Jurupa Valley City Council
December 21, 2023

CEQA Requirements
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that when a public agency completes an environmental document that includes measures to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects, the public agency must adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the changes to the project that it has adopted or made a condition of project approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts. The appropriate reporting or monitoring plan must be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation (Public Resources Code §21081.6).

The City of Jurupa Valley will coordinate the monitoring of the mitigation measures and regulatory requirements with each applicable City department or division, while various City departments/divisions would be responsible for monitoring and verifying compliance of specific mitigation measures and regulatory requirements (see the beginning on page 3). Monitoring will include: 1) verification that each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement has been implemented; 2) recordation of the actions taken to implement each mitigation measure and regulatory requirement; and 3) retention of records in the project file.

Project Objectives
The objectives of the proposed Rubidoux Commerce Park Project (the “Project”) include the following:
• To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the meet the substantial and unmet regional demands for goods movement facilities consistent with Southern California Association of Governments’ Connect SoCal (2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy).
• To expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Jurupa Valley by establishing new contemporary industrial development adjacent to or near already-established industrial uses.
• To make efficient use of a property in Jurupa Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.
• To develop Class A speculative industrial buildings in Jurupa Valley that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. • To develop industrial buildings in close proximity to the SR-60, I-215, and I-10 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network. • To develop a vacant property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

• To attract new businesses to the City of Jurupa Valley and thereby provide a more equal jobshousing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

Overview of the Project
The Project site consists of approximately 80.8 acres of mainly undeveloped land in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, located north and northeast of 28th Street, north of the Union Pacific Railroad and North Riverside and Jurupa Canal (also referred to throughout this Recirculated Draft EIR as “West Riverside Canal”), southwest of the 25th Street, and northwest of Avalon Street. The Project entails development of the Project site with five industrial buildings (“Building 1,” “Building 2,” “Building 3,” “Building 4,” and “Building 5”) totaling 1,184,102 square feet (s.f.), which includes a total of 53,500 s.f. of office and related site improvements including landscaping, parking, and infrastructure facilities. Building 1 consists of 309,870 s.f., Building 2 consists of 388,222 s.f., Building 3 consists of 174,364 s.f., Building 4 consists of 275,958 s.f., and Building 5 consists of 35,688 s.f.

See Figure 3-7, Overall Site Plan, in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the Recirculated Draft EIR.

The principal discretionary actions required of the City of Jurupa Valley to implement the Project include: Zone Change No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001. Refer to the Recirculated Draft EIR Section 3.0, Project Description, for a detailed description of the Project.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
This MMRP delegates responsibilities for monitoring the implementation of the Rubidoux Commerce Park Project mitigation measures and applicable regulatory requirements, and allows responsible City entities flexibility and discretion in determining how best to monitor implementation. Monitoring procedures will vary according to the type of mitigation measure or regulatory requirement. The timing for monitoring and reporting is described in the monitoring and reporting summary table, below.

Adequate monitoring requires demonstration of monitoring procedures and implementation of mitigation measures and regulatory requirements.

In order to enhance the effectiveness of the monitoring program, the City will utilize existing systems where appropriate. These inspectors are familiar with a broad range of regulatory issues and will provide first line oversight for much of the monitoring program during construction activities.

Program Changes
If minor changes are required to this MMRP, they will be made in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and would be permitted after further review by the City. Such changes could include reassignment of monitoring and reporting responsibilities and/or minor modifications to mitigation measures that achieve the same or better end results. No change will be permitted unless the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program continues to satisfy the requirements of Public Resources Code §21081.6.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS

4.1 Aesthetics
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
No mitigation required PPP 4.1-1 As required for the M-SC by the City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Ordinance Section 9.148.040(3). The height of structures, including buildings, shall be as follows:
1) Structures shall not exceed 40 feet at the yard setback line. 2) Buildings shall not exceed 50 feet unless a height up to 75 feet is approved pursuant to Section 9.240.370.
3) Structures other than buildings shall not exceed fifty (50) feet unless a height up to one hundred five (105) feet is approved pursuant to Section

9.240.370.

PPP 4.1-2 As required for the M-SC zone by City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Ordinance Section 9.148.040(11), all lighting fixtures, including spotlights, electrical reflectors, and other means of illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading, and similar areas, shall be focused, directed, and arranged to prevent glare or direct illumination on streets or adjoining property.

PPP 4.1-3 As required by Chapter 9.240, Off-Street Vehicle Parking Lots, the parking areas shall be designed to screen parking areas from street rights-ofway and provide a sufficient amount of landscaping.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No mitigation required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project in non-urbanized areas,
substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage points.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
No mitigation required. PPP 4.1-1 would apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project create a new source of
substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
No mitigation required. PPP 4.1-2 and PPP 4.1-3 would apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

4.2 Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.2-1 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.

PPP 4.2-2 The Project is required to comply with California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 1, Article 4.5, Section 2025, “Regulation to Reduce Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, Oxides of Nitrogen and Other Criteria Pollutants from In‐Use Heavy‐Duty Diesel‐Fueled Vehicles” and California Code of Regulations Title 13, Division 3, Chapter 10, Article 1, N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
Section 2485, “Airborne Toxic Control Measure to Limit Diesel‐Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling.”
PPP 4.2-3 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings” and Rule 431.2, “Sulfur Content of Liquid Fuels.” Adherence to Rule 1113 limits the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere during painting and application of other surface coatings. Adherence to Rule 431.2 limits the release of sulfur dioxide (SO2) into the atmosphere from the burning of fuel.

PPP 4.2-4 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less‐Polluting Street Sweepers.” Adherence to Rule 1186 and Rule 1186.1 reduces the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction.

PPP 4.2-5 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 “Nuisance.” Adherence to Rule 402 reduces the release of odorous emissions into the atmosphere.

Threshold b: Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.2-1 through PPP 4.2-5 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.2-1 through PPP 4.2-5 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.2-6 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 “Nuisance.” Adherence to Rule 402 reduces the release of odorous emissions into the atmosphere.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

4.3 Biological Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
MM 4.3-1 To avoid Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site, a 30-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction, including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering, to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. The survey will be conducted in compliance with both MSHCP and CDFW guidelines (MSHCP 2006, CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW. Additionally, if ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to minimize the possibility burrowing owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.

If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the 30-day preconstruction survey, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Jurupa Valley, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owl.

If active nests are identified on an implementing project site during the preconstruction survey, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow PPP. 4.3-1 The Project Applicant is required to pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as established and implemented by the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec. 3.80.070, Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan mitigation fee.

Project Applicant Project Biologist,
City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to grounddisturbing activitiesLess than
Significant Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be submitted and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, CDFW and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If burrowing owls are observed within Project Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan will be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activity will continue within 1000 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

A final report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report will be submitted to the City and CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey and burrowing monitoring for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Threshold b: Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.3-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts
Threshold c: Would the Project have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold d: Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? MM 4.3-2 To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If construction is proposed during the avian nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds. The survey(s) shall identify any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities.

The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in:
identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the PPP 4.3-2 Compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) is required by federal law, which prohibits the disturbance of active nesting territories of migratory birds during the nesting cycle (February 1 through August 31, annually). In compliance with the MBTA, active nests cannot be removed or disturbed during the nesting season
Project Applicant Project Biologist,
City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to and during
construction
activities
Less than
Significant Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests are documented, species-specific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience, and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. The buffers shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by account for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned.

The qualified biologist will serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts on these nests occur. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. A final monitoring report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley documenting compliance with the CDFG Code.

Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
MM 4.3-1 shall apply. PPP 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 shall apply. Refer to MM 4.3-1 Refer to MM 4.3-1 Refer to MM 4.3-1 Less than Significant Impacts

4.4 Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts
Threshold b: Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts
Threshold c: Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts

4.5 Energy
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.5-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Building and Safety Department will ensure that the Project is designed, constructed, and operated to meet or exceed incumbent CCR Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards and CCR Title 24 CALGreen Standards.

PPP 4.5-2 Construction vehicle operators are required to comply with CCR Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling, which limits idling times of construction vehicles to no more than five minutes. Prior to issuance of grading permit, the City shall verify that grading plans contain the following note; “A sign shall be posted on‐site stating that construction workers need to shut off engines at or before five minutes of idling.” N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No mitigation is required PPP 4.5-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

4.6 Geology and Soils
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42); or strong seismic ground shaking; or seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction; or landslides?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.6-1 State law requires that the design and construction of new structures comply with current California Building Code requirements which addresses general geologic, seismic, and soil constraints for new buildings, including ground shaking. Prior to grading and building permit issuance, the City shall verify that the following note is included on grading and building plans, and project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the note. This note also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. Construction activities shall occur in accordance with all applicable requirements of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 (also known as the California Building Standards Code or the California Building Code) in effect at the time of construction.

PPP 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the City Engineering Department and City Building and Safety Department shall review the detailed construction plans to ensure concurrence with the recommendations specified in the Project’s Geotechnical Investigation N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
No mitigation is required. PPP. 4.6-3 Prior to grading permit issuance, the Project Proponent shall prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the SWPPP and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance.

PPP 4.6-4 The Project shall be in compliance with Chapter 6.05, Storm water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? No mitigation is required. PPP 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? No mitigation is required. PPP 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold e: Would the Project have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impact
Threshold f: Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
MM 4.6-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities should be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as mapped by Morton (2003; Qof1 on Figure 3). Paleontological monitoring of onsite outcrops and exposures of Cretaceous granitic bedrock is not warranted.

Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to N/A Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to issuance of
any permits
allowing grounddisturbing activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

MM 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation
Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be
used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the Project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading pursuant to the recommendations provided in Paleontological Assessment prepared by BFSA on February 4, 2020 (Technical Appendix I to this EIR) and the criteria identified below.

Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity (as identified in MM 4.6-1) shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. The performance standards set forth in the PRIMP shall include:
a. If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt construction activities and temporarily redirect work at least 50 away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance.
b. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed.
c. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collection of a scientific institution. d. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.
e. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location.

N/A Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to issuance of
any permits
allowing grounddisturbing activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS

4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the site plan shall include surface parking lots to provide parking for low-emitting, fuel-efficient, and carpool/van vehicles. At minimum, the number of preferential parking spaces shall equal to the Tier 2 Nonresidential Voluntary Measures of CALGreen Section A5.106.5.1.2.

PPP 4.5-1 shall apply. Project Applicant City of Jurupa Valley Building
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
MM 4.7-2 Conduits for the installation of electrical hookups to allow future electric vehicle (EV) trucks and trucks with auxiliary power units (APU) shall be installed at a ratio of one charging station for every 50 dock high doors.

Project Applicant City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to the issuance
of building permits.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
MM 4.7-3 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that parking areas are designed to accommodate EV charging stations for passenger cars consistent with CALGreen requirements.

Project Applicant City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
MM 4.7-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit for tenant improvements, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley demonstrating that the Project is designed to achieve Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Certified equivalent standards. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals and does not require the Project to pursue LEED certification from the USGBC.

Project Applicant City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
MM 4.7-5 The development shall divert a minimum of 75 percent of landfill waste. Prior to issuance of certificate of tenant occupancy permits, a recyclables collection and load area shall be constructed in compliance with City of Jurupa Valley standards for Recyclable Collection and Loading Areas. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

Project Applicant City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
tenant occupancy
permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
MM 4.7-6 Prior to the issuance of tenant occupancy permits, the Planning Department shall confirm that the property’s landscape maintenance contract includes contractual language that all landscaping maintenance equipment used onsite shall be 100 percent electrically powered. This mitigation measure applies only to tenant permits and not the building shell approvals.

Project Applicant City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
tenant occupancy
permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
Threshold b: Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-6 shall apply. PPP 4.5-1 shall apply. Project Applicant City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Department
Prior to the issuance
of building permits.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS

4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-1 As required by Health and Safety Code 25507, a business shall establish and implement a business plan for emergency response to a release or threatened release of hazardous material in accordance with the standards prescribed in the regulations adopted pursuant to Section 25503 if the business handles a hazardous material or a mixture containing a hazardous material that has a quantity at any one time above the thresholds described in Section 25507(a) (1) through (6).

PPP 4.8-2 The Project shall comply with all applicable City of Jurupa Valley Fire Department codes (Chapter 8.10 of the City’s Municipal Code), ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts
Threshold b: Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts
Threshold c: Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts
Threshold e: For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold f: Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold g: Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.9-1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.

PPP 4.9-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No.

CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009- 0009-DWQ. The City may notify the State Board of any person N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.

PPP 4.9-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section C, new development or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The City Engineer shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation.

Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) shall be required when requested by the City Engineer. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following and may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopments to do any of the following.
(1) Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous soil and low-lying area undisturbed by:
(a) Incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open space into the project design;
(b) Using porous materials for or near driveways, drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads and walkways; and
(c) Incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design.
(2) Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement or other approved green infrastructure and French drains by:
(a) Installing rain-gutters oriented towards permeable areas; (b) Modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of storm water runoff leaving the property; and
c) Designing curbs, berms, or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas.
(3) Maximize storm water storage for reuse by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store storm water runoff for reuse or slow release.
(4) Rain gardens may be proposed in-lieu of a water quality basin when applicable and approved by the City Engineer.

PPP 4.9-4 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section E, any person, or entity that owns or operates a commercial and/or industrial facility(s) shall comply with the provisions of this chapter. All such facilities shall be subject to a regular program of inspection as required by this chapter, any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by the State Water Resource Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Wat.

Code Section 13000 et seq.), Title 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (Clean Water Act), any applicable state or federal regulations promulgated thereto, and any related administrative orders or permits issued in connection therewith.

Threshold b: Would the Project substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that the project may impede
sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impeded or redirect flood flows?
Threshold d: Would the Project in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold e: Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.9-1 through 4.9-4 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

4.10 Land Use and Planning
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project physically divide an established community?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

4.11 Mineral Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

4.12 Noise
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.12-1 In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.4 Construction Equipment. Require that all construction equipment utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and engine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.

PPP 4.12-2 In order to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.5 Construction Noise. Limit commercial construction activities within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high noise-generating construction activities between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project generate excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

4.13 Transportation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Threshold d: Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

4.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
MM 4.14-1 Retain Registered Professional Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (“Project Archaeologist”) subject to the approval of the City to be on-call during all mass grading and trenching activities. The Project Archaeologist’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, performing the tasks that require the need for a qualified archaeologist pursuant to MM 4.14-2 through MM 4.14-6 below.

PPP 4.14-1 The Project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code § 5097 et. seq.

Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts
MM 4.14-2 Cultural Resources Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Applicant, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) that includes performance standards identified in MM

4.14-3 through 4.14-5. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52/SB 18 tribal consultation process for the Project, has completed AB 52/SB 18 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1). The CRMP shall be prepared to address the implementation of the City’s Tribal Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures MM4.14-3 through 4.14- 6, including but limited to, timing, procedures and considerations for Tribal Cultural Resources during the course of ground disturbing activities that will occur on the Project site. The CRMP shall be subject to final approval by the City of Jurupa Planning Department.

Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts
MM 4.14-3 Tribal Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide the City of Jurupa Valley evidence of agreements with the Consulting Tribe(s), for tribal monitoring. The Project Applicant is also required to provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the tribes of all ground disturbing activities
Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts.

MM 4.14-4 Treatment and Disposition of Inadvertently Discovered Tribal Cultural Resources: In the event that buried archaeological resources/Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during the course of ground disturbing activity associated with the project, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery and the Project Archaeologist shall visit the site of discovery and assess the significance and origin of the archaeological resource in coordination with the consulting tribe(s). The following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
(1) Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the process; and
(2) Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Jurupa Valley Department with evidence of same:
(a) Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. This will require revisions to the grading plan, denoting the location and avoidance of the resource. (b) Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed; location information regarding the reburial location shall be included into the final report required under MM 4.14-5. Copies of the report shall be provided to the City for their records, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the Eastern Informational Center.
(c) Curation. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

MM 4.14-5 Final Reporting: In the event significant tribal cultural resources as defined by subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, or Tribal Cultural Resources as defined by Pub. Resources Code, § 21074 (a), are discovered on the Project site, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit a Phase IV Cultural Resources Monitoring Report that complies with the County of Riverside Cultural Resources (Archaeological) Investigations Standard Scopes of Work for review and approval to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department. Once the report is determined to be adequate, the Project Applicant shall provide (1) copy to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department, and provide the City of Jurupa Valley, evidence that two (2) copies have been submitted to the Eastern Information Center at the University of California Riverside and one (1) copy has been submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts.

MM 4.14-6 Discovery of Human Remains: In the event that human remains (or remains that may be human) are discovered at the Project site during grading or earthmoving, the construction contractors, project archaeologist, and/or designated Native American Monitor shall immediately stop all activities within 100 feet of the find. The Project Applicant shall then inform the Riverside County Coroner immediately, and the coroner shall be permitted to examine the remains as required by California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b).

Project Applicant. City of Jurupa
Valley Planning
Department.

Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit;
During grading
activities.

Less than
Significant Impacts

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.15-1 The Project is subject to compliance with the Rubidoux Community Services District rules, regulations, conditions, requirements, and payment of fees for commercial/industrial projects with respect to water and sewer service.

PPP 4.15-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permit, the Project applicant shall be required to provide written verification to the City of Jurupa Valley Engineering Department that the Rubidoux Community Services District has verified that adequate capacity exists at the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to serve the Project.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

THRESHOLD MITIGATION MEASURES (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, PROGRAMS (PPPS) RESPONSIBLE PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND PDFS
Threshold b: Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.15-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.15-1 and PPP 4.15-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.15-3 The Project shall comply with Section 5.408 of the 2019 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the City of Jurupa Valley shall confirm that a sufficient plan has been submitted, and prior to final building inspections, the City of Jurupa Valley shall review and verify the Contractor’s documentation that confirm the volumes and types of waste that were diverted from landfill disposal, in accordance with the approved construction waste management plan.

PPP 4.15-4 The Project shall participate in established programs for commercial development projects to reduce solid waste generation, in accordance with the provisions of the Riverside Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts.

Threshold e: Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.15-3 and PPP 4.15-4 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts.

4.16 Wildfire
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impact Threshold b: Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts
Threshold c: Would the Project require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (suchs a roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant Impacts
Threshold d: Would the Project expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability or drainage change?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant Impacts
ATTACHMENT 3
Ordinance Approving CZ 21003
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-01

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 21003 (CZ 21003) TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM
MEDIUM-MANUFACTURING TO MANUFACTURINGSERVICE COMMERCIAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED

WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF
25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO

PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE

CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST
OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)

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

Section 1. Background. On July 5, 2018, the City Council considered Proficiency Capital, LLC’s (the “Applicant”) request for a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to allow a logistics use on the project site, which is located westerly of west Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the west Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon street, and east of 28th Street. This is outside the General Plan Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays. The City Council, without consideration of the merits of the proposed project, initiated a GPA to analyze and review the Applicant’s request to develop the Rubidoux Commerce Park on the Project site. In 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council held study sessions on the proposed project. On March 17, 2022, the City Council stated they were not supportive of the proposed distribution warehouse use at this project site and the Applicant decided to modify the proposed project in response to these comments.

Section 2. Project. The Applicant applied for Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001 (collectively, Master Application No. 17132 or MA No. 17132) to permit the construction of a proposed 1.18 million square foot industrial complex consisting of five buildings on the property located westerly of West Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street, and east of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178-070-001, 002, 003 (the “Project”). These applications were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. This Ordinance addresses Change of Zone No. 21003. Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 will be addressed by resolution. Development Agreement No. 19001 will be addressed by a separate ordinance.

Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
-2-
(a) The application for MA No. 17132 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
(b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3-1 to deny the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On November 29, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Project. (c) The Applicant timely appealed the denial of the Project. (d) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
(e) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared. An EIR was prepared (SCH # 2020110449 ) for the Project. Change of Zone No. 21003 was included in the Project Description for the EIR and its impacts analyzed therein. (f) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project, Change of Zone No. 21003, and the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, Development Agreement, EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Ordinance. (g) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-102, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL

PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED EASTERLY OF MONTANA AVENUE, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE

WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK),” that included Change of Zone No. 21003 in the Project Description.
-3-
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 2024-02, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001) BETWEEN THE CITY

AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

BUILDINGS LOCATED WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED

SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK).” (i) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2023-103, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING MASTER APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET,

AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)” which approvals are vested by the Development Agreement. (j) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Section 4. Change of Zone.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Change of Zone No. 21003 to rezone four parcels located Easterly of Montana Avenue, Westerly of West Riverside Canal, Southerly of 25th Street, and Northerly of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178- 070-001, 002, 003) from Manufacturing-Manufacturing Medium (M-M) to ManufacturingService Commercial (M-SC) as depicted in Exhibit “A.” (b) Section 9.285.040.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that propose to change property from one zone to another. (c) Section 9.285.020(C) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code states that an application of the change of zone shall not be set for a public hearing unless: (1) all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley Rules Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub.

Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) to hear a matter have been completed, and (2) the requested change of zone is consistent with the Jurupa Valley General Plan. (d) Section 9.285.040.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the Planning Commission shall render its decision within a reasonable time and transmit it to the City Council in the form of a written recommendation, which shall contain the reasons for the recommendation and, if the recommendation is to change a zone classification on property, the relationship of the proposed amendment to applicable general and specific plans. A copy of the recommendation shall be mailed to the applicant and proof thereof -4-
shall be shown on the original transmitted to the City Council. If the Planning Commission does not reach a decision due to a tie vote, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and the failure to reach a decision shall be deemed a recommendation against the proposed amendment. (e) Section 9.285.040.(4)(a) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day, and give notice of the time and place of the hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
(f) Section 9.285.040.(5) provides that after closing the public hearing the City Council shall render its decision within a reasonable time and may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Section 5. Findings for Approval of Change of Zone. In approving Change of Zone No. 21003, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) Change of Zone No. 21003 to change the zone for the Project site from Medium-Manufacturing to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) is necessary to ensure consistency with the General Plan which designates the Project site as Light Industrial.

Section 6. Approval of Change of Zone 21003. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby approves Change of Zone No. 21003 to rezone four parcels located Easterly of Montana Avenue, Westerly of West Riverside Canal, Southerly of 25th Street, and Northerly of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178-070-001, 002, 003) from Manufacturing-Manufacturing Medium (M-M) to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) as depicted in Exhibit “A”.

Section 7. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

Section 8. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
-5-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 18th day of January, 2024.
_____________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-6-

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-01 was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of December, 2023 and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2024, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 18th day of January, 2024. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Exhibit A
Change of Zone from M-M Zone to M-SC
ATTACHMENT 4
Ordinance Approving DA 19001
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-02

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001)

BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC

TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED

WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY
OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND

TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST

RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON
STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX

COMMERCE PARK)

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

Section 1. Background. On July 5, 2018, the City Council considered Proficiency Capital, LLC’s (the “Applicant”) request for a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to allow a logistics use on the project site, which is located westerly of west Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the west Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon street, and east of 28th Street. This is outside the General Plan Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays. The City Council, without consideration of the merits of the proposed project, initiated a GPA to analyze and review the Applicant’s request to develop the Rubidoux Commerce Park on the Project site. In 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council held study sessions on the proposed project. On March 17, 2022, the City Council stated they were not supportive of the proposed distribution warehouse use at this project site and the Applicant decided to modify the proposed project in response to these comments.

Section 2. Project. The Applicant applied for Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001 (collectively, Master Application No. 17132 or MA No. 17132) to permit the construction of a proposed 1.18 million square foot industrial complex consisting of five buildings on the property located westerly of West Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street, and east of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178-070-001, 002, 003 (the “Project”). These applications were filed in a manner in accord with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. This Ordinance addresses Development Agreement No. 19001. Change of Zone No. 21003 will be addressed by a separate ordinance. Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 will be addressed by resolution.

Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
-2-
(a) The application for MA No. 17132 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
(b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3-1 to deny the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On November 29, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Project. (c) The Applicant timely appealed the denial of the Project. (d) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
(e) The proposed Development Agreement between Proficiency Capital, LLC, (“Owner”) and the City of Jurupa Valley DA 19001 (“Development Agreement”) provides the Owner vested rights to proceed with the development of the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. By entering into the Development Agreement, the City is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and welfare. The term of the Development Agreement is for ten (10) years. The benefit of the Development Agreement for the Owner is the protection of the approvals. The Development Agreement includes community benefits that would be provided. The estimated total benefit amount, based on a 10 year projection (discounted at net present value), is $12,848,618. (f) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared. An EIR was prepared (SCH # 2020110449 ) for the Project. Development Agreement No. 19001 was included in the Project Description for the EIR and its impacts analyzed therein. (g) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project, including Development Agreement No. 19001, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, Development Agreement No. 19001, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Ordinance. -3-
(h) Following the public hearing, the Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- 102, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL

PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED EASTERLY OF MONTANA AVENUE, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE

WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK),” that included Development Agreement No. 19001 in the Project Description.
(i) Following the public hearing, the Council also adopted Ordinance No. 2024-01, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 21003 (CZ 21003) TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM

MEDIUM-MANUFACTURING TO MANUFACTURING-SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET,

AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK).
(j) Following the public hearing, the Council also adopted Resolution No. 2023-103, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING MASTER APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677) AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET,

AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)” which approvals are vested by the Development Agreement. (k) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Section 4. Development Agreement.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Development Agreement No. 19001, which agreement would provide: (i) the Applicant with assurance that development of the Project may proceed subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of Project approval, (ii) the City with assurance that certain obligations of the Applicant’s will be met. (b) California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 (the “Development Agreement Act”) authorize the City to enter into a binding development agreement for the -4-
development of real property within its jurisdiction with persons having legal or equitable interest in such real property.
(c) Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Act provides that a public hearing on an application for a development agreement shall be held by the planning agency and by the legislative body. Notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 in addition to any other notice required by law for other actions to be considered concurrently with the development agreement.
(d) Section 65867.5(b) of the Development Agreement Act provides that a development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.

Section 5. Findings for Approval of Development Agreement. In approving Development Agreement No. 19001, the Jurupa Valley City Council hereby makes the following findings:
(a) The Development Agreement complies with the requirements of California Government Code Sections 65865 through 65869.5 in that the Development Agreement specifies in detail and contains the following:
1) Provisions in Section 9 requiring periodic review at least every twelve months, at which time the Owner shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the Development Agreement (California Government Code Section 65865.1). 2) Duration of the Development Agreement, as specified in Section 3.3 of the Agreement as being ten (10) years (Government Code Section 65865.2). 3) The permitted uses of the property, the density and intensity of use, the maximum height and size of the proposed buildings, and provisions for reservation or dedication of land for public purposes are set forth in Title 7, Subdivisions of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, and Title 9, Planning and Zoning, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code which is part of the Project Approvals incorporated into the Development Agreement by Section 2.14 thereof and vested by the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). 4) Terms and conditions in the Project Approvals and the Development Agreement, require the Developer to construct all necessary public improvements necessary to access and improve the Property for the proposed uses (Government Code Section 65865.2). (b) Pursuant to Section 65867.5, the provisions of the Development Agreement are consistent with the City’s General Plan, and each element thereof, as amended, and the following goals and policies, in that the Development Agreement incorporates by reference and vests the Project Approvals, as defined therein, including but not limited to the Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677:
1) The Development Agreement will obligate the Owner, as consideration for the Development Agreement, to make Community Benefit Contributions of an -5-
estimated $12,848,618 based on a 10 year projection (discounted at net present value), for: (1) the enhancement or construction of public facilities; (2) maintenance of infrastructure; (3) supplement public safety; (4) public improvements for the Belltown Neighborhood; (5) provide payments for a planning study for the Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan, that would establish goals, objectives, and policies designed to protect residential neighborhoods consistent with the General Plan; (6) convey to the City the land and existing building designated as “Building 5” on the Project site for One Dollar ; and (7) partner with a local non-profit organization, approved by the City Manager, to provide meals and food to the community.
2) The Project Approvals vested by the Development Agreement are consistent with the City’s General Plan, in that the proposed Project Approvals are intended to subdivide the Project site into five parcels to allow the construction of five industrial buildings.

The subdivision will be consistent with the Land Use Objectives of the General Plan to strengthen the employment base, and promote a more balanced range of land uses that meets the needs and values of the wider community, and ensure that vacant land and resources are used wisely. 3) The Project Approvals vested by the Development Agreement are consistent with the following Land Use Element goal: LUE 2 Attract high quality commercial, office, and industrial areas offering a range of retail, service and employment uses that complement rather than compete with one another.
4) The design or improvement of the Project Approvals vested by the Development Agreement is consistent with the City’s General Plan in that the proposed subdivision would subdivide the project site into the 5 industrial building consistent with the Light Industrial land use designation to accommodate the land uses, preliminary grading and utilities plan, street improvements, and infrastructure improvements associated with the Project. (b) Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council finds and determines that: (1) this Agreement provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within City; (ii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of City and its residents; (iii) adopting this Agreement is consistent with City’s General Plan, and each element thereof and any applicable specific plan, and constitutes a present exercise of City’s police power; and (iv) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation.
(c) Pursuant to Section 65867.5(c), a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with the provisions of Government Code section 66473.7. Section

4.10 of the Development Agreement provides that the Project includes a subdivision as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7. Any tentative map prepared for the subdivision shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7 by imposing a condition that sufficient water supply be available to service the residential subdivisions.
-6-
(d) The Project includes a subdivision as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7. Any tentative map prepared for the subdivision shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7 by imposing a condition that sufficient water supply be available to service the residential subdivisions.

Section 6. Approval of Development Agreement. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby approves the Development Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Proficiency Capital, LLC, in substantially the form submitted to the City Council and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the City in substantially the form submitted to the City Council. Upon execution by all parties, an original shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. City Clerk is directed to record this Development Agreement in the Official Records of the County of Riverside within ten (10) days of the effective date of this Ordinance.

Section 7. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.

Section 8. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 9. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.

Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.
-7-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 18th day of January, 2024.
_____________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-8-

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-02 was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of December, 2023 and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2024, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 18th day of January, 2024. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
City Draft: 11-4-23
12774.0141 2862769.4

RECORDING REQUESTED BY

AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley CA 92509
Attn: City Clerk
Exempt from recording fees pursuant to Govt. Code Section 27383 (Space above for recorder’s use)

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN
THE

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
AND
PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC., a California limited company City Draft: 11-4-23
2 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into and dated as of ________________________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, a California municipal corporation and general law city existing under the Constitution of the State of the California (“City”), and PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC., a Delaware limited company (“OWNER”), pursuant to the authority of Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code (the “Development Agreement Legislation”) and Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution. City and OWNER are occasionally referred to in this Agreement collectively as the “Parties.” Pursuant to the authority contained in the Development Agreement Legislation, as it applies to the City, pursuant to Article XI, Section 2 of the California Constitution, and in consideration of the recitals set forth in Section 1, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement, and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. RECITALS. This Agreement is made for the following purposes and with respect to the following facts, which the Parties agree are true and correct:

1.1 The Development Agreement Legislation authorizes City to enter into binding development agreements with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property for the development of such property for the following purposes:

1.1.1 Ensuring high quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans;

1.1.2 Reducing uncertainty in the development approval process that might otherwise result in a waste of resources, discourage investment, and escalate the cost of development to the consumer;

1.1.3 Strengthening City’s comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources by encouraging private participation in the comprehensive planning process;

1.1.4 Assuring Owners of land that upon approval, they may proceed with their development projects in accordance with defined policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval; and

1.1.5 Providing for the financing and/or construction of necessary public facilities and services.

1.2 The property that is the subject of this Agreement is approximately 80.8 acres in size, generally located easterly of Montana Avenue, westerly of West Riverside Canal (also known as “Jurupa Canal”), southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels are located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street and East of 28th Street and is described on Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” (the “Property”).

City Draft: 11-4-23
3 1.3 The Property is subject to the Project Approvals and Applicable Regulations defined in Sections 2.16 and 2.2, respectively, of this Agreement.

1.4 In addition to the general purposes stated above, the following are among the considerations supporting this Agreement:

1.4.1 This Agreement will provide for both Parties: (a) a high quality development on the Property subject to this Agreement; (b) certainty in the type of development to be undertaken on the Property; and (c) the assurance of adequate public facilities and services to ensure the good of the community regardless of City’s legal authority to impose such requirements under constitutional or statutory authority.

1.4.2 For City, this Agreement serves to provide for: (a) employment growth anticipated to result from the Development of the Property, both during construction and use; (b) an increase in tax revenues anticipated to result from the Development of the Property; (c) a stimulant to economic growth in the community surrounding the Property; and (d) the achievement of the goals and directives of its General Plan.

1.4.3 The development of new commercial, manufacturing, industrial buildings, associated office space and residential uses is an integral part of OWNER’s development plans for the Property. Such facilities are expected to bring employment and increased tax revenue for City.

1.5 The Parties desire to enter into a binding agreement for purposes of:
(i) identifying the terms, conditions, and regulations for the Development of the Property; (ii) identifying OWNER’s obligations to make certain Community Benefit Contribution, as defined in Section 2.8, and design, construct and install Public Improvements, on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

1.6 OWNER desires to develop the Property in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement, the Applicable Regulations, and the regulations of those other agencies exercising jurisdiction over the Property.

1.7 OWNER has applied for, and City has approved, this Agreement in order to create beneficial development of the Property and a physical environment that will conform to and complement City’s goals, create development sensitive to human needs and values, facilitate efficient traffic circulation, and otherwise provide for the Development of the Property in accordance with City’s best interests.

1.8 The City Council has determined that this Agreement is consistent with City’s General Plan and each element thereof, including, without limitation, the goals and objectives thereof.

1.9 The following actions have been taken with respect to this Agreement and the Development:

City Draft: 11-4-23
4 1.9.1 On ______________, 2023, following a duly noticed and conducted public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve this Agreement and the Development.

1.9.2 On ______________, 2023, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted the following Resolutions and introduced an Ordinance approving certain land use entitlements for the Development: (1) Resolution No. 2023-___, Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, Making Findings, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (2) Resolution No. 2023- ___, approving General Plan Amendment (GPA No. 18003), Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Site Development Permit (SDP 19008); and 3) Ordinance No. 2023-_____ Zone Change (ZC 21003). The Resolutions and Ordinance are all on file in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall. The Resolutions contain findings pertaining thereto, including those relating to the CEQA documentation for the Development.

1.9.3 On ________________, 2023, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2023-___ and on ______________, 2023, held the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 2023-___, approving this Agreement which Ordinance includes the findings pertaining thereto, including those relating to the CEQA documentation for the Development and this Agreement’s consistency with City’s General Plan and each element thereof and any specific plans relating to the Property. This Ordinance is on file in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall,

1.10 All actions taken by City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including CEQA, and all other requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters.

1.11 City has engaged in extensive studies and review of the potential impacts of the Development, as well as the various potential benefits to City by the Development, and has concluded that the Development is in City’s best interests. In consideration of the Public Improvements to be provided by OWNER to City, and in order to strengthen the planning process for the Property and to reduce the economic costs of Development of the Property, City intends to give OWNER assurance that OWNER can proceed with the Development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals and the City’s Applicable Regulations. In reliance on City’s covenants in this Agreement concerning the Development of the Property, OWNER has and will in the future incur substantial costs in site preparation and construction of infrastructure and facilities in order to develop the Property.

1.12 Pursuant to Section 65867.5 of the Development Agreement Legislation, the City Council finds and determines that: (i) this Agreement implements the goals and policies of City’s General Plan, including each element thereof,; (ii) provides balanced and diversified land uses, and imposes appropriate standards and requirements with respect to land development and usage in order to maintain the overall quality of life and the environment within City; (iii) this Agreement is in the best interests of and not detrimental to the public health, safety, and general welfare of City and its residents; (iv) adopting this Agreement is consistent with City’s General Plan, and each element thereof and any applicable specific plan, and constitutes a present exercise of City’s police power; and (v) this Agreement is being entered into pursuant to City Draft: 11-4-23
5 and in compliance with the requirements of Government Code Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Legislation.

2. DEFINITIONS. This Agreement uses a number of terms having specific meanings, as defined below. These specially defined terms are distinguished by having the initial letter capitalized when used in this Agreement. The defined terms include the following:

2.1 “Agreement” means this Development Agreement.

2.2 “Applicable Regulations” is defined in Section 4.1.3 of this Agreement.

2.3 “Authorizing Ordinance” means Ordinance No. 2023-___ adopted by City on _______________, 2023 approving this Agreement.

2.4 “CEQA” means the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Pub.

Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

2.5 “City” means the City of Jurupa Valley, a California general law city and municipal corporation, duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the State of California, and all of its officials, employees, agencies, and departments.

2.6 “City Council” means the City Council of City.

2.7 “City Manager” mans the City Manager of City.

2.8 “Community Benefit Contribution” or “CBC” means the payments described in Section 5.6 of this Agreement.

2.9 “OWNER” means PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC., a California limited company, a California limited liability company, and all successors in interest, in whole or part, to this entity with respect to the Property.

2.10 “Development” means the improvement of the Property for the purposes consistent with this Agreement and the Project Approvals, including, without limitation, demolition, remediation, grading, the construction of infrastructure and public facilities related to the on-site improvements, the construction of structures and buildings, and the installation of landscaping subject to the Project Approvals.

2.11 “Development Agreement Legislation” means Sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the California Government Code as it exists on the Effective Date.

2.12 “Effective Date” means the date that this Agreement becomes effective in accordance with Section 3.2 of this Agreement.

2.13 “MSHCP” means the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan and related amendments and approvals associated therewith.

City Draft: 11-4-23
6 2.14 “Net Square Footage” means the amount of enclosed building area of Development. For Commercial Retail Buildings means net leasable area.

2.15 “Project” means Development of the Property for residential, commercial, business park and industrial uses in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, inclusive of the permitted uses and Applicable Regulations set forth in this Agreement.

2.16 “Project Approvals” means all City approvals or entitlements, or both, pertaining to the Project, including, without limitation, the following resolutions and ordinances approving certain entitlements for the Project: (1) Resolution No. 2023-___, Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, Making Findings, Adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, (2) Ordinance No. 2023- ____ approving Zone Change (ZC 21003); (3) Resolution No. 2023-___, approving Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Site Development Permit (SDP 19008); and (4) Ordinance No. 2023- ___, approving this Agreement.

2.17 “Property” means the real property described in Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B”.

2.18 “Public Improvements” means the improvements described in the Project Approvals.

2.19 “Reservation of Authority” means the rights and authority excepted from the assurances and rights provided to OWNER under this Agreement and reserved to City under Section 4.2 of this Agreement.

2.20 “Site Map” means the drawing of the site in its condition as of the Effective Date, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit “B”.

2.21 “Subsequent Project Approvals” means those Project Approvals issued subsequent to the Effective Date in connection with the Development of the Property.

2.22 “Subsequent Land Use Regulations” means all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules, regulations, and official written policies of City adopted and effective after the Effective Date governing the Development and use of the Property.

2.23 “Transferee” means the person to whom OWNER sells, assigns, or otherwise transfers all or any portion of OWNER’s interests in the Property together with all its right, title, and interest in this Agreement in accordance with Section 12 of this Agreement.

3. GENERAL TERMS.

3.1 Binding Effect of Agreement. From and following the Effective Date, the Development, and City actions on applications for Subsequent Project Approvals affecting the Property, shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement, to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants that shall run with the Property for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit of the Parties and all successors in interest to the Parties.

City Draft: 11-4-23
7 3.2 Effective Date. This Agreement, and the obligations of the Parties to this Agreement, shall be effective on the date that Ordinance No. 2023-___ approving this Agreement becomes effective (the “Effective Date”). The Parties shall approve an operating memorandum pursuant to Section 3.4.4 confirming the Effective Date of this Agreement.

3.3 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for ten (10) consecutive calendar years thereafter (the “Term”), unless Term is otherwise terminated, modified, or extended by circumstances set forth in this Agreement or by mutual consent of the Parties after the satisfaction of all applicable public hearing and related procedural requirements. Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section 3.3, the provisions of Section 5.6, shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.

3.4 Amendment of Agreement.

3.4.1 Initiation of Amendment. Any Party may propose an amendment to this Agreement and both Parties agree that it may be beneficial to enter into additional agreements or modifications of this Agreement in connection with the implementation of the separate components of the Development.

3.4.2 Procedure. Except as set forth in Section 3.4.4 of this Agreement, the procedure for proposing and adopting an amendment to this Agreement shall be the same as the procedure required for entering into this Agreement in the first instance.

3.4.3 Consent. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, any amendment, including an extension of the Term, to this Agreement shall require the written consent of both Parties, in accordance with law. No amendment to all or any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless set forth in writing and signed by duly authorized representatives of each of the Parties.

3.4.4 Operating Memoranda. The Parties acknowledge that refinements and further development of the Project may demonstrate that changes are appropriate with respect to the details and performance of the Parties. The Parties desire to retain a certain degree of flexibility with respect to those items covered in general terms under this Agreement. If and when the Parties mutually find that changes, adjustments, or clarifications are appropriate to further the intended purposes of this Agreement, they may, unless otherwise required by law, effectuate such changes, adjustments, or clarifications without amendment to this Agreement through one or more operating memoranda mutually approved by the Parties. The operating memoranda may be approved on City’s behalf by the City Manager, or such person designated in writing by the City Manager, and by any corporate officer or other person designated for such purpose in a writing signed by a corporate officer on behalf of OWNER. After execution of an operating memoranda it shall be attached to this Agreement as addenda and become a part of this Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law or by this Agreement, no such changes, adjustments, or clarifications shall require prior notice or hearing, public or otherwise.

3.4.5 Termination. Unless terminated earlier, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and be of no further effect upon the expiration of the Term. The termination of this Agreement, for any reason, shall not, by City Draft: 11-4-23
8 itself, affect any right or duty arising from entitlements or approvals set forth under the Project Approvals.

4. DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

4.1 Right to Develop.

4.1.1 Right to Develop. OWNER shall have a vested right to develop the Property during the term of this Agreement in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Project Approvals and this Agreement.

4.1.2 Effect of Agreement on Applicable Regulations. Except as otherwise provided under the terms of this Agreement, the rules, regulations and official policies governing permitted uses of the Property, the density and intensity of use of the Property, the rate or timing of development, the maximum height and size of proposed buildings, and the design, improvement and construction standards and specifications applicable to the Development, shall be those contained in the Project Approvals and those Applicable Regulations not inconsistent with the Project Approvals which were in full force and effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

4.1.3 Applicable Regulations. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement and the Project Approvals, the following shall govern the development of the Property (“Applicable Regulations”):

4.1.3.1 The provisions of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code pertaining to property development in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement;

4.1.3.2 City ordinances and resolutions pertaining to
property development in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement; and

4.1.3.3 The City’s General Plan, and each element thereof, in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement.

4.1.4 Subsequent Project Approvals. City shall accept for processing, review and action all applications for Subsequent Project Approvals, and City staff shall use their reasonable efforts to process such applications in an expeditious manner, taking into account City’s staffing levels, and all requisite development fees shall be calculated and paid at such time as payment for such fees is due and payable, for all or a portion of the Property. City further agrees that, unless otherwise requested by OWNER, it shall not, without good cause as provided in this Agreement, amend or rescind any Subsequent Project Approvals respecting the Property after City has granted the same.

4.1.5 Amendments to Project Approvals. It is contemplated by the Parties that OWNER may, from time to time, seek amendments to one or more of the Project Approvals. In the event OWNER finds that such an amendment is appropriate or desirable, OWNER may apply in writing for an amendment to the Project Approvals to effectuate such change. The Parties acknowledge that City shall be permitted to use its sole and absolute City Draft: 11-4-23
9 discretion in deciding whether to approve or deny any such amendment request; provided, however, that in exercising the foregoing sole and absolute discretion, City shall not apply a standard different than it has used in evaluating requests of other property owners. Any such amendments are contemplated by the Parties as being within the scope of this Agreement as long as they are consistent with the Applicable Regulations and shall, upon approval by City, continue to constitute the Project Approvals as referenced in this Agreement. The Parties agree that any such approved amendments shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement nor require an amendment to this Agreement.

4.2 Reservation of Authority by City.

4.2.1 Limitations, Reservations, and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the following Subsequent Land Use Regulations shall apply to the Development:

4.2.1.1 Processing fees and charges of every kind and
nature adopted by City pursuant to state law for costs related to City’s processing of applications for Project Approvals.

4.2.1.2 Procedural regulations consistent with this
Agreement relating to hearing bodies, petitions, applications, notices, findings, records, hearings, reports, recommendations, appeals, and any other matters of procedure.

4.2.1.3 Changes adopted by the City Council in the
California Building Code, California Historic Building Code, California Existing Building Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Plumbing Code, California Energy Code, California Green Building Standards Code, California Referenced Standards Code, California Residential Code, International Property Maintenance Code and similar uniform codes as required by and in accordance with the authority granted to City under state law.

4.2.1.4 Regulations that are not in conflict with the Project Approvals and this Agreement.

4.2.1.5 Regulations that are in conflict with the Project Approvals provided OWNER has given written consent to the application of such regulations to the Development.

4.2.1.6 Federal, state, county, and multi-jurisdictional laws and regulations that preempt local regulations, or mandate the adoption of local regulations, and are in conflict with the Project Approvals.

4.2.1.7 Subsequent Land Use Regulations adopted by City in connection with any Subsequent Project Approvals, necessary to protect the imminent safety or health, or both, of the residents or occupants of the Property, or the residents or people of City, or both.

4.2.2 Future Discretion of City. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Section 4.2, this Agreement shall not prevent City, in acting on Subsequent Project City Draft: 11-4-23
10 Approvals, from denying or conditionally approving any Subsequent Project Approval on the basis of the Applicable Regulations or any Subsequent Land Use Regulations not in conflict with the Project Approvals.

4.2.3 Modification or Suspension by Federal, State, County, or MultiJurisdictional Law. In the event that Federal, State, County, or multi-jurisdictional laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such Federal, State, County, or multijurisdictional laws or regulations, and this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provision impractical to enforce.

4.2.4 Intent. City acknowledges that OWNER has reasonably entered into this Agreement and may proceed with the Development of the Property on the assumption that City has adequately provided for the public health, safety and welfare through the Applicable Regulations. In the event that any future, unforeseen public health or safety emergency arises, City shall attempt to address such emergency in such a way as not to impact the Development in accordance with the Project Approvals, and if that is not possible, to select that option for addressing the emergency which has the least adverse impact on the Development in accordance with the Project Approvals.

4.3 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the Parties that other public agencies not subject to control by City may possess authority to regulate aspects of the Development, and this Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.

4.4 Timing of Development. Except as set forth in Agreement regardless of any future enactment, by initiative, or otherwise, OWNER shall have the discretion to develop the Property, or not develop the Property, in one phase or in multiple phases at such times as OWNER deems appropriate within the exercise of its sole and absolute business judgment.

Specifically, City agrees that OWNER shall be entitled to apply for and receive permits, maps, occupancy certificates, and other entitlements to develop and use the Property at any time, provided that such application is made in accordance with this Agreement and the Applicable Regulations. It is the intent of the Parties to cure the deficiency identified by the Supreme Court in Pardee Construction Company v. City of Camarillo, 37 Cal. 3d 465 (1984), which held the failure of a development agreement to specify the timing of development did not prevent a latterenacted initiative from applying to the project approvals applicable to the development agreement in question in that case.

4.5 Vested Rights. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereon, OWNER is obtaining the vested rights to proceed with the Development of the Property in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. By entering into this Agreement and relying thereon, City is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and welfare, a partial listing of which benefits is set forth in Section 1 of this Agreement.

City Draft: 11-4-23
11 4.6 No Conflicting Enactments. Except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, neither the City Council nor any other agency of City shall enact a rule, regulation, ordinance, or other measure applicable to the Property that is inconsistent or conflicts with the terms of this Agreement.

4.6.1 Moratorium. It is the intent of the Parties that no moratorium or other limitation (whether relating to the Development of all or any part of the Development and whether enacted by initiative or otherwise) affecting parcel or subdivision maps (whether tentative, vesting tentative, or final), site development permits, precise plans, site development plans, grading permits, building permits, occupancy certificates, or other entitlements to use approved, issued, or granted within City, or portions of City, shall apply to the Development to the extent such moratorium or other limitation would restrict OWNER’s right to develop the Property as provided by this Agreement in such order and at such rate as OWNER deems appropriate at its sole and absolute discretion, as provided by this Agreement. City shall reasonably cooperate with OWNER in order to keep this Agreement in full force and effect. In the event of any legal action instituted by a third party or other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of this Agreement, the Parties hereby agree to reasonably cooperate in defending such action. In the event of any litigation challenging the effectiveness of this Agreement, or any portion hereof, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect while such litigation, including any appellate review, is pending. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against City or OWNER relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals or to other development issues affecting the Property shall not delay or stop the Development, processing, or construction of the Development, unless the third party obtains a court order preventing the activity.

4.6.2 Consistency Between this Agreement and Current Laws. City represents that at the Effective Date there are no rules, regulations, ordinances, policies, or other measures of City in force that would interfere with the Development and use of all or any part of the Property according this Agreement. In the event of any inconsistency between any Applicable Regulation, Development Approval, and this Agreement, the provisions of this Agreement shall control.

4.7 Further Assurances to OWNER. The Parties further acknowledge that the public benefits to be provided by OWNER to City pursuant to this Agreement are in consideration and reliance upon assurances that the Property can be developed in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. Accordingly, while recognizing that the Development of the Property may be affected by exercise of the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement, OWNER is concerned that normally the judiciary extends to local agencies significant deference in the adoption of land use regulations that might permit City, in violation of Section 4.2, to attempt to apply regulations that are inconsistent with the Project Approvals pursuant to the exercise of the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement. Accordingly, OWNER desires assurances that City shall not and City agrees that it shall not further restrict or limit the Development of the Property in violation of this Agreement except in strict accordance with the terms of this Agreement.

City Draft: 11-4-23
12 4.8 Acquisition of Right of Way for Public Improvements.

4.8.1 To the extent OWNER does not have sufficient title or interest in the real property required for the construction or installation of a Public Improvement, OWNER shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required property (“Required Property”) in a timeframe calculated to allow for the orderly Development of the Project. If, following this effort, OWNER is unable to acquire the Required Property, OWNER shall have the right, but not the obligation, to request that CITY acquire the Required Property pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5, which shall be applicable, regardless of whether OWNER is applying for approval of a final map. CITY shall consider in good faith the acquisition of the Required Property pursuant to an acquisition agreement in substantially the form of Exhibit “C” (“Acquisition Agreement”), pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 66462.5 or Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010 and following, as the case may be, including proceedings for immediate possession of the Property pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1255.410 and following. This Agreement is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent by CITY to acquire any or all of the property required for Off-Site Improvements.

4.8.2 In the event CITY delays or is unwilling or unable to acquire the Required Property, such conditions of approval shall be automatically deemed waived. The specific acquisition of Right of Way requiring public improvements shall be referenced in the Acquisition Agreement.

4.8.3 Both parties acknowledge and agree that acquisition of the Required Property in accordance with the California Eminent Domain Law, requires more time than the suggested timeframes of Government Code Section 66462.5 allow and therefore, the parties waive these time constraints and the Acquisition Agreement shall so provide. The parties further acknowledge and agree that CITY cannot exercise its power of eminent domain unless and until a Resolution of Necessity has been duly adopted by the City Council pursuant to law.

This Agreement is neither a commitment nor the announcement of an intent by CITY to acquire any or all of the Required Property for the Public Improvements.

4.8.4 If OWNER asks CITY and CITY agrees to acquire right-of-way through the use of its power of eminent domain, then OWNER and CITY shall enter into an Acquisition Agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5 for each Public Improvement. OWNER shall deposit with CITY the actual costs reasonably estimated by CITY for initiating such proceedings and each stage thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 4.9. City shall not delay or refuse to issue any Future Development Approvals due to the failure or delay of the City to either (i) enter into the Acquisition Agreement; (ii) if necessary, failure to initiate or conclude an eminent domain proceeding, if such a proceeding is necessary to obtain the Required Property; or (iii) approve any improvement plans needed to construct any Public Improvement.

4.9 Term of Map(s) and Other Project Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66452.6(a), 65863.9 and 65865.2, the term of any subdivision or parcel map that has been or in the future may be processed for all or any portion of the Property and the term of each of the Project Approvals (including, without limitation, Future Development Approvals) shall be deemed extended without further required action for a period City Draft: 11-4-23
13 of time through the scheduled termination date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 3.3 above.

4.10 Requirement that sufficient water supply be available to residential subdivisions. The Project includes a subdivision as defined in Government Code Section 66473.7. Any tentative map prepared for the subdivision shall comply with Government Code Section 66473.7 by imposing a condition that sufficient water supply be available to service the residential subdivisions.

5. IMPACT FEES.

5.1 City Development Impact Fees. Owner shall pay all City development impact fees pursuant to Chapter 3.75 or other provisions of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (“DIF”). For the five (5) years following the Effective Date the DIF shall be paid at the DIF rates in effect as of the Effective Date. Thereafter, the DIF shall be paid at the rate in effect as of the date of issuance of each building permit for the Property or such other time as the DIF may be paid as required by law. All persons or entities holding title or interest in any portion of the Property, including all successors and assigns of OWNER shall be separately responsible for payment of any and all DIF for that portion of the Property developed by such person or entity and shall not be responsible for payment of any DIF related to other portions of the Property.

5.2 TUMF Fees. Pursuant to Chapter 3.70 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (“TUMF”), the TUMF shall be imposed upon Development within the Property at the rate in effect as of the date of issuance of each building permit for the Property or such other time as the fees may be paid as required by law. OWNER shall be entitled to such credits as might be available pursuant to the terms of Chapter 3.70 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code or the terms of the future allowable fees. Owner understands and acknowledges that TUMF is collected and administered by the Western Riverside Council of Governments and not by the City. All persons or entities holding title or interest in any portion of the Property, including all successors and assigns of OWNER shall be separately responsible for payment of any and all TUMF for that portion of the Property developed by such person or entity and shall not be responsible for payment of any TUMF related to other portions of the Property.

5.3 MSHCP Fees. Pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Fees (“MSHCP Fee”), the MSHCP Fee shall be imposed upon Development within the Property at the rate in effect as of the date of issuance of each building permit for the Property or such other time as the fees may be paid as required by law. OWNER shall be entitled to such credits as might be available pursuant to the terms of Chapter 3.80 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. Owner understands and acknowledges that the MSHCP Fee is administered by the Riverside Conservation Agency and not by the City. All persons or entities holding title or interest in any portion of the Property, including all successors and assigns of OWNER shall be separately responsible for payment of any and all MSHCP Fee for that portion of the Property developed by such person or entity and shall not be responsible for payment of any MSHCP Fee related to other portions of the Property.

City Draft: 11-4-23
14 5.4 Other Regional Development Impact Fees. Other regional development impact fees, or any other development impact fees imposed by another governmental agency imposed upon Development within the Property at the rate in effect as of the date of issuance of each building permit for the Property or such other times as the fee may be required to be paid by law.

5.5 Application/Processing Fees. OWNER shall pay the application and processing fees for applications for entitlements and permits at the rate, and in the amount, imposed by City pursuant to the fee schedule, resolution, or ordinance in effect at the time the application is deemed complete and accepted by City for action, which fees are designed to reimburse City’s expenses attributable to processing such applications for entitlements, permits, or both.

5.6 Community Benefit Contributions. In partial consideration of the benefits received by OWNER pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the Project Approvals, OWNER shall pay to City the following Community Benefit Contributions.

5.6.1 Facilities Benefit Contribution. OWNER shall pay to the City an annual Facilities Benefit Contribution in the initial amount of three cents ($.03) per square foot of non-residential buildings, subject to annual increase as described below.

5.6.1.1 The Facilities Benefit Contribution shall be used for the design and construction of public facilities for the City, including, but not limited, to those public facilities described on the City’s Capital Improvement Plan, as currently adopted or hereafter amended.

5.6.1.2 The first Facilities Benefit Contribution payment shall be paid thirty (30) calendar days after City issues the first building permit for vertical construction for a building on a per-building basis for which a building permit for vertical construction was issued and on a pro rata basis for the portion of the year remaining. Thereafter, the Facilities Benefit Contribution shall be paid annually on July 1 based on the number of building permits issued for vertical construction during the prior year.

5.6.1.3 Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which payment of the Facilities Benefit Contribution, and annually thereafter, the Facilities Benefit Contribution rate shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) or two percent (2%), whichever is greater. The calculation of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year. The Facilities Benefit Contribution shall be adjusted upward or downward, to the square footage stated in the building permit issued by the City for the applicable building.

5.6.2 Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution. OWNER shall pay to the City an annual Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution in the initial amounts of three hundred dollars ($300.00) per acre for properties in the Manufacturing--Service Commercial Zone as designated in the Project Approvals, subject to annual increase as described below.

City Draft: 11-4-23
15 5.6.2.1 Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit funds shall be used for operation, maintenance and repair of City infrastructure that are required by the Project Approvals, including, but not limited to, flood and storm protection services, sidewalks, roads, road medians, street lighting, traffic signals and similar City facilities as determined by the City.

Nothing herein shall limit the OWNER’S obligations pursuant to the Project Approvals for operation, maintenance and repair of City infrastructure.

5.6.2.2 The first Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution payment shall be paid thirty (30) calendar days after City issues the first building permit for vertical construction. Thereafter, the Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution shall be paid annually on July 1.

5.6.2.3 Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which payment of the Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution, and annually thereafter, the Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit Contribution rate shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) or two percent (2%), whichever is greater. The calculation of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year.

5.6.3 Annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution. OWNER shall pay to the City an annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution in the initial amount of two and two tenths cents ($.022) per square foot of buildings on properties designated Manufacturing-- Service Commercial in the Project Approvals, subject to annual increase as described below. As building permits for vertical construction are issued for each new building, the Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be adjusted upward or downward, to the square footage stated in the building permit issued by the City for the applicable building.

5.6.3.1 The annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be used to supplement police, fire, emergency medical and other public safety services for the Project in addition to those currently provided, as determined from time to time by the City among such services, in addition to those services currently provided.

5.6.3.2 The first Public Safety Benefit Contribution payment shall be paid thirty (30) calendar days after City issues the first building permit for vertical construction for a building on a per-building basis based on the number of multi-family units in the building, or the single family home, for which a building permit for vertical construction was issued and on a pro rata basis for the portion of the year remaining. Thereafter, the Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be paid annually on July 1 based on building permits for vertical construction issued during the prior year.

5.6.3.3 Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which payment of the Public Safety Benefit Contribution, and annually thereafter, the Public Safety Benefit Contribution rate shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) or five percent (5%), whichever is greater. The calculation of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year.

City Draft: 11-4-23
16 The Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be adjusted upward or downward, to the square footage stated in the building permit issued by the City for the applicable building.

5.6.4 Annual General Community Benefit Contribution. OWNER shall pay to the City an Annual General Community Benefit Contribution in the initial amount of seven cents ($.07) per square foot of non-residential buildings, subject to annual increases as described below.

5.6.4.1 The Annual General Community Benefit
Contribution shall be used for general municipal purposes.

5.6.4.2 The first Annual General Community Benefit
Contribution payment shall be paid thirty (30) calendar days after City issues the first building permit for vertical construction for a building on a per-building basis for which a building permit for vertical construction was issued and on a pro rata basis for the portion of the year remaining.

Thereafter, the Annual General Community Benefit Contribution shall be paid annually on July 1 based on the number of building permits issued for vertical construction during the prior year.

5.6.4.3 Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which payment of the Annual General Community Benefit Contribution, and annually thereafter, the Annual General Community Benefit Contribution rate shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) or three percent (3%), whichever is greater. The calculation of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year. The Annual General Community Benefit Contribution shall be adjusted upward or downward, to the square footage stated in the building permit issued by the City for the applicable building.

5.6.4.4 The Annual General Community Benefit
Contribution shall expire ten (10) years following the first payment of the Annual General Community Benefit Contribution.

5.6.5 One-Time Community Benefit Contribution. OWNER shall pay to the City an annual One-Time Community Benefit Contribution in the amount of one dollar ($1.00) per square foot of non-residential buildings as stated in the building permit issued by the City for the applicable building. The One-Time Community Benefit Contribution Benefit shall be paid prior to the issuance of the building permit for the building. The One-Time Community Benefit Contribution shall be used for general municipal purposes.

5.6.6 Belltown Neighborhood Public Improvements Contribution.

Owner shall pay to the City the sum of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) to be used for public improvements and beautification of the Belltown Neighborhood, including but not limited to lighting, sidewalks, and landscaping. The Belltown Neighborhood Public Improvements Contribution shall be paid to the City within thirty (30) days following issuance of the first building permit for a non-residential building for the Project.

5.6.7 Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan. OWNER shall pay to the City the sum of one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00) to support the City’s efforts City Draft: 11-4-23
17 to develop the Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days following issuance of the first building permit for a non-residential building for the Project.

5.6.8 Contribution of Former Church Building 5. OWNER shall convey to the City the land and existing building designated as “Building 5” on the Project Approvals for the sum of one dollar ($1.00). The land and building shall be conveyed to the City in an as-is condition, and, except as may be approved in writing by the City Manager prior to conveyance, free and clear of any liens, encumbrances, easements, and deed restrictions. City and OWNER shall enter into a purchase and sale agreement to be executed by the City Manager on behalf of the City and in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.

5.6.9 Community Meals. OWNER shall partner with a local nonprofit organization, approved by the City Manager, to provide meals and food to the community.

Developer shall contribute not less than fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00) per year to this program for the 2024 and 2025. OWNER shall provide evidence of such funding and fulfillment of this provision to the City within thirty (30) days of the end of each year.

5.6.10 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, City shall not be obligated to issue building permits for a building in the Project if OWNER has not paid the Community Benefit Contributions in accordance with this Section 5.6 to the extent any payments are due prior to the issuance of the building permit being requested.

5.7 Community Facilities District--Community Benefit Contributions.

5.7.1 OWNER acknowledges and agrees that the obligations described in Section 5.6 are required by the terms of the Project Approvals and shall be paid to the City as provided therein whether or not a Community Facilities District or other financing mechanism is established to facilitate payments.

5.7.2 OWNER may request to fulfill the annual Community Benefit Contributions described in Section 5.6 through a City Services Community Facilities District pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Gov. Code, §§ 53311-53368.3) (“CFD”). OWNER may file a Petition and Waiver with City to initiate formation of, or annexation to a City CFD if one already exists, and pay all costs associated with the formation of, or annexation to, a CFD, with payments made through a deposit with the City in an amount determined by the City to be required to pay such formation costs. OWNER shall file such a petition within twelve (12) months of the Effective Date of this Agreement. Owner shall not request any other public agencies to establish a CFD or other public financing mechanism on the Property for the CBCs described in Section 5.6, unless such request is approved in writing by the City Manager.

5.7.3 The special taxes from the CFD shall increase annually in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.6. above.

5.7.4 CITY agrees that the maximum effective tax rate for Assessor's Parcels for properties designed as residential in the Project Approvals within each CFD, including without limitation, overlapping debt, may not exceed two percent (2%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the City Draft: 11-4-23
18 time of approval of the CFD and the Rates and Methods of Apportionment of the Special Taxes for the CFD.

5.7.5 The base year for the CFD shall be Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and shall include all properties for which a building permit was issue by April 1 of the prior fiscal year.

5.7.6 City agrees to use its reasonable efforts to diligently develop and implement the CFD(s) subject to public hearing and election requirements of applicable State law and, if tax-exempt bonds are to be issued, Federal tax law, the Existing Regulations and the customary and reasonable industry standards for the development of such financings for CFD(s).

OWNER shall work cooperatively and diligently with the City to complete the CFD process as expeditiously as possible. OWNER and City acknowledge and agree that the establishment of a CFD for facilities and services and the issuance of bonds supported by the special taxes are dependent on many factors that are not known at this time. The viability of the financing, the amount of special taxes for debt service, and available bond proceeds will be dependent on several factors existing at the time the bonds are sold, including, but not limited to, the financial markets, interest on tax exempt financings, housing and commercial/industrial markets, value of homes and commercial/industrial properties in the area, absorption rates for home sales and commercial/industrial sales and leasing in the area, bond underwriting criteria and ratings by bond-rating agencies. The bond terms of any CFD and the related bond issue shall be determined by the City in its discretion.

5.7.7 City agrees that upon receipt of OWNER'S written request and application and the deposit with City of sufficient funds to pay the City's costs to undertake the proceedings to establish any particular CFD, City shall conduct proceedings to establish the respective CFD(s) and OWNER shall cooperate in the conduct of such proceedings. OWNER acknowledges that this Agreement cannot obligate the City Council to establish the CFD(s) at the conclusion of those proceedings.

5.7.8 The approval of the City Council or a city-related entity of the terms of the CFD(s) shall supersede conflicting provisions of this Section 5.

5.8 Administrative Fee. OWNER shall pay to City an administrative fee in the amount of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per year beginning thirty (30) calendar days after the Effective Date and five thousand dollars ($5,000) annually on each anniversary of the first payment, subject to annual increase as described below, until five (5) years after the Effective Date of this Agreement. Commencing first anniversary of the payment of the Administrative Fee, and annually thereafter, the Administrative Fee shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario) or three percent (3%), whichever is greater. The calculation of the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year.

City Draft: 11-4-23
19 6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.

6.1 OWNER’s Obligation to Construct Public Improvements. OWNER shall, at its sole cost and expense, design, construct, install, and finally complete Public Improvements.

The design, construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements shall be in conformance with City standards in effect as of the date the plans and specifications are submitted to the City Engineer for review. City Engineer shall approve, in writing, subject to the City Engineer’s determination of compliance with the City standards and Section 6.2, all Plans and Specifications for construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements. Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Public Improvements shall be completed at such time as set forth in the Project Approvals. The Parties shall enter into City’s standard subdivision improvement agreement, or an applicable modification thereof approved by the City in its discretion, for the completion of the Public Improvements. OWNER shall be eligible to receive credit from the City for OWNER’s cost to construct and complete any Public Improvements that are oversized in accordance with Existing Regulations and as provided in the applicable subdivision improvement agreement.

6.2 Local, State And Federal Laws. OWNER and its contractors shall carry out the design and construction of all private improvements on the Property and all Public Improvements in conformity with all applicable laws (to the extent applicable), including, without limitation, all applicable federal, state and local occupation, employment, prevailing wage, safety and health laws, rules, regulations, and standards. OWNER shall indemnify, defend, and hold the Indemnified Parties (as defined in Section 8.1) harmless from and against any cost, expense, claim, charge, or liability relating to or arising directly or indirectly from any breach by or failure of OWNER or its contractor(s) or agents to comply with such laws, rules, regulations, and standards. OWNER’s indemnity obligations set forth in this Section 6.2 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.

6.3 Maintenance of Improvements. Responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of improvements provided by OWNER pursuant to this Agreement shall be apportioned between the Parties in accordance with the terms of this Section 6.3.

6.3.1 City Maintenance of Dedicated Public Improvements. City shall maintain all dedicated and accepted streets, walls, and City-owned storm drain facilities constructed by OWNER as part of the Public Improvements.

6.3.2 OWNER Maintenance of Landscaping and Storm Drain Facilities.

OWNER shall maintain all landscaping on the Property and on adjacent City rights-of-way, and all City owned and accepted storm drainage facilities on the Property, with the exception of the storm drain facilities owned and maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control District.

6.4 Easements. City shall grant such easements over City property as are reasonably needed for the Development of the Property provided such easements do not impede or interfere with public services provided on such properties. OWNER shall grant to City such easements over its property as are reasonably needed for the construction and maintenance of the Public Improvements. Such grants shall be at no additional cost to either Party.

City Draft: 11-4-23
20 6.5 Community Facilities District--Public Improvements.

6.5.1 Request. OWNER may request in writing that the CITY establish one or more City community facilities districts (each a "CFD") pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act to finance the design, construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements as required by the Project Approvals and this Agreement and shall vote in favor of each such community facilities districts.

6.5.1.1 The Public Improvement Special Tax will be
authorized to be levied on all non-governmentally owned assessor’s parcels within each CFD to fund, in order of priority: (a) administrative expenses of the CFD; (b) scheduled debt service on bonds for the CFD that are issued to fund eligible public facilities (including, as may be permitted by the City and other agencies, public facilities in lieu of development impact fees); (c) replenishment of a reserve fund for the bonds; and (d) on a pay as you go basis, eligible public facilities (including, as may be permitted by the City and other agencies, public facilities in lieu of development impact fees).

6.5.1.2 No other CFD or public financing mechanism from another public agency shall be used to finance the Public Improvements without the express written consent of the City Manager.

6.5.2 Maximum Effective Tax Rate. CITY agrees that the maximum effective tax rate for Assessor's Parcels for properties designed as residential in the Project Approvals within each CFD, including without limitation, overlapping debt, may not exceed two percent (2%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the time of approval of the CFD and the Rates and Methods of Apportionment of the Special Taxes for the CFD.

6.5.3 Processing CFD; Viability of CFD. City agrees to use its reasonable efforts to diligently develop and implement the CFD(s) subject to public hearing and election requirements of applicable State law and, if tax-exempt bonds are to be issued, Federal tax law, the Existing Regulations and the customary and reasonable industry standards for the development of such financings for CFD(s) as determined by the City. OWNER shall work cooperatively and diligently with the City to complete the CFD process as expeditiously as possible. OWNER and City acknowledge and agree that the establishment of a CFD for facilities and services and the issuance of bonds supported by the special taxes are dependent on many factors that are not known at this time. The viability of the financing, the amount of special taxes for debt service, and available bond proceeds will be dependent on several factors existing at the time the bonds are sold, including, but not limited to, the financial markets, interest on tax exempt financings, housing and commercial/industrial markets, value of homes and commercial/industrial properties in the area, absorption rates for home sales and commercial/industrial sales and leasing in the area, bond underwriting criteria and ratings by bond-rating agencies.

6.5.4 Commencement of Proceedings. City agrees that upon receipt of OWNER'S written request and application and the deposit with City of sufficient funds as determined by the City to pay the City's costs to undertake the proceedings to establish any City Draft: 11-4-23
21 particular CFD, City shall conduct proceedings to establish the respective CFD(s) and OWNER shall cooperate in the conduct of such proceedings. OWNER acknowledges that this Agreement cannot obligate the City Council to establish the CFD(s) at the conclusion of those proceedings.

The bond terms of any CFD and the related bond issue shall be determined by the City in its discretion.

7. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS.

7.1 Property Approvals Independent. All approvals required for the Project which may be or have been granted, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which have been issued or will be issued by City with respect to the Project, constitute independent actions and approvals by City. If any provision of this Agreement or the application of any provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement terminates for any reason, then such invalidity, unenforceability or termination of this Agreement or any part hereof shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of any such Project Approvals or other land use approvals and entitlements for the Project. In such cases, such approvals and entitlements will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions, and conditions of approval. It is understood by the Parties to this Agreement that pursuant to existing law, if this Agreement terminates or is held invalid or unenforceable as described above, such approvals and entitlements shall not remain valid for the Term, but shall remain valid for the term(s) of such approvals and entitlements.

7.2 City Cooperation. City staff shall work cooperatively with OWNER to assist in coordinating the expeditious processing and consideration of all necessary permits, entitlements and approvals. To the extent City or City’s designee is unable to process and consider permits, entitlements and approvals in an expeditious manner, OWNER shall pay to the City the costs of hiring temporary Staff or retaining an outside contractor to assist CITY in the expeditious processing and consideration of all necessary permits, entitlements and approvals.

8. INDEMNIFICATION.

8.1 Litigation to Set Aside, Void, or Annul the Agreement. OWNER shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its affiliated agencies and districts, their agents, officers, consultants, contractors, attorneys, and employees (“Indemnified Parties”) from and against any claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons against the Indemnified Parties to set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 12.1.1 of this Agreement, OWNER’s obligation pursuant to this Section 8.1 is not a benefit or burden running with the land and shall not be assigned to any person without the prior express written consent of City, unless a transfer or assignment is made pursuant to Section 12 of this Agreement.

OWNER’s duties under this Section 8.1 are solely subject to and conditioned upon the Indemnified Parties written request to OWNER to indemnify the Indemnified Parties. OWNER shall deposit the expected costs of defense, as reasonably determined by the City Attorney, with City within ten (10) business days of notice from City of the claim and shall add to the deposit within ten (10) business days from the request of City. Without in any way limiting the provisions of this Section 8.1, the Parties agree that this Section 8.1 shall be interpreted in City Draft: 11-4-23
22 accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Effective Date.

8.2 Other Litigation. Notwithstanding Section 8.1, and as a separate and distinct obligation of OWNER, to the fullest extent permitted by law, OWNER shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the Indemnified Parties free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of OWNER, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, OWNERs or agents in connection with the performance of the OWNER’s obligations under this Agreement, the Project or this Agreement, or the CITY’s approval of this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. OWNER's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by OWNER, the Indemnified Parties.

8.2.1 OWNER’s duties under this Section 8.2 are solely subject to and conditioned upon the Indemnified Parties written request to OWNER to indemnify the Indemnified Parties. OWNER shall deposit the expected costs of defense, as reasonably determined by the City Attorney, with City within ten (10) business days of notice from City of the claim and shall add to the deposit within ten (10) business days from the request of City.

Without in any way limiting the provisions of this Section 8.2, the Parties agree that this Section

8.2 shall be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Effective Date.

9. PERIODIC REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH AGREEMENT.

9.1 Periodic Review. The Parties shall review this Agreement at least once every 12-month period from the Effective Date of this Agreement. City shall notify OWNER in writing of the date for review at least thirty (30) calendar days prior thereto. Such periodic review shall be conducted in accordance with Government Code Section 65865.1.

9.2 Good Faith Compliance. During each periodic review, OWNER shall be required to demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement. OWNER shall furnish such reasonable evidence of good faith compliance as City, in the exercise of its reasonable discretion, may require. If requested by OWNER, City shall provide to OWNER, a certificate that OWNER or a duly authorized Estoppel Certificate pursuant to the provisions of Section 13 of this Agreement.

9.3 Failure to Conduct Annual Review. City’s failure to conduct the annual review shall not be an OWNER default. Further, OWNER shall not be entitled to any remedy for City’s failure to conduct the annual review.

9.4 Initiation of Review by City Council. In addition to the annual review, the City Council may at any time initiate a review of this Agreement by giving written notice to OWNER. Within thirty (30) calendar days following receipt of such notice, OWNER shall submit evidence to the City Council of OWNER’s good faith compliance with this Agreement City Draft: 11-4-23
23 and such review and determination shall proceed in the same manner as provided for the annual review. The City Council shall initiate its review pursuant to this Section 9.4 only if it has probable cause to believe City’s general health, safety, or welfare is at risk as a result of specific acts or failures to act by OWNER.

9.5 Administration of Agreement. Any final decision by City staff concerning the interpretation and administration of this Agreement and Development of the Property in accordance with this Agreement may be appealed by OWNER to the City Council, provided that any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within ten (10) business days after OWNER receives written notice that the staff decision is final. The City Council shall render its decision to affirm, reverse, or modify the staff decision within thirty (30) calendar days after the appeal was filed. The decision of the City Council as to the administration of this Agreement shall be final and is not appealable. The foregoing notwithstanding, breaches of this Agreement are subject to judicial relief as provided in this Agreement.

9.6 Availability of Documents. If requested by OWNER, City shall provide to OWNER copies of any documents, reports, or other items reviewed, accumulated, or prepared by or for City in connection with any periodic compliance review by City.

10. DEFAULT; REMEDIES; DISPUTE RESOLUTION.

10.1 Notice of Default. In the event of failure by a Party substantially to perform any material term or provision of this Agreement, the non-defaulting Party shall have those rights and remedies provided in this Agreement, provided that such non-defaulting Party has first provided to the defaulting Party a written notice of default in the manner required by this Section 10 identifying with specificity the nature of the alleged default and the manner in which said default may satisfactorily be cured.

10.2 Cure of Default. Upon the receipt of the notice of default, the alleged defaulting Party shall promptly commence to cure, correct, or remedy the identified default at the earliest reasonable time after receipt of the notice of default and shall complete the cure, correction, or remedy of such default not later than ten (10) business days after receipt of notice thereof if the breach of this Agreement involves the payment of money, or not later than thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of notice thereof if the breach of this Agreement does not involve the payment of money; provided, however, that if such breach may not reasonably be cured within such thirty (30) calendar day period, then a default shall exist only if the cure of such breach is not commenced within such thirty (30) calendar day period or thereafter is not diligently prosecuted to completion.

10.3 OWNER’s Remedies. Due to the size, nature, and scope of the Property and the Development, it will not be practical or possible to restore the Property to its natural condition once implementation of this Agreement has begun. After such implementation, OWNER may be foreclosed from other choices it may have had to utilize the Property and provide for other benefits. OWNER has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Development of the Property in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in implementing the Development and Project in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is not possible City Draft: 11-4-23
24 to determine the sum of money that would adequately compensate OWNER for such efforts. For the above reasons, the Parties agree that damages would not be an adequate remedy if City fails to carry out its obligations under this Agreement and that OWNER shall have the right to seek and obtain specific performance as a remedy for any breach of this Agreement. Moreover, City would not have consented to this Agreement if it were to be subject to damages for breach of this Agreement. Therefore, OWNER specifically agrees that it has no authority under this Agreement or otherwise to seek monetary damages against City for any breach of this Agreement by City, and shall not to seek monetary damages against City for breach of this Agreement.

10.4 City Remedies. In the event of an uncured default by OWNER of the terms of this Agreement, City, at its option, may institute legal action in law or in equity to cure, correct, or remedy such default, enjoin any threatened or attempted violation, or enforce the terms of this Agreement by specific performance as its sole and exclusive remedy. Furthermore, City, in addition to or as an alternative to exercising the remedies set forth in this Section 10, in the event of a material default by OWNER, may give notice of its intent to terminate or modify this Agreement pursuant to this Agreement and/or the Development Agreement Legislation, in which event the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City Council in the manner set forth in this Agreement or the Development Agreement Legislation.

10.5 Judicial Review.

10.5.1 Subsequent Land Use Entitlements. Based on the foregoing, in the event OWNER judicially (including by way of a reference proceeding) challenges the application of a Subsequent Land Use Regulation as being in violation of this Agreement and as not being a land use regulation adopted pursuant to the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement, OWNER shall bear the burden of proof in establishing that such rule, regulation, or policy is inconsistent with the Applicable Regulations, the Project Approvals, or both, and City shall thereafter bear the burden of proof in establishing that such regulation was adopted pursuant to and in accordance with the authority and rights reserved and excepted as provided in Section 4.2 of this Agreement and was not applied by City in violation of this Agreement.

10.5.2 Collection of Fees or Community Benefit Contributions. CITY may bring an action against OWNER for any development fees due to the CITY described in Section 5 or Community Benefit Contributions due to the CITY as described in Section 5.6.

11. MORTGAGEE PROTECTION; CERTAIN RIGHTS TO CURE.

11.1 No Liens on Property as of Effective Date. OWNER warrants and represents to the CITY that as of the Effective Date of this Agreement there is no mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, lien or any other form of pledge of security on the Property or any portion of the Property. If any such mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, lien or any other form of pledge of security on the Property or any portion of the Property as of the Effective Date, the rights and benefits and provisions of this Agreement shall not be operative until such time as the holders of such rights consent to this Agreement and City Draft: 11-4-23
25 subordinate their rights to this Agreement and record a consent and subordination agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney.

11.2 Future Encumbrances on the Property. This Agreement shall not prevent or limit OWNER from encumbering the Property or any portion thereof or any improvements thereon with any mortgage, deed of trust, sale and leaseback arrangement, or any other form of conveyance (“Mortgage”) in which the Property, or a portion thereof or interest therein, is pledged as security, and contracted for in good faith and fair value in order to secure financing with respect to the construction, development, use, or operation of the Property.

11.3 Mortgagee Protection. This Agreement shall be superior and senior to the lien of any Mortgage. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render invalid, diminish, or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value, and any acquisition or acceptance of title or any right or interest in or with respect to the Property or any portion thereof by a holder of a beneficial interest under a Mortgage, or any successor or assignee to said holder (“Mortgagee”), whether pursuant to foreclosure, trustee’s sale, deed in lieu of foreclosure, lease termination, or otherwise, shall be subject to all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

11.4 Mortgagee Not Obligated. No Mortgagee will have any obligation or duty under this Agreement to perform the obligations of OWNER or other affirmative covenants of OWNER hereunder, or to guarantee such performance. In addition, the Mortgagee shall have no right to develop or operate the Property without fully complying with the terms of this Agreement, and to the extent that any covenant to be performed by OWNER is a condition to the performance of a covenant by City, the performance thereof shall continue to be a condition precedent to City’s performance under this Agreement.

11.5 Notice of Default to Mortgagee; Right of Mortgagee to Cure. City shall, upon written request to City, deliver to each Mortgagee a copy of any notice of default given to OWNER under the terms of this Agreement, at the same time such notice of default is provided to OWNER. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure, correct, or remedy the default, within sixty (60) calendar days after the receipt of such notice from City for monetary defaults, or within sixty (60) calendar days after OWNER’s cure period has expired for non-monetary defaults, or, for such defaults that cannot reasonably be cured, corrected, or remedied within such period, the Mortgagee may cure, correct, or remedy the default if the Mortgagee commences to cure, correct, or remedy such default within such sixty (60) calendar day period, and continuously and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion. If the default is of a nature that can only be remedied or cured by such Mortgagee upon obtaining possession of the Property, such Mortgagee shall have the right to seek to obtain possession with diligence and continuity through foreclosure, a receiver or otherwise, and shall be permitted thereafter to remedy or cure the default within such time as is reasonably necessary to cure or remedy said default but in no event more than ninety (90) calendar days after obtaining possession. If any such default cannot, with diligence, be remedied or cured within such thirty (30) calendar day period, then such period shall be extended to permit the Mortgagee to effect a cure or remedy so long as Mortgagee commences said cure or remedy during such ninety (90) calendar day period, and thereafter diligently pursues such cure to completion.

City Draft: 11-4-23
26 12. TRANSFERS OF INTEREST IN PROPERTY OR AGREEMENT.

12.1 Transfers and Assignments.

12.1.1 Restrictions on Transfers. OWNER may sell, assign, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of its interests in the Property together with all its right, title, and interest in this Agreement, or the portion thereof that is subject to the transferred portion of the Property, to any Transferee provided that: (1) the Transferee has specifically assumed in writing the obligations, or a portion of the obligations of OWNER, to design, construct, install and finally complete the Public Improvements for the Property; (2) the Transferee has the experience and financial capacity to complete the Public Improvements; and (3) if applicable, the Transferee has obtained replacement bonds, accepted by City for the Public Improvements (in which event, City shall release OWNER’s corresponding Public Improvement bonds).

12.1.2 Notice of Transfer; Agreement. In the event of any sale, assignment, or other transfer pursuant to this Section 12.1.1, (i) OWNER shall notify City at least twenty (20) business days prior to the transfer of the name of the Transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such Transferee and (ii) the agreement between OWNER and Transferee pertaining to such transfer shall provide that the Transferee shall be liable for the performance of those obligations of OWNER under this Agreement that relate to the Transferred Property, if any, or shall confirm that OWNER and all Transferees shall remain jointly liable for the design and construction of Public Improvements pursuant to this Agreement. City Manager shall consent to the Assignment and Assumption.

12.1.3 Exempt Transfers. The following transfers shall not be subject to the foregoing restrictions of Section 12.1: (1) transfers to easements or real property interests that are necessary to provide utility service to the Property or to extend infrastructure to the Property; and (2) transfers in reorganization of OWNER, provided that management control of OWNER does not change as a result of such reorganization.

12.1.4 Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns. Any, each, and all successors and assigns of OWNER shall have all of the same rights, benefits, duties, and obligations of OWNER under this Agreement. All entities holding title to a portion of the Property shall be jointly liable for the design and construction of the Public Improvements for that portion of the Property as set forth in this Agreement, except as provided in this Agreement or as may be modified in an operating memorandum pursuant to Section 3.4.4.

13. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATES.

13.1 Written Request. Either party may at any time deliver written notice to the other party requesting an estoppel certificate (the “Estoppel Certificate”) stating: (1) this Agreement is in full force and effect and is a binding obligation of the Parties; (2) this Agreement has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing or, if so amended, identifying the amendments; and (3) no default in the performance of the requesting party’s obligations under this Agreement exists or, if a default does exist, the nature and amount of any default.

City Draft: 11-4-23
27 13.2 Ten (10) Business Days to Respond. A Party receiving a request for an Estoppel Certificate shall provide a signed certificate to the requesting Party within ten (10) business days after the City Attorney has approved the form of the Estoppel Certificate.

13.3 Authorized Signatories. The City Manager or any person designated by the City Manager may sign the Estoppel Certificates on City’s behalf. Any officer of OWNER may sign on OWNER’s behalf.

13.4 Reliance. An Estoppel Certificate may be relied on by assignees and mortgagees.

13.5 Failure to Provide Estoppel Certificate. Failure by a Party to provide an Estoppel Certificate within ten (10) business days after receipt of the request therefor shall be deemed confirmation that this Agreement is in full force and effect and has not been amended or modified either orally or in writing.

14. MISCELLANEOUS.

14.1 Interest of OWNER. OWNER represents and warrants that it has a legal or equitable interest in the Property and, as such, OWNER is qualified to enter into and be a party to this Agreement under the Development Agreement Legislation.

14.2 Notices. All notices permitted or required under this Agreement must be in writing and shall be effectuated by: (i) personal delivery; (ii) first class mail, registered or certified, postage fully prepaid; or (iii) reputable same-day or overnight delivery service that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, addressed to the following Parties, or to such other address as any party may from time to time designate in writing in the manner as provided in this Agreement:

To City: City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, California 92509
Attn: City Manager
With a copy to: Richards, Watson & Gershon
350 South Grand Avenue, 37h Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Attn: Peter M. Thorson, Esq.

To OWNER: PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC
City Draft: 11-4-23
28 With a copy to:

Any written notice, demand, or communication shall be deemed received immediately if personally delivered or delivered by delivery service, and shall be deemed received on the third day from the date it is postmarked if delivered by registered or certified mail.

14.3 Force Majeure. In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance by either Party under this Agreement shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or failures to perform are due to the elements, fire, earthquakes, or other acts of God, supply chain disruptions and delays related to the availability of construction materials and manpower, global pandemics or governmental orders imposed in response to public health crisis, strikes, labor disputes, lockouts, acts of the public enemy, riots, insurrections, pending litigation (including litigation initiated by third-parties),breach of contract by either party, or governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by other governmental entities. The Parties may also extend times of performance under this Agreement in writing. In the event OWNER desires to invoke these force majeure provisions, OWNER shall notify City of a force majeure event within thirty (30) calendar days of the event and include a detailed description of the force majeure event and how it affects OWNER’s compliance with the terms of this Agreement.

14.4 Binding Effect; Covenants Run with Land. This Agreement, and all of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties, any subsequent OWNER of all or any portion of the Property or the Development, and their respective assigns, heirs or successors in interest, whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such person acquired an interest in the Property. The provisions of this Agreement shall constitute mutual covenants that shall run with the land comprising the Property for the benefit thereof, and the burdens and benefits hereof shall bind and inure to the benefit of each of the Parties and all successors in interest to the Parties for the term of this Agreement.

14.5 Relationship of Parties. The Parties acknowledge that, in entering into and performing this Agreement, each of the Parties is acting as an independent entity and not as an agent of the other in any respect. The Parties renounce the existence of any form of joint venture or partnership between them, and agree that nothing contained in this Agreement or in any document executed in connection with the Development of the Property shall be construed as making the Parties joint ventures or partners.

14.6 Agreement Not to Benefit Third Parties. This Agreement is made for the sole benefit of the Parties, and no other person shall be deemed to have any privity of contract under this Agreement nor any right to rely on this Agreement to any extent for any purpose whatsoever, nor have any right of action of any kind on this Agreement nor be deemed to be a third party beneficiary under this Agreement.

14.7 Nonliability of City Officers and Employees. No City official, officer, employee, agent, or representative, acting in his or her official capacity, shall be personally liable to OWNER, or any successor or assign, for any loss, costs, damage, claim, liability, or judgment, arising out of or connection with this Agreement, or for any act or omission on City’s part.

City Draft: 11-4-23
29 14.8 Covenant Against Discrimination. The Parties covenant and agree, for themselves and their respective successors and assigns, that there shall be no discrimination against, or segregation of, any person or group or persons on account of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry, or any other impermissible classification as defined by California or Federal law, in the performance of this Agreement. OWNER shall comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended (42 U.S.C. Section 12101 et seq.).

14.9 No Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section 14.9. No delay or omission by either Party in exercising any right or power accruing upon non-compliance or failure to perform by the other Party under any of the provisions of this Agreement shall impair any such right or power or be construed to be a waiver thereof, except as expressly provided in this Agreement. No waiver by either Party of any of the covenants or conditions to be performed by the other Party shall be construed or deemed a waiver of any succeeding breach or nonperformance of the same or other covenants and conditions of this Agreement.

14.10 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, to the extent that the invalidity or unenforceability does not impair the application of this Agreement as intended by the Parties.

14.11 Construction. The terms of this Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and shall not be construed for or against either Party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or any other rule of construction that might otherwise apply. As used in this Agreement, and as the context may require, the singular includes the plural and vice versa, the masculine gender includes the feminine and vice versa, “shall” is mandatory, and “may” is permissive.

14.12 Attorneys’ Fees. If legal action is brought by either Party against the other for breach of this Agreement, including actions derivative from the performance of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to an award of its costs, including reasonable attorneys’ fees. Attorneys’ fees under this Section 14.12 shall include attorneys’ fees on any appeal and, in addition, a Party entitled to attorneys’ fees shall be entitled to all other reasonable costs and expenses, including, without limitation, reasonable expert witness fees, incurred in connection with such action. In addition to the foregoing award of attorneys’ fees to the prevailing Party, the prevailing Party in any lawsuit shall be entitled to its attorneys’ fees incurred in any post-judgment proceedings to collect or enforce the judgment. This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any judgment on this Agreement.

14.13 Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded by City with the County Recorder of Riverside County. Amendments approved by the Parties, and any cancellation or termination of this Agreement, shall be similarly recorded.

City Draft: 11-4-23
30 14.14 Captions and References. The captions of the sections of this Agreement are solely for convenience of reference, and shall be disregarded in the construction and interpretation of this Agreement. Reference in this Agreement to a section or exhibit are the sections and exhibits of this Agreement.

14.15 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement and for each and every term and condition of this Agreement as to which time is an element.

14.16 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, including all exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement, and this Agreement supersedes all previous negotiations, discussions, and agreements between the Parties, and no parole evidence of any prior or other agreement shall be permitted to contradict or vary the terms of this Agreement.

14.17 Exhibits. Exhibits A – D, identified as follows, are attached to this Agreement and are incorporated into this Agreement as though set forth in full:

A Legal Description of Property
B Site Map
C Template Agreement for Acquisition of Property Government Code Section 66462.5

14.18 Counterpart Signature Pages. The Parties may execute this Agreement in counterparts, and each of such counterparts for all purposes shall be deemed to be an original, and all of such shall constitute one and the same Agreement.

14.19 OWNER’S Representations. OWNER warrants and represents that: (i) it is duly organized and existing; (ii) it is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement; (iii) by so executing this Agreement, OWNER is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement; (iv) OWNER’s entering into and performance of its obligations set forth in this Agreement do not violate any provision of any other agreement to which OWNER is bound; and (v) there is no existing or threatened litigation or legal proceeding of which OWNER is aware that could prevent OWNER from entering into or performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement.

14.20 No Brokers. Each Party represents to the other Party that it has not engaged the services of any finder or broker and that it is not liable for any real estate commissions, broker’s fees, or finder’s fees that may accrue by means of this Agreement, and shall hold harmless the other party from such commissions or fees as are alleged to be due from the party making such representations.

14.21 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Legislation in effect as of the Effective Date. Accordingly, subject to Section 4.2, to the extent that subsequent amendments to the Government Code would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such City Draft: 11-4-23
31 amendments shall not be applicable to this Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable or required by law or unless this Agreement is modified pursuant to the provisions set forth in this Agreement and Government Code Section 65868 as in effect on the Effective Date.

14.22 Interpretation and Governing Law. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall, in all cases, be construed as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning.

This Agreement and any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is not intended to constitute, nor shall be construed to constitute, an impermissible attempt to contract away the legislative and governmental functions of City, and in particular, City’s police powers. In this regard, this Agreement shall not be deemed to constitute the surrender or abnegation of City’s governmental powers over the Property.

14.23 Joint and Several Liability. Except as provided below, at any time there is more than one Owner, all Owners shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligations of the Owner for the formation of the CFDs and the design and construction of the Public Improvements (“Joint Obligations”). At any time there is more than one Owner, no breach of this Agreement by an Owner for other than for Joint Obligations, shall constitute a breach by any other Owner. Any remedy, obligation or liability, including, without limitation, the obligations to defend and indemnify the City, arising by reason of such breach, shall be applicable solely to Owner that committed the breach. However, City shall send a copy of any notice of violation to all Owners, including those not in breach. In addition, a default by a Transferee for breach of a provision of this Agreement other than Joint Obligations shall only affect that portion of the Property owned by such Transferee and shall not cancel or diminish in any way Owner’s rights under this Agreement with respect to any portion of the Property not owned by such Transferee. The Transferee shall be responsible for the reporting and annual review requirements relating to the portion of the Property owned by such Transferee, and any amendment to this Agreement between City and a Transferee shall only affect the portion of the Property owned by such Transferee, and only the Project Approvals which solely apply to such Transferee. [INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK; SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
City Draft: 11-4-23
32 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
“OWNER”

PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: __________________________
Managing Member
OWNER’S SIGNATURES
[NOTE: If the OWNER is a corporation, it must
be represented by two individuals who shall
execute this Agreement on behalf of the
corporation as follows: (A) one from the
corporation's "Operational Group" (Chair of the
Board, President, or a Vice-President) and; (B) one
from the corporation's "Financial Group"
(Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial
Officer, Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer). A
resolution of the Board of Directors designating one
individual to sign the agreement on behalf of the
corporation will be accepted. See California
Corporations Code section 313. If the OWNER is
a limited liability company, limited liability
partnership, or partnership, then the managing
member of the LLC or the managing partner of the
LLP or partnership must sign the Agreement.]
City Draft: 11-4-23
33 “CITY”
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, a California
municipal corporation
___________________________________
Chris Barajas, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON
_________________________________
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
City Draft: 11-1-23
A-1
12774-0141\2862769v4.doc

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
City Draft: 11-1-23
B-1
12774-0141\2862769v4.doc

EXHIBIT B

SITE MAP
City Draft: 11-1-23
C-1
12774-0141\2862769v4.doc

EXHIBIT C

TEMPLATE AGREEMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5
AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66462.5
(___________________ PROJECT)
This Agreement for acquisition of real property pursuant to Government Code section 66462.5 is made and entered into as of ___________________, 20__, by and between Proficiency Capital, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“OWNER” hereinafter) and the City of Jurupa Valley, a municipal corporation (“CITY” hereinafter). OWNER and CITY are referred to jointly below as “parties.” In consideration of the recitals of facts and purposes, the mutual covenants set forth in this Agreement and for the further consideration described in this Agreement, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. Recitals. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes that each agrees to be true and correct.

A. On ___________________, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2023-___ approving a Development Agreement between OWNER and CITY for the OWNER’s Project within the City (“Development Agreement”). All capitalized terms in this Agreement shall have the same definitions as described in the Development Agreement, including, without limitation, Property, Project, and Project Approvals.

B. To facilitate the orderly development of the Project through the Project Approvals on the Property the OWNER will be required to construct certain Public Improvements.

Satisfaction of such conditions of the Development Approvals, however, involves real property that is neither owned by OWNER or CITY (the “Off-Site Property” hereinafter). A legal description and map depiction of the Off-Site Property required to satisfy the condition of approval is attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full.

C. Pursuant to California Government Code section 66462.5 and Section 4.9 of the Development Agreement, when a condition of a subdivision map approval or a development agreement requires the installation or construction of improvements on Off-Site Property not owned or controlled by the OWNER, and title cannot be obtained by negotiated purchase, a city is required to commence proceedings to acquire Off-Site Property by eminent domain or such off-site improvement conditions will be waived. Pursuant to said section 66462.5, a city and an OWNER may enter into an agreement to allocate the costs and responsibilities for acquisition of such Off-Site Property.

D. OWNER has recorded or intends to record Tract Map No. ________ and, under a separate subdivision improvement agreement, has agreed (and posted security) to undertake and complete all required public improvements set forth in _______________________, including City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
_________________________________ said Off-Site Property, following recordation of Tract Map No. ________.

E. CITY has been provided credible evidence that OWNER has made a good faith effort to acquire the Off-Site Property but has been unable to do so by negotiated purchase; F. California Government Code Section 40404 and California Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010 et seq. authorizes CITY to acquire by eminent domain any and all property necessary for ________________________ purposes; G. The CITY must comply with Relocation Assistance Act, Government Code Sections 7260 et seq., and the Eminent Domain Law, Code of Civil Procedure Sections 1230.010 et seq., and their implementing regulations, in acquiring property for public improvements (“Public Land Acquisition Statutes”).

H. To facilitate the satisfaction of the condition of approval, CITY and OWNER now mutually desire to enter into this Agreement under Government Code Section 66462.5 concerning acquisition of the Off-Site Property and to allocate responsibility between the respective parties; and
I. This Agreement is solely made in furtherance of the authority granted under Government Code Section 66462.5 and Section 4.9 of the Development Agreement. The parties recognize that CITY cannot exercise its power of eminent domain until all legally required preconditions under the Land Acquisition Statutes, including a Resolution of Necessity have been lawfully adopted by the City Council of the CITY pursuant to law. This Agreement is neither a commitment nor an announcement of an intent by CITY to acquire any or all of the Off-Site Property that may be identified in this Agreement. In the event CITY elects to commence an action after the required public hearing on the Resolution of Necessity, then CITY shall cause the eminent domain action for the acquisition of the specified interest or interests (whether fee, leasehold or otherwise) in and to the Off-Site Property to be filed and expeditiously processed to completion by and through the use of CITY’s power of eminent domain.

2. CITY Acquisition of Off-Site Property. Subject to OWNER’s timely and continuous performance of all elements of this Agreement and the Development Agreement, CITY shall cause an action pursuant to the Land Acquisition Statutes to be pursued to completion for the acquisition of the Off-Site Property using legal counsel and consultants of CITY’ reasonable selection. OWNER agrees CITY’s selected legal counsel is not representing OWNER in any capacity and further that OWNER is not a third party beneficiary under the engagement agreement between CITY and CITY’s selected legal counsel.

3. OWNER Responsible for All Costs of Acquisition. OWNER shall solely responsible for all Off-Site Property acquisition costs, which shall include, but not be limited to, the costs of title reports and/or litigation guarantees, litigation expenses, court costs, attorneys’ fees, deposits necessary to take immediate possession of any such interest, deposits reflecting verdicts as to the value of any such interest necessary to obtain any final order or orders of condemnation, any sum paid as and for a settlement of any suit filed by CITY pursuant to this Agreement, payments for land and improvements on the land, severance damages, fixtures and City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
equipment payments, payments for loss of business goodwill, relocation benefits, precondemnation damages, relocation expenses, abandonment damages, Off-Site Property Owners’ statutory costs and litigation expenses authorized by the Eminent Domain Law, codified as Code of Civil Procedure Section 1230.010, et seq. (Eminent Domain Law), Public Land Acquisition Statutes and any and all fees, costs and expenses arising from or related to any of the foregoing items, actions, and proceedings. No settlement of an action brought by CITY to acquire Off-Site Property or arising from CITY’s action(s) shall be effective without OWNER first providing its written approval thereof to CITY, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.

4. Limitations on City’s Ability to Acquire Off-Site Property; Time Waiver. The parties hereto recognize that if the City Council, in its discretion, adopts a Resolution of Necessity and authorizes the filing of an eminent domain proceeding, the City may not be able to obtain the fee title to the Property within the time set forth in Government Code section 66462.5 and in recognition of this potential circumstance the parties hereby waive the time requirements for action by the City set forth in Government Code Section 66462.5.

5. Deposit of Costs. Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement by CITY, OWNER shall deliver to CITY the sum of _______________ Thousand Dollars ($_______.00).

CITY agrees to deposit said sum in a separate CITY account (“Acquisition Fund”) and to use the principal sum, and any interest earned thereon, in furtherance of satisfying the costs specified in this Agreement, other than the unsatisfied costs identified in this paragraph.

A. CITY shall, on a monthly basis, or as often as CITY deems necessary, provide OWNER with an accounting of disbursements from the Acquisition Fund established pursuant to paragraph 5, above. In the event disbursements reduce the balance of the fund to Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) or less, OWNER, within five (5) business days following a written request of CITY, shall deliver to CITY such additional monies as are necessary to maintain the balance in the Acquisition Fund at ___________ Thousand Dollars ($______________.00).

B. In addition to its deposits to the Acquisition Fund, OWNER agrees to deliver to CITY, promptly upon demand by CITY, the entire amount CITY determines is required by the Eminent Domain Law (“Deposit Amount”), which amount CITY will deposit under Code of Civil Procedure sections 1255.010, et seq. if CITY and OWNER agree that CITY should seek prejudgment possession of the Off-Site Property. If the City’s expert valuation witness determines at the date of exchange of valuation data under Code of Civil Procedure section 1258.220 that the fair market value of the Off-Site Property is higher than the Deposit Amount, OWNER shall deliver this additional amount to CITY upon five (5) business days written notice by CITY or as ordered by any court of competent jurisdiction. CITY shall promptly deposit this additional amount with the Court.

C. If for any reason OWNER fails to maintain the Acquisition Fund balance referenced in subparagraph 5.A., or fails to provide the monies as required by subparagraph 5.B, CITY may utilize and draw down all or any portion of the improvement security deposited pursuant to the separate subdivision improvement agreement to pay any of the costs and expenses referenced herein for acquisition of the Off-Site Property. CITY shall not commence any activity under or in furtherance of this Agreement until OWNER provides CITY and CITY City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
agrees with and approves a written acknowledgment from both the OWNER and the person, firm, or entity who has provided the referenced security that: (i) the CITY may make demand on the security for the purposes described in this Agreement; (ii) the surety will promptly pay such monies to CITY upon CITY’s demand and (iii) the amount of the security deposit is adequate to fund both the anticipated physical improvements under the map and the anticipated costs of acquisition pursuant to this Agreement.

D. When any eminent domain action which was commenced pursuant to this Agreement is concluded, CITY shall remit to OWNER the balance of the Acquisition Fund within sixty (60) days after full payment of just compensation, costs and all applicable litigation expenses have been made to Off-Site Property Owners. Additionally, CITY shall expeditiously withdraw any funds remaining on deposit with the Court and disburse the same to OWNER once a final order of condemnation or a dismissal of the eminent domain action is entered by the Court.

6. OWNER Acquisition of Property. If OWNER should independently acquire all or any portion of the Off-Site Property by negotiated purchase after an eminent domain action is filed by the CITY, OWNER shall immediately notify CITY of the acquisition. After OWNER obtains fee title to the subject interest CITY shall move to abandon all or any unnecessary part of the action relating to the property acquired by negotiation. If a complete or partial abandonment is filed, OWNER shall bear any and all costs, expenses and/or damages related thereto, including, but not limited to, any condemnee’s recoverable costs and/or recoverable attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1268.610, et seq.

7. General
A. Notices. Any and all notices, requests or other communications required or permitted to be given under this Agreement or by reason of this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been given when: (i) delivered in person or by courier or overnight delivery service; or (ii) five (5) business days after mailing, by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following addresses or any such other address or addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing in the manner herein specified:

CITY: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92589
Attention: City Manager
With a copy to:

RICHARDS, WATSON & GERSHON
350 South Grand Avenue, 37th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071-3101
Attention: Mr. Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
To OWNER: PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC
With a copy to:

B. Further Cooperation. Each party to this Agreement agrees to cooperate by performing any further acts and by executing and delivering any and all additional monies, items, or documents which may be reasonably necessary to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement, and each party to this Agreement agrees that it will not act in any manner whatsoever which would hinder, impede, interfere or prohibit or make more onerous or difficult the performance of the other party hereto under this Agreement.

C. Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement shall be effective unless first provided in writing and executed by the parties hereto.

D. No Agency or Joint Venture. The terms and provisions of this Agreement shall not cause the parties hereto or any of each parties’ agents, consultants, contractors or other providers of professional services to be construed in any manner whatsoever as partners, joint venturers or agents of each other in the performance of their respective duties and obligations under this Agreement, or subject either party to this Agreement to any obligation, loss, charge or expense of the other party to this Agreement.

E. Time of Essence. Time is expressly made of the essence of each and every provision of this Agreement.

F. Successors and Assigns. The provisions of this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective successors and assignees.

G. Remedies. No remedy or election hereunder shall be deemed to be exclusive but shall, wherever possible, be cumulative with all other remedies at or in equity.

H. Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action arising directly or indirectly under this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of Riverside County, California.

City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereof have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
a municipal corporation
_______________________________
Rod B. Butler
City Manager
Attest:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Approved As to Form:
_______________________________
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
OWNER

PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC
____________________________
Name:

Title:
____________________________
Name:

Title:

OWNER’S SIGNATURES
[NOTE: If the OWNER is a corporation, it must be represented by two individuals who shall execute this Agreement on behalf of the corporation as follows: (A) one from the corporation's "Operational Group" (Chair of the Board, President, or a Vice-President) and; (B) one from the corporation's "Financial Group" (Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Chief Financial Officer, Treasurer or Assistant Treasurer). A resolution of the Board of Directors designating one individual to sign the agreement on behalf of the corporation will be accepted. See California Corporations Code section 313. If the OWNER is a limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or partnership, then the managing member of the LLC or the managing partner of the LLP or partnership must sign the Agreement.]
City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
EXHIBIT 1 TO OFF-SITE ACQUISITION AGREEMENT

LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP DEPICTION OF THE OFF-SITE PROPERTY City Draft: 11-4-23
C-3
ATTACHMENT 5
City Council Resolution - SDP 19008 and
TTM 37677
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-103

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MASTER
APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF TENTATIVE
PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677) AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION

SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS

LOCATED WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL,
SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH

STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE

WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON
STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX

COMMERCE PARK)

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

Section 1. Background. On July 5, 2018, the City Council considered Proficiency Capital, LLC’s (the “Applicant”) request for a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to allow a logistics use on the project site, which is located outside the General Plan Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays. The City Council, without consideration of the merits of the proposed project, initiated a GPA to analyze and review the Applicant’s request to develop the Rubidoux Commerce Park on the Project site. In 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council held study sessions on the proposed project. On March 17, 2022, the City Council stated they were not supportive of the proposed distribution warehouse use at this project site and the Applicant decided to modify the proposed project in response to these comments.

Section 2. Project. The Applicant applied for Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001 (collectively, Master Application No. 17132 or MA No. 17132) to permit the construction of a proposed 1.18 million square foot industrial complex consisting of five buildings on the property located westerly of West Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street, and east of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178-070-001, 002, 003 (the “Project”). This resolution addresses Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677. Change of Zone No. 21003 and Development Agreement No. 19001 will be addressed by separate ordinances.

Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 17132 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
-2-
(b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3-1 to deny the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On November 29, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Project. (c) The Applicant timely appealed the denial of the Project. (d) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
(e) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal.

Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) should be prepared. An EIR was prepared (SCH # 2020110449) for the Project. Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 were included in the Project Description for the EIR and their impacts analyzed therein.
(f) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project, Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations, at a duly noticed and conducted public hearing at which time all interested persons had an opportunity to and did testify either in support or in opposition to this matter. The City Council considered all the testimony and any comments received regarding the proposed Project, Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Ordinance. (g) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-102, “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL

PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED EASTERLY OF MONTANA AVENUE, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE

WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK),” that included Site Development Permit No. 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 in the Project Description. -3-
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Ordinance No. 2024-02, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001) BETWEEN THE CITY

AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

BUILDINGS LOCATED WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED

SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK).” (i) Following the public hearing, the Council also adopted Ordinance No. 2024-01, “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE 21003 (CZ 21003) TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM

MEDIUM MANUFACTURING TO MANUFACTURING-SERVICE COMMERCIAL TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED, WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET,

AND TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK).
(j) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Section 4. Tentative Parcel Map.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 a Schedule “E” subdivision to subdivide the project site into five parcels. (b) Section 7.05.020.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission is designated as the “Advisory Agency” charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of all proposed tentative Schedule “E” maps. Further, Section 7.05.020.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is authorized to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all such tentative map land divisions and report the action directly to the City Council and the land divider.
(c) Section 7.15.130.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that within fifty (50) days after the date of filing of a tract map or commercial parcel map, a public hearing on the map must be held before the Planning Commission. Section 7.15.130.B. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed tentative map, file notice of the decision with the City Clerk, and mail notice of the decision to the land divider, or his or her authorized agent, and any interested party requesting a copy. (d) Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires denial of a Tentative Parcel Map if it does not meet all of the requirements of Title 7 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, or if any of the following findings are made:
-4-
1) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
3) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
5) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (e) Notwithstanding subsection 5) above, a tentative map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. (f) Section 9.05.110 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that in the event that a project requires a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan specific plan amendment, development agreement or other legislative action in addition to the tentative subdivision map, site development permit, conditional use permit, variance or other quasi-judicial land use applications for the project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, modify or deny the applications for the legislative action for the project and a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny the quasi-judicial land use applications. The Council shall hear the applications for the legislative actions along with applications for the quasi-judicial actions for the project in one public hearing before the Council in accordance with the applicable procedures of Section 9.05.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

Section 5. Site Development Permit.
-5-
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Site Development Permit No. 19008 to construct a 1.18 million square foot industrial complex comprised of five buildings at the Project site.
(b) Sections 9.148.020(2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that various manufacturing and industrial uses are permitted in the MSC Zone provided a site development permit has been approved pursuant to Section 9.240.330 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(c) Section 9.240.330.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that no site development permit shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1) The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the City of Jurupa General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley.
2) The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof. 3) All site development plans which permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel shall, in addition to all other requirements, be subject to a condition which prohibits the sale of any existing or subsequently constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with Title 7 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code in such a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
(d) Section 9.240.330.(4)(d) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a site development that requires the approval of a change of zone shall be hearing according to the procedures set forth in Section 9.285.040 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code which provides that the Planning Commission will consider the item for recommendation to the City Council.

Section 9.285.040 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the City Council shall render its decision within a reasonable time and may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission.

Section 6. Findings for Approval of Tentative Parcel Map. In approving Revised Tentative Parcel Map No. 37667 the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans because upon the approval of the Change of Zone, the entire Project site will be zoned Manufacturing-Service Commercial (MS-C) which is consistent with the Light Industrial General Plan designation.
-6-
(b) The design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans because it is consistent with the General Plan Light Industrial land use, the Manufacturing Service Commercial development standards and meets all the standards of Title 7 (Subdivision) of the Municipal Code. (c) The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development because the Project site is undeveloped and can physically accommodate the proposed new land uses and new infrastructure consistent with the General Plan Light Industrial Land Use, the Manufacturing-Service Commercial zoning and all Federal, State, and local code requirements.
(d) The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development because development on the Project site will be consistent with the allowable density, floor area ratios, development standards, and infrastructure improvements as required by the Manufacturing Service Commercial zone and the Municipal Code. (e) The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report which analyzed potential impacts to fish or wildlife or their habitat and prepared appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.15.180(8) provides that a tentative parcel map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared, and a finding was made pursuant to CEQA that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measure or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Impacts to fish or wildlife and their habitat here will be less than significant with mitigation.
(f) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the Project meets all the standards of Title 7 (Subdivision) of the Municipal Code to ensure the project design meets safety standards and the City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report which analyzed potential health problems prepared appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant, except for Greenhouse Gases for which a Statement of Overriding Considerations was prepared. (g) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division the Tentative Parcel Map contains an easement schedule that identifies the disposition of existing and new easement for dedication within the Project site including relocation, quitclaim, or to remain.

Section 7. Findings for Approval of Site Development Permit. In approving Site Development Permit 19008 the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The Project site is currently zoned M-M (Manufacturing-Medium) which is inconsistent with the current General Plan land use designation for Light Industrial. The applicant is requesting a Change of Zone to change the zone from M-M to M-SC. This change makes the -7-
Project zoning consistent with the General Plan land use designation. The proposed development of an industrial park to accommodate permitted manufacturing or other industrial uses is consistent with the General Plan’s vision and intent for Light Industrial. (b) The proposed development, as demonstrated in the Site Plan, has been designed to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of surrounding sensitive land uses by incorporating screen walls and dense landscaping along the entire southern property line and by locating loading doors towards the north portions of the buildings, facing similar industrial land uses. Further, the truck circulation within the project is located within the interior of the Project behind building 1 to maintain a buffer between truck operations and the Emerald Ridge residential development to the South. The building layout, landscaping and public improvements conform to the logical development of the land and are compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding area. The Project would require public right-of-way improvements and dedication along Van Dell Rd., Primavera Avenue, 28th St., 26th St., 25th St., and Avalon St. including landscaped parkway, sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Furthermore, the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) was reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department for the grading and drainage requirements.
(c) The proposed Site Development Permit No. 19008 does not permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel.

Section 8. Approval of Master Application No. 17132 with Conditions. Based on the foregoing, the City of Jurupa Valley hereby approves Master Application No. 17132 comprised of Site Development Permit 19008 and Tentative Parcel Map 37677 to allow the construction of an approximately 1.18 million square foot industrial complex on real property located on the easterly of Montana Avenue, westerly of West Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th street, and two parcels are located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street, and east of 28th Street, all subject to the recommended conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.

Section 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall not go into effect until the Effective Date of the Ordinances approving Change of Zone 21003 and Development Agreement No. 19001.

Section 10. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
-8-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:

Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
_
-9-

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-103 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 21st day of December, 2023 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

EXHIBIT A

PLANNING DIVISION

1. ALL - PROJECT PERMITTED. MA17132 (CZ21003, TPM37677, SDP19008, & DA19001) is an approval for an industrial park and the following entitlements:
a. CZ21003: Change of Zone for Parcels 1- 4 of TTM 37677 (APN 178-07-001,002 and 003, APN178-030-001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009 and 010) from M-SC to M-M zoning.
b. TPM37677: A tentative parcel map subdivision of the 81.3-acre site into five parcels (one for each building).
c. SDP19008: The construction of five (5) speculative industrial buildings with a total 1,181,704 square feet (s.f.) and related site improvements including landscaping, parking area, and infrastructure facilities.

Building 1 consists of 309,870 s.f., Building 2 consists of 388,222 s.f., Building 3 consists of 171,966 s.f., Building 4 consists of 275,958 s.f., and Building 5 comprises 35,688 s.f.
d. DA19001: Development Agreement which includes obligations for both parties that applies to this project site.

2. ALL - INDEMNIFY CITY. The applicant, the property owner or other holder of the right to the development entitlement(s) or permit(s) approved by the City for the project, if different from the applicant (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitor”), shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley and its elected city council, its appointed boards, commissions, and committees, and its officials, employees, and agents (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either (i) the City’s approval of the project, including without limitation any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the project, any condition of approval imposed by City on such permit or approval, and any finding or determination made and any other action taken by any of the Indemnitees in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or (ii) the acts, omissions, or operations of the Indemnitor and the directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the Indemnitor with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the project and the property for which the project is being approved. The City shall notify the Indemnitor of any claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an “Action”) within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the Indemnitor defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the Indemnitor fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the obligation to do so and, if it does, the Indemnitor shall promptly pay the City’s full cost ALL – The condition applies to all entitlements.

SDP – The condition applies to the Site Development Permit.

TPM – The condition applies to the Tentative Parcel Map.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (ii) of the first sentence of this condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct or the sole active negligence of the City.

3. ALL - CONSENT TO CONDITIONS. Within thirty (30) days after project approval, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to the required conditions of approval to the Planning Director or designee.

4. ALL - FEES. The approval of MA17132 (CZ 21003, SDP 19008, TPM 37677, & DA19001) shall not become effective until all planning fees have been paid in full.

5. ALL - MITIGATION MEASURES. This project shall be subject to, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures set forth in the adopted Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program in connection with the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project.

6. ALL - INCORPORATE CONDITIONS. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the project’s final approval.

7. SDP - APPROVAL PERIOD. Subject to the terms of an approved Development Agreement for the Site pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66452.6(a), 65863.9 and 65865.2, this approval shall be used within two (2) years of the approval date; otherwise, it shall become null and void and of no effect whatsoever. By use is meant the beginning of substantial construction contemplated by this approval within two (2) year period which is thereafter diligently pursued to completion or to the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under the terms of the authorized use. Prior to the expiration of the two (2) year period, the permittee may request up to three (3) years of extension of time in which to begin substantial construction or use of this permit. Should the extension be obtained and no substantial construction or use of this permit be initiated within five (5) years of the approval date this permit, it shall become null and void.

8. TPM – APPROVAL PERIOD. An approved or conditionally approved tentative parcel map shall expire thirty-six (36) months after such approval unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and filed with the County Recorder. Prior to the expiration date, the land divider may apply in writing for an extension of time. Each application shall be made to the Community Development Director prior to the expiration date of the tentative map and shall be accompanied by the fee set forth in Chapter 3.65 or resolution of the City Council. For schedule "E" maps, the Community Development Director shall forward to the Advisory Agency a recommendation of approval or denial of the application. The Advisory Agency may extend the date on which the map expires for one (1) year and, on further application thereof, may further extend it for a second year, and on further application thereof may further extend it for a third year, and on further application before expiration thereof, may further extend it for a fourth year, and on further application before expiration thereof, may further extend it for a fifth year, and on further application before expiration thereof, may further extend it for a sixth year. The decision of the Advisory Agency shall be final unless the decision is appealed pursuant to the provisions of Section 7.15.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

9. ALL - CONFORMANCE TO APPROVED EXHIBITS. The project shall be in conformance to the approved plans (listed below) with any changes in accordance to these conditions of approval:
• Project Plan Set (cover sheet dated: October 9, 2023) includes site plan, elevations, materials board, landscape plan, grading plan. • Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 (dated: October 9, 2023)

10. ALL – GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY. The industrial park shall be maintained and be kept free of debris, weeds, abandoned vehicles, code violations, and any other factor or condition that may contribute to potential blight or crime.

11. ALL - LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscaped areas shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in an orderly, attractive and healthy condition.

This shall include proper pruning, mowing of turf areas, weeding, removal of litter, fertilization, replacement of plants when necessary, and the regular application of appropriate quantities of water to all landscaped areas. Irrigation systems shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in proper operating condition.

Waterline breaks, head/emitter ruptures, overspray or runoff conditions and other irrigation system failures shall be repaired immediately. The canopy trees shall be maintained in a manner that they provide the required shade coverage and encourages the canopy to grow to provide shade. Avoid topping trees or pruning the trees in a manner that the trees do not achieve mature height and form.

12. ALL - PLANNING REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the aesthetic impact of slopes and grade differences where the project adjoins streets or other properties shall be approved by the Planning Director.

13. ALL - ON-SITE LANDSCAPING.
a. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit of the development project, a “Professional Services” (PROS) application shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The PROS application shall include the following items:
i. Final (construction set) on-site landscape plans;
ii. Completed City Agreement for Landscape improvements iii. City Faithful Performance Bond for Landscape improvements; performance bond shall be posted at 110% of the total cost approved estimate of landscaping, irrigation, labor, and one-year maintenance. The Community Development Director may consider a cash bond if appropriate. b. Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for MA17132, the following events shall be satisfied in the order it is listed:
i. Substantial Conformance Letter: The Landscape Architect of Record shall conduct an inspection and submit a letter to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division after the landscape architect has deemed the installation is in conformance to the approved plans.
ii. City Inspection: The City landscape architect shall conduct an inspection of the installation to confirm the landscape and irrigation plan was constructed in accordance to the approved plans. Applicant shall pay any fees associate with the City inspection(s).

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

14. TREES IN STREETSCAPE. All trees in the parkway and setback abutting a street shall be a minimum of 36” box in size.

15. EV CHARGING STATIONS. The site shall provide and install infrastructure for Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging stations as indicated on the project site plan in the following numbers: 53 for Building 1, 44 for Building 2, 19 for Building 3, 35 for Building 4 and 6 for Building 5. EV charging station plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first Building permit for of the development project.

The charging station(s) shall be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development project.

16. DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS. All driveways shall have design enhancements such as decorative paving. Said enhancements shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the development project.

Driveways with decorative paving shall be installed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy of each building.

17. UNDERGROUNDING OF DRAINAGE. Driveway and parking areas shall not incorporate center swales, ribbon gutters, concrete valleys, etc. All drainage in common and private use areas shall be underground and shall not incorporate open gutters or swales.

18. DOWNSPOUTS. All building drainage shall be interior with no exterior downspouts or gutters.

19. SDP- GRAFFITI PROTECTION FOR WALLS. Plans that include anti-graffiti coating or protection for the exterior side of all perimeter walls and exterior of building walls to half the height of the structure, or 12 feet, whichever is greater, shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any building permit. Graffiti shall be removed from the property within 24 hours.

20. SDP - TRASH COLLECTION.
• Detailed plans for trash enclosure(s) shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any building permit. Walls of the enclosure and any solid gates shall have graffiti protection coating. • An approval or clearance letter from the waste collection agency shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of any building permit.

21. SDP- OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be maintained in good condition. Light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent any light to flood onto adjacent properties. A photometric plan and exhibits of lighting fixtures shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of any building permit.

22. SDP- ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT. All rooftop equipment shall be screened from public view.

23. SDP - JURUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (JARPD). Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit proof of satisfying any fees, dedications, or requirements by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District to the Building Official.

24. JARPD CFD. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall annex into the existing Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD) District-Wide Community Facilities District (CFD) or form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) to contribute to the cost of park maintenance.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

25. IMPACT FEES. The applicant shall the pay the following impact fees (unless exempt) in accordance to Title 3 of the Municipal Code:
• Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. The applicant shall pay any owed DIFs by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
• Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation (MSHCP) Fee. The applicant shall pay any owed MSHCP fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code.
• Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. The applicant shall show proof of payment of TUMF fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.70 of the Municipal Code.

26. SDP - SALE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. No structure constructed on Project site may be sold until the subject Project on which the structure is located is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations such that the structure is located on a separate legally divided parcel.

27. ALL – COVENANTS, CONDITIONS & RESTRICTIONS (CC & RS). Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to recordation of the final map, providing for maintenance of the property in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, include provisions such as the following items unless it is deemed unnecessary by the Community Development Director:
a. Formation of a Permanent Organization for the ownership and maintenance of all common areas including, but not limited to, landscaping, parking areas, and circulation systems (areas) in perpetuity.
b. The CC&Rs shall identify the common areas for ownership and maintenance. The common areas shall include the following applicable items:
c. Access and Circulation Areas
d. Drainage Facilities
e. Landscaping and Irrigation
f. On-site Lighting Fixtures
g. Walls and Fences
h. Community signage
i. All on-site storm water and water quality management post-construction facilities and features (BMPs) shall require maintenance by the property owner(s).

Regulations for operations and maintenance shall be clearly stated in the CC&Rs. j. A cross-lot drainage easement/agreement shall be required among parcel(s). k. A reciprocal access easement shall be required among parcel(s). l. Other items deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director and City Engineer.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

28. INSTALL CONDUIT FOR TRUCK CHARGING STATIONS. Install conduit for future truck charging stations. Plan shall be submitted showing the location and details of the conduit for future installation of two vehicle charging stations for the Community Development Director approval prior to the issuance of the first building permit. The conduit shall be installed prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy of the project site.

29. ARB SIGN FOR IDLING. All truck idling time (including off-road equipment used during construction or operation) with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) 10,000 pounds or less shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes within the site. A sign shall be placed at the truck entrance of the property and one sign at each row of truck parking at a height from the ground of 5 to 6 feet and shall not be less than 24 square inches in size.

The sign shall state the following: “The driver of a diesel-fueled motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds is prohibited from idling the vehicle’s primary engine for more than five (5) minutes at any location and may not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) for more than 5 minutes at any location on the property. The minimum penalty for an idling violation is $300.00. To report a violation, please contact 1-800-END-SMOG.”
A plan that includes the locations and details of the sign shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of a Building permit. The signs shall be installed in accordance with this condition and approved plan prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

30. TRAFFIC SIGNS – PROHIBITION OF TRUCK TRAFFIC ON AVALON STREET INTO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. For trucks weighing over 5 tons shall not traverse into nearby residential neighborhoods, specifically along Avalon Street south of 28th Street.

Directional signs shall inform truck drivers of these restrictions and shall be placed at each driveway egress location. Such sign shall state: “No truck travel allowed on Avalon Street south of 28th Street.”
• The applicant shall submit plans/exhibits to the Planning Division depicting the location, dimensions, and text of the direction signs. The plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to the issuance of the first building permit.
• The approved signs shall be installed prior to the Certificate of Occupancy of the subject building.
• Persistent failure to abide by these restrictions shall be subject to revocation of the Site Development Permit

31. PERCENTAGE OF ALLOWED ANCILLARY WAREHOUSE SPACE TO LISTED PERMITTED USES IN THE MANUFACTURING SERVICE COMMERCIAL (M-SC) ZONE.

Warehouse space for storage of materials, products and other items necessary for operations shall not exceed 70% of the total building area for a permitted use in the Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) zone.

32. DTSC OVERSITE. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, the Project Applicant will apply for a Request for Lead Agency Oversight Application to have DTSC conduct oversight for the Project as requested by DTSC.

33. BACKFILL SOIL FREE OF CONTAMINATION. Prior to the issuance of a Grading Permit, if the Project requires the importation of soils to backfill any excavated areas, MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

proper sampling shall be conducted to ensure that the imported soil is free of contamination in accordance with the DTSC’s 2001 Information Advisory Clean Imported Fill Material.

ENGINEERING CONDITIONS

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING)

1.1. The use hereby conditioned is for Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Development Agreement No. 19001, and Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 (TPM 37677); being a subdivision of various parcels situated in the City of Jurupa Valley; consisting of 74.581 acres, 5 numbered lots and 1 lettered lot. The following exhibits are hereby referenced:

Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., Conceptual Grading Plans prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., Hydrology Report prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., Preliminary Public Storm Drain prepared by Thienes Engineering, Inc., VMT Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads, Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads.

1.2. The Parcel Map preparation shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, Title 7 of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code; as it pertains for Schedule “E” subdivision, unless otherwise modified by the conditions listed herein.

1.3. TPM37677 and SDP19008 are subject to the provisions of Development Agreement No. 19-001.

It is assumed that any easements shown on the referenced exhibits are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property.

The Applicant shall secure approval from all easement holders for all grading and improvements which are proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect.

Should such approvals or alternate action regarding the easements not be provided, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the permit application.

1.4. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be placed underground in accordance with the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.50.

1.5. Applicant shall comply with conditions of approval included in the letter from Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District’s (“RCFC & WCD”, “District”) dated April 19, 2023, to the City regarding Parcel Map 37677 Tentative Review No. 2.

1.6. All conditions listed in the review letter from the County of Riverside Department of Environmental Health dated August 31, 2023, shall be met.

1.7. Installation of full trash capture devices per Riverside County Standard No. 313 will be required at all new and existing catch basins within the project site and public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

1.8. Applicant shall be responsible for completing or making fair share contributions MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

toward all of the recommended improvements identified in the Traffic Impact Analysis.

2. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)

2.1. In compliance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70, no grading permit, including mass, rough, and/or precise, shall be issued until the Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) and all other pertinent entitlements are approved and are in effect.

2.2. All grading shall conform to the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley, the City’s Municipal Code Title 8, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Jurupa Valley and state of California, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Prior to issuance of grading permit, grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, a sitespecific grading agreement shall be signed by the City, and Applicant shall provide financial securities for the grading work, if applicable.

2.3. The Applicant shall prepare a “rough” grading plan or a combined “rough and precise” grading plan for the project site. Securities, in the form of a cash deposit (preferable), bond, or letter of credit shall be submitted as a guarantee of the completion of the grading operations for the project and the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures.

2.3.1. The grading plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer licensed in the state of California (Project Civil Engineer) and he/she must sign the plan. The printed name and contact information of the Project Civil Engineer shall be included on the face of the grading plan. The grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.2. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all off-site drainage flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities of flow exceed the capacity of the conveyance facility, the Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.3. The grading plan shall provide for protection of downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.4. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent transport and deposition of earthen materials onto downstream/downwind properties, public rights-of-way, or other drainage facilities. Erosion Control Plans showing these measures shall be submitted along with the grading plan for approval by the City Engineer.

2.3.5. Applicant shall provide written proof and authorization from easement holders (if any) for work proposed over easements.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

2.4. For disturbance of one or more acres, the Applicant shall provide evidence that it has prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWRCB issued WDID number shall be included on the face of the grading plan.

2.5. If grading is required offsite, the Applicant shall obtain a written notarized letter of authorization from the property owner(s) to grade as necessary and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or authorizations necessary to perform the grading shown on the site plan and grading exhibits.

2.6. Prior to approval of the precise grading plan, a final geotechnical report for the proposed grading, infrastructure and post-construction water quality management features and facilities (BMPs) improvements shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. All recommendations of the report shall be incorporated on the grading plans.

2.7. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved project specific geotechnical report, approved conceptual grading plan, and preliminary studies. Grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer and financial securities for grading, if applicable, shall be in place prior to permit issuance.

2.8. Proposed retaining walls will require a separate permit(s). Permits shall be obtained prior to the issuance of any grading permit unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Building Official.

2.9. Prior to approval of the grading plan, a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP) shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer in conformance with the requirements of Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD).

2.9.1. The F-WQMP shall provide any changes in pervious/impervious areas and BMPs.

2.9.2. It is assumed that the conceptual grading and the provisions for water quality management shown on the tentative map exhibit can comply with all requirements for a F-WQMP without substantial change.

2.9.3. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the F-WQMP. Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.

2.9.4. The Applicant shall enter into a Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater BMP Operation and Maintenance Agreement with the City. The agreement shall be recorded and a certified copy shall be provided to the City Engineer.

2.10. Prior to approval of the precise grading plan, a final hydrology and hydraulics report, corresponding with the proposed improvements, shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD). Hydraulic calculations are required for all drainage control devices, basins, and storm drain lines.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

2.10.1. A copy of the improvement plans, grading plans, BMP improvement plans and any other necessary documentation, along with supporting hydrologic and hydraulic calculations (drainage report), shall be submitted to RCFC & WCD as reference material for review and approval of the final drainage report and storm drain plans. The plans must receive RCFC & WCD approval prior to the issuance of grading permits. All submittals shall be date stamped by the engineer and include a completed Flood Control Deposit Based Fee Worksheet and the appropriate plan check fee deposit.

2.10.2. Written correspondence from the City of Jurupa Valley regarding the approval of the Project Specific WQMP and grading plan must be submitted to RCFC & WCD prior to issuance of the grading permit.

2.11. Post-construction water quality surface features and facilities such as basins and bio-swales shall be designed and installed per approved F-WQMP and approved by the Engineering Inspector.

2.12. Prior to the initiation of the improvement plans for RCFC & WCD, the Applicant shall contact RCFC & WCD to determine the terms and conditions of design, construction, inspection, transfer of rights-of-way, project credit in lieu of charges, and reimbursement schedules which may apply.

2.13. An encroachment permit may be required for any work that is to be performed within the RCFC & WCD right-of-way or involving RCFC & WCD facilities. The encroachment permit application shall be processed after the improvement plan approval.

2.14. A hauling permit shall be required for the import/export of material using City streets; the import/export location and the haul route shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. If the import/export location is outside of City limits, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the jurisdictional agency has provided all necessary approvals for import/export to/from the site.

2.15. Applicant shall provide a copy of the proposed improvements within the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) right-of-way for the proposed emergency access and public utilities. Applicant is responsible for coordinating inspections and obtaining approval from UPRR for all conditioned improvements within the railroad right-of-way. Applicant shall provide copies of all applicable plans and permits issued by UPRR for this work to the City.

2.16. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) shall be submitted to the City Engineer and Community Development Director for approval. The CTMP shall include, but no limited to, approved routes for construction traffic to access the construction area, construction hours, staging areas, and appropriate points of ingress/egress to that area.

2.17. The 10-year storm flow shall be contained below the tops of curbs and the 100- year storm flow shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be installed.

The property shall be graded to drain to the adjacent street or an adequate outlet.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

3. PRIOR TO PARCEL MAP RECORDATION (ENGINEERING)

3.1. No final parcel map shall be recorded until all other related Planning cases are approved, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

3.2. After approval of the tentative parcel map and prior to the expiration of said map, the Applicant shall cause the real property included within the tentative parcel map exhibit, or any part thereof, to be surveyed and a final map thereof prepared in accordance with the City Engineer’s current requirements, conditions of tentative map approval, and in accordance with provisions of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.20. All processing is through the City of Jurupa Valley.

3.3. Easement(s) for necessary streets and public utilities shall be dedicated and shown on the final parcel map in accordance with Title 7 of the Municipal Code and these conditions of approval. It is understood that the tentative map exhibit correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q’s, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or revise the tentative map as may be necessary to allow a finding on the final map of substantial conformance.

3.4. Prior to Final Map Recordation, onsite drainage facilities located outside of road right-of-way shall be contained within drainage easements shown on the final map. A note shall be added to the final map stating, “Drainage easements shall be kept free of buildings and obstructions.”

3.5. Any easement not owned by a public utility, public entity, or subsidiary, which is not relocated or eliminated, prior to final parcel map approval, shall be delineated on the final parcel map and additionally the name of the easement holder and the nature of its interests shall be shown.
1 Improvement Plans

3.6. The Applicant shall provide improvement plans for all onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, street improvements, storm drain/drainage improvements, signing, striping and pavement markings, streetlights, landscape and irrigation system, water system, and sanitary sewer system. Rights-of-way for streets and public utilities purposes shall be dedicated and shown on the Final Parcel Map in accordance with these conditions of approval, City Municipal Code/Ordinance and Riverside County Ordinance 461 (“Road Improvement Standards and Specifications”) as adopted by the City. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Department “Improvement Plan Check Policies and Guidelines” as adopted by the City Engineer. All improvements plans shall be processed through the City for approval of the City Engineer.

Applicant shall be responsible for referencing the Mitigation Measures associated with this project and show any other applicable improvements per the findings of the Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Urban Crossroads dated September 4, 2023. The following improvements are required and must be clearly shown on the street improvement plans:

3.6.1. Separate street improvement plans shall be submitted for review and MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

approval of the City Engineer. Street improvements shall include, but not limited to, pavement, base, curb and/or gutter, cross gutters, spandrel, sidewalks, driveway approaches, ADA-compliant curb ramps, under sidewalk drains, and pavement tapers/transitions as appropriate. The plans shall provide for the construction of ADA compliant depressed curbs and access ramps at all appropriate intersections and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.6.2. Separate signing and striping plans shall be prepared and shall extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project limits or the limits of striping removal necessary to join existing, as approved by the City Engineer.

3.6.3. Separate streetlight plans shall be prepared in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code. Streetlights shall be provided in all public streets within the project area and nearby improvements in conformance with Riverside County Standard Plan No. 1000.

3.6.4. Separate plans for landscaping and irrigation within the public rightof-way and water quality BMPs shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed within a water quality basin that is compatible with the primary function of the BMP. The improvements shall comply with Riverside County Ordinance 461, as adopted by the City, “Comprehensive Landscaping Guidelines and Standards”, and Riverside County Ordinance 859, as adopted by the City. Adequate sight distance shall be provided per Riverside County Standard Plan No. 821.

3.6.5. Separate storm drain plans be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and RFC & WCD. Necessary easements for storm drain systems, as determined by RFC & WCD shall be shown on the final map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”. Flood control and drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to RCFC & WCD engineering and maintenance standards including those pertaining to facility alignment and maintenance access to both, inlet and outlet, points.

3.6.6. Separate plans for water quality features and facilities shall be submitted in conformance with the City’s and RCFC & WCD requirements for the approval of the City Engineer.

3.6.7. Separate sanitary sewer and water system plans shall be submitted for review approval of the City Engineer and Rubidoux Community Service District (RCSD). Water improvement plans showing location of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department. Necessary easements for sewer and water systems on-site, as determined by RCSD, shall be shown on the Final Tract Map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”.

3.6.8. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, cable television lines, and fiber broadband shall be designed to be placed underground in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

Title 7. The Applicant is responsible for coordinating the work with the serving utility company and City of Jurupa Valley. A disposition note describing the above shall be reflected on design improvement plans whenever those plans are required. Written proof confirming initiation of the design and/or application or the relocation, issued by the utility company, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for verification purposes.

3.7. Avalon Street shall be improved from 28th Street to the north end of APN 178- 090-010 (approximately 2,700 feet) to provide the following:

3.7.1. Avalon Street shall be improved full width to match the Avalon Street improvements being constructed by Tentative Tract Map 37640 (Emerald Ridge South) including a 44 foot-wide paved section with curb, gutter and sidewalk.

3.7.2. 18-ft wide parkway to include 7-ft wide landscape strip adjacent to curb, 5-ft sidewalk, and 6-ft wide landscape strip adjacent to the westerly property line.

3.7.3. If the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project for Avalon Street is completed prior to improvement installations, then Applicant will be required to provide a cash-in-lieu of construction for all or a portion of the required street improvements along Avalon Street.

3.7.4. The cash-in-lieu of construction fee shall be in the form and amount approved by the City Engineer. A cost estimate shall be prepared by a licensed engineer, submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.

3.8. Primavera Avenue, between the easterly boundary of 25th Street and the culde-sac, shall be dedicated and improved as an Industrial Collector with a 78-ft right-of-way. The dedication shall be made on the Final Parcel Map as a lettered lot and Primavera Avenue shall provide the following improvements:

3.8.1. A 56-foot paved section shall be constructed.

3.8.2. 11-ft wide parkway to include 6-ft sidewalk adjacent to curb and 5-ft wide landscape strip.

3.8.3. The cul-de-sac design shall accommodate turning movements for a WB-67 or as determined by the City Engineer.

3.8.4. Access gates shall be placed where the streets intersect with the Emergency Access Easement. The design and location of access gates shall be approved by the Community Development Director, City Engineer and CalFire.

3.8.5. Emergency Access Only signs shall be posted at the access gates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.8.6. Parking in the cul-de-sac shall be prohibited. Appropriate signage shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.9. Van Dell Road shall be improved between 20th Street and 25th Street as an Industrial Collector Street with a 78-foot right-of-way.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

3.9.1. 56-ft pavement section (measured from curb face to curb face).

3.9.2. 11-ft wide parkway to include 6-ft sidewalk adjacent to curb and a 5- ft wide landscape strip.

3.9.3. Applicant shall provide improvement plans with surveyed right-ofway, pavement design recommendations to accommodate truck traffic, truck turning analysis along curves, hydrology study, drainage improvements, and other related items to the satisfaction and discretion of the City Engineer.

3.9.4. Applicant shall provide, at no cost to the City, all necessary right-ofway, permanent easements, and temporary construction easements for Van Dell Road between 20th Street and 25th Street.

3.9.5. Trucks exiting the project site are prohibited from making left turns onto 20th Street from Van Dell Road. Only right turns shall be permitted. The signing and striping plans shall include these restrictions for City Engineer approval.

3.10. 20th Street shall be improved as follows:

3.10.1. Add westbound left turn at Van Dell Road.

3.10.2. Add traffic signal at Van Dell Road.

3.11. 25th Street along the project’s frontage is classified as a local road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 64-ft.

3.11.1. Right-of-way shall be dedicated along 25th Street adjacent to the subject property.

3.11.2. The street shall be improved to have an ultimate half right-of-way width of 32-ft from centerline. in accordance with the proposed section shown on the Tentative Parcel Map.

3.11.3. The Applicant shall construct a 21-ft half pavement section south of the centerline and 12-ft section north of the centerline.

3.11.4. 11-ft wide parkway to include 6-ft sidewalk adjacent to curb with 5-ft landscaping.

3.12. 26th Street is classified as a local road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 66-ft.

3.12.1. The street shall be improved to have an ultimate right-of-way width of 66-ft in.

3.12.2. The Applicant shall construct a 44-ft pavement section including curb, gutter and sidewalk.

3.13. 28th Street along the project’s frontage is classified as a local road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 66-ft.

3.13.1. The street shall be improved to have an ultimate half right-of-way width of 30-ft.

3.13.2. A 15’ parkway on the north side with a 6-ft sidewalk.

3.13.3. The road construction shall be consistent with City record IP21-015 MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

for Tentative Tract Map No. 36947 (Emerald Ridge North).

3.13.4. The Applicant shall construct a 30-ft pavement section (18-ft north and 12-ft south of the centerline.

3.13.5. The termination of 28th Street shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.14. The Emergency Access Road as shown on the referenced exhibit(s) shall be designed to comply with Fire Department and UPRR requirements.

3.14.1. The minimum road width shall be 24-ft and ultimate design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

3.14.2. Access gates shall be placed at the south/east end of the parcel (APN 178-080-012) near the intersection of 26th Street and Avalon Street and south of the Primavera Avenue cul-de-sac The design and location of access gates shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer and CalFire.

3.14.3. Emergency Access Only signs shall be designed and posted at the access gates to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.14.4. Applicant shall dedicate public use easements for public utilities and drainage purposes together with the right of ingress and egress for emergency vehicles.

3.14.5. The connection to Primavera Avenue and Avalon Street shall be improved per Riverside County Standard No. 207-A, Commercial Driveway.

3.15. Applicant shall modify signal timing at locations identified in the approved TIA or pay a cash-in-lie fee.

3.15.1. Applicant shall modify signal timing at the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Santa Ana Avenue.

3.15.2. Applicant shall restripe the intersection of Cedar Avenue and Jurupa Avenue to provide one EB left turn lane and one shared through-right turn lane and one WB left turn lane and one shared through-right turn lane.

3.15.3. Applicant shall modify the traffic signal timing at Cedar Avenue/ Rubidoux Avenue and Tarragona Drive/ El Rivino Road to provide proper timing for the PM peak hour only.

3.15.4. Cash-in-lieu of construction fee may be collected and shall be in the form and amount approved by the City Engineer. A cost estimate shall be prepared by a licensed engineer, submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.
2 L&LMD, CFD, and Special Districts

3.16. This project is within the Rubidoux Community Services District, the Applicant shall make application for and pay any reapportionment of the assessment or pay the unit fees in the assessment/benefit district. The CFD services shall include but not, be limited to the following:

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

3.16.1. Water;

3.16.2. Sewer.

3.17. Prior to final map recordation, Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for operation and maintenance purposes of various improvements in the public right-of-way, as approved by the City Engineer. The formation or annexation to a CFD shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. CFD shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

3.17.1. Landscaping and irrigation as applicable;

3.17.2. All landscaping, irrigation and maintenance systems shall comply with the “Guide to California Friendly Landscaping” and Riverside County Ordinance No. 859.

3.17.3. Graffiti abatement;

3.17.4. Streetlights;

3.17.5. Water quality management features and facilities (BMPs) including the water quality basins.

3.18. Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for City Public Safety Services. The agreement to form or annex to a CFD for Public Safety Services shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Participation in a CFD is intended to fully mitigate the incremental impact of new development on City public safety costs and maintain such levels service at the standards established in the City’s General Plan.

4. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)

4.1. Rough grading must be completed as shown on the approved grading plans.

4.2. The Geotechnical Engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the approved grading plans and the recommendations of the geotechnical report approved for this project. A licensed land surveyor shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved rough grading plans.

4.3. The Applicant shall prepare a precise grading plan for each of the parcels. The precise grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer and securities in place.

4.4. The Applicant is responsible for completing construction of all construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) facilities and features.

These facilities and features shall be operated and maintained by the property owner(s) in perpetuity.

4.5. The Emergency Access Road shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and accepted by UPRR and the Fire Department.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

4.5.1. The access gates shall be installed and maintained in closed and locked condition at both ends.

4.6. Acceptance of the drainage system for operation and maintenance by RCFC & WCD must be completed.

5. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION (ENGINEERING)

5.1. Grading and construction of all infrastructure improvements within the public and private right-of-way in accordance with approved plans, with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.70, and with all other applicable requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5.2. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved precise grading plans.

5.3. The Project geotechnical/soils engineer shall provide a Final Grading Certification and Building Pad Certification, certifying to the completion of the grading in conformance with the approved grading plans, the recommendation of the Geotechnical/Soils report approved for this project and the California Building Code.

5.4. The Project Civil Engineer shall provide Record ("As-built") Drawings of grading and all infrastructure improvements

5.5. Prior to completion and acceptance of improvements or prior to the final building inspection, whichever occurs first, assurance of maintenance is required by completing annexation into Jurupa Valley L&LMD 89-1C for all applicable improvements specified in these conditions of approval.

5.6. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall complete the annexation into the City’s CFD for public safety.

5.7. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within the public right of way, required from this project, are energized.

5.8. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Title 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (Development Impact Fees, DIF), as adopted by the City, which requires the payment of the appropriate fee set forth in the Ordinance.

5.9. The Applicant shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of the final inspection as applicable.

5.10. The Applicant shall pay to the City of Jurupa Valley all fair share contributions for certain improvements as specified in the approved Traffic Impact Analysis.

Fair share percentages and fee shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

5.11. All utility extensions within the subdivision shall be placed underground.

MA17132 RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK REVISED: 11/27/2023
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-XX

The Applicant hereby agrees that these Conditions of Approval are valid and lawful and binding on the Applicant, and its successors and assigns, and agrees to the Conditions of Approval.

Applicant’s name (Print Form): __________________________________________ Applicant’s name (Signature): ___________________________________________ Date: ________________
The applicant shall furnish and install a new McCain 2070 traffic signal controller with 2033 software (or equivalent) at the signalized intersection of Market Street and Rivera Street. The applicant shall hire a contractor to install the traffic signal equipment to its intended operating conditions. The contractor shall complete the construction work with an approved Public Works Permit. The installation of the traffic signal equipment shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.

5.12. ATTACHMENT 6
FINAL EIR MA 17132
Link
Document Center • Jurupa Valley, CA • CivicEngage
ATTACHMENT 7
Combined Plan Set
MA17132

ATTACHMENT 8
Riverside Projected Wages
MA 17132
# NAICS Industry_Title Businesses Employment Average
Annual
1 11 Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing & Hunting 480 11,262 38,679 2 111 Crop Production 242 4,889 42,661
3 112 Animal Production and Aquaculture 72 608 45,337
4 115 Agriculture & Forestry Support Activity 163 5,725 34,459 5 21 Mining 26 470 91,516
6 212 Mining (except Oil and Gas) 19 411 95,603
7 213 Support Activities for Mining 7 60 61,990
12 31-33 Manufacturing 1,782 44,891 63,699
13 311 Food Manufacturing 138 3,771 65,146
14 3111 Animal Food Manufacturing 12 166 61,399
17 3114 Fruit, Vegetable, & Specialty Foods Mfg 16 1,046 92,935 19 3116 Animal Slaughtering and Processing 6 537 56,947 21 3118 Bakeries and Tortilla Manufacturing 70 1,398 48,629 22 3119 Other Food Manufacturing 23 438 58,621
23 312 Beverage & Tobacco Product Manufacturing 87 2,430 47,665 24 3121 Beverage Manufacturing 87 2,430 47,665
28 314 Textile Product Mills 25 493 48,187
31 315 Apparel Manufacturing 20 139 38,915
34 316 Leather and Allied Product Manufacturing 5 35 37,366 37 3169 Other Leather Product Manufacturing 3 33 37,845 38 321 Wood Product Manufacturing 75 2,905 58,064
41 3219 Other Wood Product Manufacturing 64 2,184 52,926 42 322 Paper Manufacturing 20 763 62,759
45 323 Printing and Related Support Activities 128 868 49,499 46 3231 Printing and Related Support Activities 128 868 49,499 49 325 Chemical Manufacturing 105 2,523 56,370
50 3251 Basic Chemical Manufacturing 7 45 65,196
52 3253 Agricultural Chemical Manufacturing 10 163 89,370 53 3254 Pharmaceutical & Medicine Manufacturing 20 1,091 39,712 54 3255 Paint, Coating, & Adhesive Manufacturing 16 201 71,821 55 3256 Cleaning Compound and Toiletry Mfg 30 639 62,379 56 3259 Other Chemical Preparation Manufacturing 13 231 60,120 60 327 Nonmetallic Mineral Product Mfg 88 2,924 66,138
61 3271 Clay Product & Refractory Manufacturing 10 300 59,316 62 3272 Glass and Glass Product Manufacturing 9 405 63,315 71 332 Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing 339 6,905 67,723 72 3321 Forging and Stamping 16 445 76,498
73 3322 Cutlery and Handtool Manufacturing 7 57 51,921
74 3323 Architectural and Structural Metals 103 2,977 64,632 76 3325 Hardware Manufacturing 4 90 71,617
78 3327 Machine Shops and Threaded Products 127 1,397 64,147 82 3331 Ag., Construction, and Mining Machinery 11 120 62,579 83 3332 Industrial Machinery Manufacturing 23 183 62,794 Riverside Wages Report for Rubidoux Commerce Park
# NAICS Industry_Title Businesses Employment Average
Annual
84 3333 Commercial & Service Industry Machinery 22 706 81,359 85 3334 HVAC and Commercial Refrigeration Equip 11 328 56,680 87 3336 Turbine and Power Transmission Equipment 3 346 63,362 89 334 Computer and Electronic Product Mfg 77 1,779 85,667 90 3341 Computers and Peripheral Equipment 5 27 101,975 91 3342 Communications Equipment Manufacturing 16 136 104,411 93 3344 Semiconductor and Electronic Components 22 832 79,245 94 3345 Electronic Instrument Manufacturing 27 768 88,692 96 335 Electrical Equipment and Appliances 42 833 69,968 99 3353 Electrical Equipment Manufacturing 14 247 72,886 100 3359 Other Electrical Equipment & Components 20 484 71,639 101 336 Transportation Equipment Manufacturing 117 3,835 56,567 103 3362 Motor Vehicle Body and Trailer Mfg 27 1,284 52,926 104 3363 Motor Vehicle Parts Manufacturing 44 1,537 58,230 107 3369 Other Transportation Equipment Mfg 14 167 56,173 108 337 Furniture and Related Product Mfg 93 1,483 61,384 109 3371 Household and Institutional Furniture 60 623 58,555 110 3372 Office Furniture and Fixtures Mfg 24 584 64,448 111 3379 Other Furniture Related Product Mfg 9 276 61,283 112 339 Miscellaneous Manufacturing 158 4,448 72,677
113 3391 Medical Equipment and Supplies Mfg 56 1,864 98,906 213 56 Administrative and Waste Services 2,920 52,481 42,246 223 562 Waste Management and Remediation Service 126 2,212 73,087 224 5621 Waste Collection 56 953 72,962
225 5622 Waste Treatment and Disposal 17 633 87,990
226 5629 Remediation and Other Waste Services 53 626 58,208 276 81 Other Services, Ex. Public Admin 3,859 21,985 43,985 277 811 Repair and Maintenance 1,473 8,754 52,361
278 8111 Automotive Repair and Maintenance 1,154 7,027 49,152 287 813 Membership Organizations & Associations 544 3,929 47,075 288 8131 Religious Organizations 163 820 26,691
ATTACHMENT 9

APPEAL OF PLANNING

COMMISSION DENAIL
OF MA 17132

Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.C
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.
22153 (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504,
DA22001) TO ESTABLISH THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN
TO ALLOW UP TO 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (SINGLEFAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, TOWNHOMES, AND OTHER HOUSING

TYPES), RECREATION AREAS, A NETWORK OF TRAILS AND

PARKS, INTERNAL STREET NETWORK, OPEN SPACE,
LANDSCAPING, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON 153-ACRES;
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 266A5 TO REMOVE PLANNING
AREAS 10, 13, 15, AND 20 FROM THE I-15 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN; CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 22002 TO APPLY THE VERNOLA
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
22001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38504 TO SUBDIVIDE
198.87 GROSS ACRES TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT, AND

CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING

FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGRAM; LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO THE

EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH, LIMONITE TO THE
SOUTH; (APPLICANT: MCCUNE & ASSOCIATES, INC.)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and:

1. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-106, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT,

MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

REPORTING PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VERNOLA RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,

RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL AND PARK NETWORKS, OPEN SPACE,

LANDSCAPING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING AN

OVERLAY FOR A POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE ON AN APPROXIMATELY 153-ACRE SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE

WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE

NORTH (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)

2. Conduct the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-04, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 22002 TO CHANGE THE ZONE FROM ONE-(1) FAMILY DWELLINGS MEDIUM
MANUFACTURING (R-1) AND INDUSTRIAL PARK (I-P) TO SPECIFIC

PLAN (SP) ZONE TO PERMIT THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN

WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY
1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL

AND PARK NETWORKS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND STREET

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING AN OVERLAY FOR A POTENTIAL
SCHOOL SITE, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 153-ACRE SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO

THE EAST, AND BELLEGAVE TO THE NORTH (VERNOLA RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)

3. Conduct the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-05, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22001 (DA
22001) BETWEEN THE CITY AND MCCUNE & ASSOCIATES TO

IMPLEMENT THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH
PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,576

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL AND

PARK NETWORKS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND STREET

IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING AN OVERLAY FOR A POTENTIAL
SCHOOL SITE, ON AN APPROXIMATELY 153-ACRE SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO

THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH (VERNOLA RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)

4. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-107, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY ADOPTING SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 22001, SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 266A5, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38504 TO Page | 3

IMPLEMENT THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH
PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF APPROXIMATELY 1,576

RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS, RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL AND

PARK NETWORKS, OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND STREET

IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING AN OVERLAY FOR A POTENTIAL
SCHOOL SITE ON AN APPROXIMATELY 153-ACRE SITE GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO

THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH (VERNOLA RANCH

SPECIFIC PLAN)

LOCATION
The Project site consists of mainly agricultural land in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue. The 200.7-acre Project site (hereafter, “Project site”) includes the following:
 153-acre for the proposed Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (hereafter “Specific Plan Area”);
 36 acres of commercially designated land south of the proposed Specific Plan Area (Lots 28 & 29 of the proposed TTM and is not part of the proposed Specific Plan); and
 Approximately 11.7 acres of off-site street improvements on Limonite Avenue, Pats Ranch Road and Bellegrave Avenue.

The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the Project site are 160-050-005, 160-050- 012, 160-050-023, 160-050-063, 160-050-070, 160-050-067, 160-050-068, 160-050-072, 160-050-073, and 160-050-074.

Figure Nos.1 and 2 demonstrates the regional and vicinity map of the project site.

Figure 1: Regional Map
Page | 4
Figure 2: Vicinity Map

PROPOSED SPECIFIC PLAN
The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan proposes twenty (20) Planning Areas to facilitate residential development. This specific plan aims to create a diverse residential community and provides standards and design guidelines that will shape the residential components.

The proposed Specific Plan includes several major land use components, including offsite street improvements on Limonite Avenue, Pats Ranch Road, and Bellegrave Avenue.

It also incorporates up to1,576 residential dwelling units, recreational areas, an internal street network, open spaces, and landscaping. The specific plan also designates a potential school site at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area.

The proposed specific plan notably seeks to redesignate Planning Area 20 within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan. At present, this designated area permits 20.1 acres of industrial use under the existing zoning regulations. The specific plan allows for the development of light industrial and office uses within this area. The proposed specific plan redesignates this area for residential and open space uses which shifts the character of the specific plan. The specific plan also takes 132.7 acres of land zoned for single family detached homes and provides development options to provide diverse housing types.

The plan accommodates a wide range of residential preferences, including single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, townhomes, and other housing types. This diversity in housing options aims to cater to the varied needs of prospective residents at 4 to 25 dwelling units per acre, which allows for the creation of low-density neighborhoods and Page | 5
high-density development. This flexibility aligns with the project's overarching goal of urban planning that harmonizes with the unique character and requirements of the area.

REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
The applicant requests six (6) approvals from the City of Jurupa Valley. These approvals include the following:
 General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22003: Amends the General Plan Land Use designation from Medium Density Residential and Business Park to residential and open space land use designations (MHDR – Medium High Density Residential: HDR – High Density Residential; VHDR – Very High Density Residential; HHDR – Highest Density Residential; OS-R – Open Space Recreation; and OS-W – Open Space Water).
 Change of Zone (CZ) No. 22002: Rezone from One- (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) and Industrial Park (I-P) zones to Specific Plan (SP) zone.  Amendment No. 5 to Specific Plan No. 266: Removes Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, & 20 (approximate 153-acre Specific Plan Area) from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan.
 Specific Plan (SP) No. 22001: Proposes a new Specific Plan, Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, on 153-acre area. The Specific Plan is a regulatory document that includes vision for the area, limits for development, plans for the development of adequate infrastructure, permitted uses, development standards, and design guidelines.
 Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504: Subdivides 198.87-acre Project site and creates 30 lots to accommodate future development, street vacations and backbone improvements for the project site.
 Development Agreement (DA) No. 22001: An agreement between the Project Applicant and the City of Jurupa Valley to provide a long-term vested right to develop the Specific Plan Area and to provide community benefits to the City.

This project is part of the fourth General Plan Amendment batch of 2023. The General Plan Amendment projects will be presented to the City Council individually. There is allotted time for discussion and public participation for each individual project. The City Council will take an action/vote at the conclusion of each individual project. The final decision on the General Plan Amendments will be contained in one resolution.

BACKGROUND OF PROJECT SITE
Existing Specific Plan
In 1993, the County of Riverside adopted the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. See Figure 3. This plan outlined a comprehensive land use strategy for the project site and its surroundings. Since its adoption, the Specific Plan has had numerous amendments and substantial conformance applications, resulting in modifications to its provisions and boundaries.

Incorporating the Cities of Eastvale and Jurupa Valley also introduced a bifurcation of approval authority and jurisdiction within the I-15 corridor. This division prompted the Page | 6
development and alteration of several planning areas, some of which changed land use, while others were excluded from the plan altogether. The proposed Vernola Ranch Specific Plan site includes the remaining undeveloped area within the Jurupa Valley segment of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. See Figure 3.

Figure 3: SP266 Land Use Plan and Project Boundary
Since the City's incorporation, significant development has occurred in Jurupa Valley's Planning Areas, making the Specific Plan obsolete. Key projects like Vernola Marketplace, Harvest Villages, Vernola Park, and the Township community have been Page | 7
developed on the site. Figure No. 4 demonstrates the areas that have been developed in Jurupa Valley.

Figure 4: Land Use Plan and Developed Areas
Background of Entitlement Process
In June 2021, the applicant initiated the process with a pre-application for the proposed project. The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan has been reviewed during previous City Council Page | 8
meetings. These meetings included a comprehensive review during a Study Session and a meeting about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) agreement. The following section provides an overview of these two important proceedings.

City Council Study Session
On October 7, 2021, the draft Specific Plan was presented to the City Council as a Study Session item. The staff presentation described the proposed Specific Plan, including various components of the land use plan, open space, circulation plan, development standards, permitted uses, landscaping, and the status of the Environmental Impact Report. The applicant also provided a brief presentation, including the history of the site and their vision for the project.

A summary of the City Council feedback is outlined in Table No. 1 below.

Table 1 - Summary of Responses to CC Study Session
Summary of Responses to CC Study Session
City Council Feedback Response
Air Filtration: Inquired about air filtration systems. Air filtration filters are integrated into project and are noted in the
project technical studies.

Rezoning and Housing Element: A council
member highlighted that part of the proposed
project area had already been earmarked for
rezoning to meet housing element requirements.

The proposed project would help
satisfy various State housing
requirements.

Paseo Design: A council member expressed
appreciation for the design of the paseo and asked
about its usability beyond serving as a buffer.

Paseo is designed for pedestrian
use, including picnic areas and
other amenities.

Traffic Calming and Road Design: A council
member discussed concerns about traffic speed on
Pats Ranch Road and suggested measures to
prevent racing. It was requested to integrate traffic
calming measures, including the use of complete
streets designs.

Traffic calming measures have
been included on internal and
external circulation streets.

Commercial Development: Inquired about details
regarding proposed commercial development. The
discussion indicated that while there isn't a
concrete proposal yet, the inclusion of the
commercial area within a new specific plan would
allow for development of regulations and
standards.

The commercial property located
south of the site is not a part of
the proposed Specific Plan. It is
included as part of the tentative
tract map. The Development
Agreement includes provisions
regulating the future inclusion of
commercial property within the
new Specific Plan.

Page | 9
Approval of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Agreement July 7, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an Agreement with T&B Planning to complete an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed specific plan to be funded entirely by an advance deposit made by the applicant.

Planning Commission Public Hearing
On November 29, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed project. During the public hearing, a few residents stated their support for the project and several residents stated their opposition for the project.

During deliberation, the Planning Commission discussed the following various aspects of the project:
 Preference for housing over industrial development that is currently allowed in the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
 City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
 Support for diverse housing types
 Community benefits of the project, including parks and recreational amenities  Concern regarding use of site by wild geese
 Residential parking
 Need for new housing opportunities
 Dedication of area for future school
 Traffic and Air Quality impacts
 Changing the existing agriculture character of the project site to a higher density residential neighborhood
After the discussion, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC-2023-23, on a 4-1 vote, recommending that the City Council approve the proposed project (1) certify an Environmental Impact Report and adopt findings, a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and (2) approve Master Application (MA) No. 22153 (GPA22003, SP22001, SP266A5, CZ22002, DA22001, TTM38504).

Excerpt from the November 29, 2023, Planning Commission minutes is provided as Attachment No. 8.

ANALYSIS
Specific Plan
The proposed Specific Plan document is divided into seven sections as outlined below:

Section 1 – Introduction
Section 1 outlines the organization of the Specific Plan, emphasizing the goal of transforming the project site into a residential community. It notes how the proposal aligns with the City of Jurupa Valley's General Plan as it focuses on creating a diverse, Page | 10
community-oriented neighborhood with a neo-traditional design for walkability. The vision centers on recreation and environmental aspects, featuring a central hub and eco-friendly considerations. Key objectives include diverse housing, quality of life, recreational spaces, mobility choices, land use diversity, and alignment with the city's long-term goals.

Section 2 – Regulatory Framework
Section 2 establishes the development rules, emphasizing that Specific Plans aim to effectively implement General Plan goals, following California Government Code Sections 65450-65457. The legal framework, found in California Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Sections 65450-65457, details the essential elements like land use, transportation, infrastructure, and implementation. It also notes that while the VRSP guides development within its boundary, it may refer the City of Jurupa Valley Code when needed.

This section also notes the applicability of citywide affordable housing requirements (City Ordinance No. 2022-14) and outlines the environmental assessment process per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact report (EIR) evaluates the effects, aligning with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. The section also highlights necessary approvals for VRSP implementation, including Specific Plan Amendments, Substantial Conformance determinations, Tentative Tract Maps, Site Development Permits, and CEQA certification.

Section 3 – Community Plan
Land Use Plan
The land use plan designates approximately 153 acres for residential development use, featuring diverse housing options. The plan further divides the area into 20 Planning Areas, each assigned specific density and land use designations. Additionally, about 9 acres are designated for a potential school site at the southeast corner of Bellegrave Ave. and Pats Ranch Rd.

The proposal provides a range of residential product types, including single-family lots of 3,000 to 5,000 square feet, condominiums, and multi-family units, which can be for sale or rent. The land use plan categorizes planning areas into four residential land use designations based on density:
 Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR): maximum 8 units per acre (PA 9 to 14).  High Density Residential (HDR): maximum 14 units per acre (PA 5 to 8, 15, and 16).
 Very High Density Residential (VHDR): maximum 20 units per acre (PA 1 to 4).  Highest Density Residential (HHDR): maximum of 25 units per acre (PAArea 17).

Approximately 10.23 acres are designated as open space recreation for community focal points and gatherings. Additionally, there are basins in Planning Areas 20A to F that can be used for passive recreational activities. Approximately 9.47 acres in Planning Area 20 serve as common open space areas, trails, and water management practices. About 9 acres are earmarked for potential public facility development, including a school if necessary, with a portion of this area located in Planning Areas 15, 16, and 20F. The land Page | 11
use plan is divided into 20 Planning Areas to guide land use. It considers site opportunities and constraints to offer residents and the surrounding community appropriate amenities.

Figure 5 demonstrates the proposed Planning Areas and land use designations.

Figure 5: Planning Areas and Land Use
School Overlay Area
The Specific Plan includes a 9-acre School Overlay area that allows of development for a school. See Figure 6 for the School Overlay Area. The I-15 Corridor Specific Plan designates an area for the school, so this proposed Specific Plan would also accommodate a school.

This area encompasses a portion of Planning Areas 15, 16, and 20F in the southwest corner of Bellegrave Avenue and Pats Ranch Road. Per the proposed Specific Plan, Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) must decide if they would acquire the site for school before the issuance of the 100th Certificate of Occupancy of the proposed Specific Plan.

If JUSD decides to acquire the site to construct a school, the school overlay area can redistribute up to 100 dwelling units. Density transfers between different planning areas Page | 12
can be considered subject to staff-level approval through a substantial conformance application.

If JUSD declines to acquire the site, the Specific Plan will permit additional residential units in accordance with high-density residential land use designation (not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre, up to 100 units).

Figure 6: School Overlay Area
Mobility Plan
The Mobility Plan encompasses a circulation system that includes roads, bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways/trails.

It acknowledges that I-15 Freeway, a ten-lane regional freeway featuring two express lanes in both directions that runs adjacent to Jurupa Valley and Eastvale, borders the site to the west. On the eastern boundary, Pats Ranch Road, dedicated to an ultimate 118' right-of-way, serves as a two-lane neighborhood collector road, providing north-to-south travel and offering direct access to the project site.

There are plans to improve Pats Ranch Road, including converting certain intersections to roundabouts. Limonite Avenue, a four- to six-lane major thoroughfare south of the project site, provides a key connection to the I-15 freeway, primarily catering to traffic needs. Meanwhile, Bellegrave Avenue is an east-west connection to the north, extending Page | 13
from Sumner Avenue to Kenneth Street. The VRSP Mobility Plan entails several improvements which include the following:
 Pats Ranch Road Improvements
 Bellegrave Avenue Improvements
 Interior Roads
 Roundabout Layouts
Improvements
The proposed improvements to Pats Ranch Road include widening the road to a 118' right-of-way while also converting the existing Class II bike lanes into a more secure twoway Class I bike path integrated into the parkway. The project also includes the installation of roundabouts at strategic intersections designed to optimize traffic flow and safety. The segment of Pats Ranch Road from Limonite Avenue to Boca Place would be improved into a four-lane roadway. Figure 7 demonstrates a design diagram of Pats Ranch Road South of Boca Place.

Figure 7: Pats Rach Road South of Boca Place
Page | 14
Pats Ranch Road stretch from Boca Place to Bellegrave Avenue will be improved to a two-lane road, with amenities placed on the west side. These amenities include a dedicated bike path and a trail, providing opportunities for recreational activities while ensuring that the road continues to serve the community's transportation needs as a twolane road. A notable feature of the street is the raised median that separates the street and provides a traffic calming feature for the street. Figure 8 demonstrates a design diagram of Pats Ranch North of Boca Place.

The median plays a crucial role in the design of this segment. The ultimate design, featuring a clear width of less than 24 feet for each direction along the proposed traffic calming design, necessitates a comprehensive review and approval process involving the City Engineer and Riverside County Fire Department. Language has been integrated into the specific plan to facilitate the review of the street design and the requirement to include raised median.

Figure 8: Pats Ranch Road North of Boca Place
Page | 15
The southern segment of Bellegrave Avenue would widen to fifty-nine (59) feet right-ofway. This extension will include integrating features such as an 8-foot-wide Class II bike lane and sidewalks designed to enhance both pedestrian and cyclist accessibility and safety. This segment includes a raised median and landscaping along the east and west areas of the street.

Figure 9: Bellegrave Avenue Improvements
Roundabouts are a component of the community plan and contribute to the interconnecting sidewalks, walking trails, and bike facilities. Roundabouts are also a key feature that assists with traffic calming throughout the project site. The Roundabout at the intersection of Pats Ranch Road and Park Center Drive conceptual depictions demonstrate essential elements of roundabout design. The City Engineer will approve the final design of these roundabouts. Figure 10 demonstrates a conceptual roundabout design and the locations of roundtables in the project.

Figure 10: Roundabout Concept at Pats Ranch and Park Center Drive Page | 16
Direct access will primarily occur via Pats Ranch Road. The project encompasses four primary access points along Pats Ranch Road, located at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, Boca Place, and one driveway immediately south of Boca Place, which provides access to Planning Area 17. Internal roadways would provide access from these main access points.

Park Center Drive is designated as the project's primary access point, designed with greenbelt areas on both sides functioning as bio-detention basins and open play spaces for the community. The right-of-way for Park Center Drive measures 70 feet wide and features two 20-foot-wide travel lanes.

An access point designed specifically for multi-family use will be provided south of Boca Place in Planning Area 17. This entrance incorporates various design elements, including an entry monument, a 6-foot-wide decomposed granite trail, a 12-foot-wide bike trail, enhanced pavement, 45-degree parking spaces, and an entry gate. These features are intended to cater to the specific needs and preferences of the multi-family community within the VRSP area. Figure 11 demonstrates Park Center Drive and the Multi-Family Entry.

Figure 11: Park Center Drive Entry and Multi-Family Entry Page | 17
Traffic Calming
The project identifies various traffic calming features. These features include seven roundabouts at key intersections, raised medians and pedestrian refuge islands, enhanced or raised crosswalks, narrow travel lanes, surface treatments, and a traffic signal. There is a new traffic signal proposed at Bellegrave Avenue and Pats Ranch Road.

As part of the project, three roundabouts are proposed for installation along Pats Ranch Road at three strategic access points, at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place. Additionally, the project envisions the conceptual integration of four internal roundabouts at significant intersections within the project area.

Roundabouts encourage drivers to slow down, improving safety for pedestrians and cyclists. However, the actual inclusion of roundabouts within the project will depend on design considerations and will be subject to review by the City. Figure 12 demonstrates the locations of roundabouts and traffic signals.

Figure 12: Traffic Circulation
Interior Roadway Sections
A variety of interior public roads are included within the project. Common design features for the interior roads include a 60-foot right-of-way width with 5-foot sidewalks between a 5’-6” landscaped parkway and 1’ to 1.5’ landscaped parkway. Parkways would include rows of trees and lighting.

Streets "A" and "G" would include a 5-foot decomposed granite trail with fencing on the north side. Access points are 5 feet wide and are designed to suit different housing types.

Page | 18
Both sides of these roads feature a 5'-6" landscaped parkway with trees, and the south side would include a 5-foot sidewalk featuring ground cover and lighting.

Street "C," west of Street "E," including Street "E" and "H," include a 5-foot decomposed granite trail on the east side with fencing. Trails include 5-foot-wide access points tailored to housing types. Both sides will have a 5'-6" landscaped parkway, while the western side would include a 5-foot sidewalk. Trees would be planted on both sides, and ground cover and lighting would be provided.

The interior road of Street B will consist of a 60-foot wide right-of-way. On the easterly side, a 5-foot decomposed granite trail with a trail fence for safety would be constructed.

Access points, each 5 feet wide, would be strategically located to match different housing types. Both sides will feature a 5'-6" landscaped parkway with trees, ground cover, and integrated lighting. Figure 13 demonstrates the interior road designs for the project.

Figure 13: Interior Road Design Diagrams
Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan
This plan incorporates several key features, such as a dedicated two-way Class I bike path along the west side of Pats Ranch Road. Additionally, an extensive system of pedestrian-friendly sidewalks and walking trails strategically links residential neighborhoods to various points of interest, including open spaces, schools, the Skyview Event Center, Vernola Family Park, and future commercial retail areas.

Page | 19
A meandering decomposed granite trail along Pats Ranch Road, accompanied by the Community Path network, provides additional pedestrian and cycling options. An 8-footwide community trail along the western boundary adjacent to Interstate 15 connects multiple community amenities, while a network of 5-foot-wide community paths enhances east-west connectivity to parks, basins, and open spaces. The specific plan also includes 9 pocket parks that provide amenities to the public. Figure 14 demonstrates community paths and cycling circulation features.

Figure 14: Community Parks and Paths
Park Areas and Amenities
The project would require the incorporation of a Homeowners Association (HOA) to maintain park areas, signage, lighting, water quality features, and private streets.

Planning Areas 18 and 19 are designated as Open-Space Recreation, intended to offer active recreational amenities. These parks are designed to be inclusive, providing accessible facilities and amenities.

PA 18, approximately 3 acres, is envisioned to be developed with The Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus. It would include a minimum of seven specified amenities: a multi-purpose room, indoor kitchen facilities, a media room/entertainment center, coworking lounge, fitness center, pool and spa, splash pad, lounge areas, cabanas, shade structures, community garden, BBQ and picnic areas, and trails. Figure 15 demonstrates the conceptual Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus layout.

Page | 20
Figure 15: Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus Layout The proposal also includes Vernola Ranch Neighborhood Park, which spans approximately 7.5 acres and is located in Planning Area 19 along Interstate 15. This linear park serves various purposes, offering numerous recreational facilities such as bocce ball courts, exercise nodes, play equipment, dog parks, BBQ areas, picnic spots, shade structures, and open play areas to cater to diverse community recreational needs. A central community trail traverses the park, connecting it to greenbelts and other Vernola Ranch recreational amenities. The specific plan also provides areas for parking parks.

The linear park also includes a buffer and protective barrier between the I-15 and homes.

The buffer is a combination of a 5-foot landscape berm along I-15, rows of trees, and a minimum 10-foot freeway split-face wall. These design elements are positioned at the park's edge to minimize the visual and auditory impacts of the freeway and would help filter air particulates. The park's amenity layout includes a generous 100-foot setback from the freeway to mitigate potential disruptions. Figure 16 provides an overview of the neighborhood park's design.

Noise Buffering
To comply with the City of Jurupa Valley's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level standard for residential land uses, the open space areas will feature the installation of a freeway noise wall and landscaping berm, each with a minimum height of 9 feet, to create a buffer between the lots in PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4. The recommended noise control wall must be constructed so that its top, when combined with the berm, reaches the planned height above the pad elevation of the lot it is shielding.

Page | 21
The wall must meet specific criteria, including a weight of at least 4 pounds per square foot of face area, without any decorative cutouts openings between the residential areas and the adjacent roadways.

Figure 16: Overall Neighborhood Park Plan
Park Facility Access
Although the parks within the Vernola Specific Plan are funded, maintained, and operated by the Home Owners Association, these parks are accessible to the public. An exception to this accessibility is the recreation center campus situated in Planning Area 18.

Public Facilities
The conceptual infrastructure plan outlines various domestic, non-potable, sewer, and storm drain services. The site is located in the Santa Ana River Watershed. Domestic water would be sourced from wells in the Chino Groundwater Basin, non-potable water from an 8-inch line on Pats Ranch Road, and Jurupa Community Service District (JCSD) would manage sanitary sewer service through an existing sewer line in the same road.

The plan aligns with the Riverside County Flood Control District Day Creek Area Drainage Plan for flood control, and it includes the construction of storm drain facilities like Bellegrave Basin, Line C, Line E, and Line J Storm Drain, which would connect to manage runoff effectively at a peak flow rate of 255 cfs. Additionally, the plan incorporates various lateral connections, detention, and water quality basins to meet water quality standards and offer 100-year flood protection without changing existing drainage patterns. Figure 17 in the plan provides details about existing public facilities.

Conceptual Grading Plan
Page | 22
The project's grading plan encompasses multiple phases, extending to the adjacent commercial property south of the site, and involves mass grading, rough grading, and precise grading, resulting in the movement of approximately 1,013,200 cubic yards of material. While the proposed Grading Plan is conceptual, if the project is approved, phase-specific grading plans would be submitted for review. The site's topography slopes from north to south at a 1% grade, and the conceptual grading design meticulously adheres to various criteria, such as adhering to the natural terrain, meeting City of Jurupa Valley's Street slope standards, complying with California Building Code requirements, integrating with established drainage areas, and ensuring proper runoff flow into detention and water quality basins.

Figure 17: Existing Public Facilities
Conceptual Phasing Plan
A conceptual phasing plan is included for the project. The plan anticipates four phases, as shown in Exhibit 17. The phasing plan allows for the simultaneous development of multiple phases and can further subdivide phases if market demand requires it. The development of the Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus in Planning Area 18 must Page | 23
be completed before the issuance of the 600th certificate of occupancy for Planning Area 1 through Planning Area 16.

Figure 18: VRSP Phasing Plan
The following provides details regarding the phases:
 Phase 1 (Expected Completion: 2027):
o Apartments in Planning Area 17
o 604 apartments and condominiums and 583 single-family units Page | 24
o Frontage improvements along Pats Ranch Road
o Roundabouts at Park Center Drive and Boca Place
o Streets A, F, H, B, and E
 Phase 2 and 3 (Expected Completion: 2029):
o 389 single-family homes
o Frontage improvements along Pats Ranch Road (between Park Center Drive and Shearwater Drive)
o Roundabout at Shearwater Drive
o Streets G, B E, and C (between Street B and Street E)  Phase 4 (Expected Completion: 2031):
o Construction of an elementary school (700 student capacity) or the residential units in Planning Area 15 and 16
o Roadway connection between Bellegrave Avenue and Shearwater Drive o Traffic signal and intersection improvements at the intersection with Bellegrave Avenue and Pats Ranch Road.
o Street D and the remainder of Street C
o Completion of all proposed project features, including active transportation improvements
Section 4 – Permitted Uses and Development Standards
Section 4 outlines development standards for residential development clearly and objectively. It encompasses specific guidelines for three different residential density categories: Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR), High-Density Residential (HDR), and Very High Density Residential (VHDR).

For the MHDR, a tentative tract map is provided, whereas the HDR and VHDR sections are designated for condominium maps. Parking requirements align with the City's Municipal Code. The following is a summary of the development standards proposed for the specific plan:

Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR):
 Minimum net lot size: 3,500 to 4,000 sq. ft.
 Minimum lot width: 40 ft.
 Minimum lot average depth: 75 to 95 ft.
 Front yard setbacks:
 15 ft from living areas
 10 ft from porches or stoops
 10 ft from side entry garages
Page | 25
 15 ft from front entry garages.
 Maximum lot coverage:
 60% for two-story structures
 70% for single-story structures.
 Maximum height: 35 ft.
 Uses a tentative tract map.

High-Density Residential (HDR):
 Minimum lot size:
 Detached homes: 2,250 sq ft
 Attached, Duplex, and Triplex homes have no minimum lot size  Minimum lot width: 25 ft.
 Minimum lot depth: 50 ft.
 Front yard setbacks:
 5 ft from the sidewalk for all housing types
 3 ft from the garage door in the court.
 Maximum building height: 37 ft.
 Minimum private open space: 100 sq ft with 8 ft minimum dimension.  High Density Residential may use condominium maps to subdivide lots.

Very High Density Residential (VHDR):
 Minimum net lot size:
 Detached homes: 2,250 sq. ft.
 No minimum size for attached homes.
 Minimum lot width: 25 ft.
 Minimum lot depth: 50 ft.
 Front yard setbacks:
 5 ft. from the sidewalk, porches, or stoops
 3 ft. from the garage door in the court.
 Rear yard setbacks:
 5 ft. from living areas for detached homes
 None for attached homes.
 Maximum building height: 37 ft.
 Minimum private open space per attached or detached unit: 100 sq. ft. with 8 ft. minimum dimension.

Page | 26
 The Very High-Density Residential designation may use condominium maps to subdivide property.

Attached Residential Buildings
Attached residential buildings are permitted in four planning areas (PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4) designated for Very High Density Residential (VHDR) land use. The following includes key details for each planning area:

Planning
Area
Dwelling
Units Acres
Max
Density Target Density
PA-1 52 3.37 20 15.43
PA-2 116 6.94 20 16.71
PA-3 68 4.89 20 13.91
PA-4 94 7.28 20 12.91
TOTAL 330 22.48
The plan also incorporates pedestrian access and community trails to promote alternative transportation modes. These pathways include an 8-foot-wide Community Trail in PA-19, connecting to sidewalks and trails. Open spaces such as pocket parks, dog parks, and paseos are designated for PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4. Neighborhood entry monuments are required at key access points.

Figure 19: Attached Residential Buildings
Page | 27
Detached Cluster Homes
Detached cluster homes are included in Planning Areas PA-5, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8, PA-15, and PA-16. The following includes key details for each planning area:

Planning
Area
Dwelling
Units Acres
Max
Density Target Density
PA-5 47 5.18 14 9.07
PA-6 39 4.12 14 9.47
PA-7 24 2.64 14 9.09
PA-8 81 8.8 14 9.2
PA-15 49 6.03 14 8.13
PA-16 51 5.25 14 9.71
TOTAL 291 32.02
Interior roads developed according to specific design guidelines would provide primary access to courts, motor courts, and roads within these Planning Areas. A pocket/dog park is designated for PA-5 and neighborhood entry monuments at key access points.

Figure 20: Detached Cluster Homes
Single Family Detached Homes
Single-family detached homes are included in Planning Areas PA-9, PA-10, PA-11, PA12, PA-13, and PA-14. These areas offer flexibility in residential building types, including the option for single-story plans. The following includes a summary of key details for each Planning Area:

Page | 28
Planning
Area
Dwelling
Units Acres
Max
Density Target Density
PA-9 26 4.46 8 5.83
PA-10 42 8.01 8 5.24
PA-11 55 7.09 8 7.76
PA-12 77 13.1 8 5.88
PA-13 61 10.17 8 6
PA-14 90 12.1 8 7.44
TOTAL 351 54.93
Primary access for these Planning Areas is provided by interior roads, with specific design guidelines. Streets within Planning Areas would facilitate internal circulation and access for single-family detached homes. Pedestrian access and pathways are encouraged to reduce reliance on automobiles. Pocket parking may be provided on PA-11, PA-13, and PA-14. Neighborhood entry monuments are required at key access points.

Figure 21: Single-Family Detached Homes
Planning Area 17- Multi-Family Housing
Planning Area 17 is situated in the southern portion of the specific plan. It allows for multifamily housing options, including stacked flats, townhomes, and housing suitable for lease, sale, or senior citizens. Including gated communities is permitted, subject to thorough traffic flow assessments during the site development phase.

Page | 29
Figure 22: Multi-Family Conceptual Design
Planning Area 17 encompasses a "HHDR" (Highest Density Residential) land use designation, and it allows for up to 604 dwelling units across approximately 24.1 acres (23 to 25 dwelling units per acre). The planning area requires any residential structure to be setback 100-foot from the I-15 Corridor.

Primary access to this area is routed through Pats Ranch Road, complemented by a network of private streets, driveways, and alleys for internal circulation, enhancing accessibility. Pedestrian circulation is incorporated. Additionally, pedestrian access gates would provide connection between the multi-family units to neighboring parks, and future commercial development to the south of the Specific Plan.

The Planning area incorporates a neighborhood entry monument at key access points.

Special attention is paid to minimizing noise for balconies or decks facing I-15; an approved Site Development Permit is required for multi-family, attached-stacked flats, and townhomes. Amenities are addressed, with a minimum of seven amenities, including pools, spas, outdoor areas, and fitness rooms. The following includes the development standards for PA-17.

Page | 30
Lot Dimensions:
 Minimum lot width: 60 feet.

Building Setbacks:
 5 feet from the walkway.
 30 feet from the primary street frontage, as established by Conditions of Approval.
 5 feet for the yard.
 10 feet to the rear.
 2 feet for encroachments.
 100 feet from the I-15 freeway.

Parking Setbacks:
 20 feet from the primary street frontage.
 10 feet from adjacent commercially and residentially zoned property.  3 feet maximum from garage setbacks.

Structural Height:
 Maximum height: 60 feet.

Lot Coverage:
 Maximum lot coverage: 60%.

Private Open Space:
 Minimum private open space per unit: 75 square feet.
 Minimum dimension: 8 feet.

Storage Space:
 Accessory in-unit storage (closets or storage areas): 35 cubic feet per unit.  Exterior private utility storage (storage areas outside of a unit): 60 cubic feet per unit.

Planning Area 18 – Open Space Recreation
Planning Area 18 is designated for open space recreation (OS-R) land use and incorporates a community recreation center. The primary objective of Planning Area 18 is to offer residents a range of recreational amenities, encompassing both active and passive elements.

Key attributes of Planning Area 18 include approximately 3.0 acres of OS-R Open Space Recreation. Active elements include facilities such as a ranch house, creative playfield, and a pool, while passive elements could include a community garden, BBQ pavilion, and shade pavilions. The area includes features such as a parking lot, community event lawn, restrooms, security lighting, and fencing. Interior roads will be the primary means of access within the area, while a 5-foot-wide Community Path will traverse PA-18.

Page | 31
Furthermore, neighborhood entry monuments are required at key access points. These areas are generally maintained by the HOA, however water quality control features such as water basins are maintained by the City of Jurupa Valley.

Figure 23 - Planning Area 18
Planning Area 19 – Neighborhood Park
Planning Area 19 is situated along the western boundary, which includes the Neighborhood Park. Its overarching purpose is to offer residents a variety of recreational opportunities for both active and passive options. This planning area would be maintained by HOA.

Planning Area 19 encompasses approximately 7.23 acres designated for OS-R Open Space Recreation. This allocation is designed to accommodate a mix of active and passive recreational elements. Active features may include activity turf panels, bocce ball courts, and more, while passive elements could involve family picnic nodes, community trails, and gardens. Ancillary support facilities, such as historic placards, security lighting, and fencing, may also be integrated to enhance the area. For pedestrian infrastructure, an 8-foot-wide Community Trail will be implemented to connect Community Paths and sidewalks, thereby enhancing pedestrian connectivity. Furthermore, pedestrian access points will be provided from internal streets and cul-de-sacs, while a pedestrian access gate is planned to facilitate connectivity to the adjacent Planning Area 17 to the south.

Page | 32
Consistent with aesthetic goals, neighborhood entry monuments are required at key access points within Planning Area 19.

Figure 24 - Planning Area 19
Planning Area 20 – Basins and Common Open Spaces
Planning Area 20 encompasses six distinct segments along the eastern boundary, with a primary focus on providing basins and common open spaces. This area is primarily dedicated to serving as open space and basins, with a strategic emphasis on enabling pedestrian connectivity, ultimately contributing to the overall landscape and accessibility of the community.

Planning Area 20 includes approximately 9.47 acres for OS-W Open Space Water land uses. Within this area, certain basins are designated as Open Space-Water, offering opportunities for passive recreational uses. Access within Planning Area 20 would be facilitated by interior backbone roads, and these roads will feature 5-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides, adhering to specific design guidelines. To further enhance pedestrian Page | 33
connectivity, the area will incorporate 5-foot-wide Community Paths connecting meandering D.G. Trail along Pats Ranch Road to the Community Trail and sidewalks. As part of the aesthetic and navigational considerations, neighborhood entry monuments are a requisite feature at key access points within Planning Area 20.

Figure 25 - Planning Area 20
Section 5 – Landscape Design Guidelines
The landscape design guidelines primarily aim to create a cohesive, heritage-oriented environment within the project area. This approach centers on a historical theme rooted in Vernola Ranch's agrarian history, featuring elements like "grove" landscapes, wind screens along the I-15 corridor, and community gardening opportunities. Plant selection considers local climate, soil conditions, and water conservation while adhering to Page | 34
sustainability guidelines outlined in the County of Riverside Guide to California-Friendly Landscaping.

Hardscape elements, including entry monuments, walls, and fences, are integrated to maintain thematic cohesion. This design approach is pervasive throughout communal spaces, from streetscapes and community entrances to recreational areas and open spaces. The guidelines prioritize street tree placement that avoids interference with infrastructure and sightlines, encourages consistent and energy-efficient street lighting, prohibits neon lighting, and promotes efficient irrigation systems utilizing reclaimed water.

Figure 26 - Tree and Monumentation Exhibits
Management Consideration
Management considerations include drought-tolerance and native plants. It outlines various aspects of plant care, including degrees of drought tolerance, initial watering needs, deep watering practices, seasonal watering, and ongoing maintenance.

In addition, the section highlights the compatibility of plant materials with the local climate and the need to consider site-specific factors. It also mentions that maintenance in common areas will be carried out according to established standards. Also, the section outlines requirements for walls and fencing for design aesthetics, community identity, privacy, and security purposes. It provides guidelines for the types of walls and fences permitted their heights, materials, and landscaping considerations.

Section 6 – Architectural Design Guidelines
Purpose of Residential Design Guidelines
This section introduces architectural design guidelines for neighborhood, building, and site design. The VRSP aims to offer a diverse range of housing options, catering to various household needs. These guidelines underscore the importance of internal connectivity to promote walkability, the adoption of human-scale design with architectural diversity, and the creation of pedestrian-friendly streets. A strong emphasis is also placed on establishing connections to parks and open spaces.

The specific plan offers single-family homes, cluster homes, duplexes, townhomes, and stacked flats, catering to various housing needs. Residential building typologies may be located on fee-simple or condominium-mapped lots. Streets are designed to prioritize pedestrians with architecture facing them, featuring tree-lined parkways, sidewalks, and Page | 35
roundabouts for traffic control. The following table provides a summary of the housing typologies within each Planning Area:

Table 2 - Housing Types
Planning
Areas
1 &
2 3 & 4
5, 6 &
7 8, 15 &
16 9 &
10 11 &
14 12 &
13 17
Single-Family Detached Homes
Conventional
Single-Family
Homes
x x x
Cluster Homes
Front-Loaded
Cluster
Homes
x x
Rear-Loaded
Cluster
Homes
x x
Attached Residential Buildings
Duplexes x x x x
Triplexes x x x x
Townhomes x x x x x
Stacked Flats x x x x x
Regional Housing Needs Assessment
The project helps the city meet state requirements for new housing units.

Building and Site Design
The residential building and site design guidelines emphasize adherence to California building standards and sustainable design practices while encouraging architectural compatibility. They promote the use of solar panels and address aesthetic considerations, emphasizing integrating utility elements into the architectural design. Lighting and materials are chosen for safety and visual appeal throughout the community.

Section 7 – Administration and Implementation
Implementation
Section 7 outlines the implementation process, covering plan review, conformity determination, and potential amendments. All community developments must follow these procedures, including administration and enforcement in the City of Jurupa Valley, addressing subdivision maps, site permits, and variances.

Financing Plan
This plan outlines funding mechanisms for infrastructure, with developers responsible for construction aligned with a phasing plan. Funding methods include impact fees, CFDs/Mello-Roos, and special assessment districts. The Mello-Roos Act allows tax levies and bonds. Government grants and bonds are also potential funding sources.

Page | 36
Maintenance Plan
The Maintenance Plan focuses on preserving public areas, recreational facilities, and landscaping. A comprehensive plan with funding and responsibilities is established.

Specific plan areas may be required to be annexed into existing, or may create, maintenance organizations for shared facility cost management. Neighborhood HOAs would maintain public areas, parks, and open spaces. Roadways meeting standards integrate into the City's maintenance system with portions managed by entities or neighborhood HOAs. Homeowners typically maintain their front and side yards unless specified otherwise in CC&Rs or Conditions of Approval.

GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT – GPA22003
The Project site is designated Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR), and Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City’s General Plan.

GPA22003 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use designation to the appropriate designation for the proposed densities. Therefore, a combination of residential and open space land uses is proposed. The proposed land use designations are consistent with the Specific Plan zone. Table 4 and Figure 24 provide more information about the proposed general plan amendments. The findings for a General Plan Amendment can be made and are included in the resolution.

Table 3 - Planning Areas and General Plan Designations
Planning Area Number Land Use Designation Gross Acres
PA-1 VHDR 3.37
PA-2 VHDR 6.94
PA-3 VHDR 4.89
PA-4 VHDR 7.28
PA-5 HDR 5.18
PA-6 HDR 4.12
PA-7 HDR 2.64
PA-8 HDR 8.8
PA-9 MHDR 4.46
PA-10 MHDR 8.01
PA-11 MHDR 7.09
PA-12 MHDR 13.1
PA-13 MHDR 10.17
PA-14 MHDR 12.1
PA-15 HDR 6.03
PA-16 HDR 5.25
PA-17 HHDR 24.1
PA-18 OS-R 3
PA-19 OS-R 7.23
PA-20 OS-W 9.47
Page | 37
Figure 27 - General Plan Amendment Exhibit
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT – SPA266A5
The proposed amendment to the existing I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 seeks to remove 153 acres (Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20) so it can be under the proposed Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. Within the current I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, Planning Areas 10 and 13 are designated for 132.7 acres of single-family residential use, while Planning Area 15 is allocated for 10 acres of public facilities, and Planning Area 20 is designated for 20.1 acres of Industrial Park. The proposed amendment seeks to reassign these designations from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan and incorporating them into the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. Most notably, the specific plan would redesignate these areas for residential and open spaces uses and would remove the Industrial Park designated area.

To ensure continuity with the surrounding land uses and to support the logical progression of future developments, it is recommended that the Specific Plan be modified to accommodate the implementation of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. This amendment is expected to transform the area into a residential community that includes essential amenities such as schools and parks, making it more compatible with the existing residential developments located east of Pats Ranch Road.

CHANGE OF ZONE – CZ22002
The Project site is situated within the boundaries of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 and is currently designated for R-1 (One-Family Dwellings), Commercial (C), and Industrial Park (I-P). CZ22002 proposes to rezone 153 acres to SP Zone. The Specific Plan Zone is used for properties with a Specific Plan. Figure 25 demonstrates the proposed change of zone. Most notably, this change of zone will rezone the 20.1 acres Page | 38
industrial park area to implement the residential and open space zones of the proposed specific plan.

Figure 28 - Change of Zone Exhibit
Section 9.285.020 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (JVMC) establishes two key prerequisites for advancing a Change of Zone for a public hearing, and this project has satisfied both requirements.

First, Change of Zones are required to adhere to the procedures outlined in the Jurupa Valley Rules Implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This involves the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in full accordance with CEQA standards. An EIR has been prepared for the project and has been publicly noticed.

The second requirement mandates that the Change of Zone align with the Jurupa Valley General Plan, ensuring consistency with the broader municipal land use goals. The Specific Plan Zone is implemented in situations with an associated Specific Plan. The General Plan establishes that the Specific Plan Zone is consistent with all General Plan Land Use Designations and is consistent with this requirement.

TENTATIVE TRACT MAP - TTM38504
Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 is a proposal for a Schedule “A” subdivision to subdivide 198.87 acres into 30 lots, which consists of eight (8) lettered lots and thirty (30) numbered lots. Lots A through H, inclusive, shall be for streets and public utility purposes. Lots 1 Page | 39
through 8, 15 and 16 shall be for condominium purposes. Lots 22 through 27, inclusive, shall be for water quality purposes. No buildings or developments are proposed under the Tentative Tract Map.

The TTM complies with all applicable provisions of Title 7 and the Subdivision Map Act for standards and process and is consistent with the proposed Specific Plan. The Engineering Department has reviewed the project for access circulation, grading, and drainage. Staff is recommending the attached conditions of approval, which address areas such as subdivision, circulation, access, grading, drainage, and water quality.

Figure 26 includes the proposed TTM.

Figure 29 - Tentative Tract Map 38504

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
The proposed Development Agreement (DA) provides the Owner vested rights to proceed with the development of the Project Site by the terms and conditions of the DA. By entering into the DA, the City would be securing certain public benefits that enhance public health, safety, and welfare. The purposes of the DA are as follows:
 Ensuring high-quality development per comprehensive plans;  Reducing uncertainty in the development approval process that might otherwise result in a waste of resources, discourage investment, and escalate the cost of development to the consumer;
 Strengthening the City’s comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources by encouraging private participation in the comprehensive planning process;
 Assuring owners of land that upon approval, they may proceed with their development projects per defined policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval; and
Page | 40
 Providing for the financing and/or constructing necessary public facilities and services.

Term and Approvals
The term of the DA is for twenty (20) years. The benefit of the DA for the applicant is the protection of the entitlement approvals.

Community Benefits
Table 5 summarizes the proposed community benefits.

TABLE 5 - COMMUNITY BENEFITS
Type of
Community
Benefit
Purpose Amount of Payment
General
Municipal
Services
Contribution –
Section 5.6.1
Required contributions fee
used for general municipal
purposes to mitigate the fiscal
impact of the Project upon
general municipal services.
 $1,000 for each Single-Family
Residence
 $700 for each Multi-Family
Residential unit, Medium and
High Density.

Annual Public
Safety Benefit
Contribution –
Section 5.6.2
Required contribution fee
subject to annual increases
used for public safety benefits
such as police protection, fire
protection, ambulance, and
paramedic services,
acquisition of land, and
construction of public safety
facilities.
 $343 for each Single-Family
Residence
 $208 for each Multi-Family
Residential Unit – Medium
Density
 $124 for each Multi-Family
Residential Unit – High Density
Automatic annual rate increase
(2%-6%)
Annual Facilities
Benefit
Contribution –
Section 5.6.3
Required contribution used
for the design and
construction of public
facilities for the city,
including, but not limited to
those public facilities
described on the City’s
Capital Improvement Plan,
as currently adopted or
hereafter amended.
 $320 for each Single-Family
Residence
 $230 for each Multi-Family
Residential Unit – Medium
Density
 $140 for each Multi-Family
Residential Unit – High
Density
Automatic annual rate increase
(2%)
50 year period
Page | 41
Commercial
Property
(adjacent to
VRSPM Site)
Improves list of commercial
uses (effective upon DA
approval) and requires that
Commercial property be
incorporated into VRSP
within 7 years of issuance of
first Certificate of Occupancy
of VRSP.
 Owner to cover entire cost of
processing. Actual cost to be
determined.

Administrative
Fee - Section 5.8
Compensation for cost
incurred in drafting,
processing, and
administering the
development agreement.
 $10,000 one-time
administrative fee 30 days
after the effective date of the
agreement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project, with the city acting as the Lead Agency. The EIR document includes a description of the proposed Project and evaluates the physical environmental effects that could result from Project implementation. The effects found not to be significant were for Mineral Resources and Wildfire. The scope of the EIR should cover the following subject areas:

The scope was determined through the City’s independent judgment, and in consideration of public comments received by the city in response to the EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP).

All impacts to the project can be mitigated to less than significant levels with the implementation of mitigation measures, except for four items, which include (1) Agriculture and Forestry Resources, (2) Air Quality, (3) Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and (4) Transportation. These impacts cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significance.

The table below provides more information about the impacts.

1. Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Subsection 4.2: The Project would permanently convert approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.7 acres Page | 42
of “Unique Farmland” to non-agricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures exist for impacts associated with converting Farmland to non-agricultural use.

Regional economic processes result in the eventual regional conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses. However, conversion of individual properties is a policy decision of the City based on community needs and benefits. As land that currently supports or could support agriculture is developed, there will be less agricultural activity in the city.

No feasible mitigation measures for impacts associated with converting Farmland to nonagricultural use exist.

On-site mitigation would not be feasible, as the development of the Project site with residential uses is incompatible with agricultural uses, and restricting a small portion of the land for agricultural uses would not be economically feasible for agricultural operations.

Additionally, off-site mitigation also would not be feasible. Available agricultural land within the general Project area is subject to the identical market conditions and challenges that other agricultural operations have faced before deciding to cease operating or relocate, namely, market pressures related to urbanization, increasing expenses, and declining profitability.

2. Air Quality, Subsection 4.3: The project is associated with two significant, direct, and cumulative air quality impacts:
a) Air Quality Management Plan Consistency Impact: The project is not consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (South Coast AQMD) Air Quality Management Plan, particularly concerning the long-term operational emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO. Despite the implementation of mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-6, these measures do not achieve the reduction below a level considered less than significant. b) Considerable Air Quality Impacts: The project is expected to result in substantial increases in emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO during long-term operations, surpassing the daily emission thresholds set by South Coast AQMD. Even with mitigation measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-6, these measures do not achieve the desired reduction below a level considered less than significant.

These items have direct and cumulative impacts, particularly associated with NOx emissions during construction and VOC, NOX, and CO emissions during the project's long-term operation before including mitigation measures. Mitigation measure 4.3.1 successfully reduces short-term construction-related NOx emissions only if Tier 4 is available and used. However, the subsequent measures 4.3.2 through 4.3.6 do not have quantitative reductions associated with them available in CalEEMOD.

Given that the majority of emissions generated by the project originate from mobile sources linked to residents' vehicle use, these emissions fall outside the jurisdiction and control of the Project and City. Although mitigation measures 4.3.2 through 4.3.6 can address emissions tied to transportation and energy, they still need to achieve emissions reductions below the applicable thresholds for criteria pollutants.

Page | 43
No additional feasible measures can substantially reduce operational emissions or bring them below the required thresholds. Consequently, the long-term operational impacts on air quality remain significant and unavoidable. Nevertheless, the project is expected to incorporate various types of mitigation measures.
 MM 4.3-1 (Minimize Construction Emissions):
o All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).
o Limit daily disturbance area to 4 acres.
o Properly maintain construction equipment.
o Limit idling of diesel-powered vehicles to three minutes in any one hour. o Use on-road haul trucks from model year 2010 or newer if diesel fueled. o Promote ridesharing programs for construction employees. o Provide onsite lunch options.
o Display a visible sign for dust complaints.
o Inform contractors about South Coast AQMD “SOON” funds. o Comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 403 for fugitive dust. o Water exposed surfaces twice a day.
o Cover haul trucks transporting materials.
o Remove mud or dirt track-out daily using wet-power vacuum sweepers. o Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
o Complete paving of roads, driveways, and sidewalks promptly. o Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders used.
o Post a visible sign with contact information for dust complaints.  MM 4.3-2 (Energy Star Appliances):
o Install Energy Star-rated appliances (or equivalent technology) for specific residential appliances.
 MM 4.3-3 (High Efficacy Lighting):
o Verify the installation of high efficacy lighting for in-unit fixtures in both residential and non-residential buildings.
 MM 4.3-4 (Transit and Ridesharing Information):
o Provide disclosure materials on public transit, ridesharing, and nonmotorized commuting opportunities to prospective buyers or tenants.

Page | 44
o Submit a draft of this disclosure to the City Planning Department.  MM 4.3-5 (Telecommuting Infrastructure):
o Install broadband infrastructure or communication technologies that encourage telecommuting and reduce mobile source emissions. o Submit documentation to the City Building and Safety Department.  MM 4.3-6 (Exterior Electrical Outlets):
o electrical outlets on patios, which reduces area source emissions.  City Planning Department shall verify architectural plans for implementing.

3. Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Subsection 4.8: The Project would result in greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) that exceed the South Coast AQMD greenhouse gas emissions significance threshold. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through MM 4.3-6 and MM 4.8-1 and 4.8-3; however, these measures would not reduce the GHG impact to less than significant.

Project-related GHG emissions would still result in net annual emissions that exceed the GHG emissions significance threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr, and the Project would be inconsistent with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 2022 Scoping Plan.

Therefore, Project-related GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change would be cumulatively considerable, and GHG emissions impacts would be significant and unavoidable.
 MM 4.8-1 (Bus Shelters):
o Install four new bus shelters before certificates of occupancy are issued.  MM 4.8-2 (Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure):
o For Single Family Home/Condo/Townhouse with attached garage:
o Install a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit (40 amperes minimum) in the garage for each dwelling unit.
o For Multi-Family Housing:
o Provide electric vehicle (EV) charging capabilities in at least 40% of homes, with the breakdown as follows:
o 5% installed (EV charging equipment is already in place). o 15% ready (breakers and wires installed for future EV charging). o 25% future capability with conduit and breaker space for potential EV charging.

4. Transportation, Subsection 4.16: The Project would increase VMT that exceeds the City’s VMT threshold. The Project would implement TDM Measures; however, these measures would not reduce the impact to less than significant. The Project would implement Mitigation Measures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, PDF and TDM Measures; however, these measures would not reduce the impact to less than significant.

Page | 45
Project-generated VMT exceeds the City’s cumulative VMT threshold by 22.2%.

Additionally, considering all potential TDM measures, even if implemented, it would not be enough to reduce the Project’s impact to less than significant. Impacts related to VMT are considered cumulatively considerable and would be significant and unavoidable.

Even with implementing the recommended Mitigation Measures, there will still be significant Project-specific impacts, as noted above and as described in the EIR.

Therefore, these impacts are considered significant and unavoidable, and adopting a Statement of Overriding Conditions for these impacts will be required to approve the project.

It is recommended that the City Council certify and adopt the EIR with the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project.

Public Review of the Draft EIR (DEIR)
During the DEIR 45-day public review period (October 16, 2023, through November 30, 2023), the city has received four comment letters at the time of this report. After the public review period, the city prepared responses to each comment and include them in the Final EIR. The Final EIR, which would include all received comments will be presented to the City Council. As of the date of this report, the following agencies, departments, or individuals have responded.

Public Review of Draft EIR (DEIR)
During the DEIR 45-day public review period (October 16, 2023, through November 30, 2023), the City received four (4) comment letters regarding the project at the time of this report. The following comments have been received:

1. Riverside Transit Agency

2. Southern California Gas

3. Riverside County Fire Department

4. City of Eastvale
After the public review period, the City prepared responses to each comment and included them in the Final EIR. The Final EIR, which includes received comments, was available to the public on December 11, 2023.

PROJECT OUTREACH
On November 14, 2023, the City conducted a community outreach meeting at the Skyview Event Center, adjacent to the project site. The notice for the community outreach meeting was mailed to City of Jurupa Valley residents 1,000 feet from the boundaries of the project site, 10 days before the event. The outreach event provided information about the project and presented the proposed exhibits for the Specific Plan. The following provides a summary of the comments from the project outreach meeting.  Residents were concerned about speeding along Pats Ranch and were worried about safety in the area. Staff shared that traffic calming measures have been integrated into the project to promote safety.

Page | 46
 Residents raised concerns about fire instances that occurred north of the site and response time to Sheriff calls. Staff shared that the development may improve safety and the Development Agreement assists in funding and maintaining additional services including the building of a new fire station on the west portion of the city.
 Residents asked about the timeframe for developing the project. The applicant shared that it has an estimated construction period of 6 to 7 years, however the timeline is contingent on various factors such as the housing market, interest rates, and economic conditions.
 Residents raised concerns about public notifications. Staff shared that notices would be mailed to residents within 1,000 feet and posted on the website. Efforts to update the website are underway. We included the use of QR codes on notices.

Public hearings will also be advertised on the Press Enterprise.  Residents raised concerns about traffic in a situation where the school is developed. Staff responded by affirming that a traffic study had been completed, with facts and figures incorporated into the EIR document to address potential concerns and noting worse case scenarios. These worse case scenarios account for a school of 700 students. Streets have been designed to accommodate this worst case scenario.
 Residents raised other concerns that were not directly related to the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. Staff has provided contact information to a variety of issues.

NOTIFICATION PROCESS
The Planning Division mailed a detailed project information sheet with the required public hearing notices in both English and Spanish to property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project site. Notices were mailed at least 10 days before the public hearing date. The radius map of the notified area is provided in Attachment 10. Additionally, a legal advertisement was published in the Press Enterprise.

As of the date of this staff report, no comment letters were received. The public hearing was also advertise on the City’s website.

CONCLUSION
The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (VRSP) is a long-term strategy designed to benefit the Jurupa Valley community by providing a framework for organized and cohesive development. Focused on residential, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational amenities, the VRSP guides future projects, ensuring alignment with city regulations.

Emphasizing a neo-traditional design approach, the VRSP aims to transform the area into a vibrant, diverse neighborhood with various housing options, a small-town atmosphere, and improved mobility. The plan prioritizes walkable neighborhoods, interconnected streets, and the creation of community spaces, parks, trails, and greenbelts.

The specific plan encompasses noteworthy components such as the removal of 20.1 acres of Industrial Park and redesignation to residential and open space designations.

The specific plan adds new recreational amenities such as parks, trails, bike paths and more for the public. It assists the City in fulfilling State requirements and promotes Page | 47
affordable housing by complying with the City’s the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance program. Additionally, it addresses existing challenges by integrating traffic-calming measures, contributing to the increase in residential households essential for sustaining and attracting local businesses. Moreover, it activates a large vacant property and mitigates public safety concerns prevalent in the area, such as fires on vacant land and unauthorized dumping.

Furthermore, the VRSP includes a development agreement that goes beyond infrastructure, contributing to the community's well-being. The community benefits provisions of this agreement will help fund improvements in public safety funding and supporting additional services for police and fire for the western portion of the city. The DA also creates an ongoing funding source for city facilities.

Financial Impact
The applicant submitted the entitlement applications with the accompanying deposit fees.

Additionally, the applicant submitted deposit fees for the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-106; Resolution No. 2023-107 and conduct the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-04 and Ordinance No. 2024-05 to do the following:
a. Certifying an Environmental Impact Report, making Findings of Fact, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
b. Approve MA22153 (GPA22003, CZ22002, SPA266A5, SP22001, TTM38504) subject to the conditions of approval; and
c. Approve Development Agreement No. 22001

2. Deny MA22153 (GPA22003, CZ22002, SPA266A5, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001).

3. Continue the public hearing and provide direction to staff.

Prepared by: Submitted by:

Joe Perez Rod B. Butler
Community Development Director City Manager

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-106 Adopting FEIR and Statement of
Overriding Consideration
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-106

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC

PLAN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
APPROXIMATELY 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS,

RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL AND PARK NETWORKS, OPEN

SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS,

INCLUDING AN OVERLAY FOR A POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE
ON AN APPROXIMATELY 153-ACRE SITE GENERALLY
BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH

ROAD TO THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH
(VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)

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

Section 1. Project. The Applicant has applied for MA No. 22153 consisting of General Plan Amendment No. 22003; Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan to provide development standards and design guidelines for the Project area; Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan; Change of Zone No. 22002 to apply Specific Plan zoning; Development Agreement No. 22001; and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 to implement the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan which consists of approximately 1,576 residential dwelling units (single-family, multi-family, townhomes, and other housing types), recreation areas, a network of trails and parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements, and an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area (the “Project”). The 200.7-acre Project site includes the 153-acre Vernola Ranch Specific Plan area, 36 acres south of the Specific Plan Area, and approximately 11.7 acres of off-site street improvements on Limonite Avenue, Pats Ranch Road, and Bellegrave Avenue.

Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for the Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act.
(b) On November 29, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a duly-noticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to and did address the Planning Commission on these matters.

Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 4 to 1 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. -2-
(c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a dulynoticed public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
(d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the proposed Project:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project.
(b) The City determined that an environmental impact report (“EIR”) would be required for the proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (“NOP”) on December 14, 2022. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2022120318), responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties and posted on the City's website for a thirty (30)-day public review period from December 14, 2022 to January 13, 2023. The purpose of the NOP was to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Project.
(c) In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), a scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period, on January 9, 2023, to solicit suggestions on the scope of the Draft EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the Draft EIR. (d) Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the Project, including preparation and review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the Project’s potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the Project.
(e) Upon completion of the Draft EIR on October 16, 2023, the City initiated a public comment period by preparing and sending a Notice of Availability (“NOA”) to all responsible agencies, trustee agencies, the Riverside County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the NOA to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on October 16, 2023, and ending on November 30, 2023. The NOA also was published in The Press Enterprise. (f) The City also sent a Notice of Completion (“NOC”) and copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on October 16, 2023. (g) Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been -3-
available for public review and inspection at the Jurupa Valley City Hall and two Jurupa Valley Public Library facilities (Glen Avon Library, and Louis Rubidoux Library). The Draft EIR was also made available for download via the City’s website: http://www.jurupavalley.org. (h) In response to the Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, written responses to all comments that were timely received on the Draft EIR were prepared. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. (i) The Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, additional appendices, and clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR was made available to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).
(j) Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (k) These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
(l) CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the findings as part of Exhibit “A” attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted. (m) CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring -4-
and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “B”, is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted. (n) Prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project. (o) Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California, 92509.

Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, California does hereby:
(a) Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference.
(b) Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and the proposed Project. (c) Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, additional appendices, clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project. (d) Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein.
(e) Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement. (f) The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA, adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit “A”, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit “B.” The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission, and in the record -5-
of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit “A” by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. (g) The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit “B,” and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit “B.”
(h) The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall not go into effect until the Effective Date of the Ordinances approving Change of Zone No. 22002 and Development Agreement No. 22001.

Section 6. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-6-

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-106 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 21st day of December, 2023 by the following vote, to wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-106 Exhibit A – Statement of Overriding Consideration

EXHIBIT A
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the:

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022120318
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
CEQA Consultant
T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
Project Applicant
Anthony P. Vernola Trust
12080 Bellegrave Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
December 2023

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 1
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................................ 7

1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA............................................................................... 7

1.2 Project Summary........................................................................................................ 7

1.2.1 Site Location.................................................................................................. 7

1.2.2 Project Overview........................................................................................... 8

1.2.3 Project Objectives.......................................................................................... 8

1.2.4 City of Jurupa Valley Actions Covered by the EIR ...................................... 9

1.2.5 Approvals From Other Agencies................................................................... 9

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation ..................................................... 10

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings................................................................................... 12

3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation................................................................ 13

3.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 13

3.1.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 14

3.1.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 14

3.1.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources......................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Threshold B................................................................................................. 16

3.2.2 Threshold C................................................................................................. 16

3.2.3 Threshold D................................................................................................. 17

3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 17

3.3.1 Threshold D................................................................................................. 17

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 2

3.4 Biological Impacts................................................................................................... 18

3.4.1 Threshold B................................................................................................. 18

3.4.2 Threshold C................................................................................................. 19

3.4.3 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 19

3.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 20

3.5.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 20

3.5.2 Threshold C................................................................................................. 21

3.6 Energy...................................................................................................................... 22

3.6.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 22

3.6.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 23

3.7 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................... 24

3.7.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 24

3.7.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 25

3.7.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 27

3.7.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 28

3.7.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 28

3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................ 29

3.8.1 Threshold C................................................................................................. 29

3.8.2 Threshold D................................................................................................. 29

3.8.3 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 30

3.8.4 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 31

3.8.5 Threshold G................................................................................................. 32

3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................. 32

3.9.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 32

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 3

3.9.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 34

3.9.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 35

3.9.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 37

3.9.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 38

3.10 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 38

3.10.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 38

3.10.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 39

3.11 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 41

3.11.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 41

3.11.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 41

3.12 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 42

3.12.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 42

3.12.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 43

3.12.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 44

3.13 Population and Housing........................................................................................... 45

3.13.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 45

3.13.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 47

3.14 Public Services......................................................................................................... 47

3.14.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 47

3.15 Recreation ................................................................................................................ 50

3.15.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 50

3.15.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 52

3.16 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 52

3.16.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 52

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 4

3.16.2 Threshold C................................................................................................. 53

3.16.3 Threshold D................................................................................................. 53

3.17 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................... 54

3.17.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 54

3.17.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 55

3.17.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 56

3.17.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 57

3.17.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 58

3.18 Wildfire .................................................................................................................... 59

3.18.1 Threshold A through D................................................................................ 59

4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant ............................... 60

4.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 60

4.1.1 Threshold C................................................................................................. 60

4.2 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 63

4.2.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 63

4.2.2 Threshold D................................................................................................. 66

4.2.3 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 68

4.3 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 68

4.3.1 Threshold B................................................................................................. 68

4.4 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................... 69

4.4.1 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 69

4.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................ 72

4.5.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 72

4.5.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 73

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 5

4.6 Tribal Cultural Resources........................................................................................ 74

4.6.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 74

5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation ......... 78

5.1 Agriculture and Forestry Resources......................................................................... 78

5.1.1 Threshold A and E....................................................................................... 78

5.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 80

5.2.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 80

5.2.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 81

5.3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................... 84

5.3.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 84

5.3.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 85

5.4 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 86

5.4.1 Threshold B................................................................................................. 86

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations................................................................................................ 88

6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes..................................................... 88

6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................ 89

7.0 Alternatives........................................................................................................................... 93

7.4.1 Alternative Considered and Rejected .......................................................... 93

7.4.2 No Project/ No Development Alternative ................................................... 94

7.4.3 No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative ............................................ 94

7.4.4 Reduced Intensity Alternative ..................................................................... 95

7.4.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ........................................................ 96

8.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations.............................................................................. 98

9.0 Additional Facts on Record ................................................................................................ 101

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 6

9.1 Custodian of Record .............................................................................................. 101

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (the “City Council”) in approving the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) prepared for the Project with the City of Jurupa Valley (the “City”) acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Draft EIR, Technical Studies, and Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Final EIR), will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in PRC Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required. For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final EIR. The second finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. The third finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091.) PRC Section 21061.1 defines “feasible” to mean “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors.”

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY

1.2.1 SITE LOCATION
The approximately 200.7-acre Project site is located in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. Interstate 15 (I-15) abuts the Project site to the west, State Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 1.9 mile north of the Project site, and SR-91 is located 6.5 miles south of the Project site. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the Project site are: 160-050-005, 160-050-012, 160-

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 8
050-023, 160-050-063, 160-050-070, 160-050-067, 160-050-068, 160-050-072, 160-050-073, and 160-050-074. The Project site includes several large undeveloped parcels currently being utilized for agricultural uses.

1.2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The 200.7-acre Project site (hereafter, “Project site”) includes the 153 acre Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (hereafter “Specific Plan Area”), 36 acres south of the Specific Plan Area, and approximately 11.7 acres of off-site street improvements on Limonite Avenue, Pat’s Ranch Road and Bellegrave Avenue.

The Project entails development of a 153-acre Specific Plan Area with residential development with densities ranging from 4 to 25 dwelling units per acre. The Project proposes approximately 1,576 residential dwelling units (single-family, multi-family, townhomes, and other housing types), recreation areas, a network of trails & parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping and street improvements, and includes an overlay for a potential school site located in the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area.

The principal discretionary actions required of the City of Jurupa Valley to implement the Project include: General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22003, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, Change of Zone (CZ) No. 22002, Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (SP22001), Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504, and Development Agreement (DA) No. 22001.

1.2.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The goal of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan is to implement the City of Jurupa Valley’s General Plan and establish a contemporary and comprehensive land use policy document for the development of the Vernola Ranch Plan Area by meeting the following objectives.

1. Housing – Provide a range of housing opportunities in a diverse mix of neighborhoods to support an array of housing choices for a variety of population, lifestyles and family groups.

2. Quality of Life – Create a master planned neighborhood that has a unique character and quality with a commitment to exemplary living, working, and recreational environments by providing a mix of uses that includes residential, and recreational opportunities that meet local, community, and regional needs.

3. Recreation and Open Space – Develop parks, open space, and an integrated trails network with pedestrian and bicycle amenities to create passive and active recreational opportunities to serve its residents and the surrounding community.

4. Mobility Choices – Provide a comprehensive circulation network with integrated mobility options including pedestrian and bicycle amenities, with enhanced connectivity and safety as alternatives to automobile use. Incorporate enhanced traffic calming design elements and multi-modal systems that facilitate the ultimate vision of the City.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 9

5. Diversity – Establish a planning and zoning concept that is responsive to the market by implementing a comprehensive Specific Plan that contains a variety of housing and recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region.

6. Community Design – Facilitate development of infrastructure needed to serve the VRSP through efficiently designed and responsibly phased infrastructure improvements; develop residential neighborhoods with a commitment to quality site design, architecture and landscape design, and enhance the character and quality of the Pats Ranch Road and Bellegrave Avenue.

1.2.4 CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below.  Approve General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22003;
 Approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5;
 Approve Change of Zone (CZ) No. 22002;
 Approve Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (SP22001);
 Approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504; and
 Approve Development Agreement (DA) No. 22001.

1.2.5 APPROVALS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
PRC Section 21104 requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of its decisionmaking processes in relation to the proposed Project.

Agency Action
Responsible Agencies
Riverside County Flood
Control and Water
Conservation District
Responsible for the master planned drainage infrastructure that would be utilized by the Project and issuing an encroachment permit for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities.

Jurupa Community Services
District (“JCSD”)
Approvals required for the installation of new JCSD facilities/connections to service the Project
Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(RWQCB)
Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for the protection of California’s water resources and water quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 10
Agency Action
Permit to ensure that during and after Project construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(“SCAQMD”)
Responsible for the issuance of construction-related permits that allow for the construction and operation of the Project to ensure that during and postProject construction and during Project operation, Project emissions do not result in significant impacts to air quality

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible. To do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:
 Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on December 14, 2022 for a 30-day review period between December 14, 2022 and January 13, 2023;
 Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting at City Hall, located at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA on January 9, 2023, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR;  Sent a Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on October 16, 2023;  Mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Riverside County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45- day review period beginning on October 16, 2023, and ending on November 30, 2023;  Published the NOA in The Press-Enterprise, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on October 16, 2023;
 Made an electronic copy of the Draft EIR available on the City’s website;  Prepared responses to comments on the Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR;  Mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 11
 Held a Planning Commission hearing on November 29, 2023.  Sent individual responses to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Draft EIR on December 11, 2023; and
 Mailed notice of the City Council hearing to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000- foot radius of the Project site.
 Held a City Council hearing on December 21, 2023.

All the documents identified above and all the documents which are required to be part of the record pursuant to PRC §21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division located at 8930 Limonite Avenue in Jurupa Valley, CA 92509. Questions should be directed to Rob Gonzalez, Senior Planner.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 12

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the City of Jurupa Valley and working under the supervision and direction of the Planning staff of the City’s Planning Division. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR (DEIR) and Final EIR (FEIR), including comments and responses by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.

Based on the Notice of Preparation (NOP), Technical Appendix A to the DEIR, and the responses of the NOP, the EIR analyzed 18 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project. The 18 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project include: aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 13

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

3.1 AESTHETICS

3.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement Project Design Feature (PDF) 4.1-1 to comply with the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan’s requirements to ensure the desired character and provide a consistent level of quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The City’s General Plan defines scenic vistas as “points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes.” Specifically, the City identifies publicly accessible vantage points of the Santa Ana River, Jurupa Mountains, and the Pedley Hills as scenic vistas. The Project site is located approximately 1.87-miles north of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2.98 miles southwest of the Jurupa Mountains, and 4.04 miles west of the Pedley Hills.

Due to distance from identified scenic vistas, intervening development, and topography, the Project site and the immediately surrounding area do not provide publicly accessible vantage points to view these scenic areas. Further, the Project site is not located near a scenic corridor, as shown on Figure 4- 23, Jurupa Valley Scenic Corridors and Roadways, of the City’s General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11) The public rights-of-way surrounding the Project site provide distant and partial views of the Jurupa Mountains (approximately 2.98 miles) to the northeast and San Gabriel Mountains (approximately

12.33 miles) to the north; Norco Hills (approximately 3.6 miles) to the southeast, and Santa Ana Mountains (approximately 9.18 miles) to the south and southwest. The proposed residential buildings would be a maximum of 35 feet to 37 feet. Although the Project would result in the development of the site with the proposed residential homes and school, due to the orientation and height of the proposed buildings, the on-site structures would not substantially block the partial views to these landforms. The partial views to these natural landforms would still be publicly available from the surrounding rights-of-way following the development of the Project site. As a result, the implementation of the Project does not have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 14

3.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. PDF 4.1-1 (listed under Threshold a) applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to scenic highways. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project would result in no impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
According to Caltrans’ list of designated and eligible routes, and pursuant to the Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260-263, there are no Officially-Designated State scenic highways within the City of Jurupa Valley or in proximity to the Project site. The nearest Officially Designated State scenic highway is SR-91 located approximately 19.42 miles southwest of the Project site. The nearest eligible scenic highway is SR-71 from SR-91 near Corona to SR-83 located approximately 7.16 miles southwest of the Project site. As the site would not be visible from SR-91 due to distance, intervening development, and topography, the Project does not have the potential to substantially damage any scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, within a state scenic highway. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.1-12)

3.1.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. PDF 1-1 (listed under Threshold a) applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to scenic quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
During construction, the Project would result in a temporary change to the visual character of the Project site from a predominantly undeveloped site to an active construction site with construction equipment, staging areas, construction machinery, and temporary fencing. Following the completion of the construction activities, all construction equipment would be removed from the Project site.

Project-related changes to local visual character and quality during Project construction would be less than significant due to the temporary nature of construction activities. Further, the temporary presence of construction equipment within a property under construction is common and would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality. (DEIR, p. 4.1-13)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 15
The Project’s design, including site layout, architecture, and landscaping is discussed and illustrated in detail in Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Chapter 4, and the Design Guidelines related to Landscape Design and Architectural Design in Chapters 5 and 6 of the Specific Plan. Future development accommodated by the Specific Plan would be required to comply with the Specific Plan’s design guidelines which express the desired character of the Specific Plan, ensure a consistent level of quality, accommodate emerging architectural and product trends, and support green building practices.

Accordingly, through implementation of the Specific Plan Planning Area Standards and Design Guidelines, the design and appearance of the Project would ensure that the development on the Project site is aesthetically pleasing and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character of the Project site and its surroundings from public views. Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-14 to 4.1-15)

3.1.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs)

4.1-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce light impacts and glare. PDF 4.1-1 (listed under Threshold a) applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to light and glare. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Under existing conditions, the Project site is a corn field and does not produce substantial light or glare; therefore, implementation of the Project would result in an increase in ambient light generation, primarily associated with building lights, streetlights, and security/parking lot lighting. Implementation of the Project would introduce new sources of light on the Project site that may affect the nighttime sky. Lighting will be installed on buildings and along streets, parking areas, and pedestrian walkways for the security and safety of future residents and visitors. As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description, of the DEIR, all outdoor lighting, including spotlights, floodlights, electrical reflectors and other means of illumination for signs, structures, landscaping, parking, loading, unloading and similar areas shall be focused, directed, and arranged to minimize glare and illumination of streets or adjoining property. Consistent with General Plan Policy COS 10.1, all exterior lights will be shielded and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties. The level of on-site lighting as well as lighting fixtures shall comply with any and all applicable requirements and policies of the City of Jurupa Valley, including General Plan Policy COS 10.1. (DEIR, p. 4.1-17) Additionally, development within the 153-acre Specific Plan Area would be required to comply with the Planning Area Standards and Design Guidelines established in the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 16
(refer to PDF 1-1). The Design Guidelines contain standards related to architecture to provide specific guidance for future development. None of the Project’s proposed building materials would consist of large expanses of reflective materials, except for proposed windows, which would not be mirrored and would have low potential glare characteristics. Compliance with the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Planning Area Standards and Design Guidelines, the City’s Municipal Code, and PPP 4.1-1 would ensure that all lighting and building design elements proposed by the Project are designed to prevent the creation of substantial light or glare that could affect day or nighttime views in the area. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare in the area and, as such, the Project’s impacts would be less than significant (DEIR, p. 4.1-17)

3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

3.2.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The current Zoning Classification for the project site within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan (SP No. 266) is One- (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) (Planning Areas 10 & 13), Commercial (C) (Planning Areas 11 & 12), School (S) (Planning Area 15), and Industrial Park (I-P) (Planning Area 20). (DEIR, p. 4.2- 11)
The Project is not located within the A-P (Light Agriculture with Poultry), A-2 (Heavy Agriculture), or the A-D (Agriculture Dairy) zones. The zone change would amend the on-site zoning from R-1, S, and I-P to Specific Plan (SP) for the new Vernola Ranch SP. Neither R-1, S, I-P or the Specific Plan zone are considered primary agricultural zones. As such, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. Furthermore, as indicated on the Riverside County Map My County website, the Project site is not under a Williamson Act Contract. As such, there is no impact. (DEIR, p. 4.2-11)

3.2.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in PRC section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by PRC section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)).

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 17
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The current Zoning Classification for the project site within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan (SP No. 266) is One- (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) (Planning Areas 10 & 13), Commercial (C) (Planning Areas 11 & 12), School (S) (Planning Area 15), and Industrial Park (I-P) (Planning Area 20). The Project site does not contain any forest lands, timberland, or timberland zoned as Timberland Production, nor are any forest lands or timberlands located on or nearby the Project site. Because no lands on the Project site are zoned for forestland or timberland, the Project has no potential to impact such zoning. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.2-12)

3.2.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site and surrounding properties do not contain forest lands, are not zoned for forest lands, nor are they identified as containing forest resources by the General Plan. Because forest land is not present on the Project site or in the immediate vicinity of the Project site, the Project has no potential to result in the loss of forest land or the conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.2-13)

3.3 AIR QUALITY

3.3.1 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-5 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to air quality. This City Council finds that the development of the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 18
proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project does not involve operation of Agricultural uses (livestock and farming), Wastewater treatment plants, Food processing plants, Chemical plants, Composting operations, Refineries, Landfills, Dairies, or Fiberglass molding facilities. The Project presents the potential to result in other emissions, such as those leading to odors in the form of diesel exhaust during construction in the immediate vicinity of the Project site. The closest sensitive receptors to the Project construction site are the existing residential properties on Pats Ranch Road, adjacent to and east of the Project Site.

However, odors generated during construction will be short-term and will not result in a long-term odorous impact to the surrounding area. (DEIR, p. 4.3-37) Additionally, CARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook outlines common sources of odor complaints, including sewage treatment plants, landfills, recycling facilities, and petroleum refineries (CARB 2005). The Project applicant proposes residential homes and a school overlay, which is not included on the CARB’s list of facilities that are known to be prone to generate odors. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-37)

3.4 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

3.4.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive community identified in local or regional plans, polices, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Services.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.4-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
No riparian habitat or features regulated by the Santa Ana RWQCB, CDFW and ACOE were documented within or immediately adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-19)
No suitable habitat was observed for the three (3) narrow endemic plant species that were identified for the Project area. No suitable habitat for sensitive species or plant species including those listed as federal or state threatened/endangered was documented within the Project site. No sensitive vegetation

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 19
communities listed by CDFW were documented within or adjacent to the Project site. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any sensitive natural community. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-19)

3.4.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
No evidence of vernal pool, ephemeral depressions, stock ponds, road ruts or other wetland features were recorded on the Project site. Accordingly, no impacts to wetlands would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-20)

3.4.3 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The City of Jurupa Valley has not adopted an ordinance pertaining to the protection of trees. The Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources including Conservation and Open Space Policies COS 1.2 (Protection of Significant Trees), 1.3 (Other Significant Vegetation), 2.1 (MSHCP Implementation), and 2.3 (Biological Reports). In particular, COS 1.2 calls for the protection of significant trees. Significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity.

California native trees should be protected. No native trees or oak species occur onsite and the removal of ornamental trees would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance, including COS 1.2 and 1.3. Therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.4-24)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 20

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
A cultural records search for the Project site and the surrounding area within a one-mile radius of the Project site was conducted at the EIC at UCR on November 23, 2021. The records search identified five resources, all historic, within one-half mile of the Project; only one of which (P-33-016681) overlaps the southern portion of the Project. Site P-33-016681 is an overhead electrical power line recorded in 2007 as the Southern Sierras Powerline by Michael. The power line was evaluated by Dice as not eligible for the CRHR and subsequent studies addressing the line have concurred with the 2017 evaluation of the resource. Further, the recorded alignment that did traverse the subject property is no longer extant. The remaining four resources identified during the EIC records search are off-site and include a trash scatter, residence, ranch, and well with associated trash deposit. The records search also identified 27 previous studies conducted within one-half-mile of the Project site and eight of the previous studies overlap the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9)
During the pedestrian field survey conducted on November 23, 2021, visibility of the natural ground surface was excellent as the agricultural fields had recently been cleared and plowed. The majority of the Project site has been cultivated for decades and no undisturbed areas exist within the site. The survey did not encounter any restrictions to the inspection of the Project site. The field survey of the Project site did not detect any evidence of surface historic or prehistoric resources. No features, structures, or artifacts were observed during the inspection, and there were no existing elements of the previously recorded transmission line (Site P-33-016681). (DEIR, p. 4.5-9) At the north side of the property, a wooden barn was noted and investigated as a possible historic structure. However, the ranch foreman indicated that the barn had been moved to this location from the west side of Interstate 15. The agricultural buildings associated with the Project site were located west of the current alignment of Interstate 15 and the ranch was a larger operation years ago. The barn is a simple utilitarian structure and, as it has been moved, it no longer retains any integrity or association with any former agricultural operation. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9) Furthermore, the Project site is not near or adjacent to any resource identified in the City’s General Plan, Table 4.1, Designated Historic Structures in Jurupa Valley. The Project would not affect any locally designed historic structures. Therefore, impacts to historical resources visible on the surface would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 21

3.5.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.5-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to cultural resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Project site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.5-12) If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, § 7050.5, “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to § 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California PRC § 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site. According to PRC § 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. (DEIR, p. 4.5-12) It is not expected that human remains will be unearthed during construction activities, although a remote potential exists. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and PRC § 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of a Native American descent, would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.5-12)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 22

3.6 ENERGY

3.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to energy resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Project construction would require the use of construction equipment for demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, architectural coating, as well as construction workers and vendors traveling to and from the Project site, and hauling trips. Construction equipment requires diesel as the fuel source and construction worker and vendor trips use both gasoline and diesel fuel. A total of approximately 686,609 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 623,153 gallons of gasoline are estimated to be consumed during Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9) Fuel consumption from on-site heavy-duty construction equipment and construction activities would be temporary in nature and would represent a negligible demand on energy resources. Construction equipment is also required to comply with regulations limiting idling to five minutes or less (13 CCR § 2449(d)(3)). Furthermore, there are no unusual Project site characteristics that would necessitate the use of construction equipment that would be less energy-efficient than at comparable construction sites in other parts of the State. For comparison, the State of California consumed 12.7 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.8 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2021, which is the most recent published data. Thus, the fuel usage during Project construction would account for a negligible percent of the existing gasoline and diesel fuel related energy consumption in California. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) Indirectly, construction energy efficiencies and energy conservation would be achieved for the proposed development through energy efficiencies realized from bulk purchase, transport and use of construction materials. Use of materials in bulk reduces energy demands associated with preparation and transport of construction materials as well as the transport and disposal of construction waste and solid waste in general, with corollary reduced demands on area landfill capacities and energy consumed by waste transport and landfill operations. Furthermore, it is expected that construction-related fuel consumption associated with the Project would not be any more inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary than at other construction sites in the region. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) Energy consumption related to Project operations includes onsite electricity and natural gas usage and transportation fuel consumption. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 23
The Project’s electrical consumption was estimated to be approximately 15,562,465 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity per year; this is the sum of the building electricity (14,564,772 kWh/year) and electricity related to the Project’s water consumption (997,693 kWh/year). Additionally, the Project’s natural gas consumption was estimated to be approximately 37,200,110 kilo-British thermal units (kBTUs) or approximately 372,090 therms. In comparison to the Project, SCE, which provides service to the City, consumed approximately 81.1 billion kWh and the Southern California Gas Company consumed approximately 5.1 billion therms in 2021. At full build-out, the Project site’s energy demand would be a negligible amount of the existing electricity and the natural gas demand in the respective service area. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10)
Additionally, a total of approximately 3,070,977 gallons of gasoline fuel and approximately 580,650 gallons of diesel fuel are estimated to be consumed each year. The State of California consumed approximately 12.7 billion gallons of gasoline and 2.7 billion gallons of diesel fuel in 2021. Thus, the annual fuel usage during Project operation would account for a negligible percent of the existing gasoline and diesel fuel related energy consumption in California. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) Moreover, the Project site is located within close proximity to the regional and local roadway system, including I-15. The Specific Plan’s Mobility Plan, which includes a circulation system comprised of roads, bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways/trails, would also reduce VMT and associated energy consumption by facilitating alternative modes of transportation. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10) The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other residential land use projects of similar scale and configuration. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (DEIR, p. 4.6-11)

3.6.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.6-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to energy resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project would be required to comply with City, State and federal energy conservation measures related to construction and operations, as noted above. Many of the regulations regarding energy efficiency are focused on increasing building efficiency and renewable energy generation, promoting

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 24
sustainability through energy conservation measures, as well as reducing water consumption and VMT and increasing use of alternative fuels. The California Energy Code building energy efficiency standards include provisions applicable to all buildings, residential and non-residential, which are mandatory requirements for efficiency and design. Further, the Project will comply with the CALGreen code. This would be accomplished through implementation of energy reduction measures, such as energy efficient lighting and lighting control systems, appliances, and providing EV charging station infrastructure. The Project also reduces vehicle fuel usage due to compliance with State regulatory programs. The vehicles used by future residents would be subject to AB 1493 (“the Pavley Standard”) which requires reduction in GHG emissions from non-commercial passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks of model year 2009 and thereafter. Executive Order S-01-07 that went into effect in 2010 required a reduction in the carbon intensity of transportation fuels used in California by at least 10 percent by 2020. The Advanced Clean Cars program, introduced in 2012, combines the control of smog, soot causing pollutants and GHG emissions into a single coordinated package of requirements for model years 2017 through 2025 and Advanced Clean Cars II requirements extend beyond 2030. (DEIR, p. 4.6-12)
Therefore, impacts to obstructing a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency during construction or operation would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-12)

3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.7.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, and/or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault. (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42).

2. Strong seismic ground shaking.

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

4. Landslides.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the Project site and the Project site does not lie within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as shown on General Plan Figure 8-4 - Mapped

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 25
Fault Zones. Because the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and because no known active faults underlie the Project site, the Project site would not be exposed to fault rupture during a seismic event and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.7-11) The site is not situated within a State of California designated “Alquist-Priolo” Earthquake Fault Zone.

The Project site is not located within a seismic hazard area as identified in the DOC’s Earthquake ZORI. As with much of the southern California region, the Project site is located in a seismically active area. The buildings and supporting infrastructure improvements proposed within the Project site would be subject to ground shaking during seismic events along local and regional faults that would occur during the lifetime operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project has the potential to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with seismic events. However, the design and construction of the structures and infrastructure improvements at the Project site would be subject to the mandatory requirements and standards of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) Title 24 (CALGreen) and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, which are designed to attenuate the effects of strong ground shaking. Compliance with applicable requirements of CBSC CALGreen and the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code would be assured through City review of grading and building permits which would ensure that seismic ground shaking effects are attenuated (these requirements would be required through adherence to PPPs 4.7-1 and 4.7- 2). The requirements identified in the CBSC CALGreen regulations are designed to ensure that buildings are able to withstand the levels of seismic ground shaking to which the proposed Project would be subject. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with seismically-induced ground shaking. (DEIR, p. 4.7-11)
While the County of Riverside indicates that the site has a “high” liquefaction potential, the property has not been mapped in a liquefaction zone by the State of California. In addition, based on the depth to groundwater at the site of approximately 100 feet below grade, the Project-specific geotechnical investigation concludes that the potential for liquefaction at the Project site is very low. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact regarding seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. (DEIR, p. 4.7-11)
As detailed in the Project-specific Geotechnical Evaluations, due to the general flat terrain, there is no potential for seismic induced landslides. Thus, the occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows within the area would not occur and the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. (DEIR, p. 4.7-11)

3.7.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.7-3 and 4.7-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 26
the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The entire 153-acre Specific Plan area, an additional 36 acres south of the Specific Plan area, and a portion of the off-site improvement area would be mass graded in Phase 1. Per the Project’s Conceptual Grading Plan, the Project site would be graded in a manner that approximates the site’s existing topographic conditions. The grading ensures that the gradient of the proposed surface would allow the Project to provide adequate slopes for streets to meet street design criteria and to provide flood protection for the future building pads within the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.7-13) The proposed grading activities associated with the Project would temporarily expose underlying soils to water and air which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Exposed soils would be subject to erosion during rainfall events or high winds due to the temporary exposure of these erodible materials to wind and water. Erosion by water would be greatest during the first rainy season after grading and before the Project’s structure foundations are established and paving and landscaping occur. Erosion by wind would be highest during periods of high wind speeds when soils are exposed. (DEIR, p. 4.7-13)
Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain a NPDES permit for construction activities. The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. As part of the mandatory Municipal Code and NPDES requirements, the Project Applicant would also be required to prepare a SWPPP that would identify construction best management practices (BMPs). BMPs (i.e. silt fencing, sand bags, etc.) would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the Project site’s potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which would preclude wind-related erosion hazards during construction activities. Mandatory compliance with the Project’s NPDES permit and SCAQMD Rule 403 would ensure that water and wind erosion during the Project’s construction-related activities would be minimized. Accordingly, construction-related impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-13) Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces (i.e., building foundations and paved parking areas). Minimal areas of exposed soil would occur in the Project site’s landscaped areas. The only potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be indirect effects from stormwater discharged from the property. The Project site is located within the boundary of the Riverside County Flood Control District Day Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP). There are several storm drain infrastructure facilities that have been constructed and provide regional flood protection for the Project. Runoff from the Project would flow into a subsurface basin and water quality/detention basins and then into the existing Line J storm drain system. (DEIR, pp. 4.7-13 - 4.7- 14)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 27
The Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City a Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The Preliminary WQMP has been submitted for City approval. The WQMP is required to identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Adherence to the requirements noted in the Project’s required WQMP, and City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, would ensure that the Project’s potential erosion impacts during operation would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-14)

3.7.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Potential landslide and liquefaction hazards are addressed above under the discussion and analysis of Threshold a. Figure 8-5, Liquefaction Susceptibility of the City’s General Plan shows that the Project site is within a “high” liquefaction susceptibility area. As previously discussed, while the County of Riverside indicates that the site has a “high” liquefaction potential, the property has not been mapped in a liquefaction zone by the State of California. In addition, based on the depth to groundwater at the site of approximately 100 feet below grade, the Project-specific geotechnical investigation concludes that the potential for liquefaction at the Project site is very low. Figure 8-6, Landslide Susceptibility of the City’s General Plan shows that the Project site is not within a “high” or “very high” landslide susceptibility area. As discussed above, due to the general flat terrain, there is no potential for seismic induced landslides. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-15) The results of the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation (Technical Appendices E and F of the DEIR) indicate a total seismic settlement of approximately 0.83 inches. Based on the magnitude of estimated seismic settlements, special mitigation or design is not considered necessary. Nevertheless, the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation and Geotechnical Evaluation (Technical Appendices E and F of the DEIR) provides standard recommendations for site grading, site preparation, and placement of fill material that would avoid the potential for settlement. The Project would include PPP 4.7-1 and PPP 4.7-2, which requires the Project Applicant to comply with the design standards and safety recommendations provided in the Project-specific Geotechnical Evaluations. With the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 28
implementation of the recommendations provided in the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation as required by PPP 4.7-1 and 4.7-2, the Project’s potential impacts related to geologic stability will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-15)
The Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation and Geotechnical Evaluation (Technical Appendices E and F of the DEIR) did not identify any potential for hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapsible soils at the Project site. Further, compliance with the standards of CBSC CALGreen and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code would ensure that the Project would not result in any potential impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. (DEIR, p. 4.7-15)

3.7.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
According to the Project-specific Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation and Geotechnical Evaluation, based on the expansion index testing performed for this report, site soils possess a “very low” (0-20) to “low” (21-50) expansion index potential (ASTM D4829). Based upon visual examination of the site soils and past experience in the area, soils possessing a “medium” expansion index (51-90) may be encountered at the site. The Project site is not located on soil that has an El Expansion Potential >91 according to the results of the laboratory testing performed in accordance with ASTM D 4829. Additionally, mandatory implementation of the standards of CBSC CALGreen and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, would further ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-17)

3.7.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 29
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.7.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Sanitary sewer service to the Project site would be provided by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD). The proposed 8-inch to 10-inch sewer lines would extend along the interior roads of the Specific Plan Area and connect to the existing 10-inch to 12-inch sewer line located in Pats Ranch Road. Sewer flows from the Specific Plan Area would be discharged into the Inland Empire Brine Line for treatment by the Orange County Sanitation District and ultimately flows into the Pacific Ocean. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project.

Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.7-18)

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.8.1 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The nearest existing school to the Project site is VanderMolen Fundamental Elementary School, located approximately 0.65-mile south of the Project site. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17)

3.8.2 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project site would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 30
 Substantial Evidence
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State and local agencies to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Below are the data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements.
 List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
 List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.
 List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit.  List of “active” Cease and Desist Orders CDO and CAOCleanup and Abatement Orders from Water Board.
 List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-18) Based on a review of the Cortese List maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency, the Project site is not identified on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8- 18)

3.8.3 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project site is not within two miles of an airport and the Project site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not within two miles of an airport and the Project site is not identified as within an Airport Influence Area for airports in Riverside or San Bernardino County. As such, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-19)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 31

3.8.4 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.9-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The emergency response plan in effect for the City of Jurupa Valley, the Riverside County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), identifies County agencies and other agencies that would be involved in emergency responses; threat summaries and assessments; and procedures for responding agencies, in addition to procedures for continuity of government. (DEIR, p. 4.9-20) The City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), issued in 2018 (City of Jurupa Valley, 2018), provides additional information on hazard assessments; hazard mitigation strategies; and resources available for emergency response and hazard mitigation. Unique hazards in the City of Jurupa Valley identified in the LHMP that are relevant to the Project site and abutting land are transportation hazards on SR-60; wildfires in the Santa Ana Riverbed; and flooding along the Santa Ana River. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21)
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. Construction activities for the Project would be primarily confined to the Project site and would include off-site roadway improvements that comply with City standards. During operation, the Project would not involve any activities that would impede public access or travel along the public right-of-way or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. The Project provides multiple points of access for ingress and egress. The proposed Project would not substantially impede emergency response routes in the local area. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21) The Project would not include a land use that would constitute a potential hazard to the community (such as an airport, oil refinery, or chemicals plant), nor would it close any existing streets or otherwise represent a significant impediment to emergency response and evacuation of the local area. The Project would also comply with all applicable codes and ordinances for emergency access. Accordingly, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Thus, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-21)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 32

3.8.5 THRESHOLD G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.9-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to wildland fires. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold g; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within a “Moderate”, “High”, or “Very High” fire hazard Zone in Figure 8-10, Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley, of the City’s General Plan. Furthermore, the Project would be required to use drought tolerant, irrigated landscaping. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Thus, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-22)

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.9.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.10-1 through 4.10-3 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Development of the proposed Project would involve demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coating, which have the potential to generate water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, organic waste, chemicals, paints, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during Project construction in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures. (DEIR, p. 4.10- 10)
The Project site includes the 153-acre Specific Plan Area, an additional 36 acres south of the Specific Plan Area (Commercial Planning Areas 11 & 12 of SP No. 266), and 11.7 acres of off-site

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 33
improvements. The southern 36 acres, between the south boundary of the proposed Specific Plan and Limonite Avenue is currently approved for commercial use under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan and related EIR and will remain in the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan. In order to provide one cohesive development, minimize construction traffic, and balance the earthwork, the southern 36 acres would be mass graded with the Project. Per the Project’s Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 3-11 of the DEIR), the Project site would be graded in a manner that approximates the site’s existing topographic conditions. The grading ensures that the gradient of the proposed surface would allow the Project to provide adequate slopes for streets to meet street design criteria and to provide flood protection for the future building pads within the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.10-10) Pursuant to the requirements of the Santa Ana RWQCB and City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 8.70.290, the Project Applicant would be required to obtain a NPDES Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities that complies with Chapter 6.05, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, (see PPP 4.10-1 through 4.10-3). The NPDES permit is required for all development projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation, and disturb at least one (1) acre of total land area. In addition, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program. Compliance with the NPDES permit and the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program involves the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for construction-related activities. The SWPPP will specify the Best Management Practices (BMPs) that would be required to be implemented during construction activities to ensure that potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the subject property. (DEIR, p. 4.10-10) Examples of BMPs that may be utilized during construction include, but are not limited to, sandbag barriers, geotextiles, storm drain inlet protection, sediment traps, rip rap soil stabilizers, and hydroseeding. Additionally, pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 8.70.060, the Project Applicant also would be required to implement an erosion control plan to minimize water- and windborne erosion. Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that implementation of the Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-10 to 4.10-11)
Stormwater pollutants that may be produced during Project operation include bacterial indicators, nutrients, pesticides, sediments, trash & debris, and oil & grease. Project priority pollutant(s) of concern include pesticides. Once the Project has been constructed, urban runoff could include a variety of contaminants that could impact water quality. (DEIR, p. 4.10-11) To meet the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit and in accordance with the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a Project site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 34
BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. (DEIR, p. 4.10-11)
The Project would include six detention/water quality basins and a subsurface basin within Planning Area 17. Two of the basins would be infiltration BMPs and three of the basins would be bio-retention BMPs since the infiltration rate at the basin locations is greater than 0.3 in/hr. The three bio-retention basins would be designed as treatment trains using bioretention and drywells. Source control BMPs and construction BMPs would be included during future engineering. Compliance with the Preliminary WQMP and long-term maintenance of proposed on-site water quality control features would be required by the City to ensure the long-term effectiveness of all on-site water quality features. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-11)

3.9.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would be served with potable and non-potable water from JCSD. The Chino basin is the direct source of potable groundwater for JCSD. The use of groundwater from the Riverside South Basin is limited to non-potable wells used for irrigation purposes and would not likely serve the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13)
The estimated potable water demand for the Project with an elementary school is approximately 371 acre-feet per year (AFY) and the recycled water demand is approximately 167 AFY. The Project’s water demand projected without the elementary school is 382 and 151 AFY for potable and recycled water, respectively. The water demand projections of the 2020 UWMP considered a land use plan for the subject property that had a water demand of approximately 535 AFY (Table 2-5 of the Project’s WSA). The proposed Project was known to the District when it was preparing the JCSD 2020 UWMP projections for water demand. The Project’s total water demand (recycled plus potable) is equivalent to what was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the Project’s water demand was fully accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. (DEIR, p. 4.10-13)
The Project’s WSA concluded that the total projected water supplies available to JCSD during normal, single dry, and multiple dry year periods over a 20-year projection would be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. Accordingly,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 35
implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially or directly decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.10-14)
The majority of the Project site is currently undeveloped and used for agricultural purposes.

Development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the groundwater basin that underlies the Project site (Chino Basin). (DEIR, p. 4.10-14)
Percolation is just one of several sources of groundwater recharge for the Chino Basin. The Project would include the installation of a subsurface basin and multiple water quality detention basins and landscaping, which would promote natural infiltration on the Project site. Based on the size of the Project site in relation to the size of the groundwater basin and the design features proposed by the Project to allow percolation, implementation of the Project would result in incremental changes to local percolation and would not result in substantial adverse effects to local groundwater recharge. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14)
The Chino Basin is an adjudicated basin; adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sub-basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino or Riverside South Basins. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14)
For the reasons stated above, the Project would not substantially decrease or deplete groundwater supplies and would not interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-14)

3.9.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.7-3 and 4.10-1 through 4.10-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 36
 Substantial Evidence
Development of the Project would alter existing ground contours of the Project site and would increase the impervious surface area on the site, both of which would result in changes to the existing drainage patterns of the Project site. Per the Project’s Conceptual Grading Plan (Figure 3-11 of the DEIR), the Project site would be graded in a manner that approximates the site’s existing topographic conditions.

The grading ensures that the gradient of the proposed surface would allow the Project to provide adequate slopes for streets to meet street design criteria and to provide flood protection for the future building pads within the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16) The Project would include six detention/water quality basins and a subsurface basin within Planning Area 17. There is a total of five laterals, that range from 24 inches to 48 inches in diameter, from Line J storm drain that would connect to the Project site. Runoff from the Project would flow into a subsurface basin and water quality, detention basins and then into the existing Line J storm drain system. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16)
Although the Project would alter the Project site’s interior drainage patterns, such changes would not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 8.70.060, the Project’s construction contractor would be required to implement an erosion control plan to minimize water- and windborne erosion during construction activities.

Furthermore, implementation of SWPPP requirements including site-specific BMPs, as required by PPP 4.7-3 would ensure no substantial erosion would occur and runoff from the Project site would be similar to existing conditions. (DEIR, p. 4.10-16)
Furthermore, the treatment controls proposed (i.e. detention basins) for the Project site are effective at removing sediment from stormwater runoff during long-term operation. Compliance with the WQMP, and long-term maintenance of on-site stormwater conveyance and retention infrastructure by the property owner or operator to ensure their long-term effectiveness, would be required by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, see PPPs 4.10-1 through 4.10-3). Therefore, runoff flows leaving the Project site would not carry substantial amounts of sediment. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-16 to 4.10-17) Based on the approved design shown on the RCFC & WCD Line J Storm Drain Improvement Plans, the Project has been provided connection points that would allow the project to discharge a total peak flow rate of 255 cfs. Based on the hydrology calculations and proposed basins, the Project would not adversely impact Line J and would provide the required water quality storage to address impacts to water quality. Therefore, runoff discharge from the Project site would not have an adverse effect to the existing storm drain system downstream. (DEIR, p. 4.10-17) Implementation of the Project would not exceed the Line J storm drain system capacity. Although runoff from the Project site would increase post-construction stormwater flows from existing conditions, the design flow of the existing storm drain system has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase rate of runoff from the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 37
runoff that would exceed the capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-17) As discussed in detail earlier under Threshold a, the Project’s construction contractors would be required to comply with a NPDES Construction General Permit, a site-specific SWPPP, an erosion control plan, and the Preliminary WQMP to ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-17) The western half of the Project site is located on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06065C0681G (effective August 28, 2008) within FEMA Flood Zone X (unshaded). Flood Zone X (unshaded) is correlated with “areas of minimal flood hazard.” The eastern half of the Project site is located on Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 14-09-3381P (effective February 9, 2015) within a “1 pct annual chance flood discharge contained in structure”. The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and does not have the potential to impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year floodplain. (DEIR, p. 4.10-18)
The results of the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study determined that the proposed onsite storm drain systems and detention basins would provide 100 year flood protection. The Project site would be graded in a manner that approximates the site’s existing topographic conditions and provide adequate slopes to provide flood protection for the future building pads within the Project site. The Project would be designed to ensure that peak flood volumes and flows would be equivalent to that of the designed capacity of the existing storm drain system. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-18)

3.9.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, or risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The nearest bodies of water are Lake Matthews, which is located approximately 10.2 miles southeast of the Project site, and Lake Perris, which is located approximately 21.6 miles to the southeast of the Project site, both of which are too far away from the subject property to result in inundation in the event of a seiche. The Project site is located more than 34 miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean; therefore, the potential for a tsunami to affect the Project site is also non-existent due to distance. As discussed under Threshold c, the western half of the Project site is located on Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No. 06065C0681G (effective August 28, 2008) within FEMA Flood Zone X (unshaded).

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 38
Flood Zone X (unshaded) is correlated with “areas of minimal flood hazard.” The eastern half of the Project site is within Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) 14-09-3381P (effective February 9, 2015) within a “1 pct annual chance flood discharge contained in structure”. The Project site is not located within a 100-year flood, and the Project would be designed to ensure that peak flood volumes and flows would be equivalent to that of the designed capacity of the existing storm drain system. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not risk the release of pollutants due to inundation. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-19)

3.9.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement 4.10-1 through 4.10-3 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP and by installing and maintaining the on-site stormwater infrastructure that is designed to minimize impacts associated with water quality and polluted runoff from the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.10-20) The Project site is located within the Chino Basin which was adjudicated in 1978 by the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Adjudicated basins like the Chino Basin are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Sub-basin. No component of the Project would obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Chino Basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.10-20)

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING

3.10.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not physically divide an established community.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 39
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located directly east of Interstate 15 (I-15), approximately 1.9 mile south of State Route 60 (SR-60), and 6.5 miles north of SR-91. Residential land uses are located to the east of the Project site. The Project site is an active corn field with farming support structures and storage/staging facilities on the northern portion of the Project site. The Project area is generally characterized by residential, commercial, vacant, and recreational land uses. North of the Project site is vacant land; east of the Project are residential and recreational land uses; south of the Project are commercial uses; and west of the Project site are residential land uses. As the Project site is surrounded by roadways and existing residential development and is designated for residential, commercial retail, and business park uses, implementation of the Project represents a logical expansion of residential land uses to the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.11-5)
The Project site is adjacent to Pat’s Ranch Road and would not restrict access to or from the existing surrounding residences. Additionally, the Project does not propose any major infrastructure that would create physical barriers or restrict mobility in the area. Moreover, the Project would not involve the construction of a new freeway, highway, or roadway or proposes the construction of any physical feature that would serve to impede the connectivity between parts of a cohesive neighborhood or community. Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the physical division of an established community; development of the Project site with residential uses would not physically divide an established community. (DEIR, p. 4.11-5)

3.10.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The DEIR analyzes the physical environmental effects associated with all components of the Project, including Project construction and operation. Governmental approvals requested from the City of Jurupa Valley include a General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 22003, Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 266A5, Change of Zone (CZ) No. 22002 to adopt the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (SP22001),

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 40
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504, and Development Agreement (DA) No. 22001. The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan is referred to herein as Specific Plan. (DEIR 4.11-7 – 4.11-27) The land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the Project for purposes of determining if the Project would cause a significant environmental effect due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect include the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). The Project’s compatibility with each of these plans, policies, and regulations is discussed in DEIR Table

4.11-1 and 4.11-2. (DEIR 4.11-7 – 4.11-27)
The Project Applicant’s proposed GPA No. 22003 would amend the City’s General Plan Land Use designation from Medium Density Residential and Business Park to MDR- Medium Density Residential; MHDR – Medium High Density Residential; HDR – High Density Residential; VHDR – Very High Density Residential; OS-R Open Space Recreation; and OS-W Open Space Water. With the approval of the proposed Project, any future development plans and entitlement applications (tract maps, site plans, and other similar entitlements) would be required to comply with the Specific Plan and substantially conform to the standards and guidelines set forth in the other sections of the Specific Plan, as well as any other applicable City of Jurupa Valley regulations. Although the Project would result in a change to the General Plan land use designations for the Project site to allow for implementation of the Specific Plan, these changes would not result in a conflict with applicable plans, polices, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or reducing an environmental effect, as demonstrated in the analysis below. Additionally, during the City’s review of the Project’s application materials, the Jurupa Valley Community Development Department reviewed the proposed development for consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable General Plan policies resulting from development of the Project site with the Project. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City’s General Plan. (DEIR 4.11-7 – 4.11-27) Under existing conditions, the current Zoning Classification for the Project site is Specific Plan with One- (1) Family Dwelling (R-1), School (S), Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S), and Industrial Park (I-P) under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. The Project Applicant proposes a Change of Zone (CZ) No. 22002 to modify the 153-acre Specific Plan Area’s underlying zoning from One- (1) Family Dwelling (R-1), School (S), and Industrial Park (I-P) under I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 to Specific Plan (SP) (Vernola Ranch SP). The application of the Specific Plan Zone would allow for the Project to be developed in accordance with Chapter 4, Planning Area Standards, of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, which would constitute the zoning regulations applicable to any future development within the Project site. The City’s approval and implementation of CZ No. 22002 would ensure that the Project would be consistent with the proposed zoning regulations identified in the Specific Plan.

Based on the foregoing, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City’s Zoning Code. (DEIR 4.11-7 – 4.11-27)
SCAG’s Connect SoCal is the applicable SCAG planning documents that apply to the Project. Connect SoCal identifies voluntary best practices to approach growth and infrastructure challenges in an integrated and comprehensive way. The Connect SoCal goals are meant to provide guidance for

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 41
considering proposed projects for municipalities throughout the SCAG jurisdictional area within the context of regional goals and policies. As shown in Table 4.11-2 of the DEIR, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the adopted Connect SoCal. Accordingly, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact with respect to a conflict with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal. (DEIR 4.11-7 – 4.11-27)

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.11.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 5.0.1 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
No mineral resource extraction activity is known to have ever occurred on the Project site. Figure 4- 16 of the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan depicts the Project site as being located within Mineral Resources Zone 3 (MRZ-3), which is defined as “Areas containing known and/or inferred occurrences of undetermined quality, quantity, or significance”. However, under existing conditions, the Project site is not being actively mined for mineral resources. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California, and no impact would occur. The Project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Business Park (BP) Commercial Retail (CR), and Medium Density Residential (MDR) and a zoning classification of One– (1) Family Dwelling (R-1), Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S), and Industrial Park (I-P) under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, none of which are intended for mineral resource extraction. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts would occur with respect to the topic of Mineral Resources. (DEIR, p. 5-8)

3.11.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 5.0.1 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 42
 Substantial Evidence
The General Plan Open Space, Mineral Resources (OS-MIN) land use designation is intended for mineral extraction and processing and includes areas held in reserve for future mineral extraction and processing. The Project site is currently designated Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR). Therefore, the Project is not delineated on the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5-8)

3.12 NOISE

3.12.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to noise. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To assess the worst-case construction noise levels, the Project construction noise analysis relies on the highest noise level impacts when the equipment with the highest reference noise level is operating at the closest point from the edge of primary construction activity (Project site boundary) to each receiver location. The construction noise levels are expected to range from 45.0 to

58.1 dBA Leq and the highest construction levels at the nearby receiver locations are expected to range from 52.8 to 58.1 dBA Leq. (DEIR, p. 4.12-15)
To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially significant short-term noise levels at nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq based on the latest version of the FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual is used to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during Project construction activities. The Project would also implement PPP 4.12-2 to ensure compliance with General Plan Policy NE 3.5 Construction Noise. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations. (DEIR, p. 4.12-15)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 43
Tables 8-1 through 8-8, presented in the Noise Impact Analysis (DEIR Technical Appendix L), depict a summary of the exterior dBA CNEL traffic noise levels. Roadway segments are analyzed in each of the following timeframes: Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, General Plan Buildout 2040 without and with Project conditions. (DEIR, p. 4.12-16)
Since the Project would result in less than a 3 dBA CNEL noise increase under all scenarios, the land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated Project-related traffic noise levels. Long-term Traffic related noise impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-17) To ensure noise-sensitive land uses are protected from new or Modified Stationary Noise Sources, Policy (NE 1.3) of the General Plan Noise Element, Figure 7-3 of the Noise Element identifies guidelines to evaluate proposed developments based on exterior noise level limits for land uses.

Existing residential designated land uses in the Project study area are considered normally acceptable with exterior noise levels below 60 dBA CNEL, and conditionally acceptable with exterior noise levels of up to 70 dBA CNEL. As shown below, the Project would be consistent with General Plan Policy NE 1.3 of the Noise Element. (DEIR, p. 4.12-17)
The Project daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from

40.2 to 50.1 dBA Leq (DEIR, p. 4.12-17). The Project nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 33.9 to 38.8 dBA Leq. The differences between the daytime and nighttime noise levels is largely related to the duration of noise activity. (DEIR, p. 4.12- 17 – 4.12-18)
To demonstrate compliance with local noise regulations, the Project-only operational noise levels are evaluated against exterior noise level thresholds based on the City of Jurupa Valley exterior noise level standards at nearby noise-sensitive receiver locations. Table 4.12-8 of the DEIR shows the unmitigated operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Jurupa Valley 65 dBA Leq daytime and 45 dBA Leq exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. Therefore, the operational noise analysis shows that Project-related operational noise level impacts are considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-18)

3.12.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to noise. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 44
 Substantial Evidence
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. It is expected that groundborne vibration from Project construction activities would cause only intermittent, localized intrusion.

Ground-borne vibration levels resulting from typical construction activities occurring within the Project site were estimated by data published by the FTA. However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized on Table 11-4 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix L of the DEIR).

Using the vibration source level of construction equipment provided on Table 11-4 of the Noise Impact Analysis (Technical Appendix L of the DEIR) and the construction vibration assessment methodology published by the FTA, Project vibration impacts were estimated. At distances ranging from 33 to 250 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range up to 0.06 PPV (in/sec) and will not exceed the City of Jurupa Valley threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec) at off-site receivers. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-19 - 4.12-20)
Under long-term conditions, the Project would not include or require equipment or activities that would result in perceptible groundborne vibration beyond the Project site. The Project would not result in the exposure of persons to excessive groundborne vibration or noise levels during long-term operation. (DEIR, p. 4.12-20)

3.12.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The closest airport is the Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 4.1 miles west of the Project site. Flabob Airport is located approximately 7.2 miles east of the Project site. As such, the Project site would not be exposed to excessive noise levels from airport operations. Additionally, the Project would not generate aircraft noise that exposes people residing or working within the Flabob Airport or Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan to noise levels in excess of the noise standards of said plans.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-21)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 45

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING

3.13.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would result in the development of up to a maximum of 1,576 dwelling units. Based on a ratio of 3.75 persons per household used in the General Plan population forecasts, the potential population for the Project area is 5,910. The Project would be developed over a 73-month construction period with final buildout anticipated in July 2031. Project construction activities would require contractors and laborers. It is anticipated that general construction labor would be available from the local and regional labor pool and would not result in substantial population growth because the construction workers would commute from their respective homes. Additionally, each construction phase (e.g., grading, paving, electrical, etc.) requires different skills and specialties, which would be needed for the length of time of that phase. Because of that, the Project’s construction phases would not result in a long-term increase in employment which could induce substantial unplanned population growth from short-term construction activities. Therefore, the Project would not directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth in the City during construction. (DEIR, p. 4.13-6 - 4.13-9) The City’s General Plan projected growth for 2035 exceeds SCAG’s 2045 growth projections for the City. The City’s General Plan forecasted 30,237 more people, 7,533 more households, and 34,581 more jobs as compared to SCAG’s job forecast for the City. As such, the Project’s proposed 5,910 total population and 1,576 households were anticipated by the City’s General Plan and represent approximately 3.87% and 4% of the anticipated population and households within the City, respectively. Additionally, the Project’s population and households is within both SCAG and City growth forecasts. Furthermore, Table 4.13-5, Estimated Population and Housing in Jurupa Valley with Project of the DEIR, overstates the Project’s growth and is conservative, because it does not take credit for the growth that was assumed in the General Plan growth forecasts for the Specific Plan Area under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, which assumed 928 units with an approximate population of 2,570.

Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-7) Infrastructure needs are primarily dictated by the population they serve. The current General Plan Land Use designations for the Project site are Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Business Park.

Consistent with General Plan, Table 2.2: Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections, only the Medium Density Residential category is used because the number of employees generated by

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 46
the Business Park designation may or may not live within the City. The Project proposes to amend the MDR designation to (MHDR – Medium High Density Residential; HDR – High Density Residential; VHDR – Very High Density Residential; HHDR - Highest Density Residential. The changes in the General Plan population forecast are shown in Table 4.13-6 of the DEIR, Population Forecast - Existing General Plan Land Use vs. Proposed General Plan Land Use. (DEIR, p. 4.13-8) The proposed Project’s construction of 1,576 dwelling units would represent a residential population increase of approximately 136.3 percent over buildout population identified for the Project site based on approved land uses. The Project would require construction of roadways and utility infrastructure to serve the development. (DEIR, p. 4.13-8)
As discussed in Section 3.0, Project Description (Mobility Plan), of the DEIR, Pat’s Ranch Road would be constructed to the ultimate 118-foot right-of-way per a modified section which would remove the Class II bike lanes identified in the City’s Circulation Master Plan for bicyclists and pedestrians and would construct a two-way Class I path within the parkway. The Project would convert the sidestreet stop-controlled intersections at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place to roundabouts. In addition, the Pats Ranch Road segment between Limonite Avenue and Boca Place would be converted to a four-lane roadway. The roadway segment between Boca Place and Bellegrave Avenue would remain as two-lane roadway. The Project would widen the southern half of Bellegrave Avenue to the ultimate half right-of-way width of 59 feet. The widening would include 5 additional feet of pavement, placing curb and gutter 38 feet south of the roadway centerline with an 8-foot-wide Class II bike lane. Within the remaining 21 feet of the right-of-way, the Project would construct a 5- foot-wide meandering sidewalk and landscape the remaining area. Approximately 19 feet of existing pavement located north of the roadway centerline that would remain, for a total of 57 feet of pavement.

These roadway improvements would not introduce unplanned infrastructure not previously evaluated in the City’s General Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.13-9)
Water and wastewater service extensions to the Project site will connect to existing facilities. The Project would include a comprehensive stormwater management system containing drainage improvements, facilities, and programs which would act to control and treat stormwater pollutants. The Project site is currently designated as MDR. Therefore, the General Plan already anticipated the utility infrastructure required to accommodate residential uses with the Specific Plan area. Since all proposed utility infrastructure would connect to existing facilities and would exclusively serve the proposed development, this Project infrastructure would not indirectly induce substantial unplanned population growth. (DEIR, p. 4.13-9)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not expected to be a catalyst for any substantial, unplanned growth or population increases. Neither the Project nor any Project-related component would directly or indirectly result in substantial unplanned population growth that would cause a significant impact to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.13-9)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 47

3.13.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.5 of the DEIR. The City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Under existing conditions, the Project site is developed with agricultural land along with farming support structures and storage/staging facilities on the northern portion of the Specific Plan Area. The Project site contains two residences and two modular homes. None of these structures are occupied by residents, nor have they been for at least five years. The City’s General Plan anticipated residential development on the Project site. The Project site is designated Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR), and Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City’s General Plan. The proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. A22003 would amend the General Plan Land Use designation to MHDR – Medium High Density Residential; HDR – High Density Residential; VHDR – Very High Density Residential; HHDR - Highest Density Residential; OS-R Open Space Recreation; and OS-B Open Space Water. The Project would increase the number of residential units on the Project site by 1,576 units, which is approximately 909 units more than allowed under the current land use. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not displace a substantial number of existing people or housing.

As such, the implementation of the Project would not necessitate construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.13-10)

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES

3.14.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire; Sheriff; School; Parks; or Other Public Facilities.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.14.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.14-1 through 4.14-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to public services. The City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 48
 Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would increase the overall demand on fire protection and emergency services in the City. Project buildout would result in an increase of approximately 5,910 residents. This growth in accordance with the Project is expected to create the typical range of fire and emergency service calls, and would increase call volumes, which impacts response times for emergency and nonemergency services. (DEIR, p. 4.14-9) The City General Plan considers the proposed Project as planned growth within the City. The General Plan Final EIR stated that future development under the General Plan would be required to be designed, constructed, and operated per applicable fire prevention/protection standards established by the City.

It further stated that all new developments would be required to pay Development Impact Fees (DIF) to the City, concluding that there would be no significant impacts related to fire protection from implementation of the General Plan. Finally, the General Plan identifies the need for expanding public service by establishing Program CSSF 2.2, which would ensure the provision of sufficient public facilities and services prior to, or concurrently with, new development. (DEIR, p. 4.14-9) Further, the Project would be required to comply with all applicable fire code and ordinances for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. For example, site plans would be submitted to RCFD to ensure compliance with RCFD standard conditions, including fire flow requirement based upon the tenant type, building size, and building type. Access to and around structures would meet RCFS and CFC requirements. Compliance with RCFD requirements would ensure adequate provision of resources. (DEIR, p. 4.14-9) The Project would be required to comply with the provisions of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter

3.75 which requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing fire protection services. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would pay an annual public safety benefit contribution through the Development Agreement, which would be used, in part, for fire protection services. (DEIR, p. 4.14-9) Because the Project does not include construction of new fire protection facilities, does not generate a need for additional facilities, does not substantially affect Fire-Rescue response times (i.e., increases the existing response times in the project area) to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required to meet the response times as listed in the County Fire Protection Master Plan or similar performance standard document adopted by the Riverside County Fire Department, with implementation of PPP 4.14-1 and PPP 4.14-2, impacts related to fire protection are less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-10)
Buildout of the Project would increase demands for police protection services in the City. During the construction and operation of the Project, the need for police services is expected to grow due to the increase in population and associated potential for additional crime and accidents. Crime and safety

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 49
issues during Project construction may include theft of building materials and construction equipment, malicious mischief, graffiti, and vandalism. After construction, the Project is anticipated to generate a typical range of police service calls as similar developments, such as vehicle burglaries, residential thefts, disturbances, and driving under the influence. (DEIR, p. 4.14-10) The increase in demands on police services resulting from the implementation of the Project would not adversely impact RCSD’s existing resources. The Project site is located in a developed area of the City that is routinely patrolled by the Sheriff’s Department. There are currently no staffing or equipment deficiencies in the service area. The increase in police services needed would not require the construction of a new police station or improvements to the existing station that serves the Project site.

Implementation of the Project would result in an increase in calls for service; however, this increase would not adversely impact RCSD’s existing resources. (DEIR, p. 4.14-10) Moreover, the Project would be required to comply with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter

3.75 which requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing public services, including police protection services. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides its fair share of funds for additional police protection services, which may be applied to sheriff facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand that would be created by the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant would pay an annual public safety benefit contribution through the Development Agreement, which would be used, in part, for police protection services. (DEIR, p. 4.14-10)
Consistent with General Plan Policy CSSF 2.1-2, the Project plans would also be routed to the Sheriff’s Department for review and comment to increase public safety and maintain close coordination with the Sheriff’s Department and law enforcement programs. Because the Project can be served by existing Sheriff Department resources, does not include construction of new police facilities and does not generate a need for new or altered sheriff facilities, with implementation of PPP 4.14-2, increases in demands for police protection resulting from implementation of the Project would not have significant impacts on RCSD services. (DEIR, p. 4.14-11)
The Project would generate approximately 1,155 students at buildout, consisting of 621 elementary school students, 181 middle school students, and 350 high school students. There is adequate capacity in all school levels to serve the Project site students. The Project in combination with current enrollment would leave a remaining capacity of 1,527 total students, including 703 elementary students, 90 middle school students, and 735 high school students. Additionally, the Specific Plan includes a School Site Overlay on 9 acres in the northeast portion of the site, which would allow for development of a school site, if needed. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-11 to 4.14-12)
The Project would be required to contribute fees to the Jurupa Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project-related impacts to school services. With implementation of PPP 4.14-3, impacts related to schools are less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14-12)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 50
The additional dwelling units would result in an increase in the number of residents in the City, which could lead to an increase in demand for existing City parks and recreational facilities. Under the City’s standard of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the proposed 20.97 acres of open space provides more than adequate park and recreational facilities in the Project site to accommodate the future residences such that implementation of the Specific Plan would not cause the deterioration of existing facilities. The Open Space and Recreation Plan establishes a community-wide system of open space land and amenity areas, which includes an eight-foot-wide community trail, Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus, and Vernola Ranch Neighborhood Park. Additionally, future residents of the Specific Plan Area would have access to (within walking distance) six public park and recreational facilities, which comprise just over 31 acres of usable parkland and open space. Furthermore, there are additional parks, recreational facilities, and community centers, throughout the City that would serve future project residents. Therefore, with implementation of PPP 4.14-4, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities or the need for new or physically altered parks or recreational facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.14-12)
Project buildout would increase population onsite by an estimated 5,910 residents, thus increasing demand for library services. Increased demands are expected to most affect the library facilities closest to the Project site - that is the Glen Avon Library, approximately 3.54 mile to the northwest of the Project site. Project impacts on the RCLS would include needs for increased staffing, increased collection budget, and increased operating hours. Although future Project residents would be mainly served by the Glen Avon Library, they would have access to all libraries within RCLS’s system.

Additionally, demand on library services would be incremental and would not require the need for new or expanded physical library facilities, the construction of which could cause a substantial adverse impact. The Project would also be required to comply with the provisions of the City’s Development Impact Fee Ordinance, which requires a fee payment to assist the City in providing public services.

Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share of funds for additional public services. These funds may be applied to the acquisition and/or construction of public services and/or equipment. Therefore, with implementation of PPP 4.14-2, the Project would not result in creating deficiencies to other public facilities in the area that are not off-set by the payment of development impact fees and impacts to library services would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.14- 12)

3.15 RECREATION

3.15.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.14-4 to comply with the City’s

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 51
Municipal Code to reduce impacts to recreation. The City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project would result in the development of 1,576 dwelling units, recreation areas, a network of trails and parks, an internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements and includes an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the site. The additional dwelling units would result in an increase in the number of residents in the City, which could lead to an increase in demand for existing City parks and recreational facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.15-9) Pursuant to Section 7.25.020(H)(2) of the City’s Municipal Code, population for the purposes of parks and recreation would be 3,923. Based on the requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, the Project buildout would require a total of 11.8 acres of parkland. (DEIR, p. 4.15-9) Planning Areas 18 and 19 are designated as Open Space – Recreation and is planned with recreational amenities for a total of 10.23 acres. The Open Space and Recreation Plan establishes a communitywide system of open space land and amenity areas important to the Project’s goal of providing a highquality living environment for future residents. An eight-foot-wide community trail also runs through the Neighborhood Park and connects to greenbelts and other recreational amenities throughout the Project site. The Vernola Ranch Neighborhood Park, runs along the western boundary of the Project site within Planning Area 19, has activity areas that may include bocce ball courts, exercise nodes, play equipment, dog parks, BBQ’s, picnic areas, shade structures, and open play areas. The Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus, located within Planning Area 18 would provide both outdoor and indoor gathering opportunities, including multi-purpose community center, kitchen facilities, movies, pools and spas, splash pad, lounge areas, cabana and shade structures, community garden, BBQ and picnic tables, exercise areas, and trails and walkways. Additionally, a total of 2.15 acres of open space would be provided within Planning Area 20. The Project would also include 2 acres of internal pocket parks,

5.52 acres of Pats Ranch Road Trail and bike path, and 1.07 acres of internal community trails. In total,

20.97 acres of parks and open space would be provided under the Project. Therefore, there is sufficient parkland to meet the City’s requirements of 3 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. (DEIR, p. 4.15-9 - 4.15-10)
Moreover, future residents of the Plan Area would have access to (within walking distance) public park and recreational facilities, which comprise just over 31 acres of usable parkland and open space. (DEIR, p. 4.15-10)
As stated in PPP 4.14-4, the Project is also required to pay development impact fees, which would further reduce any indirect Project impacts related to recreational facilities. Based on the preceding, with implementation of PPP 4.14-4, impacts to existing parks and recreational facilities would be less than significant with implementation of the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.15-10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 52

3.15.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
The Project would provide 20.97 acres of common open space and recreational amenities. The construction of these recreational facilities would occur within the boundaries of the Project site and would be inherent to the Project’s construction phase, which are considered and analyzed throughout the DEIR. Additionally, future open space and recreational facility development in the Project site would be required to adhere to the development standards and design guidelines of the Project. Per the analysis provided above under Threshold a, implementation of the Specific Plan would not require the construction of new or expansion of existing City parks and recreational facilities due to use of these parks and facilities by future project residents. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not result in significant impacts relating to new and/or expanded park and recreational facilities. (DEIR, p.

4.15-11)

3.16 TRANSPORTATION

3.16.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PDF 4.16-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to transportation. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
As demonstrated through the analysis in Section 4.16.6, implementation of the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of SCAG’s regional planning programs. The Project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including policies outlined in the City’s General Plan. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.16-8 – 4.16.9)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 53

3.16.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would not require major road closures or otherwise increase hazards due to sharp curves or dangerous intersections. However, some minor improvements would be required for the proposed circulation improvements such as the establishment of a secondary network of emergency vehicle access routes, which would connect to the existing street network and may require temporary closure of public streets. Any minor road closure would be temporary and would only be necessary during the construction activities associated with these improvements. All proposed road closures would also be subject to review and approval by the City to ensure hazards would not occur. Upon completion of the improvements, all road conditions would be restored to normal. (DEIR, p. 4.16-13 – 4.16-14)
The Project area is generally characterized as residential, commercial, vacant, and recreational land uses. Traffic generated by the Project would be typical of a residential development and be compatible with the type of traffic generated by the surrounding development. At Project completion, improvements to the circulation network would improve vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle mobility in the Project site and its surrounding areas. Project roadway improvements would be designed to be consistent with the City’s Improvement Standard Drawings for Road Standards maintained by the City Public Works Department. The City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. Additionally, at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance.

Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.16-14)

3.16.3 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.9-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to transportation. This City Council finds that the development of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 54
the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
During the course of the City of Jurupa Valley’s review of the proposed Project, the City evaluated the Project’s design, including but not limited to proposed driveway locations and configuration, to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. Furthermore, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, parking area access and internal circulation for multi-family residential complexes would be designed to ensure safety, efficiency and convenience, and provide adequate areas for maneuvering, stacking, and accommodating emergency vehicles. Moreover, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with PPP 4.9-1 which would ensure that the Project is designed and constructed to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.16-15)

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

3.17.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The installation of the utility and service system infrastructure improvements proposed by the Project Applicant would result in physical environmental impacts inherent in the Project’s construction process; however, these impacts have already been included in the analyses of construction-related effects presented throughout the EIR. In instances where the Project’s construction phase would result in specific, significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are provided. The construction of infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed elsewhere in this the EIR.

Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation measures beyond those identified throughout other subsections of the EIR would not be required. (DEIR, p. 4.18-11 – 4.18- 13)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 55

3.17.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.18-1, PDF 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
JCSD is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site. A WSA was prepared and approved for the Project on December 12, 2022 by JCSD’s Board of Directors, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10914. For the purposes of the Water Supply Assessment, recycled water will be used for outdoor irrigation purposes since JCSD expects recycled water to be available to the Project in the future. JCSD water duty factors are based on the City’s land use plan and how it defines the various residential density ranges. Because the Specific Plan has unique land use designations that are defined differently than the City’s definitions, the water duty factors used to determine water demand are based on equivalent density ranges. For example, the Specific Plan defines “Medium Density Residential” (MDR) as 4 to 8 units per acre and the City defines MDR as 2 to 5 units per acre; therefore, if the Project has 6 units per acre, the water duty factor for the next density range would be used, Medium High Density Residential (5 to 8 units per acre). Using this approach, under the scenario that a school would not be built on the proposed school overlay, the Project would result in a potable water demand of 382 acre-feet per year (AFY) and 340,693 gallons per day (gpd) and a recycled water demand of 150 AFY and 134,376 gpd for a total of 532 AFY. Under the scenario where the school would be built, the Project would result in a potable water demand of 371 AFY and 331,125 gpd and a recycled water demand of 166 AFY and 148,791 gpd for a total of 537 AFY. (DEIR, p. 4.18-14) The water demand projections in the JCSD’s 2020 UWMP included the Specific Plan Area and assumed 129 acres of Medium High Density Residential and 24 acres of Highest Density Residential.

Based on that assumption, the potable water demand accounted for in the 2020 UWMP is 535 AFY.

The Project’s potable water demand under the with and without school scenarios would be well within the potable water demand accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Total water demand (potable plus recycled) is 532 without school and 537 with school scenario. The Project’s water demand is equivalent to what was accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. Therefore, the Project’s water demand was fully accounted for in the 2020 UWMP. (DEIR, p. 4.18-14)
Additionally, the Specific Plan calls for native and drought tolerant slope areas. The plant palette has been selected for the plant’s appropriateness to climatic conditions, soil conditions, and long-term concerns for maintenance and water conservation (VRSP, Table F). As described in the Specific Plan Section 5.3.6, water conservation measures include drip or bubbler irrigation for shrubs and trees,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 56
weather-based central control irrigation systems, and irrigation systems designed per the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. (DEIR, p. 4.18-14)
The Board determined that there would be sufficient water supply, water production ability, and water rights/entitlements to meet the current customer water demands in normal, single-dry, and multipledry year periods. Future water demands will be met with a combination of existing and future supply sources. JCSD is working to expand existing supply sources with wellhead treatments that are still in the planning stages. Future supply sources include the Recycled Water Program in JCSD’s service area for 660 AFY beginning in 2025 that will make available an equal amount of potable water; and the Etiwanda Pipeline for 6,000 AFY beginning in 2026. Engineering is underway for both projects, with entitlement secured for the recycled water and a contract being negotiated for the Etiwanda Pipeline project. These future projects were accounted for in the JCSD’s water supply planning projections in the 2020 UWMP and the 2020 Water Master Plan to meet buildout around 2040, in normal, singledry, and multiple-dry year periods. With the ongoing water conservation efforts, JCSD will further ensure its ability to provide sufficient supply. (DEIR, p. 4.18-15) Based on the evidence provided herein, the total projected water supplies available to JCSD during normal, single dry, and multiple dry year periods over a 20-year projection will be sufficient to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed Project in addition to the water supplier’s existing and planned future uses, including agricultural and manufacturing uses. Therefore, there are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements/resources and no new or expanded entitlements are needed. Implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.18-15)

3.17.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.18-1 and 4.18-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
JCSD is responsible for supplying wastewater services to the Project site. In the JCSD service area, outdoor water usage can account for more than 50% of water usage. Therefore, the amount of wastewater that would be generated by the Project is conservatively assumed to be 331,125 gpd with school and 340,693 gpd without school, which is 100 percent of indoor water use. The current maximum capacity of the WRCRWA is 14 million gallons per day (mgd) and JCSD’s capacity rights

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 57
are 6 mgd. According to the 2020 UWMP, the total wastewater treated at the WRCRWA treatment plant is 5,134 AF or approximately 1,672 million gallons. The Project site is not within the service area of the City of Riverside Water Quality Control Plant; therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p.

4.18-16)
The amount of wastewater that would be generated by the Project under both scenarios is much less than one percent of total remaining daily treatment capacity. Therefore, sufficient wastewater treatment capacity available to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p.

4.18-16)

3.17.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.18-3 and 4.18-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
Construction and operation of the Project would result in the generation of solid waste, requiring disposal at a landfill. During construction of the Project, solid waste in the form of demolition material, materials and debris currently stored on-site, and remnants of unused construction materials would require disposal at a landfill. Waste also would be generated by the construction process, primarily consisting of discarded materials and packaging. Section 4.408 of the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) requires that 65 percent of construction/demolition waste be diverted from landfills. The Project would be required to comply with General Plan Policy CSSF 2.67 Waste Diversion which would achieve at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of 75%. In addition, the Project would be required to comply with AB 341 which mandates businesses and public entities generating four (4) cubic yards or more of waste per week and multifamily residential dwellings with five (5) units or more to recycle. (DEIR p. 4.18-18)
Solid waste from the Project site will be hauled by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. and transferred to the Agua Mansa Material Recovery Facility (MRF)/Transfer Stations. From the MRF, non-recyclable materials will likely be disposed of at Badlands Sanitary Landfill or the El Sobrante Landfill. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 7,800,000 cubic yards or 10,920,000 tons (7,800,000 cubic yards x [1.4 tons/1 cubic yard]).

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 58
The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2059.

The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051. (DEIR p. 4.18-18)
The current solid waste generation rates are anticipated to be 11.4 pounds per day for single family residential uses and 8.6 pounds per day for multifamily residential uses. The Project currently proposes 1,576 dwelling units (972 single family and 604 multifamily), which would result in approximately 16,275.2 pounds or 8.14 tons of solid waste per day (11.4 pounds x 972 units + 8.6 pounds x 604 units).

As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 5,000 tons per day and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day. Since the Project is estimated to generate approximately 8.14 tons of solid waste per day, this amount represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity, and the landfill facilities are sufficient. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR p. 4.18-18)

3.17.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.18.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.18-3 and 4.18-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
 Substantial Evidence
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. Assembly Bill 341 sets a Statewide waste diversion goal to 75 percent by 2020, and mandates recycling for commercial and multi-family residential land uses. City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy CSSF 2.66, Waste Diversion, sets a goal of at least the minimum construction and demolition waste diversion requirement of 75 percent. (DEIR, p. 4.18-19) Future development projects in accordance with the Specific Plan would be required to coordinate with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., the waste hauler, to develop collection of recyclable material for the Project on a common schedule as set forth in applicable local, regional, and state programs identified in the Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan (CIWMP). Recyclable materials that could be recycled by the Project include paper products, glass, aluminum, and plastic. Additionally, the Project would be required to implement PPP 4.18-3 and comply with applicable elements of AB 939, and other

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 59
applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards. This would ensure that the solid waste stream to regional landfills is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.18-20)

3.18 WILDFIRE

3.18.1 THRESHOLD A THROUGH D
Impact Statement: The project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a through d are discussed in detail in Section 5.0.2 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a through d; therefore, no mitigation is required.  Substantial Evidence
According to General Plan Figure 8-10, Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley, the Project site is in the “Urban-Unzoned” fire hazard area and is thus not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. As such, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 5- 10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 60

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT

4.1 AIR QUALITY

4.1.1 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in EIR Section 4.3.6. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to air quality. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
Project-related construction emissions would not exceed the South Coast AQMD LST for NOx, CO, or PM2.5 at the nearest sensitive receptor; however, it would exceed the LST threshold for PM10 during grading in Phase 1. Accordingly, construction of the Project would result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-30 – 4.3-31) The Project involves the construction of a residential development with a potential school overlay.

According to South Coast AQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The Project does not include such uses. Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions or on-site mobile equipment, no longterm LST analysis is needed. Additionally, operation of the Project would not emit airborne TACs at concentrations that would pose a significant health risk (including acute and carcinogenic health risks) to nearby sensitive receptors. (DEIR, p. 4.3-32)
Considering Project-related traffic in the General Plan horizon year of 2040, the highest average daily trips would be approximately 49,261 on Limonite Avenue between Wineville Avenue and Pats Ranch Road, which is lower than the values studied by South Coast AQMD. Therefore, it can reasonably be concluded that Project-related traffic would not have daily traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP, nor would there be any reason unique to the meteorology to conclude that intersections affected by the Project would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. As such, Project emissions would not contribute traffic volumes to an intersection in the vicinity of the Project site which exceeds 100,000 vehicles per hour. Thus, the Project would not result in CO hot spots. (DEIR, p. 4.3-33)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 61
MM 4.3-1 Minimize Construction Emissions. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the City Engineer shall confirm that the Grading Plan, Building Plans and Specifications require all construction contractors to incorporate the following measures to minimize construction emissions.
 All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 horsepower meets California Air Resources Board Tier 4 Final off-road emissions standards or incorporate CARB Level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS).

Requirements for Tier 4 Final equipment and the option for Level 3 VDECS shall be included in applicable bid documents and successful contractor(s) must demonstrate the ability to supply such equipment. A copy of each unit’s Best Available Control Technology (BACT) documentation (certified tier specification or model year specification), and CARB or South Coast AQMD operating permit (if applicable) shall be provided to the City at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. This equipment shall be used when commercial models that meet the construction needs of the proposed Project are commercially available from local suppliers/vendors. The determination of commercial availability of such equipment shall be made by the City, based on applicantprovided evidence from expert sources, such as construction contractors in the region.
 The maximum daily disturbance area (actively graded area) shall not exceed 4 acres per day.
 Construction equipment shall be properly maintained according to manufacturer specifications.
 All diesel-powered construction equipment, delivery vehicles, and delivery trucks shall be turned off when not in use. On-site idling shall be limited to three minutes in any one hour.
 Construction on-road haul trucks shall be model year 2010 or newer if dieselfueled.  Information on ridesharing programs shall be made available to construction employees.
 During construction, lunch options shall be provided onsite.  A publicly visible sign shall be posted at the primary construction entrance with the telephone number and person to contact regarding dust complaints per South Coast AQMD Standards.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 62
 All construction contractors shall be provided information on the South Coast Air Quality Management District Surplus Off-road Opt-In “SOON” funds which provides funds to accelerate cleanup of off-road diesel vehicles.  The Project shall demonstrate compliance with South Coast AQMD Rule 403 concerning fugitive dust and provide appropriate documentation to the City of Jurupa Valley.
 All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day.  All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered.
 All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet- power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry-power sweeping shall be prohibited.
 All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads, driveways, or driving surfaces shall be limited to 15 mph.
 All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
 Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading, unless seeding or soil binders are used.
 A publicly visible sign shall be posted with the telephone number and the name of the person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the South Coast AQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

After implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable South Coast AQMD LSTs for emissions of any criteria pollutant. With mitigation, the Project would emit 11.09 lbs/day of PM10 and would therefore not exceed South Coast AQMD threshold of 13 lbs/day. The proposed Project would not result in emissions that exceeded the South Coast AQMD’s LSTs. Therefore, the proposed Project would not be expected to exceed the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards for emissions of CO, NOX, PM10, and PM-2.5. Accordingly, impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 63

4.2 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in EIR Section 4.4.6. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.4-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
Project development would result in the removal of on- and off-site vegetation communities, totaling approximately 200.7 acres. As previously stated, no vegetation communities listed by CDFW as sensitive were documented within or adjacent to the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15) The Project site occurs almost completely within a predetermined Survey Area for three (3) MSHCP narrow endemic plant species including: San Diego ambrosia, San Miguel savory, and Brand’s phacelia. According to the MSHCP guidelines, focused surveys are required during the appropriate flowering season to document the presence/absence of these species if suitable habitat is present and if the property is located within a predetermined Survey Area. As previously stated, following a review of historic aerials, the majority of the Project site has and continues to be actively farmed from at least 1985. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species were detected on the Project site, and none of the three (3) MSHCP narrow endemic plants were observed on the Project site.

Therefore, focused MSHCP sensitive plant surveys are not warranted. Accordingly, the Project would not impact any candidate, sensitive, or special status plant species. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15) The Natural Resources Conservation Service has the southeastern region (11-acres) of the Project site mapped as Delhi fine sands. However, following a review of historic aerials, the entire Project site has and continues to be actively farmed from at least 1985. Soils documented onsite during the habitat assessment were characterized as loamy/sand. Based on the extensive level of historic as well as current disturbed conditions, no suitable habitat for the Delhi sands flower-loving fly occurs onsite and focused surveys are not warranted based on the following facts: 1) Project site substrates are no longer characterized as Delhi fine sand following annual farming activities; 2) no indicator plant species including California buckwheat, telegraph weed, or California croton were detected onsite; and 3) the Project site is dominated by non-native invasive species. Therefore, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p.

4.4-15)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 64
No suitable habitat for species listed as federal or state threatened/endangered was documented within the Project site. Potential foraging habitat for two MSHCP covered species was documented onsite during the habitat assessment and include white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), who may occasionally forage onsite within the open field croplands. The MSHCP has determined that these sensitive species potentially occurring within Project site have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). The Project would be required to implement City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sec.

3.80.070 which requires payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees (PPP 4.4-1). With payment of fees, impacts to white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike are less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-15 – 4.4-16)
The Project site occurs almost completely within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl.

No suitable burrowing owl burrows larger than 4 inches in diameter potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented onsite. Also, no burrowing owl or characteristic sign such as whitewash, feathers, tracks, or pellets were detected within the Project site boundary during the habitat assessment and focused surveys are not warranted. However, the Project site could be colonized if the fields were left fallow. Therefore, impacts to burrowing owl would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-16)
MM 4.4-1 Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey / Burrowing Owl Protection. To avoid Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site, a pre- construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl within the Impact Site (and 500- foot survey buffer) where suitable habitat is present in accordance with the March 2006 Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Additionally, if ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to minimize the possibility burrowing owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owls are found, the same coordination described above shall be necessary.

If no burrowing owls are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season within the survey area, then avoidance or minimization measures shall be undertaken in consultation with the City of Jurupa Valley, CDFW and US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). CDFW shall be sent written notification within 48 hours of detection of burrowing owls. If active nests are identified on an implementing project site during the pre-construction survey, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 65
below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be approved by the City, CDFW, and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to house the owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season or during the breeding season and it is determined nesting activities have not begun (or are complete), then passive and/or active relocation may be approved following consultation with the City of Jurupa Valley and CDFW. Within Impact Site(s) during Project implementation and construction, the Project applicant shall notify CDFW immediately in writing within 48 hours of detection. A Burrowing Owl Plan shall be submitted to CDFW for review and approval within two weeks of detection and no Project activity will continue within 1000 feet of the burrowing owls until CDFW approves the Burrowing Owl Plan. The Project Applicant shall be responsible for implementing appropriate avoidance and mitigation measures, including burrow avoidance, passive or active relocation, or other appropriate mitigation measures as identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

A final report shall be prepared by a qualified biologist documenting the results of the burrowing owl surveys and detailing avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures. The final report will be submitted to the City and CDFW within 30 days of completion of the survey and burrowing monitoring for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would ensure that any Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site would be avoided by conducting a pre-construction presence/absence survey. As such, impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 66

4.2.2 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.4.6.

The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.4-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. Implementation of MM 4.4-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not represent a regional wildlife movement corridor and provides extremely limited cover, food, and no natural unrestricted water courses that would facilitate regional wildlife movement onsite. The Project site is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, non-contiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area. Also, the Project site is completely bordered by high traffic roads including Interstate 15 to the west and/or high density residential and commercial development. As a result, impacts related to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-21)
The Project site possess vegetation including trees and shrubs expected to potentially provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the CDFG Codes. Measures for potential direct/indirect impacts to common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the CDFG Code Section 3503 which prohibits the unlawful taking, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and February 15th) does not require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. However, if construction is proposed between February 16th and August 31st, the Project has the potential to result in the loss of an active nest, resulting in a potential significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.4-22) MM 4.4-2 Migratory / Nesting Bird Survey and Protection. To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading.

The survey area will include the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 67
bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
a. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in:
identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
b. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer.

The qualified biologistshall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 68
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2 would ensure that any Project-related impacts to nesting birds potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site would be avoided by conducting construction activities outside of nesting season or by conducting a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site. As such, impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-2.

4.2.3 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.4.6.

The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM

4.4-1 is necessary to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
The proposed Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), and Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp), Section 6.1.1 (Delhi sands flowerloving fly) and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface). However, implementation of PPP 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-1 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.4-1 would ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl.

4.3 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.3.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.5.6.

The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.5-1, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 69
in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
 Substantial Evidence
The records searches conducted at ECI resulted in five cultural resources being recorded within 1 mile of the Project site. BFSA also requested a Sacred Lands File search from the NAHC. The search results were negative for any recorded Native American sacred sites or locations of religious or ceremonial importance within the Project vicinity. Notwithstanding, impacts to Native American tribal cultural resources are addressed in Section 4.17, Tribal Cultural Resources of the DEIR. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10) The archaeological field survey of the Project site did not detect any evidence of historic or prehistoric resources visible on the surface. The Project site does not exhibit any landforms that would be associated with prehistoric use, such as bedrock outcrops, streams, or oak trees. Instead, the property is very uniform, characterized as near level to rolling hills topography. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10) The cultural resources field survey of the Project site did not identify any archaeological resources visible on the surface within the Project site. Given the excellent ground visibility and the indications of decades of plowing, there is likely no potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits during grading activities. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-11)
While it is unlikely that buried historical resources would be adversely affected by construction of the Project, grading activities associated with development of the Project would cause new subsurface disturbance into native soils and may result in the unanticipated discovery of unique historic archeological resources. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)
MM 4.5-1 On-Call Archaeologist. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resources Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to be on-call to evaluate any sub-surface archaeological materials to determine their significance under CEQA, and to coordinate this process with the consulting Native American tribe per Mitigation Measures MMs 4.17-1 to 4.17-3.

In the event of an unanticipated discovery, implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5-1 would ensure that impacts on archeological resources would be less than significant.

4.4 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.4.1 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 70
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.7.5.

The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
BFSA staff conducted a site visit on November 23, 2021. Visibility of the natural ground surface was excellent as the agricultural fields had recently been cleared and plowed. The entire property has been cultivated for decades and no undisturbed areas exist within the project. No paleontological resources were identified as a result of the survey. (DEIR, p. 4.7-19) As shown of Figure 4, Paleontological Sensitivity Map, in the Paleontological Assessment (Technical Appendix H of the DEIR), the northern three-fourths of the Project site designated as “High B” paleontological sensitivity. The County of Riverside identifies a “High B” ranking as “equivalent to High A, but…based on the occurrence of fossils at a specified depth below the surface. The category High B indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at or below four feet of depth and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities. Deposits at the southern fourth of the Project site are designated as “High A” paleontological sensitivity. The County of Riverside has defined areas assigned a “High A” potential for yielding paleontological resources “based on [the presence of] geologic formations or mappable rock units that are rocks that contain fossilized body elements, and trace fossils such as tracks, nests, and eggs. These fossils occur on or below the surface”. (DEIR, pp.

4.7-19 – 4.7-20)
Research has revealed the presence of early Pleistocene-aged very old alluvial channel deposits mapped at the southern portion of the project. In western Riverside County, old and very old alluvial fan deposits are known to yield terrestrial vertebrate fossils. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources are considered potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 4.7-20) MM 4.7-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities shall be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of Pleistocene very old alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as mapped by Morton and Gray (2002; Qvoaa on Figure 3). Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 71
exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

MM 4.7-2 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading pursuant to the recommendations provided in Paleontological Assessment prepared by BFSA on March 27, 2023 and the criteria identified below.

Excavation and grading activities in deposits with high paleontological sensitivity (as identified in MM 4.7-1) shall be monitored by a paleontological monitor following the PRIMP. The performance standards set forth in the PRIMP shall include:
a. If paleontological resources are encountered during the course of ground disturbance, the paleontological monitor shall have the authority to halt construction activities and temporarily redirect work at least 50 away from the area of the find in order to assess its significance.
b. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered when a paleontological monitor is not present, work in the immediate area of the find shall be redirected and a paleontologist shall be contacted to assess the find for significance and adjust the level of monitoring if needed.
c. Collected resources shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified to the lowest taxonomic level possible, cataloged, and curated into the permanent collection of a scientific institution.
d. Identification and curation of specimens into a professional, accredited public museum repository with a commitment to archival conservation and permanent retrievable storage (e.g., the Western Science Center Museum, 2345 Searl Parkway, Hemet, California 92543). The paleontological program should include a written repository agreement prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. e. At the conclusion of the monitoring program, a report of findings shall be prepared to document the results of the monitoring program, including lists of all fossils recovered and necessary maps and graphics to accurately record their original location.

The implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 and MM 4.7-2 would ensure that any previously undiscovered paleontological resources that may be encountered during Project

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 72
construction would be identified and appropriately preserved. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

4.5 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.  Finding
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The Project is required to comply with PPP 4.9-1 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.9-1 which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.  Substantial Evidence
Based on a review of regulatory databases and a site reconnaissance, the Project site does not contain any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. One propane above-ground storage tank was observed but is not considered to be an environmental concern due to propane being a gas at standard temperature and pressure. No other visual indication of other conditions of concern (drywells, cesspools, etc.) that would indicate a recognized environmental concern was observed during the site reconnaissance. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12) Due to historical agricultural use, near surface soil samples were collected from the site and were analyzed for organo-chlorinated pesticides (EPA Method 8081) and arsenic (EPA Method 6010B).