse-Gas (GHG) analysis under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Should Require the Project to be Net-Zero Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, including indirect emissions from offsite generation of electricity, direct emissions produced onsite, and from construction with cement and steel, amounted to 21% of global GHG emissions in 2019. (IPCC Sixth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2022, WGIII, Mitigation of Climate Change, p. 9-4.) This is a very large portion of global GHG emissions. It is much less expensive to construct new building projects to be net-zero than to obtain the same level of GHG reductions by retrofitting older buildings. Climate damages will keep increasing until we reach net zero GHG emissions, and there is a California state policy requiring the state to be net-zero by 2045. It therefore makes no sense to construct new buildings that are not net-zero. Two of the largest mixed-use development projects in the history of California, Newhall Ranch (now FivePoint Valencia), and Centennial (part of Tejon Ranch) decided, after environmental groups Advocates for the Environment A non-profit public-interest law firm and environmental advocacy organization City of Jurupa Valley Page 2 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] sued and won under CEQA, to move forward as net-zero communities. This proves it is feasible. The Applicant for this project should do the same. We urge the City to adopt net-zero as the GHG significance threshold for this project, and require full fair-share litigation. The CARB 2017 Scoping Plan states that “achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions, resulting in no contribution to GHG impacts, is an appropriate overall objective for new development.” (p. 101.) Moving this Project forward as a net-zero project would be the right thing for the City to do and would also protect the City and the Applicant from CEQA GHG litigation. The Project’s GHG Impacts Must be Fully Mitigated The calculated project-related emissions level is 92,061 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2e) per year, including 30-year amortized construction emissions of 453 MTCO2e per year (DEIR 4.7-15). The City adopted a GHG the dual significance threshold from Appendix G of the CEQA guidelines, in which a project is significant if it would: (a) generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or (b) conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The DEIR concluded the Project would have significant and unavoidable GHG impact. CEQA requires fair-share mitigation for significant cumulative impacts, such as GHG impacts.To reduce the significant impact, the GHG mitigation section referred to Air Quality Mitigation Measure (AQ MM) 3, 4, 5, and 13, as well as and Greenhouse Gas Mitigation Measures (GHG MM) 1-4. (DEIR 4.7- 29). But these measures are not enough to effectively mitigate the GHG emissions from the Project. Despite an apparent availability of other GHG mitigation and Project alternatives, the DEIR declared that the Project’s quantified emissions would result in “significant and unavoidable cumulative GHG impact.” (DEIR p. 4.7-29.) But this is not true. There are other readily available mitigation measures. Since the Project’s GHG emissions would be significant, CEQA requires that the Project include fair-share mitigation (Napa Citizens for Honest Gov’t v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 364.) Here, this means mitigation of all of the Project’s GHG impacts. The amount of GHG emissions that comprises the Project’s fair share is clear. The EIR quantified the Project’s annual emissions at about 92,061 MTCO2e. The reasonable lifespan of a warehouse project is beyond that of a residential building, averaging 50 to 60 years.1 Therefore there is a quantifiable estimate of total Project emissions by multiplying the annual estimate by the average lifespan, which would amount to 5,063,355 MTCO2e.2 This would be a good starting point from which to subtract the effect of non-offset mitigation measures, before implementing offset purchases. 1 https://bciconstruction.us/which-factors-determine-the-lifespan-of-a-building/#:~:text=A%20warehouse%20used%20to%20produce,for%20major%20repairs%20or%20renovations. 2 (92,061 MTCO2e) x (55 years average) = 5,063,355 MTCO2e City of Jurupa Valley Page 3 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] The EIR Identifies Ineffective and Insufficient Mitigation Measures Vague and unenforceable mitigation measures violate CEQA. (California Clean Energy Comm. v. City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 180.) There is no showing that certain mitigation measures are enforceable, and one of the mitigation measures is not even minimally effective. MM AQ-133 fails for vagueness, unenforceability, and lack of effect because merely providing documentation is not likely to contribute to actual changes in tenant behavior without some additional enforceable measure.4 The City should update this measure to make it more enforceable. The City knows how to write enforceable mitigation measures, for example, maintains that “the Planning Division shall confirm that the Project’s Covenants Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and/or tenant lease agreements include contractual language” and that third-party vendor agreements also include the requirement. Substantial evidence must show that mitigation measures will be “at least partially effective.” (King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. Cnty. of Kern (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 814, 865, 259.) While there may be some mitigation that could reduce emissions to simultaneously improve air quality and reduce GHG, some of the mitigation measures identified as GHG mitigation only apply to air quality with no likelihood of being even “partially effective” at reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, additional measures need to be adopted. (See “The Project’s GHG Impacts Must be Fully Mitigated,” below.) For example, MM GHG-5 which requires landscape equipment to be electric, is only outsourcing the GHG emissions to the electrical power plants, unless the electricity is coming from renewable sources. The mitigation measure does not specify this, so while it will reduce air quality pollutants it is not likely to have a large impact of GHG emissions. Ultimately, these mitigation measures should be revised to ensure a minimum level of effectiveness. Infeasibility Finding Lacks Substantial Evidence The conclusion that the Project will not be able to achieve any mitigation beyond the Project’s mitigation measures is not supported with substantial evidence. Overall, as discussed in the next section of this letter, there are abundant options available to mitigate emissions to the full extent of project emissions. The lead agency carries the burden of including an adequate discussion of feasible mitigation measures, including identifying the reasons for infeasibility, and the failure to do so here is a violation of CEQA and insufficient to meet the City’s burden. 3 MM AQ-13: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation that the Project is designed to prohibit natural gas within residential structures. 4 MM AQ-7: “The facility operator shall provide tenants with an information packet that: Provides information on incentive programs, such as the Carl Moyer Memorial Air Quality Standards Attainment Program (Moyer Program), and other similar funding opportunities, by providing applicable literature available from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).” City of Jurupa Valley Page 4 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] First, the DEIR notes that mobile emissions are not controllable, and therefore not feasible to mitigate, stating: “Having no regulatory control over emissions control technology (e.g., LCFS), the City of Jurupa Valley has limited ability to control or mitigate emissions associated with mobile source emissions associated with this project.” (DEIR p. 4.7-18.) However, the City has the capacity to control the emissions directly and indirectly related to this project. For example, the City can require that all operational vehicles and equipment on the site adhere to the best available emissions control technology, including the latest GHG standards. Additionally, requiring vehicle fleets to be powered by alternative fuel types would effectively emit less GHGs; the City could require that the applicant’s lease agreements included provisions to limit the use of heavy-duty diesel trucks or require that the tenant’s vehicle fleet use non-diesel fuels such as gasoline, ethanol, or biofuels. Another feasible mitigation measure would require the applicant to enter a contract with future tenants to use zero-emission commercial vehicles upon reasonable availability and maintain a charging system for the vehicle fleet that is powered by solar panels on the Project site. Such mitigation is feasible and would be necessary to mitigate to the Project’s fair share extent. By saying that GHG impact is unavoidable outside of the identified mitigation measures, the DEIR implies that further mitigation for non-mobile source emissions is also not feasible. However, there are several measures, including solar panels, solar water heaters, automatic light switches, among many other mitigation strategies that can be incorporated to reduce non-mobile emissions. The City could also commit to offsets or require the Applicant to enter into an agreement to buy clean power. Thus, the conclusion that further mitigation would be infeasible has not been supported by substantial evidence. The City Should Decrease GHG Impact to Extent Feasible The City declared that “[n]o additional feasible mitigation measures are available that can reduce impacts to less than significant” (DEIR 4.7-28; Kimley-Horn, 2023c, 41). But existing mitigation measures can be strengthened, and more measures may be added to the extent feasible, which may potentially cover the full fair share extent. Improving Upon Existing Mitigation Measures There are several identified mitigation measures which are arbitrarily limited without explanation of why that would create the maximum feasible GHG emissions reductions. For example, MM AQ-5, in which landscaping equipment is required to be “100 percent electrically powered,” could feasibly be extended to other industrial equipment that does not fall under the category of “landscaping.” Similarly, MM AQ-135 aims to prohibit natural gas usage in residential structures only, 5 MM AQ-13: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation that the Project is designed to prohibit natural gas within residential structures.

City of Jurupa Valley Page 5 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] and MM GHG-36 requires energy efficiency for residential appliances only, even though the Project also involves commercial and industrial structures as well. The City did not explain why these measures would only be feasible for this mitigation measure to apply to residential structures, despite the likelihood that commercial and industrial buildings would otherwise have natural-gas intensive equipment and appliances. Lastly, MM GHG-47 involves diverting 75% of landfill waste without an explanation of why this number is the maximum extent feasible for the Project. It seems that the number could be based on some standard or recommendation, yet it has not been analyzed in relation to the needs of this Project and it is possible that further diversion could be feasible to create a more impactful mitigation measure. Operational Emissions Reductions The DEIR indicates that the Project would adhere to the mandatory measures of the California Green Buildings Standards Code (DEIR 4.2-19), but it would be feasible to go beyond the requirements to also incorporate voluntary measures as mitigation. For example, all buildings on-site could include green roof strategies for all portions of the roof that are not utilized for solar panels, in order to contribute to energy savings and therefore GHG emissions reductions. Some examples of green roof features include the use of solar reflection or thermal emittance materials, and the construction of a thermal mass, such as vegetation on the roof. The Project should also 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 to allow for public transportation schedules, and provide access to convenient services within walking distance of the site to reduce the need to drive. There are many other strategies that can achieved operational GHG emissions reductions through building design measures and Project-related transportation infrastructure. The City should consider all feasible operational emissions reductions and include corresponding mitigation measures to achieve such reductions in the DEIR. Solar Panel Installation is a Feasible Mitigation Measure One of the most important feasible on-site mitigation measures is installing solar panels or otherwise incorporating renewable energy production on-site, as to be less reliant on GHG-intense 6 MM GHG-3: 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. 7 MM GHG-4: 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 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.

City of Jurupa Valley Page 6 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] fuels which power the City’s energy system. Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPP) 4.7-4 mandates that 15% of the roof of the warehouse be solar ready in accordance with Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards. (DEIR 4.7-13.) Accordingly, it would be readily achievable to follow through with the installation of solar panels on the solar-ready roof, and on the maximum roof area that could support solar panels, rather than an arbitrary 15%. Warehouses often have considerable roof space conducive to solar panels, and likewise it would be feasible to install solar panels on the entire available surface. Installing solar panels, rather than making the building “solar-ready,” would also make the identified mitigation measures more effective and decrease GHG emissions overall. The DEIR does not comment on the feasibility of such measures, but it would seem feasible, at the very least, to make the roofs of these buildings solar-ready, if not install solar panels on the maximum available roof space. It would also be possible to build canopies in the parking lots and install solar panels on them. Offsets Are Feasible There are many available sources for the purchase of CEQA-compliant offsets, and the City’s conclusion that such offsets are infeasible and pre-determined as non-compliant is not supported by substantial evidence. The DEIR raises the point that “reliance on carbon offsets to reduce either the Project’s mobile or non-mobile emissions is also not feasible,” claiming that the “additionality” requirement cannot be met (DEIR p. 4.7-18.) However, CEQA allows offsets to be used to mitigate a project’s emissions, and offsets are just as accepted as other methods of mitigation (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.4 (c).) Here, the City can easily 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. The DEIR states that the City “has no enforcement authority over offset credits that fund carbon reduction projects outside of the City.” Yet, the City has the authority to enter into a binding commitment with the Applicant to purchase or otherwise implement offsets. (See King & Gardiner Farms, LLC v. Cnty. of Kern (2020) 45 Cal. App. 5th 814, 852.) Several carbon registry programs undertake protocols which ensure that the offsets are being achieved, regardless of where they originate, and make lists publicly available for purchase.8 The lead agency further claims that “no local programs are available that would meet CEQA’s criteria for a valid mitigation measure,” (DEIR 4.7-18) but CEQA does not restrict mitigation to local measures. Yet, some applicable plans for reducing GHG emissions emphasize a preference for on-site and local offsets, given the community co-benefits.9 The Project can create its own local or on-site 8 National Forest Foundation (Project ID ACR168), L.D O’Rourke Foundation (Project ID ACR672), and Ecotrust Forest Management, Inc. (Project IDs ACR732, ACR734 and ACR734). 9 A generally recognized hierarchy in mitigating GHG impacts is: 1) project design features/on-site mitigation, 2) local offsets, 3) State offsets, 4) US offsets, 5) International offsets. (See, e.g., Sierra Club v. Cnty. of San Diego, No. D077548, 2021 WL 6050624, at *11 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 21, 2021.) City of Jurupa Valley Page 7 Comments on The District at Jurupa Valley Project July 31, 2023 10211 Sunland Blvd., Shadow Hills, CA 91040 (818) 650-0030 X101 [email protected] measures to sequester GHG emissions or offset the Project emissions, such as a conservation easement or restoration to preserve and rehabilitate the wetland and riparian habitat, and therefore sequester carbon emissions (See Save the Hill Grp. v. City of Livermore (2022) 76 Cal. App. 5th 1092, 1117.)10 Since there is no reason why CEQA-compliant offsets are infeasible, the analysis presented in the DEIR is not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, the City should require the Applicant to purchase offsets to the extent necessary to mitigate the Project’s fair share of emissions. There are numerous offsets available for purchase that could negate the Project’s significant GHG emissions, and the failure to identify offsets as a mitigation measure while at the same time concluding unavoidable impact is misleading and not supported by substantial evidence. Conclusion CEQA requires the City to mitigate all of the Project’s significant GHG impacts to the fair share extent, because the City has concluded that the Project’s GHG emissions will be significant and unavoidable. But the DEIR fails to require this, although there are feasible mitigation measures that should be considered, such as offsets or solar panels on site. The lead agency has not met its burden of showing that such measures are infeasible, and therefore the DEIR should be amended to reflect all feasible mitigation, as well as a reasonable range of project alternatives, to mitigate all the Project’s “fair share” of GHG emissions. Please put me on the interest list to receive updates about the progress of this project. Sincerely, Dean Wallraff, Attorney at Law Executive Director, Advocates for the Environment 10 Nahlik, A., Fennessy, M. Carbon storage in US wetlands. Nat Commun 7, 13835 at 2 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms13835. https://rdcu.be/cOjBW (“[W]etlands can accumulate large carbon stores, making them an important sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide and holding up to or, in some cases, even more than 40% soil carbon, which is substantially greater than the 0.5–2% carbon commonly found in agricultural soils”).

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
July 30, 2023
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Dept.
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Em: [email protected]
RE: The District at Jurupa Valley (MA21269) (SP21001) (SCH #: 2022040044) Dear Thomas Gorham:

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”).

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.

Sincerely,

__________________________
Stephanie Papayanis,
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-8
Freeway Sign Declassification Exhibit

JURUPA VALLEY SITE PLAN
9 jurupa valley site plan
❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-9
DEIR Appendix D24- Freeway Signs Declassification Approval

❖ APPENDICES ❖

Appendix FEIR-10
Supplemental Letter Memorandum

ATTACHMENT NO. 6

Excerpt of the March 22, 2023 Study Session Planning
Commission Minutes
P
age 1 of 9

PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES
M
arch 22, 2023
CAL
L TO ORDER Laura Shultz, Chair called the Study Session of the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:00 P.M.

RO
LL CALL Members Present:
• Laura Shultz, Chair
• Penny Newman, Chair Pro Tem
• Hakan Jackson, Commission Member
• Arleen Pruitt, Commission Member
• Yesenia Villagomez, Commission Member
P
UBLIC COMMENTS/ No comments received.

APPEARANCE
S
TUDY SESSION MASTER APPLICATION NO. 21269: THE DISTRICT AT ITEM NO. 1 JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN – REPLACE EMERALD MEADOWS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -337) WITH A
NEW SPECIFIC PLAN ON 248 ACRES OF LAND. THE

PROPOSED NEW SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,196 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 3

MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL,

HOSPITALITY, BUSINESS PARK, AND INDUSTRIAL
LAND USES, OPEN SPACE AND RECRETION AREAS; AND
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED SR- 60 TO THE
NORTH, THE SANTA ANA RIVER TO EAST, 34

TH STREET

TO THE SOUTH, AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD TO THE
WEST
P
rincipal Planner Thomas Gorham provided a PowerPoint
presentation on the proposed project, The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan . The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan would replace the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan that was adopted by Riverside County in 2005, before the City’s incorporation. The P
age 2 of 9
District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan pro poses the creation of a multiple use district that provides new residential development, regional and local commercial shopping centers, a hotel, business park, and warehouse/logistics uses. The Specific Plan also designates areas for public parks, trail linkages and other open space areas that connect the land use areas within the Specific Plan. T he proposed Specific Plan Land U se plan includes the following major la nd use components on the 248 acres:
• U
p to 1,196 dwelling units on 41.6 acres
• 1,360,000 square feet of local neighborhood and regional commercial building square footage on 91.8 acres
• 1,500,000 square feet on Industrial/Logistics building square footage on 72.1 acres
• 30,000 square feet of Business Park building square footage on 7.8 acres
• 112,500 square feet of hospitality building square footage on

5.9 acres
• 8.1 acres of public park and open space
• 21.0 acres of public improvements (public streets, parkway s and public facilities)
T
he proposed Specific Plan project includes the following entitlement applications:
• G
eneral Plan Amendment (GP): change the underlying
General Plan land use designations to accommodate the
proposed multi -use project and establish the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlay on the
Industrial/Logistics Planning Area of the proposed Specific Plan.
• Specific Plan (SP): Adopt the District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan and repeal the Emerald Meadows Ranch
Specific Plan.
• Change of Zone (CZ): To rezone from the existing Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan Zone to The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan Zone.
• Tentative Parcel Map (TPM): Tentative Tract Map No.
38318 subdivides project site and would provide for grading, lotting, and backbone improvements associated with The
District Specific Plan.

P
age 3 of 9
• Development Agreement (DA): sets required community
benefits for flexibility in code and process.

P
rincipal Planner Gorham discussed various components of the project including land use plan; open space; trail network; circulation plan; development standards; signage; gateway features; and landscaping. A lso presented was the statu s of the Environmental Impact Report and core issues for discussion: industrial use; truck routes; streetscape; open space and signage.

P
rincipal Planner Gorham provided the next steps for the proposed project:
• L
ate April 2023: Completion of the Final Draft Specific Plan • Late April 2023: Completion of the Draft EIR and Draft EIR 45-day review period
• May 2023: Community Outreach meeting
• June 2023: Planning Commission public hearing
• July 2023: City Council public hearing
CO
MMISSION DISCUSSION:
• The Commission inquired if the proposed digital billboard would shut off when the notices from Edison go out to conserve energy. • The Commission requested information regarding the capacity of the surrounding schools.
• The Commission raised concerns regarding the traffic circulation and access to the freeways.
• The Commission inquired on the bus stops in the propose d Specific Plan.
• The Commission requested a larger buffer (i.e. 1,000sf) between the proposed industrial site and residential area.
• The Commission inquired on how the truck drivers will be aware of the truck route designated in the proposed Specific Plan. • The Commission inquired if the City will be able to use the digital billboard for Public Service Announcements.
• The Commission inquired if there will be any EV charging stations.
• The Commission requested that the dock doors from the proposed warehouse building not be allowed to face the
residential areas.

P
age 4 of 9
• The Commission inquired if the proposed housing development would have to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. • The Commission inquired if the project can move forward without the Industrial building component or with reduction in warehouse size.

I
n response, Principal Planner Gorham provided the following:
• T
he Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will addre ss the
school capacity and the traffic circulation in the proposed Specific Plan area.
• The truck routes will be a condition of approval that will require the businesses to notify the drivers regarding the tuck route and signage will be posted.
• The current bus stops will be replaced with new bus stops.

The Ci ty will work with the Riverside Transit Agency to determine where the new bust stops will be located.
• The proposed housing development will need to comply with the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

C
hair Shultz called a recess at 6:59 P.M. and reconvened the meeting at 7:05 P.M.

T
he Study Session item will commence at the regular Planning Commission meeting.

CAL
L TO ORDER Chair Laura Shultz called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 7:05 P.M.

RO
LL CALL Members Present:
• Laura Shultz, Chair
• Penny Newman, Chair Pro Tem
• Hakan Jackson, Commission Member
• Arleen Pruitt, Commission Member
• Yesenia Villagomez, Commission Member
P
LEDGE OF Chair Shultz led the Pledge of Allegiance.

ALLEGIANCE
P
age 5 of 9
CO
NTINUED MASTER APPLICATION NO. 21269: THE DISTRICT AT
STUDY SESSION JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN – REPLACE EMERALD ITEM NO. 1 MEADOWS RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN (SP -337) WITH A NEW SPECIFIC PLAN ON 248 ACRES OF LAND. THE

PROPOSED NEW SPECIFIC PLAN WOULD PERMIT
DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 1,196 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; 3

MILLION SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL,

HOSPITALITY, BUSINESS PARK, AND INDUSTRIAL
LAND USES, OPEN SPACE AND RECRETION AREAS; AND
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS LOCATED SR- 60 TO THE
NORTH, THE SANTA ANA RIVER TO EAST, 34

TH STREET

TO THE SOUTH, AND RUBIDOUX BOULEVARD TO THE
WEST
M
auricio Oberfeld, developer , thanked the Commission for their consideration and input on the proposed project. Mr. Oberfeld looks forward in building a quality project in the City.

T
arek Shaer, applicant , thanked the Commission for their consideration and provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project.

T
arek S haer, applicant, addressed some of the Commissioners concerns and questions. Mr. Shaer informed the Commission that the City will be able to use the billboard for public service announcements and the proposed project will provide EV charging stations. Mr. Shaer also informed the Commission that the Industrial Building component of the proposed project is vital in order to sustain the proje ct as a whole and in order to provide necessary infrastructure.

C
ommissioner Jackson asked if the developer would be able to disclose any potential tenants.

T
arek Shaer, applicant, informed the Commission that they are currently working with a handful of national and local tenants but cannot disclose their names.

C
ommissioner Pruitt asked the applicant if the proposed project would be built in phases.

P
age 6 of 9
T arek Shaer, applicant, informed the Commission that they will work with the City to develop a phasing plan for the project.

P

UBLIC COMMENTS OPENED
B
onney Anderjcik, resident, spoke in favor of the project. Mr.

Anderjicik informed the Commission that she has to leave the City to shop and dine. Also she commended the developer for their outreach efforts and addressing the residents’ concerns.

B
etty Anderson, resident, spoke against the warehouse and suggested the developer build more housing. Mrs. Anderson raised concerns regarding the truck route.

G
ary Conner, resident, spoke against the warehouse component of the project.

A
nthony Kelly, resident and former City Council member, shared the history of past proposed projects in the Specific Plan area and informed the Commission that he voted against the previously proposed projects. Mr. Kell y informed the Commissioner that his home is one of the last remaining homes in the proposed Specific Plan area and would not like to live next to a warehouse facility.

M
irna Torres, resident, spoke in favor of the project. Mrs. Torres feels that the Community would benefit from the tax revenue and job creation.

J
uan Munoz, resident, spoke in favor of the project.

P
amela Blym, resident, spoke against the warehouse component of the project but is excited for the residential and retail portion of the project.

R
oberto Ramirez, resident, is in support of the project without the warehouse component.

Erika Soriano, Administrative Services Coordinator read into the record the following emails:

D
iana Bello expressed her support for the project as it will bring much needed retail, restaurants and parks to the community.

P
age 7 of 9
D
r. Veronica Contreras , resident, wrote in support of the proposed project. Dr. Contreras expressed the need of more housing, retail, restaurants and open space in the community.

C
hair Shultz inquired if the EIR would be able to analyze the traffic impact of apartments vs the warehouse.

M
aricela Marroquin, City Attorney, informed the Commission that the draft EIR will have various traffic impact analyses scenarios.

T
arek Shaer, applicant, informed the Commission that the developer will need the warehouse in order to fund the vision of the proposed Specific Plan.

R
obin Kikoyne, resident, spoke in favor of the project. Mrs. Kikoyne would not like to see more homes in the area since she feels it would attract more traffic.

C
ommunity Development Director Joe Perez thanked the
Commission for their comments and input and informed them that staff will work with the applicant to address their concerns and bring back the item as a Public Hearing.

P
UBLIC COMMENTS/ Betty Anderson, resident, informed the Commission that she does APPEARANCE not want to see more warehousing developments in the City.

A
nthony Kelly, resident, requested that the City preserve Wallace Street. He also mentioned that illegal dumping is taking place in public right-away.

P
amela Blynn, resident, raised concerns regarding how surrounding Cities are not notifying residents in the City of Jurupa Valley regarding development.

CO
NSENT CALENDAR Agenda Items 2, 3, 4 and 5 were unanimously approved by t he motion of C ommissioner Pruitt and seconded by Commissioner Jackson.

T
he motion was approved (5-0).

ATTACHMENT NO. 7

Summary of Responses to PC Study Session March 13, 2023 ATTACHMENT NO. 7

Summary of Reponses to PC Study Session March 13, 2023
Planning Commission Feedback Response
Inquired if the proposed digital billboard would shut
off when the notices from Edison go out to
conserve energy.

The Specific Pan requires that signage shall have
dimming capabilities during flex alert to cut back or
shift electricity during peak hours.

Requested information regarding the capacity of
the surrounding schools

As outlined in Table 4.14-3 of the DEIR, the
proposed 1,192 new dwelling units would generate
an estimated 833 students for elementary through
high school. The existing Emerald Meadows
Ranch Specific Plan accounted for a similar
estimated student amount and is accounted for in
the City’s General Plan.

Raised concerns regarding the traffic circulation
and access to the freeways.

The truck traffic circulation plan identifies truck
routes to both westbound and eastbound SR 60.

On-site and off-site roadway improvements, will be
made to improve traffic flow and movements on the
roadway network as required by the recommended
conditions and mitigation measures.

Inquired on the bus stops in the proposed Specific
Plan.

As part of the individual site development, the City
will work with Riverside County Transit Authority to
identify sites for bus stops within the Specific Plan
area including types of shelters/stops.

Requested a larger buffer (i.e., 1,000 feet) between
the proposed industrial site and residential area.

The Specific Plan requires a 750-foot buffer
between any industrial building, and a 500-foot
buffer between any commercial retail -integrated
building and any new or existing residential
dwelling unit within a Residential Zone/Land Use
Area. The 750-foot or 500-foot buffer is to be
measured from the truck dock door closest to the
nearest dwellin
g unit.

Inquired on how the truck drivers will be aware of
the truck route designated in the proposed Specific
Plan.

Signage, physical roadway improvements will be
provided to indicate truck routes and direct into and
out of the project area. In addition,
commercial/industrial leases shall be required to
include information to tenants on truck routes.

Inquired if the City will be able to use the digital
billboard for Public Service Announcements.

The applicant has indicated that the digital billboard
signs would be available to the City for public
service announcements.

Inquired if there will be any EV charging stations.

Development within the Specific Plan will be
required to provide the required number of parking
spaces equipped with EV charging infrastructure
for future installation of EV charging stations and
with full EV charging stations, as set forth in the
California Green Buildin
g Code.

Requested that the dock doors from the proposed
warehouse building not be allowed to face the
residential areas.

The Specific Plan requires that loading dock doors
be screened from the street and adjacent
residential uses by landscaping, berms and or
walls.

Inquired if the proposed housing development
would have to comply with the Inclusionary
Housing Ordinance.

All residential development in the project would be
subject to the City’s Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance.

ATTACHMENT NO. 7

Summary of Reponses to PC Study Session March 13, 2023
Planning Commission Feedback Response
Inquired if the project can move forward without the
Industrial building component or with reduction in
warehouse size.

The applicant has indicated that the 1.5 million sq.
ft. industrial building is a key component in the
development proforma and necessary for an
economically viable project.

ATTACHMENT NO. 8

Planning Commission Resolution No. 2023-18 (without
attachments)

$IBJS
4IVMU[

$IBJS
1SP
5FN
/FXNBO

BOE
$PNNJTTJPOFS

+BDLTPO
$PNNJTTJPOFS
1SVJUU
BOE
7JMMBHPNF[

ATTACHMENT NO. 9

Excerpts from the August 23, 2023 Planning Commission
deliberation
Attachment No. 9

August 23, 2023 Planning Commission Transcription
Deliberations:

Commissioner Villagomez commented:

This was a tough one thank you everyone for hanging in there with us. I love the retail part of the project and the residential. Warehouses, we all know that the City of Jurupa Valley holds the crown to warehouses. Also, regarding the truck route I understa nd you cannot use Hall Avenue to Market Street, since Market Street is already cong ested. Valley Way is worse you cannot use Mission Right? I do not agree with that route there are already enough trucks driving around the residential areas. I see no viable solution to the traffic impacts and there are major environmental impacts with having warehouses brings to our community while I am 100% pro- jobs for communities and retail once again it’s amazing if it was retail and the homes 100% but the community benefits do not outweigh the health concerns and traffic issues. With that being said, I am going to stand firm and say no more warehouses in Jurupa Valley.

Commissioner Jackson Commented:

It would be nice if everything were easy, black and white, that we could say yes to all jobs or no to all warehouses. But, Lord behold here we are with this project with jobs and a warehouse. The person that came up and talked about how horrible the jobs are at warehouses, this is not just warehouse jobs this is not just retail jobs. This goes beyond that and for an area that has been very underdeveloped. The opportunities are not just that, but also the low-income housing and the money that is being put aside to help the homeless are very important to me. When asked about being on the right side of history or knowing the integrity of my involvement in the environmental justice movement. Something I find myself having to compare is the differences in the environmental movement. The big difference is people that is what I care about the most. There were some concerns about why the warehouse had to be part of the project. Between the Los Angeles and Long Beach Harbor ports, the amount of goods that come in and come through this area is why we keep seeing these proposals come up. I have spent time on the other side fighting against warehouses and I have heard people talk from my former employer CCAJ that this warehouse project is not like others. I have listened to the community and talked about not wanting the warehouses and the damages that are going to be done, without addressing the unprecedented mitigation measures that are coming with this warehouse. It is the emissions that comes with the exhaust that causes cancer, the 750-foot buffer and the vegetation will protect from pollutants.

There is still going to be pollution that comes from the ships that are shipping goods from Asia and the trucks that will continue to drive on our freeways that have nothing to do with this warehouse. With that, the developer has listened and has done more than any other developer has that I have seen when it comes to warehouses. I still do not like warehouses I really wish they did not come but as it has been quoted pollution is a slow killer, and homelessness is much worse.

Commissioner Pruitt:

Attachment No. 9

I really like the project it is a great project with the housing, retail, and the funds that the City will receive from the Development Agreement. The opening spaces will definitely improve the vacant land and eliminate dumping. It is the responsibility of the owner to clean out the property and if they can be more proactive in doing so, it might eliminate the dumping. However, this project would be acceptable without the warehouse. We designated warehouse overlays for a reason and it makes me wonder when is this going to stop when are we going to stop saying ok let’s allow this overlay to be extended here because we want this development and they are demanding this warehouse. I do not live in an area where there is a warehouse. I do not live in an area near a warehouse. If I woke up one morning and the city put a warehouse overlay on the property near my home I would be extremely upset. I do not think it is fair to Rubidoux that this is being done. They should not be taking the brunt, they have taken quite the brunt with high development the high-density properties, and it has to stop somewhere. I will always take health over money and that is why I voted against the Flying J project. We talked about idling during that project, I spoke up and I said we could not have idling we need to put measures in place and make sure this idling does not happen and we put measures in place. You go over to that Flying J project and we have idling trucks consistently. We can place all the signs you want, the signs indicate "No Trucks Idling More than 5 Minutes", and if there is a truck longer than 5 minutes call this number. I have called this number and have been told, "We’ll send a letter" to figure out who the license plate belongs to. By then, the truck is out of town and they are not going to be responding. I would recommend this project without a warehouse and a reconsideration of the truck routes.

Chair Pro Tem Newman:

They pointed out I have a long history of being an Environmental Justice advocate. For more than 45 years, we fought the very first warehouse proposed in Mira Loma and won. Environmental Justice is not just looking at reducing pollution in communities that are overburdened. It is also in finding ways to bring in assets and services in communities that have long been overlooked. This project brings those services and assets such as grocery stores and retail shops, open spaces, and parks. We heard people talk about wanting sidewalks and streetlights. This will do it. That is Environmental Justice, bringing it to communities that have been long overlooked. I am outraged at how this came about with Emerald Ridge and how people were moved out with eminent domain. How we got into this situation from the County was just horrendous. I remember the hearings on Emerald Meadows when we brought up the air quality issues from the freeway because they were proposing housing next to the freeway and we were told by the developer that they would address that and they were going to put the low-income apartments next to the freeway and that will be the buffer for the high-end single-family homes. That is the thinking we had with Emerald Ridge Meadows. As far as the comparisons of this one warehouse, it is one warehouse to other areas like Mira Loma this is not Mira Loma. They talked about 59 truck trips per hour. Mira Loma had 800 truck trips per hour. Not more than 20 feet from the backyards of homes. It’s not the same thing, it’s not the same impact. It is not the City of Bloomington where they are building homes and schools across from warehouses; they are driving those residents out of there with no understanding and no mitigation at all for those families. This is not the City of Moreno Valley; I was quoted about speaking out on warehousing in Moreno Valley which was a project that covers 7 football fields full of warehouses, not the same situation. I think one of the big principles of environmental justice we have people speak for themselves and we heard many people who live near there who will be affected by this looking forward to this project coming in and all the amenities that it brings. We have Attachment No. 9

heard from people who do not live near it and live out in Mira Loma and other areas raised concerns about it based on their experiences. It is not up to me to decide what people directly next to it should be living with and I feel very bad for the Kelly Family. I think you were dealt a terrible hand here, but I think that the opportunities that are before us with this project outweigh the impacts. Let me talk a little about the impacts. We have the cumulative impact of bad air quality around the region as it blows in from the coast through Mira Loma through Rubidoux up against the mountains; high levels of pollution are against the mountains that bring the pollution of our freeways blowing beyond us, not into our community. The City of Fontana has a proposal for the Speed Way to be turned into an Inland Empire port. We have the City of Rialto building as fast as they can. The County of San Bernardino building warehousing as fast as it can. That is where many of our efforts should be put right now. The proximity is what hits local people and I think for the mitigations that have been put forward by this developer you could not have asked for more. We did not get a buffer of 1000 feet. No, but Senate Member Eloise Reyes proposed that there be a fallback of 750 feet buffer. This developer has placed a 750-foot buffer with vegetation barriers that will absorb the PM 2.5. He has allowed the distance so we do not have the pollution where residents will be living. He has put air flirtation units on any of the homes anywhere near there. When we look at the proximity people were pointing out the impacts from diesel exhaust.

The vapors are the ones that change cells and that comes from being close within 300 feet. So I think given the mitigations that have been put forward and given the major issues that will be addressed in this project. The retail, residential low and very low-income housing, and rental properties will bring some progress to Rubidoux, which has long deserved some attention. I think this project is worth supporting I know many of my friends and colleagues are going to be shocked at how Penny Newman could support a warehouse. I am not supporting a warehouse; I am supporting this project in its totality with the understanding that the mitigations of the measures put in place will protect the residents who will be moving into those areas. I believe that firmly within my soul, I think anybody who has known me knows that I have passed millions of dollars from developers who asked how much is it going to take for you to stop opposing these projects and I have always told them it’s not the money it is solving the issue. In this case, the developer is working with the City and listening to the residents, they have taken our concerns very seriously. I think they have solved the problem that I will be voting for.

Chair Shultz:

This is a tough and massive project and listening to the various comments. I want to address that I hear warehouses are bad and offer poor jobs. The only reason warehouse jobs are bad is because we have allowed them to become bad, not because of the job itself but because of the employer. When I look at Stater Brothers, I look at a unified establishment. They offer good benefits, pay good wages, provide vacation time, and health insurance, and have pensions. It is not that the warehouse jobs are bad it is that the employer is not being held accountable to take care of their employees. I had a conversation with a friend of mine who had to work at Amazon and I showed her the difference between a warehouse job at Amazon and Stater Brothers. Stater Brothers take care of their employees, but Amazon does not. Rubidoux is a community that could benefit greatly from this project and as Chair Pro Tem Newman said, it is not walls of warehouses. This warehouse is not being built across from a school, it's not being built in a center or an established residential area such as in the City of Bloomington. It is being built in an area that is conducive to that.

Attachment No. 9

The development agreements far surpass anything I think I have seen in any city. The developer addresses the mitigation efforts. The developer has had meetings with the stakeholders who live in the Rubidoux area. With that being said, I am in favor of this project.

ATTACHMENT NO. 10

EJ Informational Session notice (July 13, 2023)

8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org

NOTICE OF AN INFORMATION MEETING FOR

THE DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CASE NUMBER: MA21269

The City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department invites you and your neighbors to an informational meeting, which will include a Spanish translator, to provide information on a proposed industrial project near you and answer any questions.

Date of Informational Meeting: July 13, 2023
Time of Informational Meeting: 6:00 PM
Location of Informational Meeting: Eddie Dee Smith Senior/Community Center 5888 Mission Boulevard, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

INTRODUCTION
The City of Jurupa Valley will consider an application for The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan project that would be built near your neighborhood. The Project site is approximately 248 acres of predominately vacant land located in the eastern portion of the City of Jurupa V alley, near the Santa Ana River and State Route 60 (SR -60). 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 distribution uses); a hotel with up to 160 rooms; and approximately 11 acres of parks and open space.

PROJECT LOCATION AND SITE PLAN

8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org

The City welcomes any comment or question about this project 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 between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

CITY REVIEW PROCESS AND PUBLIC HEARING
This project requires public hearings to give citizens an opportunity to provide input before a decision is made. The first hearing will be by the Planning Commission, tentatively planned for August. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council on the application and the Council will vote on the project in September . A public notice will be mailed to you to inform you of Planning Commission and City Council hearing dates.

PROJECT INFORMATION
CASE NUMBER(S) MA21269/Specific Plan No. SP21001
APPLICANT DO Capital Partners, Jennifer Brooks
PROJECT LOCATION(S) The 248-acre 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.

PROJECT The District at Jurupa Valley 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 distribution uses); a hotel with up to 160 rooms; and approximately 11 acres of parks and open space.

CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
A draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) has been prepared for the Project. Citizens are encouraged to provide written comments on the DEIR during the public review period. Responses to the comments will be given to the City Council.

ADDRESS WHERE

DOCUMENTS MAY BE
VIEWED
The EIR and the Draft Specific are available for viewing at the Planning Department at City Hall , 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 . The EIR is also available online for viewing at:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68. The DEIR, appendices, and related documents are in the folder labeled “MA21269-The District at Jurupa Valley”.

DATE, TIME AND

LOCATION OF PUBLIC

HEARING
A separate notice will be mailed out for the public hearing. The p ublic hearing will be located at the Jurupa Valley City Hall, City Council Chamber located at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

ATTACHMENT NO. 11

Proposed General Plan Amendment Exhibits
General Plan Designations:

MA21269 General Plan Land Use District Amendment Exhibit A MA21269 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA21010

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN OVERLAY
Exhibit B

Commercial Retail – Integrated Use Overlay (CR-IUO)

The Commercial Retail – Integrated Use Overlay (CR-IUO) may be applied to a Commercial Retail designated area where the City seeks to accommodate a retailer which combines its retail store with light manufacturing, assembly, warehouse, and/or distribution into a single location. These types of integrated retail buildings enable the business to operate efficiently with a centralized place of business to meet the ever-changing and competitive retail marketplace that caters to the traditional brick and mortar store and the on-line shopper while having their showroom, retail area, offices, light manufacturing, assembly and/or warehouse uses at the same location. This Overlay shall operate independently from all other General Plan Overlays, unless one of those Overlays is also applied to the same portion of a property.

Policies
The following policies apply within the Commercial Retail – Integrated Use Overlay.

LUE 5.XX Permitted Uses . Permit Commercial Retail – Integrated uses in the Commercial Retail land Use designation and the Commercial Retail zoning district only.

LUE 5.XX Retail Showroom Area. A Commercial Retail-Integrated Use shall have a traditional “brick and mortar” retail showroom for display and sale of products to the public and which operates and has the appearance of a retail building. Each individual Commercial Retail-Integrated Use shall have a minimum of 10% of its total floor area occupied by a retail showroom.

LUE 5.XX Residential Buffering. Require Commercial Retail – Integrated uses adjacent to residential uses to provide measures to reduce the impacts of the Commercial Retail – Integrated use on residential uses. These measures shall include, but not be limited to, a minimum 500-foot distance buffer between any loading dock door and a residential dwelling unit within a Residential zone/district. The buffer shall be measured from the truck dock door closest to the nearest dwelling unit. The buffer area can be used for automobile parking, infrastructure improvements, parks and open space. All loading dock doors and truck courts shall be screened from any adjacent residential use by landscaping, berms, and/or walls. The site development permit for any Commercial Retail-Integrated Use shall include operational and design standards that ensure the protection of residential neighborhoods from truck traffic, noise, li ghting, air pollution, and any other potential negative impacts.

LUE 5.XX Truck Circulation. A truck circulation plan shall be required as part of the site development permit review process for any Commercial Retail – Integrated use. The truck circulation plan shall include, but not be limited to, designated truck routes, signage, turning restrictions and other measures deemed necessary to limit truck movement away from residential land uses.

ADD OVERLAY TO LAND USE SUMMARY ON PAGE 2-19 OF THE

GENERAL PLAN

Land Use Designation Allowed Density
(Minimum Parcel Size
per DU) or Development
Intensity (Floor Area
Ratio)
Notes
Commercial Retail –
Integrated Use Overlay
(CR-IUO)
Projects shall comply
with the Commercial
Retail land use
designation FAR,
unless there is a FAR
requirement in an
underlying Specific
Plan, in which case
projects shall comply
with the Specific Plan
FAR.

A Commercial Retail – Integrated use shall be
permitted only in the CR-IUO area, subject
to satisfying all CR-IUO policies (see
Policy LUE 5.XX) and shall comply with
any underlying Specific Plan.

ATTACHMENT NO. 12

Tentative Tract Map No. 38318
30TH STREET
N.A.P. N.A.P.

C002C001
C003C004
LOT 17LOT 22
LOT 1
LOT 2
LOT 4
LOT 27
LOT B
LOT A
STATE ROUTE 60
34TH ST.

SANTA ANA RIVER

A STREET
30TH STREET

HALL STREET

B STREET
LOT 7LOT 23
LOT DLOT 3
LOT F
LOT C
LOT B
WALLACE STREET(TURBINE ST.)
LOT 20
LOT H
LOT 8 LOT 18
LOT ELOT 21
LOT 19
LOT 12LOT 11
LOT H
LOT 6
LOT 9LOT 10LOT 13
LOT G
LOT 14LOT 15LOT 16

RUBIDOUX BLVD

B STREET
34TH ST.LOT 5
LOT 24
WALLACE ST.

LOT ILOT J
LOT25
LOT26
LOT K
©
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318FOR
JURUPA VALLEY, CA, 92509

NORTH PROJECT TEAM

UTILITY PURVEYORS
APN'S

BENCHMARK NOTE

BASIS OF BEARINGS NOTESITE INFORMATION
COVER SHEETC000
NORTH

PROJECT SITE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

LOTNUMBERLAND USEAREA

LOTLETTERLAND USEAREA

SHEET INDEX
” ” “”“”“” ” “ ” ”
“”“” “

SUBDIVISION NARRATIVE

GENERAL NOTESFLOOD NOTE
LEGEND
|||||
C002
C003C004
PROJECT BOUNDARYKEY MAPNTSSTATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
C001
34TH ST.

LOT K
LOT 4
N.A.P.STATE ROUTE 60WALLACE STREET
RUBIDOUX BLVD.RUBIDOUX BLVD
30TH STREET

HALL AVENUE

EXISTING FRONTAGE ROAD
STATE ROUTE 60
30TH STREET
||| | | | | | | | | ||||||||||||||
LOT 2LOT 27
LOT DLOT 3
LOT 1
LOT C
LOT 5
LOT E
LOT 2
LOT 330TH STREETLOT 6N.A.P.

LOT 5
LOT 24N.A.P.N.A.P.N.A.P.LOT24
LOT C
LOT 3
LOT C
©
C001 SEE SHEET C002
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET C004
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318
SEE SHEET C003
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C001
NORTH
SECTION A-ATWO-LANE ROADFRONTAGE ROAD (MODIFIED)SCALE:NTS SECTION B-BONE-LANE ROADFRONTAGE ROAD (MODIFIED)SCALE:NTS SECTION C-CINDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR30TH STREETSCALE:NTS
DETAIL "A"NOT TO SCALE
SEE SHEET C002
34TH ST.
34TH ST.

WALLACE STREET

A STREET
RUBIDOUX BLVD.RUBIDOUX BLVD
WALLACE ST.

B STREET
LOT 1
LOT A
LOT H
LOT 17
LOT 18
LOT 22
LOT 19
LOT 2
LOT 3
LOT 16
LOT H
LOT 15LOT 14LOT 13LOT 12
LOT 20
℄
℄
LOT 21LOT G

LOT ILOT J
LOT C
LOT 3LEGEND
|||||
C002
C003C004
PROJECT BOUNDARYKEY MAPNTSSTATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
C001
34TH ST.
©
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C002
SEE SHEET C001
SEE SHEET C004
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C002NORTH SECTION F-FRUBIDOUX BOULEVARDSCALE:NTS SECTION D-DARTERIAL (MODIFIED)"A" STREETSCALE:NTS SECTION E-ELOCAL STREETWALLACE STREETSCALE:NTS
*DIMENSIONS VARIES SOUTH OF THE NORTHERLY BOUNDARY OF LOT 14 LEGEND
|||||
LOT 4
N.A.P.

STATE ROUTE 60
STATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
||
LOT BLOT 5
LOT 7

CITY OF RIVERSIDECITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LOT 3

B STREET
30TH STREETLOT 6LOT 5
LOT 26
C002
C003C004
PROJECT BOUNDARYKEY MAPNTSSTATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
C001
34TH ST.
©
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C003 SEE SHEET C004
SEE SHEET C001
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C003NORTH
SECTION H-HINDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR"B" STREETSCALE:NTS
LEGEND
|||||
34TH ST.

WALLACE STREET

B STREET

SANTA ANA RIVER
LOT C
LOT 8LOT 23

NOT A PARTOF THISSUBDIVISION

CITY OF RIVERSIDECITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LOT 10
LOT F
N.A.P.

LOT 7
LOT 11
LOT 9℄
LOT 24N.A.P.N.A.P.N.A.P.LOT25LOT24
LOT C
LOT 3
LOT C
C002
C003C004
PROJECT BOUNDARYKEY MAPNTSSTATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
C001
34TH ST.
©
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C004
SEE SHEET C001
SEE SHEET C003
SEE SHEET C002
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 38318C004NORTH
SECTION G-GARTERIAL (MODIFIED)"B" STREETSCALE: NTS
SECTION H-HINDUSTRIAL COLLECTOR"B" STREET (W/ MULTI-USE PATH)SCALE: NTS SECTION I-IEXISTING WALLACE STREET(TO BE VACATED)SCALE:NTS LEGEND
TITLE INFORMATION:

STATE ROUTE 60

SANTA ANA RIVER
34TH ST.

WALLACE STREET
STATE ROUTE 60
(TURBINE ST.)
ROUBIDOUX BLVD.

CITY OFRIVERSIDECITY OFJURUPAVALLEYCITY OFRIVERSIDECITY OFJURUPAVALLEYCITY OF RIVERSIDECITY OF JURUPA VALLEY EASEMENT SCHEDULEITEM NOGRANTEEPURPOSEREFERENCEREMARKSDISPOSITION12JURUPA DITCHCOMPANYPIPES, FLUMES, ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 28, PAGE 635BLANKETNATURERELOCATION13JURUPA DITCHCOMPANYPIPES, FLUMES, ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 42, PAGE 294BLANKETNATURERELOCATION14JURUPA DITCHCOMPANYPIPES, FLUMES, ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 42, PAGE 296BLANKETNATURERELOCATION15JURUPA DITCHCOMPANYWATER DITCHES, FLUMES OFPIPELINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSESBOOK 91, PAGE 342BLANKETNATURERELOCATION 16JURUPA DITCHCOMPANYWATER DITCHES, PIPES,FLUMES AND APPARATUS FORTHE PURPOSE OF IRRIGATIONAND DOMESTIC USE ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 199, PAGE 1BLANKETNATURERELOCATION 18SOUTHERNSIERRAS POWERCOMPANYPOLE LINES, CONDUITS ORUNDERGROUND FACILITIESAND INCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 435, PAGE 113PARCEL 23AND PARCEL32TO QUITCLAIM19RIVERSIDEPORTLAND CEMENTCOMPANYSMOKE, VAPOR, DUST FROMROCK QUARRIES AND ROCKCRUSHERSBOOK 475, PAGE 233PARCEL 37DTO QUITCLAIM20EM RANCH OWNER,LLCWATER WELLS, WATERRIGHTS, JURUPA DITCHWATER LINEBOOK 596, PAGE 8022EM RANCH OWNER,LLCRIGHT OF WAY ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 371, PAGE 511PARCEL 37TO QUITCLAIM23NEVADA-CALIFORNIA ELECTRICCORPORATIONUTILITIES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSESBOOK 402, PAGE 521PARCEL 37TO QUITCLAIM24CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYBOOK 1897, PAGE 545PARCEL 37RELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN25CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYBOOK 2499, PAGE 46PARCEL 37RELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN26CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYBOOK 2515, PAGE 31PARCEL 37RELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN27CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYBOOK 2813 PAGE 6PARCEL 37RELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN28CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWY1959-108047, RECPARCEL 17AND PARCEL18RELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN30CALIFORNIAELECTRIC POWERCOMPANYPUBLIC UTILITES ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 1028, PAGE 360PARCEL 20TO QUITCLAIM31CALIFORNIAELECTRIC POWERCOMPANYPUBLIC UTILITES ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 1199, PAGE 183PARCEL 20AND PARCEL49TO QUITCLAIM32CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1957-49880TO REMAIN 33CALTRANSCONSTRUCTION,RECONSTRUCTION,IMPROVEMENT ORMAINTENANCE OF HIGHWAYINSTRUMENT NO.1960-2423PARCEL 20BTO QUITCLAIM34EM RANCH OWNER,LLCINGRESS AND EGRESSINSTRUMENT NO.1965-30034PARCEL 56TO QUITCLAIM35PIPELINES AND INCIDENTALPURPOSESINSTRUMENT NO.1975-120650PARCEL 37ETO QUITCLAIM36PIPELINE, APPURTENANCESAND INCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 10, PAGE 3 OFMAPSTO QUITCLAIM38RIVER CHANNEL AND BANKPROTECTIONS WORKS ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESBOOK 401, PAGE 130PARCEL 49TO QUITCLAIM 39COUNTY OFRIVERSIDESANTA ANA RIVER LEVEERIGHT OF WAY EASEMENTBOOK 390, PAGE 475PARCEL 49TO QUITCLAIM40EM RANCH OWNER,LLCINGRESS AND EGRESSQUITCLAIMEDINSTRUMENT NO.1990-467822PARCEL 5644COUNTY OFRIVERSIDE / CITYOF JURUPA VALLEYPUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE,INCLUDING UTILITY ANDPUBLIC SERVICES ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESINSTRUMENT NO.1998-543206PARCEL 44ATO REMAIN 47CALIFORNIAELECTRIC POWERCOMPANYPOLE LINES, CONDUITS ORUNDERGROUND FACILITIESAND INCIDENTAL PURPOSESINSTRUMENT NO.1959-99294PARCEL 1ARELOCATION -TBD DURINGFINAL DESIGN49CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1962-7121PARCEL 5TO REMAIN 50CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1962-45631PARCEL 5TO REMAIN 51CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1959-86455PARCEL 34TO REMAIN 52CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1959-87540FREEWAYADJOININGSAID LAND ONTHE NORTHOF PARCEL35TO REMAIN 53CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1959-52582PARCEL 36TO REMAIN 54CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1959-64776PARCEL 1ATO REMAIN 55CALTRANSINGRESS AND EGRESSRESTRICTIONS TO THE STATEHWYINSTRUMENT NO.1959-96824PARCEL 14TO REMAIN 57LOS ANGELESCELLULARMEMORANDUM OF LEASEINSTRUMENT NO.2016-0216565RELOCATION58COX PCS ASSETS,LLCMEMORANDUM OF GROUNDLEASEINSTRUMENT NO.1999-060642RELOCATION59EMERALD MEADOWRANCH CALIFORNIACORPORATIONINGRESS AND EGRESS,PUBLIC UTILITIES, INCIDENTALPURPOSEINSTRUMENT NO.2001-589743PARCEL 3768ATC SEQUOIA LLCMEMORANDUM OF LEASEINSTRUMENT NO.2017-0138179RELOCATION69COUNTY OFRIVERSIDEPUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE,INCLUDING UTILITY ANDPUBLIC SERVICES ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESINSTRUMENT NO.1999-0110090PARCEL 53CTO REMAIN 70COUNTY OFRIVERSIDEPUBLIC ROAD AND DRAINAGE,INCLUDING UTILITY ANDPUBLIC SERVICES ANDINCIDENTAL PURPOSESINSTRUMENT NO.1998-01100091PARCEL 48TO REMAIN ©
EXISTING EASEMENTS - TRACTMAP 38318C005NORTH

ATTACHMENT NO. 13

1,000 Foot Radius Map with Extended Areas

5 2-5(5

3.&5/'5&5'
5#'"-5-5*)2 +5

5
-0*!15 5 2 '235
2+2(5$%45

5 5(.5
452-&5
-5 &5
5 &
5 55
.5
Bz‚_vc4IŸ
Lzˆ_x_6_Ÿ
B}‚dy_7šŸ
N{
dtf #$”Ÿ
Tz€`t`9sŸ
Vz‘n/4IŸ
Bzl0;_Ÿ
BzŒ›Y]
' sŸ
Bz
_t` tŸ Bz‚g!  ™Ÿ


  # 

#
Bz
_t_4€Ÿ Bz€k ""!€Ÿ
Bz
_“4qŸ JzgB, IŸ
Jz†_“ ŒŸ Bz

gB.5_Ÿ
Bz
g=4GŸ BzgM" 1Ÿ
\z‰i> dŸ 
2
/

5568
Bz†g *4gŸ Oz
gP2"@Ÿ
IzŠg?4œŸ Bz^ gB2 |Ÿ
Vz‡g+*
:rŸ BzjW)
!˜Ÿ
Gz‚gA  ŒŸ Iz‚
gG  _Ÿ BzŒBm "Ÿ BzŒ
Iz  BuŸ Jz_z  IvŸ




# 
# 48$,"
#8 ).$
+8 $,
%

$8
Cz„gD" E_Ÿ Iz€gC "h_Ÿ BzŒBgžzŸ Bz‹Fz )`"Ÿ IzŒ`z" B—Ÿ
Gz€gI
GgŸ Bz‚
gG
ggŸ ZzŒJh  Ÿ Bzag' H Ÿ IzŽ_z- b–Ÿ
Xz€
gB
GoŸ IzƒgK"
LŸ &,'
38 [z_z 4BŸ IzŒ_z"
_€Ÿ
GzgI  GrŸ Bz
gG !_Ÿ IzŒBz( gŸ IzŒ_z! BIŸ Iz_z
ggŸ
!"# 




 $-!*8 1(- $078
GzgB& _•Ÿ Bz
gQ  RvŸ BzŒBz)) qŸ Bz
_z% BgŸ BzgJ"
8SŸ
Hz€gB! esŸ Bz€gU  qAŸ BzŒBz( zŸ IzŒ_z
JpŸ I~Œ
gJ <Ÿ
Bz€
gI
_wŸ BzBj & gŸ BzŒBz3 Ÿ Bz‹_z  JsŸ Iz’gX"4rŸ