Jurupa Valley City Council
December 21, 2023

The laboratory testing concluded that organo-chlorinated pesticides and arsenic were not detected above regional screening levels (residential) in the soil samples tested. Based on this laboratory testing, the historical agricultural use on the site is not considered an environmental concern. (DEIR, p. 4.9- 12)
According to the soil sampling results, concentrations of diesel TPH compound were detected above the screening levels for residential soils near the barn structure perimeters and 55-gallon drums. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in potentially significant impacts related to on-site soil contamination. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12)
Construction activities required to develop the Project site would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. Concentrations of diesel TPH compound were detected above the screening levels for residential soils near the barn structure perimeters and 55-gallon drums. Therefore, the risk of exposure of hazardous materials to workers and the public through the routine, transport, use, or disposal of contaminated soils would be potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 73
MM 4.9-1 During demolition activities soil shall be removed around boring locations S-7 and S11 as reported in the Environmental Services report dated September 11, 2023 (Technical Appendix I4). Soils shall be removed a minimum of 6-inches deep and a horizontal extent of 5-feet in equal distance from the boring locations. Following removal, additional soil testing shall be performed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (EPA Test Method 8015B) to ensure that remaining soils are not above the EPA Regional Screening Levels for residential soil. The removal of these soils and analysis providing evidence that remaining soils are not above EPA RSL for residential soil shall be documented and submitted to the RCDEH-ECP, prior to issuance of a grading permit.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 would ensure that any contaminated soils encountered during Project construction that are determined to be hazardous by an applicable government oversight agency are appropriately removed so that they would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment during construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1. (DEIR, p. 4.9-14)

4.5.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to 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.
 Finding
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The Project is required to comply with 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
As discussed under Threshold a, the Project’s near-term construction activities would have a potentially significant impact associated with hazardous materials handling or disposal. Construction activities would be short-term or one time in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project’s construction phase. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonable consequence of the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site. Additionally, the use, storage, transport, and disposal of construction-related hazardous materials would be required to conform to the California Hazardous Waste Control Law (HWCL). Soil sampling results detected concentrations of diesel TPH compounds above the screening levels for residential soils near the barn

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 74
structure perimeters and 55-gallon drums. Additional testing should be performed at the bottom of the excavation in order to determine if additional materials need to be removed. Thus, impacts due to construction activities would have the potential to cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-15)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1 would ensure that any contaminated soils encountered during Project construction that are determined to be hazardous by an applicable government oversight agency are appropriately removed so that they would not pose a hazard to the public or the environment during construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant after implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.9-1. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)

4.6 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or 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:
a. 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 5024.1(k), or
b. 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 the Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.  Finding
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.17.6 of the DEIR. The Project site has not been identified as a location that is known to contain significant tribal cultural resources. However, there is a remote potential that resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities that occur in native soil. The Project is required to comply with PPP 4.17-1 and Mitigation Measures MM 4.17-1 through 4.17-3, 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
The records search results identified five cultural resources within one-half mile of the Project, 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 a previous Archaeological

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 75
Survey Assessment. 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 include a trash scatter, residence, ranch, and well with associated trash deposit. These recorded resources were evaluated and are not considered historically significant. During the AB52 and SB18 consultation process, the consulting tribe confirmed that no sites, features, places, or landscapes were identified that are either listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Places that could also be considered as tribal cultural resources. (DEIR, p. 4.17-6)
A request for a Sacred Lands File search was sent to 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. As part of the mandatory AB 52 consultation process required by State law, the City of Jurupa Valley sent notification to the Native American tribes with possible traditional or cultural affiliation to the area that previously requested consultation pursuant to AB 52 requirements.

As required by SB18, on October 19, 2021 the City sent SB18 notification letters to tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as having traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of Riverside County or project region. (DEIR, p. 4.17-7) Of the tribes sent notification letters, only the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation requested consultation. Consultation took place in 2022/2023 and concluded in August of 2023. (DEIR, p. 4.17-7)
The City of Jurupa Valley completed mandatory compliance with PRC § 21074 associated with the environmental review of the proposed Project. Pursuant to consultation, there were no known tribal cultural resources identified on the Project site. There is a remote potential that implementation of the Project could encounter tribal cultural resources during ground-disturbing construction activities that occur in native soil. Accordingly, there is a potential for significant impacts to occur if tribal cultural resources are discovered during grading activities in native soils. (DEIR, p. 4.17-8) MM 4.17-1 Retain a Native American Monitor Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.

1. The project applicant/lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from or approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation.

The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “grounddisturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both onsite and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching.

2. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to the earlier of the commencement of any ground-disturbing

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 76
activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

3. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground- disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the project applicant/lead agency upon written request to the Tribe.

4. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following (1) written confirmation to the Kizh from a designated point of contact for the project applicant/lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination and written notification by the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact Kizh TCRs.

MM 4.17-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/NonCeremonial). Upon discovery of any TCRs, that the Kizh, in conjunction with the Project Archaeologist retained by the Project Proponent, determine is not 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), shall have the authority to halt all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in the form and/or manner the Tribe deems appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

MM 4.17-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects.

1. Native American human remains are defined in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 77

2. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then Public Resource Code 5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

3. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

4. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

5. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.17-1 through 4.17-3, would require archaeological and tribal cultural monitors and ensure that any previously undiscovered tribal cultural resources encountered during grading activities are property treated and reported. With implementation of mitigation, impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 78

5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT REMAIN SIGNIFICANT AND

UNAVOIDABLE AFTER MITIGATION
The Jurupa Valley City Council finds the Project would result in significant and unavoidable impacts for Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation after implementation of all feasible mitigation measures. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15092(b)(2), the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley cannot approve the project unless it first finds (1) under PRC Section 21081(a)(3), and CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3), that specific economic, legal, social technological, or other considerations, including provisions of employment opportunities to highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR; and (2) under CEQA Guidelines section 15092(b), that the remaining significant effects are acceptable due to overriding concerns described in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 and, therefore, a statement of overriding considerations has been prepared.

5.1 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES

5.1.1 THRESHOLD A AND E
Impact Statement: The Project would convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Project would result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a and e are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.5 of the DEIR. There are no feasible mitigation measures for impacts associated with converting Farmland to non-agricultural use.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project site consists of 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland”, 6.7 acres of “Unique Farmland”, 4.8 acres of “Urban and Built-Up Land” and 13.6 acres of “Other Land. Between 2014 and 2016, Riverside County had a decline in “Important Farmlands” of approximately 0.86%. Important Farmlands” include Prime Farmland, Statewide Important Farmland, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. The Project would contribute towards the loss of “Important Farmland” within Riverside County because agricultural production on site would be permanently precluded with implementation of the proposed Project. Within the City, the loss of “Important Farmland” would be 182.3 acres. (DEIR, p. 4.2-8)
The City’s General Plan EIR concluded that the loss of agricultural resources in the City would be significant and unavoidable. The eventual regional conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses is a result of regional economic processes, although 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 and less agricultural activity in the City. The City’s

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 79
General Plan reflects the community’s desire that agriculture remain viable and active as long as it is economically practical and local landowners wish to farm. The General Plan clearly states one of its goals is to provide a transitional process away from agriculture toward rural and suburban land uses.

This transition or loss is anticipated in the City’s General Plan and is an inevitable result of achieving other General Plan goals for Jurupa Valley. (DEIR, p. 4.2-9) Although the Project Site is classified as “Important Farmland,” it was the City’s intent to allow future development of non-agricultural land by designating it as Medium Density Residential, Business Park, and Commercial Retail. Nonetheless, The loss of approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and

6.7 acres of “Unique Farmland” represent a significant impact of the proposed Project. (DEIR, p. 4.2- 9)
On-site mitigation would not be feasible, as development of the Project site with residential uses cannot co-exist with agricultural uses, and restricting a small portion of the land for agricultural uses would not be economically feasible for agricultural operations. Additionally, the Project site is identified as one of the sites within the City’s Housing Element under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan. The Housing Element anticipated that a total of 508 dwelling units would be developed on the Project site. Further, it would not be economically viable for the Project Applicant to reserve all or a portion of the Project site for agricultural uses, as reservation of the land would negatively affect the Project Applicant’s rate of return on its investment. (DEIR, p. 4.2-9)
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 making the decision to cease operating or relocate; namely, market pressures related to urbanization, increasing expenses, and declining profitability. According to the California Department of Conservation (CDC) Important Farmland Finder Map, there are a total of 76.1 acres of Prime Farmland and 88.6 acres of Farmland of Local Importance, approximately 0.83 mile to the north of the Project site. As discussed in the General Plan EIR, as development in the City continues, the eventual regional conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses is a result of regional economic processes. As land that currently supports or could support agriculture is developed, there will be less and less agricultural activity in the City. The Project site is currently designated Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR), and Medium Density Residential (MDR) in the City’s General Plan and would not result in any land use conflicts. Therefore, off-site mitigation would be economically infeasible, or would be precluded due to the unavailability of appropriate mitigation land. Case law supports the finding that a Lead Agency need not require mitigation where the EIR noted the longterm trend in agricultural land conversion due to development pressures in the region and concluded that mitigation was not feasible. See Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, and Cherry Valley Pass Acres and Neighbors v. City of Beaumont (2010) 190 Cal.App.4th 316. (DEIR, p. 4.2-9 – 4.2-10)
Feasible mitigation measures are not available for the Project’s conversion of approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.7 acres of “Unique Farmland” to non-agricultural use. Although it may be possible in some circumstances for impacts to agricultural land to be partially mitigated through the acquisition of off-site properties and placing such properties into permanent agricultural easements

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 80
(i.e., compensatory mitigation), in this case such compensatory mitigation does not meet any of the definitions of mitigation as provided by State CEQA Guidelines § 15370. Specifically, off-site mitigation would not result in an avoidance of the impact by limiting the Project’s scope (§ 15370[a]) and would not minimize impacts to agriculturally zoned property “by limiting the degree or magnitude of the Project and its implementation” (§ 15370[b]). Placing existing off-site agricultural lands into a conservation easement also would not rectify the Project’s impacts to agriculturally zoned land by “repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment” (§ 15370[c]), given that such a conservation easement would encompass lands that already are suitable for, if not actively being used for, agricultural production. Such mitigation also would not meet the definition of State CEQA Guidelines § 15370(d) by “reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life” of the Project. Finally, because no new agricultural lands would be created, off-site agricultural easements would not result in the replacement or establishment of “substitute resources or environments” (§ 15370[e]). Therefore, the City finds that off-site mitigation for land containing important agricultural resources is not a viable form of mitigation pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15370 (See also the discussion above regarding the infeasibility of off-site mitigation). (DEIR, p. 4.2-10)
Accordingly, a direct and cumulatively considerable impact due to the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use would occur for which no feasible mitigation is available. Thus, impacts due to the conversion of approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.7 acres of “Unique Farmland” to non-agricultural use would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.2-10)

5.2 AIR QUALITY

5.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 to reduce impacts to air quality. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through

4.3-6, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible but which still would remain significant and unavoidable.
 Substantial Evidence
The Project is consistent with the growth forecast used in the 2022 AQMP and would not obstruct implementation of the control measures contained within the 2022 AQMP. However, the Project exceeds the regional threshold for operational emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO; as a result, the Project may conflict with the 2022 AQMP and the Project’s impacts are potentially significant.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 aim to reduce operational emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO; however, Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 do not have quantitative reductions associated with them available in CalEEMod and given that the majority of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 81
Project-generated emissions are from mobile sources from resident’s vehicle usage, the emissions are outside the jurisdiction and control of the Project and City. (DEIR, p. 4.3-22) There are no feasible measures to substantially reduce operational emissions or reduce emissions below applicable thresholds. Therefore, the Project would conflict with the 2022 AQMP and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.3-22)

5.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would 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.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-1 through 4.3-4 to reduce impacts to air quality. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1 through

4.3-6, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible but which still would remain significant and unavoidable.
 Substantial Evidence
Criteria pollutant emissions from construction for Phase 1 of the Project would not exceed the thresholds for VOC, CO, SO2, PM10, or PM2.5, with the exception of NOX. Therefore, impacts would be potentially significant. Operational emissions would exceed the South Coast AQMD regional threshold for VOC, NOX, and CO, and impacts would be potentially significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-23 –

4.3-26)
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

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 82
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.
 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.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 83
 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.

MM 4.3-2 The City Public Works and Engineering Department shall verify before issuance of all residential building permits that where appliances are installed by residential project developers, Energy Star-rated appliances (or other equivalent technology) for clothes washers, dish washers, refrigerators, and ceiling fans shall be installed in the residences.

MM 4.3-3 The City Building and Safety Department shall verify before issuance of all residential and non-residential building permits that all in-unit fixtures installed in residential and nonresidential buildings will be high efficacy. High efficacy lighting includes compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs), light emitting diodes (LED), and other light bulbs that provide an energy efficiency of at least 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less fixtures, 50 lumens/watt for 15-40 watt fixtures, 60 lumens/watt for fixtures 40watts.

MM 4.3-4 Upon a residential dwelling unit being sold, offered for sale or rented, the Project Applicant or its designee shall notify and offer to the prospective buyer or tenant, as soon as it may be done, disclosure materials describing available public transit, ridesharing and non-motorized commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of the Project. Such information shall be transmitted no later than the close of escrow or finalization of a rental contract. A draft of this disclosure shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department for review prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy.

MM 4.3-5 The Project developers shall install broadband infrastructure or other communication technologies that encourage telecommuting and working from home, which reduces mobile source emissions. The applicant shall submit documentation to the City Building and Safety Department prior to occupancy.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 84
MM 4.3-6 The Project developers shall offer electrical outlets on patios, which reduces area source emissions. The City Planning Department shall verify architectural plans for implementing tract maps include such requirements before implementing project approval.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 would reduce the Project’s short-term constructionrelated emissions of NOx. NOx emissions would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Tier 4 construction equipment. However, in the event that Tier 4 construction equipment to meet the construction needs is not commercially available, it is possible that peak day emissions of NOx would exceed the City’s threshold. Therefore, even with implementation of all feasible mitigation measures impacts would remain significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.3-29) Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through MM 4.3-6 aim to reduce operational emissions of VOC, NOX, and CO; however, MM 4.3-2 through MM 4.3-6 do not have quantitative reductions associated with them available in CalEEMod and given that the majority of Projectgenerated emissions are from mobile sources from resident’s vehicle usage, the emissions are outside the jurisdiction and control of the City. Although Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through MM 4.3-6 would serve to potentially reduce transportation- and energy-related emissions, the reductions would not reduce emissions below applicable thresholds for criteria pollutants. Beyond those already presented, there are no feasible measures to substantially reduce operational emissions or reduce emissions below applicable thresholds. Therefore, long-term operational impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.3-29 – 4.3-30)

5.3 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.3.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-1 through 4.8-2 and PDF 4.8-1 through 4.8-3 to reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 and MM 4.8-1 through 4.8-2, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible but which still would remain significant and unavoidable.  Substantial Evidence
Operational activities associated with the proposed Project will result in emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O from the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy-related emissions, mobile source emissions, water related energy use, solid waste emissions, and refrigerants. The Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 40,071.64 MTCO2e/yr. The Project would exceed the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 85
numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Thus, the Project has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to GHG emissions. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-14 – 4.8-15) MM 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy for the last phase of development, the Project Applicant shall install four new bus shelters.

MM 4.8-2 Prior to issuance certificate of occupancy permits, the City shall verify that the following electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been installed. a. Single Family Home/Condo/Townhouse with attached garage: For each dwelling unit, a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit (40 amperes min) shall be installed in the garage.
b. Multi-Family Housing: Provide EV charging capabilities in at least 40% of homes, including 5% installed, 15% ready (breakers and wires installed), and 25% future capability w/ conduit/breaker space.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 and MMs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 aim to reduce GHG emissions; however, Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 and MMs 4.8-1 and

4.8-2 do not have quantitative reductions associated with them available in CalEEMod and given that the majority of Project-generated emissions are from mobile sources from residents’ vehicle usage, the emissions are outside the jurisdiction and control of the Project and City. Although Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 and MMs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 will serve to potentially reduce transportation- and energy-related emissions, the reductions will not reduce emissions below applicable thresholds for GHG emissions. Beyond those already presented, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce the total project GHG emissions to less than 3,000 MT CO2e/yr and emissions would result in a significant and unavoidable impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-15 – 4.8-16)

5.3.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.  Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-1 and PDF 4.8-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-2 through 4.3-6, and MMs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible but which still would remain significant and unavoidable.  Substantial Evidence
The Project does not include all of the key project attributes of the 2022 Scoping Plan that reduce operational GHG emissions and therefore has potential to impede the State’s ability to achieve the 40% below 1990 level reduction target, resulting in a significant impact.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 86
Implementation of Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 aim to reduce GHG emissions.

Although Mitigation Measures MMs 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 will serve to potentially reduce transportation- and energy-related emissions, the mitigation measures would not ensure consistency with the 2022 Scoping Plan. There are no other feasible and enforceable mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, the Project is considered inconsistent with the 2022 Scoping Plan, and impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.8-21)

5.4 TRANSPORTATION

5.4.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b).
 Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PDF 4.16-2 and 4.16-3 to reduce impacts to VMT. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.8-1 through 4.8-2, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible but which still would be significant and unavoidable.  Substantial Evidence
The Base Year Home-Based VMT/Capita for the Project is 28.4% higher than the City average.

Additionally, the Future Year Home-Based VMT/Capita for the project is 22.2% higher than the City.

The City of Jurupa Valley Guidelines requires that Notice of Preparation (NOP) year VMT be calculated by interpolating between the base year and future year VMT. As shown Table 4.16-1, the NOP Year HB VMT/Capita for the project is 27.4% higher than the City average. Therefore, the Project would result in a significant VMT impact. (DEIR, p. 4.16-11) With the implementation of PDFs 4.16-2 and 4.16-3, the Project VMT will be reduced by 6.44%. Even with implementation of the PDFs, the Project would still result in a significant impact based on the City guidelines as the Project generated VMT is approximately 19.2% higher than the City’s threshold under NOP year. (DEIR, p. 4.16-12)
If a project is consistent with the RTP/SCS, then the cumulative impacts shall be considered less than significant subject to consideration of other substantial evidence. If it is not consistent with the RTP/SCS, a project would result in a significant VMT if: For residential projects, its net VMT per capita exceeds the average VMT per capita for Jurupa Valley in the RTP/SCS horizon-year.

Cumulative Project generated VMT exceeds the City’s cumulative VMT threshold by 22.2%. Impacts related to VMT are considered cumulatively considerable and would result in a potentially significant cumulative VMT impact. (DEIR, p. 4.16-12)
Project design features PDFs 4.16-2 and 4.16-3 and Mitigation Measures MMs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 would promote active transportation by improving bike lanes, equestrian trails, and sidewalk connections,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 87
and providing bus shelters or equivalent funding. Based on the CAPCOA handbook, a 1% reduction in VMT per transit shelter can be achieved since transit facilities would encourage more people use transit. Installing four new shelters would therefore give a 4% reduction. (DEIR, p. 4.16-12) Based on the CAPCOA documentation, installation of electric vehicle charging infrastructure reduces GHG emissions by promoting the use of electric vehicles but does not have quantifiable reductions in terms of VMT reduction. However, providing charging infrastructure on site can reduce VMT from residents living in the community by decreasing the miles driven to a charging station. (DEIR, p. 4.16- 12)
Even with implementation of PDFs and mitigation measures, the Project will have a significant impact on VMT as the project generated VMT is approximately 15.3% higher than the City’s threshold taking the 4% credit for improving bus shelters or equivalent funding. There are no other feasible and enforceable mitigation measures that would reduce this impact to less than significant. Therefore, impacts would be significant and unavoidable. (DEIR, p. 4.16-13)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 88

6.0 OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS

6.1 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
The State CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved with the proposed action should it be implemented (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2[c]). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses; c) the project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental accidents; or d) the proposed consumption of resources is not justified (e.g., the project results in the wasteful use of energy).  Finding
The Project’s potential to result in significant irreversible environmental changes is discussed in detail in Subsection 5.2 of the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
 Substantial Evidence
Determining whether the Project may result in significant irreversible environmental changes requires a determination of whether key non-renewable resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them.

Natural resources, in the form of construction materials and energy resources, would be used in the construction of the Project. The consumption of these natural resources would represent an irreversible change to the environment. However, the development of the Project site as proposed would have no measurable adverse effect on the availability of such resources, including resources that may be nonrenewable (e.g., fossil fuels). Additionally, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Building Standards Code (CALGreen), which would minimize the Project’s demand for energy, including energy produced from non-renewable sources. A more detailed discussion of energy consumption is provided in DEIR Subsection 4.6, Energy.

Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to residential uses. As demonstrated in the analysis presented throughout DEIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, construction and longterm operation of the Project would be compatible with the existing and planned land uses that surround the Project site and would not result in significant physical environmental effects to nearby properties.

Although the Project would cause unavoidable impacts to the environment associated with agricultural and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and transportation, these effects would not commit surrounding properties to land uses other than those that are present under existing conditions or planned by the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. For this reason, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to nearby, off-site properties.

Because no significant natural non-renewable resources occur within the Project site, the Project would not reduce the availability of these resources associated with long-term operational activities. Also, as

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 89
discussed under Subsection 4.6, Energy, the Project would not result in a wasteful consumption of energy. Accordingly, the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.

The Project consists of a residential development and does not involve uses that would result in irreversible damage from environmental accidents associated with the Project.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services). The social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed (DEIR Sections 4.14, Public Services, and

4.18, Utilities and Service Systems).

Population and employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS (DEIR Sections 4.3, Air Quality, and 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Given the low likelihood that the Specific Plan Area would revert to lower intensity uses or to its current form, the Project would generally commit future generations to these environmental changes.

The commitment of resources due to implementation of the Specific Plan is not unusual or inconsistent with projects of this type and scope. However, once these commitments are made, it is improbable that the Project site would revert back to its current condition. Therefore, the Project would result in significant irreversible changes to the environment throughout the lifespan of development that would be accommodated by the Specific Plan. (DEIR, pp. 5-3 - 5-4)

6.2 GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed Project could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growth inducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(d)).
 Finding
The Project’s potential to result in growth-inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Subsection 5.3 of the EIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project would not directly or indirectly induce growth in the surrounding area which could result in a significant adverse effect to the environment.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 90
 Substantial Evidence
New employees and new residential populations represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area, placing additional demands on public services and infrastructure systems, and in the generation of a variety of environmental impacts.

A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with an increase in population or employment and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This typically occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population of residents or employees.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in local and regional land use plans and population projections. Significant growth impacts also could occur if a project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth inducement by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.

The Project would include the construction of roadways within the Specific Plan Area. As part of the Project, Pat’s Ranch Road would be constructed to the ultimate 118’ right-of-way per a modified section and would construct a two-way Class I path within the parkway. The Project would also convert the side-street stop-controlled intersections at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place to roundabouts and widening the southern half of Bellegrave Avenue to the ultimate half right-of-way width of 59 feet. In addition, the Pats Ranch Road segment between Limonite Avenue and Boca Place would be converted to a four-lane roadway. The Project would not create major new infrastructure that could result in substantial, unplanned growth because the Project’s proposed utility infrastructure, onand off-site, are designed to accommodate the proposed development.

The Project involves the development of the Project site with residential uses that would require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone would allow for the Project to be developed in accordance with the Specific Plan’s development standards. Furthermore, the Project implements growth and development anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, the Project is not considered to be growth inducing with respect to the removal of obstacles to growth.

As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.14, Public Services, and 4.15, Recreation, the Project would increase the demand for public services (police, fire, schools, libraries, and parks and recreational facilities). The proposed residential use would create the typical range of service calls for police and fire services that occur with this type of use. Therefore, the Project would not necessitate the unplanned

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 91
construction of new or the expansion of existing public service facilities in order to maintain desired levels of service. Additionally, funding mechanisms are in place through existing regulations and standard practices to accommodate growth in the City, including the Project. This Project would not, therefore, have significant growth-inducing consequences with respect to public services.

Economic growth is expected to take place as a result of the Project implementation from construction jobs. During Project construction, a number of design, engineering, and construction-related jobs would be created. However, this would be temporary in nature and would only last until Project construction is completed.

The Project is proposing the development of up to 1,576 new residential units. It is estimated that this development would generate up to 5,910 new residents. As discussed in DEIR Subsection 4.13, Population and Housing, the Project’s proposed 5,910 total population and 1,576 household were anticipated by the City’s General Plan and represent approximately 3.7% and 4% of the anticipated population and households within the City, respectively. This type of growth is already anticipated in the City’s General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the Project’s proposed residential use would support existing uses in the area and would facilitate the growth envisioned in the City’s General Plan.

As development occurs onsite, Project residents would seek shopping, entertainment, home improvement, auto maintenance, and other economic opportunities in the surrounding area. The Project is located near existing retail areas, which would help serve the shopping needs of the future residents.

There are several existing retail areas near the Project site within the City and surrounding city of Eastvale. The nearest retails areas to the Project site include Vernola Marketplace located at 6237 Pats Ranch Rd in the City of Jurupa Valley directly to the south of Limonite Avenue and Eastvale Gateway located at 12571 Limonite Avenue in the city of Eastvale directly to west of the I-15.

The Project involves the development of the Project site with residential uses that would require a General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and Change of Zone. The General Plan Amendment would amend the General Plan Land Use designation from Medium Density Residential and Business Park to the appropriate designation for the proposed densities (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 Specific Plan Amendment would remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15 and 20 from the 1-15 Corridor Specific Plan to allow the approximately 153-acres to develop as a residential use. The Change of Zone would change the 153-acre Specific Plan Area zoning from Residential (R-1) and Industrial (I-P) under the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 to Vernola Ranch Specific Plan to allow for residential development.

The proposed General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone to allow for a cohesive residential development is not a precedent setting action. Further, no changes to any of the City’s building safety standards (i.e., building, grading, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, fire codes) are proposed or required to implement this Project. As identified in DEIR Sections 4.1 through 4.18, the Project would be implemented in accordance with applicable regulations and identified mitigation measures, which would ensure there are no conflicts with adopted land development regulations and environmental

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 92
impacts are minimized. The Project does not propose any precedent-setting actions that, if approved, would specifically allow, or encourage other projects and resultant growth to occur. In the event that another property owner were to propose development or redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, that project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. (DEIR, pp. 5-4 – 5-7)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 93

7.0 ALTERNATIVES

7.4.1 ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
An EIR is required to identify any alternatives that were considered by the Lead Agency but were rejected as infeasible. Among the factors described by CEQA Guidelines §15126.6 in determining whether to exclude alternatives from detailed consideration in the EIR are a) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, b) infeasibility, or c) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

With respect to the feasibility of potential alternatives to the proposed Project, CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(1) notes:
“Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries…and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site…” In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the Project, 2) they would not have resulted in a reduction of significant adverse environmental impacts, or 3) they were considered infeasible to construct or operate. (DEIR, pp. 6-4 – 6-5)

1. Alternative Sites
The City considered but rejected an alternative that would develop the Project on an alternative site. In making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternative site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR” (CEQA Guidelines §15126.6[f][2)]. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
The 200.7 acre Project site includes the 153 acre 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 the 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 at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area. Due to the size of the Project, significant and unavoidable impacts under the topics of air quality, GHG emissions, and VMT would not be avoided or substantially reduced by placing the Project in another location. Most significant unavoidable impacts of the Project are related to its operational aspects and are not site specific, therefore, relocation of the Project would not substantially reduce these impacts. However, significant and unavoidable impacts associated with agricultural resources would be avoided if the Project were moved to a site that is not designated as Prime or Unique farmland. (DEIR, p. 6-5)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 94
Regarding the feasibility of finding another potential vacant location for the Project, there are no existing, undeveloped sites that are a similar size as the Project site within close proximity to the key freeway infrastructure (i.e. I-15) and that could reasonably be controlled by the Project Applicant for the purpose of developing the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant does not hold ownership control over any other parcels of land in or near the Project site that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed Project. Therefore, because an alternative location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project, and because the Project Applicant does not have ownership control over, and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over, any other parcels of land in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the Project, an alternative location alternative is not feasible. Accordingly, this alternative was not further considered in the DEIR. (DEIR, p. 6-5)

7.4.2 NO PROJECT/ NO DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/No Development Alternative considers no development on the Project site beyond what occurs on the site under existing conditions. As such, the approximately 200.7-acre Project Site would continue to consist of a corn field with farming support structures and storage/staging facilities.

Under this Alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and implementation of the Specific Plan would not occur. This alternative is required by CEQA and is included to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site undeveloped in its existing condition and to avoid the Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts related to air quality, agriculture and forestry resources, GHG emissions, and VMT. (DEIR, p. 6-6) The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project site. All significant and unavoidable impacts of the Project would be eliminated or lessened by the selection of the No Project/No Development Alternative. However, this Alternative would not receive the benefit from the proposed stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed by the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-10)
The No Project/No Development Alternative would fail to meet all of the Project’s objectives, as described in Subsection 6.1.1. (DEIR, p. 6-11)
Thus, the City Council hereby finds that the No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any Project objectives and further finds that this reason justifies rejection of the No Project/No Development Alternative.

7.4.3 NO PROJECT/EXISTING SPECIFIC PLAN ALTERNATIVE
The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative considers the development of the Specific Plan Area under the existing I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. The Specific Plan Area is within Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, & 20 of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 and is designated as R-1 (One Family Dwelling), School, and Industrial Park (I-P). Under this alternative, buildout of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 would occur and allow for approximately 504 residential units, a 20.1-acre industrial park, a 5.0-acre neighborhood park, and a 10-acre potential school. Additionally, the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 95
southern 36 acres would also be mass graded under this alternative. Buildout of this alternative would result in a total of 1,890 new residents and 413 employees. (DEIR, p. 6-11) The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, public services, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in residential units and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT would continue to occur from implementation of this alternative. Impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, recreation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-17) The No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would only partially meet most of the Project’s objectives. This Alternative would only partially meet Objective A, 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; Objective B, 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, due to a reduce residential units; and Objective E, establish a planning and zoning concept that is responsive to the market by implementing a comprehensive Specific Plan that contains a variety of housing, recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region, due to the reduction of units compared to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-17) Thus, the City Council finds that the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative would not fully meet the Project objectives, including in the important are of providing a range of housing opportunities; this is particularly important to the City’s growth and ability to support housing choices for a variety of population, lifestyle and family groups, and to help address the State Legislature’s declared housing crisis (see Housing Accountability Act, Gov’t Code § 65589.5). In addition, this Alternative does not avoid the significant environmental impacts in the areas of agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT. Consequently, this Alternative still results in significant and unavoidable impacts in the same areas as the Project, without achieving the same benefits. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of the No Project/Existing Specific Plan Alternative.

7.4.4 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consider the development of the Project site with a 20 percent reduction in residential units, in order to reduce vehicle trips and significant impacts associated with air quality, GHG, and VMT. Under this Alternative, a total of 1,261 residential units would be constructed, resulting in a reduction of 315 units. The development area under this Alternative would be the same as with the Project. This alternative would generate approximately 4,729 residents assuming an average household size of 3.75, consistent with the household size reported in the City’s

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 96
General Plan Table 2.2. Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projection. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. (DEIR, p. 6-17)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to: air quality, energy, greenhouse gas emissions, noise, population and housing, recreation, public services, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in residential units and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT would continue to occur from implementation of this Alternative.

Impacts related to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resource, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, transportation, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-22 – 6-23)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would only partially meet most of the Project’s objectives, as described in Subsection 6.1.1. This Alternative would only partially meet Objective A, 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, due to reduced residential units and not maximizing the buildout potential of the Project site. This Alternative would also only partially meet Objective E, establish a planning and zoning concept that is responsive to the market by implementing a comprehensive Specific Plan that contains a variety of housing, recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region, due to the reduction of units compared to the Project and not maximizing the buildout potential of the Project site. (DEIR, p. 6-23) Thus, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not fully meet the Project objectives, including in the important are of providing a range of housing opportunities; this is particularly important to the City’s growth and ability to support housing choices for a variety of population, lifestyle and family groups, and to help address the State Legislature’s declared housing crisis (see Housing Accountability Act, Gov’t Code § 65589.5). In addition, while this Alternative lessens the impacts, it still does not avoid significant environmental impacts in the areas of agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT. Consequently, this Alternative still results in significant and unavoidable impacts in the same areas as the Project, without achieving the same benefits. The City Council hereby finds that each of the reasons set forth above would be an independent ground for rejecting the Reduced Intensity Alternative, and by itself, independent of any other reason, would justify rejection of the Reduced Intensity Alternative.

7.4.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
CEQA requires the identification of an environmentally superior alternative. Section 15126.6(e)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines states that, if the No Project Alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, then the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 97
The No Project/No Development Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it would not involve any construction activities or development. There would be no impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable increase of VOC, NOx, and CO during operation, and no cumulative impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, GHG emissions and transportation. These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable for the Project. While this Alternative would avoid the significant effects of the Project, it would not receive any benefits from the stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed by the Project. Additionally, none of the Project objectives would be met. (DEIR, p. 6-23)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. As shown in Table 6-2, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less impacts under eight of the environmental topical areas. The reduction in impacts is due to the fact that the use would have reduced vehicular trips, which would result in a reduction in operational-related impacts, including air quality, GHG emissions, energy, and noise impacts. However, this Alternative would not eliminate the Project’s significant unavoidable impacts related to agriculture and forestry resources, air quality (except for operational NOx emissions), GHG emissions, and transportation. Additionally, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would only partially meet most of the Project’s objectives. (DEIR, pp. 6-23 through 6-24)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 98

8.0 STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
This Section specifically addresses §15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires the City, acting as the Lead Agency, to balance the benefits of the Project against its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts and determine whether the benefits which will accrue from the development of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable impacts. If the City finds that the major benefits of the Project outweigh its significant and unavoidable adverse environmental impacts, the City may approve the Project. Each of the separate benefits listed below are hereby determined to be, in itself, and independent of the Project’s other benefits, the basis for overriding all significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified in the EIR.

As set forth in Section 3.0, above, the EIR identified all of the Project’s adverse environmental impacts and mitigation measures that can reduce the Project’s impacts to less-than-significant level where feasible, or to the lowest feasible levels. Mitigation imposed by the City must have a proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts. As further set forth in Section 5.0, the EIR presents evidence that implementing the Project would cause or contribute to impacts that would remain significant and unavoidable even after the imposition of all feasible mitigation measures. Finally, as set forth in Section

7.0, there are no feasible alternatives to the Project that would mitigate the Project’s significant and avoidable impacts to less-than-significant level or avoid those environmental impacts while still attaining most of the Project’s basic objectives. Based on the facts presented throughout this document, the City makes the following finding:
 Finding
As the CEQA Lead Agency for the proposed Project, the City has reviewed the Project description and the alternatives to the Project, as presented in the EIR, and the City fully understands the Project and its alternatives. Further, the City finds that all potential adverse environmental impacts and all feasible mitigation measures to reduce the impacts from the Project have been identified in the Final EIR, Final EIR, and public testimony. Having considered the potential for the Project to cause or contribute to significant and unavoidable adverse impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation (VMT), the City hereby determines that all feasible mitigation measures with proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts have been adopted to reduce or avoid the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the EIR, and that no additional feasible mitigation or alternatives are available to further reduce or avoid significant impacts. Further, the City finds that economic, social, and other considerations of the Project outweigh the Project’s unavoidable impacts to Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, and Transportation (VMT) and that approval of the Project is appropriate. In making this finding, the City Council finds that each of the Project benefits separately and individually outweighs all of the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the EIR and therefore finds those impacts to be acceptable. The Project would meet the following objectives:
a) 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.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 99
b) 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.
c) 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.
d) 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. e) 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, recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region.
f) 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.

Furthermore, substantial evidence in the record demonstrates that approval and implementation of the Project will provide the benefits listed below:
a) As set forth in detail in the Findings, all feasible mitigation measures have been imposed to reduce Project environmental effects to less than significant levels. b) The Project would allow for the development of a property with residential uses, thus helping to address the State Legislature’s declared housing crisis (see Housing Accountability Act, Gov’t Code § 65589.5).
c) The Project will provide a range of housing opportunities that will diversify the City’s housing stock.
d) The new construction-related jobs provided by the Project will create direct and indirect economic benefits.
e) The Project will provide new recreational and open space opportunities, including an integrated trail network and pedestrian and bicycle amenities.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 100
f) The Project will provide beneficial infrastructure improvements to the area which will encourage pedestrian and bicyclist activity, in furtherance of the City’s Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclists and Pedestrians.
g) The Project encourages compatible land uses and interfacing with adjacent properties by incorporating natural buffers with expanded parkways, trails, drives, and local streets. h) Approval of the Project will result in the Project’s monetary contributions to established fee programs including, but not limited to, the City’s Development Impact Fee (DIF) which will be directed to needed local road improvements.
i) The Project will provide Community Benefits Contributions through the Project’s Development Agreement. The Project Applicant will be providing substantial Community Benefits supporting the surrounding community, as set forth in the Development Agreement and which Community Benefits are expressly incorporated herein.

In conclusion, the City Council finds that the foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts. The City Council further finds that each of the individual benefits discussed above outweighs the unavoidable adverse environmental effects identified in the Final EIR and, therefore, finds those impacts to be acceptable.

The City Council further finds that each of the benefits listed above, standing alone, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 2022120318
VRSP Findings of Fact and SOOC Page 101

9.0 ADDITIONAL FACTS ON RECORD

9.1 CUSTODIAN OF RECORD
The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings have been based are located at the City of Jurupa Valley, Planning Division, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA, 92660. The custodian for these records is Rob Gonzalez, through the Planning Division.

This information is provided in compliance with PRC § 21081.6.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-106
Exhibit B – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2022130318
Prepared for:

City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Prepared by:

T&B Planning, Inc.
3200 El Camino Real, Suite 100
Irvine, CA 92602
714-505-6360
December 2023
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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 4). 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 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. The objectives of the proposed Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project (the “Project”) include the following:
 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.  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.
 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.
 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.  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, recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

 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.

Overview of the Project
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 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- 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. 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 at 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. Refer to 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 Vernola Ranch Specific Plan 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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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. 2022120318

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 N/A 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. N/A 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 4.1-1 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply
with California Green Building
Standard Code Section 5.106 or
with a local ordinance lawfully
enacted pursuant to California
Green Building Standard Code
Section 101.7, whichever is more
stringent.

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

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland
of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
There are no feasible mitigation measures for
impacts associated with converting Farmland to
non-agricultural use.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
Threshold b: Would the Project
conflict with existing zoning
for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
No mitigation required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold c: Would the Project
conflict with existing zoning
for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section
12220(g)), timberland (as
defined by Public Resources
Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))?
No mitigation required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold d: Would the Project
result in the loss of forest land
or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
No mitigation required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold e: Would the Project
involve other changes in the
existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural
use or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use?
There are no feasible mitigation measures for
impacts associated with converting Farmland to
non-agricultural use.

N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.3 Air Quality
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the
Project conflict with or
obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan?
MM 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 shall apply. PPP 4.3-1 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 4.3-2 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 4.3-3 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 4.3-4 The Project is required to comply
with the provisions of South Coast
N/A N/A N/A Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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
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
PPP 4.3-1 through PPP 4.3-4 shall apply. Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard?
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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
 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.
 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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
 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.

MM 4.3-2 The City Public Works and
Engineering Department shall verify before
Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley Public
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
issuance of all residential building permits that
where appliances are installed by residential project
developers, Energy Star-rated appliances (or other
equivalent technology) for clothes washers, dish
washers, refrigerators, and ceiling fans shall be
installed in the residences.

Works and
Engineering
Department
Impacts with
Mitigation.

MM 4.3-3 The City Building and Safety
Department shall verify before issuance of all
residential and non-residential building permits that
all in-unit fixtures installed in residential and
nonresidential buildings will be high efficacy. High
efficacy lighting includes compact fluorescent
lamps (CFLs), light emitting diodes (LED), and
other light bulbs that provide an energy efficiency
of at least 40 lumens/watt for 15 watt or less
fixtures, 50 lumens/watt for 15-40 watt fixtures, 60
lumens/watt for fixtures 40watts.

Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley Building
and Safety
Department
Prior to issuance of
building permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

MM 4.3-4 Upon a residential dwelling unit being
sold, offered for sale or rented, the Project
Applicant or its designee shall notify and offer to
the prospective buyer or tenant, as soon as it may be
done, disclosure materials describing available
public transit, ridesharing and non-motorized
commuting opportunities available in the vicinity of
the Project. Such information shall be transmitted
no later than the close of escrow or finalization of a
rental contract. A draft of this disclosure shall be
submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning
Department for review prior to the issuance of the
first certificate of occupancy.

Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

MM 4.3-5 The Project developers shall install
broadband infrastructure or other communication
technologies that encourage telecommuting and
working from home, which reduces mobile source
emissions. The applicant shall submit
documentation to the City Building and Safety
Department prior to occupancy.

Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley Building
and Safety
Department
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

MM 4.3-6 The Project developers shall offer
electrical outlets on patios, which reduces area
source emissions. The City Planning Department
shall verify architectural plans for implementing
Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department
Prior to Project
approval
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
tract maps include such requirements before
implementing project approval.

Threshold c: Would the Project
expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations?
MM 4.3-1 shall apply. PPP 4.3-1 through PPP 4.3-4 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 4.3-5 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.

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

4.4 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 4.4-1 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 preconstruction 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.

PPP 4.4-1 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
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department
Prior to construction
activities
Less than
Significant
Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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 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 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
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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.

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
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.4-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impact Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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 4.4-2 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 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
PPP 4.4-2 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
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department
Prior to construction
activities
Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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 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. 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.

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 Impacts.

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 4.4-1 shall apply. PPP 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.5 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?
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.

N/A Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department;
Qualified
Archaeologist
Prior to issuance of
grading permits.

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 4.5-1 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

4.6 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 4.6-1 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 4.6-2 Construction vehicle operators are
required to comply with CCR Title
13, Motor Vehicles, section
N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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.”
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 4.6-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

4.7 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; strong seismic
ground shaking; seismicrelated ground failure,
including liquefaction;
landslides?
No mitigation is required PPP 4.7-1 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.

N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
PPP 4.7-2 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.

Threshold b: Would the Project
result in substantial soil erosion
or the loss of topsoil?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-3 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 4.7-4 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 offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 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 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial
direct or indirect risks to life or
property?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-1 and 4.7-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
Threshold e: Would the Project
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?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Threshold f: Would the Project
directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological
resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
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 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
N/A Project
Applicant.

City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department.

Prior to issuance of
any permits allowing
ground-disturbing
activities.

Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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
(Technical Appendix H to this EIR) 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
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.8 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 4.3-2 through 4.3-6 shall apply.

MM 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of certificates of
occupancy for the last phase of development, the
Project Applicant shall install four new bus shelters.

PPP 4.8-1 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 4.8-2 As required by Municipal Code
Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient
Landscape Design Requirements,
before the approval of landscaping
plans, the Project Proponent shall
prepare and submit landscape plans
that demonstrate compliance with
this section.

Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley Building
Department
Prior to issuance of
certificate of
occupancy permits
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

MM 4.8-2 Prior to issuance of certificate of
occupancy permits, the City shall verify that the
following electric vehicle charging infrastructure
has been installed.
a. Single Family Home/Condo/Townhouse with
attached garage: For each dwelling unit, a dedicated
208/240-volt branch circuit (40 amperes min) shall
be installed in the garage.
b. Multi-Family Housing: Provide EV charging
capabilities in at least 40% of homes, including 5%
installed, 15% ready (breakers and wires installed),
and 25% future capability w/ conduit/breaker space.

Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley Building
Department
Prior to the issuance
of certificate of
occupancy permits.

Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

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 4.3-2 through 4.3-6, and MM 4.8-1 and 4.8-2
shall apply.

PPP 4.8-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Significant and
Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.9 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?
MM 4.9-1 During demolition activities soil shall
be removed around boring locations S-7 and S-11
as reported in the Environmental Services report
dated September 11, 2023 (Technical Appendix I4).

Soils shall be removed a minimum of 6-inches deep
and a horizontal extent of 5-feet in equal distance
from the boring locations. Following removal,
additional soil testing shall be performed for Total
Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (EPA Test Method
8015B) to ensure that remaining soils are not above
the EPA Regional Screening Levels for residential
soil. The removal of these soils and analysis
providing evidence that remaining soils are not
above EPA RSL for residential soil shall be
documented and submitted to the RCDEH-ECP,
prior to issuance of a grading permit.

PPP 4.9-1 Regulations Governing AsbestosContaining Materials (ACMs) or Lead-Based Paint (LBP). Any
project-related demolition activities
that have the potential to expose
construction workers and/or the
public to ACMs or LBP will be
conducted in accordance with
applicable regulations including,
but not limited to:
• South Coast Air Quality
Management District’s
Rule 1403
• California Health and
Safety Code (§ 39650 et
seq.)
• California Code of
Regulations (Title 8, §
1529)
• California Occupational
Safety and Health
Administration Regulations
(California Code of
Regulations, Title 8, § 1529
[Asbestos] and § 1532.1
[Lead])
• Code of Federal
Regulations (Title 40, Part
61 [asbestos], Title 40, Part
763 [asbestos], and Title 29,
Part 1926 [asbestos and
lead])
Project
Applicant
City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department
Prior to issuance of a
grading permit,
during demolition
activities
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?
MM 4.9-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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. N/A 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. N/A 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 4.9-1 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 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 4.9-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A No Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.10 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 4.10-1 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 that
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 4.10-2 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 performing construction
work that has a non-compliant
N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
construction site per the General
Permit.

PPP 4.10-3 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
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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
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
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 offsite; 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?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.7-3 and PPP 4.10-1 through 4.10-3 shall apply.

PPP 4.10-4 Pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley
Municipal Code Section 8.70.060,
the Project’s construction
contractor shall implement an
erosion control plan to minimize
water- and windborne erosion
during construction activities.

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

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 4.10-1 through 4.10-4 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.11 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.

4.12 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, all
construction equipment must 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, commercial
construction activities within 200
feet of residential uses are limited to
weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., and limit high noisegenerating construction activities to 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,
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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?

4.13 Population and Housing
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
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?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Threshold b: Would the Project
displace substantial numbers of
existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A No Impact

4.14 Public Services
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
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?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.14-1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside
County Fire Department codes,
ordinances, and standard conditions
regarding fire prevention and
suppression measures relating to
water improvement plans, fire
hydrants, automatic fire
extinguishing systems, fire access,
access gates, combustible
construction, water availability, and
fire sprinkler systems.

PPP 4.14-2 As required by Municipal Code
Chapter 3.75, the Project is required
to pay a Development Impact Fee
that the City can use to improve
public facilities and/or, to offset the
incremental increase in the demand
N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
for public services that would be
created by the Project.

PPP 4.14-3 Prior to the issuance of building
permits, the Project Applicant shall
pay required development impact
fees to the Jurupa Unified School
District following protocol for
impact fee collection.

PPP 4.14-4 Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, the Project Applicant shall
pay required park development
impact fees to the Jurupa Area
Recreation and Park District
pursuant to District Ordinance No.
01-2007 and 02-2008.

4.15 Recreation
Summary of Impacts
Threshold a: Would the Project
increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.14-4 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

Threshold b: Does the Project
include recreational facilities or
require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No mitigation is required. N/A N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

4.16 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.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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 or be inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
MM 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A N/A Significant and Unavoidable
Impacts with
Mitigation.

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

Threshold d: Would the Project
result in inadequate emergency
access?
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.9-1 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

4.17 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
MM 4.17-1 Retain a Native American Monitor
Prior to Commencement of Ground-Distrubing
Activities:

1. The project applicant/lead agency shall
retain a Native American Monitor from or
approved by the Gabrieleño Band of Mission
Indians – Kizh Nation. The monitor shall be
retained prior to the commencement of any
“ground-disturbing activity” for the subject
project at all project locations (i.e., both onsite and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition
and/or required in connection with the
project, such as public improvement work).
“Ground-disturbing activity” shall include,
but is not limited to, demolition, pavement
removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree
removal, boring, grading, excavation,
drilling, and trenching.

2. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement
shall be submitted to the lead agency prior to
the earlier of the commencement of any
ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of
PPP 4.17-1 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 with
Mitigation
Incorporated.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
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?
any permit necessary to commence a grounddisturbing activity.

3. The monitor will complete daily monitoring
logs that will provide descriptions of the
relevant ground-disturbing activities, the type
of construction activities performed, locations
of ground- disturbing activities, soil types,
cultural-related materials, and any other facts,
conditions, materials, or discoveries of
significance to the Tribe. Monitor logs will
identify and describe any discovered TCRs,
including but not limited to, Native American
cultural and historical artifacts, remains,
places of significance, etc., (collectively,
tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as
any discovered Native American (ancestral)
human remains and burial goods. Copies of
monitor logs will be provided to the project
applicant/lead agency upon written request to
the Tribe.

4. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon
the latter of the following (1) written
confirmation to the Kizh from a designated
point of contact for the project applicant/lead
agency that all ground-disturbing activities
and phases that may involve grounddisturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or
(2) a determination and written notification by
the Kizh to the project applicant/lead agency
that no future, planned construction activity
and/or development/construction phase at the
project site possesses the potential to impact
Kizh TCRs
MM 4.17-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal
Cultural Resource Objects (Non-Funerary/NonCeremonial). Upon discovery of any TCRs, that the Kizh, in conjunction with the Project Archaeologist
retained by the Project Proponent, determine is not
listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
Project
Applicant.

City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department.

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

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
register of historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), shall have the
authority to halt all construction activities in the
immediate vicinity of the discovery (i.e., not less
than the surrounding 50 feet) and shall not resume
until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by
the Kizh monitor and/or Kizh archaeologist. The
Kizh will recover and retain all discovered TCRs in
the form and/or manner the Tribe deems
appropriate, in the Tribe’s sole discretion, and for
any purpose the Tribe deems appropriate, including
for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
MM 4.17-3 Unanticipated Discovery of Human
Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial
Objects.

1. Native American human remains are defined
in PRC 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or
cremation, and in any state of decomposition
or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects,
called associated grave goods in Public
Resources Code Section 5097.98, are also to
be treated according to this statute.

2. If Native American human remains and/or
grave goods are discovered or recognized on
the project site, then Public Resource Code
5097.9 as well as Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 shall be followed.

3. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall
be treated alike per California Public
Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and
(2).

4. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the
preferred manner of treatment for discovered
human remains and/or burial goods.

5. Any discovery of human remains/burial
goods shall be kept confidential to prevent
further disturbance.

Project
Applicant.

City of Jurupa
Valley
Planning
Department.

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

Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS

4.18 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 4.18-1 The Project is subject to compliance with the Jurupa
Community Services District rules,
regulations, conditions,
requirements, and payment of fees
for residential projects with respect
to water and sewer service.

PPP 4.18-2 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 Jurupa Community
Services District has verified that
adequate capacity exists at the City
of Riverside’s Water Quality
Control Plant to serve the Project
and/or a Sewer Capacity Fee shall
be paid.

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

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 4.18-1 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 4.18-1 and PPP 4.18-2 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
No mitigation is required. PPP 4.18-3 The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2022 California
Green Building Code Standards,
which requires new development
projects to submit and implement a
construction waste management
N/A N/A N/A Less than
Significant
Impacts.

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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

RESPONSIBLE
PARTY

MONITORING
PARTY

IMPLEMENTATION
STAGE

LEVEL OF

SIGNIFICANCE
AFTER

MITIGATION,

PPPS, AND
PDFS
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals?
plan 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 4.18-4 The Project shall comply with
Section 6.77.040 – Requirements
for commercial organic waste
generators, which establishes
recycling and organics collection
requirements for commercial
businesses, including multi-family
residential dwellings.

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 4.18-3 and 4.18-4 shall apply. N/A N/A N/A Less than Significant
Impacts.

ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-106
Exhibit C – Final Environmental Impact Report
Final Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022120318
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Master Application MA 22153
City of Jurupa Valley, California
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 Bellgrave Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
Lead Agency Discretionary Permits
General Plan Amendment No. 22003
Change of Zone No. 22002
Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan No. SP22001
Tentative Tract Map No. 38504
Development Agreement No. 22001
December 2023
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318
Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Section 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................1-1

1.1 Public Review Process .........................................................................................................1-2

1.2 List of EIR Commenters ......................................................................................................1-2 Section 2.0 Responses to Comments Received During the Public Review Period ........................2-1 Section 3.0 Responses to Comments Received at the Planning Commission Hearing Relating to CEQA ........................................................................................................3-1 Section 4.0 Clarifications and Revisions ........................................................................................4-1 Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION
In accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley, as the Lead Agency, has evaluated the comments received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (Project) (SCH No. 2022120318) and has prepared written responses to these comments. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the independent judgment of the lead agency.

According to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15132, the Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of the draft;
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in summary; (c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.

The City Council will consider certification of the EIR, adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings and Facts, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations as part of the approval process for the Project.

This Final EIR document is organized as follows:

Section 1 provides a brief introduction to this document, a summary of the public review process, and a list of commenters.

Section 2 provides responses to the public comments received on the Draft EIR during the public review period. Responses are provided in the form of individual responses to comment letters received. Comment letters are followed immediately by the responses to each letter.

Section 3 provides responses to the Planning Commission and public comments received relating to environmental issues during the Planning Commission hearing held on November 29, 2023.

Section 4 contains revisions and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of the comments received from agencies and interested persons as well as errata identified in the EIR. This information does not constitute significant new information and recirculation of the EIR for further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 is not required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

1.1 PUBLIC REVIEW PROCESS
In compliance with Section 15201 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of Jurupa Valley (City) has taken steps to provide opportunities for public participation in the environmental review process. A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was distributed on December 14, 2022 to responsible agencies, local government agencies, and interested parties for a 30-day public review period (from December 14, 2022 to January 13, 2023) in order to solicit comments and inform agencies and the public of the Project. The NOP was also distributed to the State of California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (SCH) for distribution to State agencies. The NOP was posted on the City’s website and at the Riverside County Clerk’s office and published in The Press-Enterprise on December 14, 2022.

The Project was described; potential environmental effects associated with Project implementation were identified; and agencies and the public were invited to review and comment on the NOP. An EIR Scoping Meeting was held on January 9, 2023 at the Jurupa Valley City Hall. A copy of the NOP and comments received are included in Technical Appendix A of the Draft EIR. The City received 7 comment letters from agencies and organizations in response to the NOP. Table 2-3 of the Draft EIR provides a brief summary of the NOP comments received that address environmental and related issues.

CEQA requires that a Draft EIR have a review period lasting at least 45 days for projects that have been submitted to the SCH for review (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15105[a]). The Draft EIR was distributed to various public agencies, organizations, and individuals on October 16, 2023; the EIR was available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The review period ended on November 30, 2023. The City used several methods to elicit comments on the Draft EIR. A Notice of Availability (NOA) and the Draft EIR were distributed to the SCH for distribution to State agencies and were posted on the City’s website. The NOA was also posted at the Riverside County Clerk’s office on October 16, 2023. On October 16, 2023, the NOA was mailed to responsible agencies, local government agencies, interested parties that received the NOP, individuals who had previously requested the NOA or EIR, and to individuals who provided NOP comments. The NOA was also published in The Press-Enterprise on October 16, 2023; the NOA and Draft EIR were made available for review, on the City’s web site at: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68.

The Planning Commission, as a recommending body, held a public hearing on November 29, 2023 to consider recommending approval of the Project, associated actions, and certification of the Final EIR to the City Council.

The City of Jurupa Valley City Council, as the final approval body, will hold a public hearing at which it will consider approving the proposed Project, associated actions, and certification of the Final EIR for the Project.

1.2 LIST OF EIR COMMENTERS
In accordance with Section 15132 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following is a list of the agencies, organizations, and individuals that submitted comments on the Draft EIR. The City received comments from four (4) agencies during the public review period.

Responses to each comment are in Section 2.0. The comment letter has been assigned a letter (i.e., A, B, C) and each comment within the transmittal is divided into sequential numbered comments (i.e., A- Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

1, A-2, A-3). Responses to comments made at the Planning Commission hearing and which are related to environmental topics are provided in Section 3.0.

Comment Date of Letter
Agencies and Organizations
A. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Riverside Unit October 27, 2023 October 19, 2023
B. City of Eastvale November 29, 2023
C. Riverside Transit Agency October 20, 2023
D. Southern California Gas Company October 17, 2023
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

SECTION 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE

PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD
All of the comment letters received by the City have been included and responded to in this Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR). Comments that address environmental concerns have been thoroughly addressed. Comments that do not require a response are indicated below and include those that (1) do not address the adequacy or completeness of the Draft EIR (i.e., are outside the scope of CEQA); (2) do not raise environmental issues; (3) do not address the Project; or (4) request the incorporation of additional information not relevant to environmental issues.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines the parameters for public agencies and interested parties to submit comments and the Lead Agency’s responsibility for responding to specific comments. Per CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(a), comments should be related to:
[T]he sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible…CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises that, “[r]eviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” Additionally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(d) notes that, “[e]ach responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility;” but, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(e), “[t]his section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section [CEQA Guidelines Section 15204].”
Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Evaluation of and Response to Comments, states:
a) The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments raising significant environmental issues received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

b) The lead agency shall provide a written proposed response, either in a printed copy or in an electronic format, to a public agency on comments made by that public agency at least 10 days prior to certifying an environmental impact report. c) The written response shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised (e.g., revisions to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections). In particular, the major environmental issues raised when the Lead Agency’s position is at variance with recommendations and objections raised in the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response. Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information will not suffice. The level of detail contained in the response, however, may correspond to the level of detail provided in the comment (i.e., responses to general comments may be general). A general response may be appropriate when a comment does not contain or specifically refer to readily available information, or does not explain the relevance of evidence submitted with the comment. d) The response to comments may take the form of a revision to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the final EIR. Where the response to comments makes important changes in the information contained in the text of the draft EIR, the lead agency should either:

1. Revise the text in the body of the EIR; or

2. Include marginal notes showing that the information is revised in the response to comments.

This section includes responses to substantive Draft EIR comments received by the City. With respect to comment letters received, aside from certain courtesy statements, introductions, and closings, individual comments within the body of each letter have been identified and numbered. A copy of each comment letter and the City’s responses to each applicable comment are included in this section.

Brackets delineating the individual comments and a numeric identifier have been added to the right margin of the letter. Responses to each comment identified are included on the page(s) following each comment letter. Responses to comments are being sent to the agencies and organizations that provided comments at least 10 days prior to the City Council’s consideration of certification of the EIR.

Revisions to the Draft EIR have been prepared to make minor corrections and clarifications to the Draft EIR as a result of City review, and comments received during the public review period (refer to Section

4.0, Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions, of this document). Therefore, this Response to Comments section, and the Draft EIR Clarifications and Revisions section, are included as part of this Final EIR along with the Draft EIR for consideration by the City Council prior to a vote to certify the EIR.

As further discussed in Section 4.0 of this document, the Draft EIR revisions and information presented in the responses to comments do not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated prior to its certification.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-1
A-2
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-3
A-4
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-6
A-5
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-6
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-6
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-8
A-6
(CONT.)
A-7
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-8
(CONT.)
A-9
A-10
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-11
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-11
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-11
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-11
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-11
(CONT.)
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-12
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-13
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-14
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter A
A-15
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Responses to Comment A
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection - Riverside Unit, dated October 27, 2023 and October 19, 2023
A-1 The commenter provides introductory comments and states that the Riverside County Fire Department – Fire Planning Division reviews proposed developments throughout the service area and evaluates proposed developments for compliance with department standards affected by response times, location of existing fire stations and equipment, as well as expected increase in requests for service as affected. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

A-2 The commenter states the Riverside County Fire Department provides cooperated integrated regional fire protection services to the City of Jurupa Valley. The commenter provides the four nearest Riverside County Fire Department Fire Stations serving the Project site. In response to the commenter’s listing of Fire Stations, Page 4.14-1 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows.

1. Fire Stations, Staff, and Equipment
The City of Jurupa Valley contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) in conjunction with CalFire for Citywide fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire safety education.

The four nearest Riverside County Fire Department Fire stations are the following:
• Fire Station 17 – 10400 San Sevaine Way, Mira Loma, CA is the nearest fire station.

It is approximately 2.45 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of

4.21 minutes.
• Fire Station 16 – 9270 Limonite Avenue, Pedley, CA is the second-closest fire station.

It is approximately 3.27 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of

4.50 minutes.
• Fire Station 18 – 7545 Mission Blvd, Riverside, CA is the third-closest fire station. It is approximately 5.75 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of 7.39 minutes.
• Fire Station 38 – 5721 Mission Blvd, Riverside, CA is the fourth-closest fire station.

It is approximately 7.7 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of 10.63 minutes.

As shown in Figure 4.14-1, Existing Public Services in the City, the nearest fire station to the Project site is Station 17 located at 10400 San Sevaine Way, approximately 2.45 miles northeast to the Project site. The second-closest station to the Project site is Station 16 at 9270 Limonite Ave, approximately 3.27 miles southeast to the Project site.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

2. Calls for Service and Response Times
In 2021, RCFD responded to a total of 11,361 calls for services citywide with the majority for medical emergency (68%), false alarms (9%), and traffic collisions (9%). Specifically, Stations 16 and 17 responded to a total of 2,554 and 2,728 calls for service, respectively. (RCFD, 2022).

Stations 17 and 16 have an approximately 4.21- and 4.506-minutes response drive time, respectively.

A-3 The commenter states the Project location is close to the threshold for acceptable fire Emergency Medical Service (EMS) response times. The commenter states that the Project will increase calls for service of the responding fire stations in the area and will cause the affected fire stations to be near capacity for annual call volume. The commenter requests cooperation of the City and the Project Applicant to address these impacts and implement strategies that will ensure all existing and future residents will continue to receive the high level of fire protection and EMS services. Strategies the commenter proposes may include construction of an additional fire station and/or paying fees for additional staffing and equipment to service the area.

The City and Project Applicant acknowledge these comments and have been coordinating with Riverside County Fire Department to ensure consistency with Riverside County Fire Department requirements. The Project would require approval of Development Agreement No. 22001. The Development Agreement requires an annual public safety benefit contribution that may be used for police protection, fire protection, ambulance and paramedic services, and acquisition of land and construction of public safety facilities. The Development Agreement provides for the creation of a Community Facilities District, which will pay the initial and ongoing public safety benefit contribution on a per unit basis once the development has been issued a certificate of occupancy.

The Draft EIR acknowledges that the Project would increase the demand on fire protection and emergency services (Draft EIR, p. 4.14-9). The Project is required to comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures (Draft EIR, PPP 4.14-1) and pay a development impact fee that can be used to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project (Draft EIR, PPP 4.14-2).

Additionally, as stated on Pages 4.14-9 and 4.14-10, 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.

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 Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

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. Thus, no further response is required.

A-4 The commenter provides states that prior to building permit issuance, the required water system, including all fire hydrant(s), shall be installed, and accepted by the appropriate water agency and the Riverside County Office of the Fire Marshal, prior to any combustible building materials being placed on the Project. Additionally, fire department emergency vehicle apparatus access road locations and design shall be implemented in accordance with current California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department Standards.

As discussed in Section 4.14, Public Services, of the Draft EIR, the Project Applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems (Refer to Draft EIR, PPP 4.14-1, p. 4.14-8). Thus, no further response is required.

A-5 The commenter provides introductory comments regarding the Specific Plan and the Draft EIR.

This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

A-6 The commenter provides a list of comments on the Project’s Specific Plan. These comments do not relate to the adequacy of the Draft EIR. The City and Project Applicant acknowledge these comments and the Specific Plan has been revised accordingly. The City has also imposed a condition of approval to ensure that the Project complies with the adopted and amended code requirements affecting Fire and Life and Safety concerns. This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

A-7 The commenter states that the response time and call volume from the project would exceed Fire Department Standards and mitigation will be required in consultation with the City and regional Fire Chief.

Under CEQA, a significant impact to fire protection services would occur if the Project would substantially affect response times to the degree that new or altered fire facilities are required that would cause an environmental impact. Therefore, an increase in response times alone does not result in a significant environmental impact. However, as discussed in Response to Comment A-3 and A-6, the Project includes a number of project design features, regulatory requirements, and conditions of approval to assist Riverside County Fire Department with meeting response time goals, including payment of an annual public safety benefit contribution, development impact fees, and compliance with the current California Fire Code and Riverside County Fire Department Standards. A new fire station or expansion of an existing fire station is not required or identified at this time. Therefore, impacts would remain less than significant with the incorporation of project design features and regulatory requirements.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

A-8 The commenter provides revisions to the drivable miles from the Project to each Riverside County Fire Department Station and responses time from Stations 17 and 16. In response to the commenter’s revisions, Page 4.14-1 of the Draft EIR has been modified as follows.

1. Fire Stations, Staff, and Equipment
The City of Jurupa Valley contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) in conjunction with CalFire for Citywide fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire safety education. As shown in Figure 4.14-1, Existing Public Services in the City, the nearest fire station to the Project site is Station 17 located at 10400 San Sevaine Way, approximately

2.45 miles (3.21 drivable miles) northeast to the Project site. The second-closest station to the Project site is Station 16 at 9270 Limonite Ave, approximately 3.27 miles (4.75 drivable miles) southeast to the Project site.

2. Calls for Service and Response Times
In 2021, RCFD responded to a total of 11,361 calls for services citywide with the majority for medical emergency (68%), false alarms (9%), and traffic collisions (9%). Specifically, Stations 16 and 17 responded to a total of 2,554 and 2,728 calls for service, respectively. (RCFD, 2022).

Stations 17 and 16 have an approximately 4.21- and 4.506-minutes response drive time, respectively. Please also refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-9 The commenter asserts that the currently assessed response times exceed the maximum 4.0- minute response time required for the Project and impact would be significant requiring mitigation measures. Please refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-10 The commenter asserts that cumulative impacts on fire protection services would also be significant and require mitigation measures due to the increase in density from the Project.

Please refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-11 This comment relates to comments on the Specific Plan document. Please refer to response to Comment A-6. No further response is required.

Section 4.16.6 of the Draft EIR evaluated the Projects potential to result in inadequate emergency access. 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. 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 Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and a less than significant impact would occur (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-5) A-12 This comment requests a modification to Page 1-32 of the Draft EIR to identify a significant impact to fire protection services and implementation of mitigation measures to support fire station/equipment/staffing. Please refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No further response is required.

A-13 This comment requests a modification to Page 4.14-1 of the Draft EIR to add in drivable miles, response times, and exceedance of 4.0 minute response time. Revisions have been made accordingly; please refer to response to Comment A-8. Please also refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-14 The commenter asserts that the currently assessed response times exceed the maximum 4.0- minute response time required for the Project and impact would be significant requiring mitigation measures. Please refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

A-15 The commenter asserts that cumulative impacts on fire protection services would also be significant and require mitigation measures due to the increase in density from the Project.

Please refer to response to Comments A-3, A-6, and A-7. No revisions to the Draft EIR are required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter B
November 29, 2023
Rob Gonzalez, Senior Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, California 92509
Sent via email to: [email protected]

RE: RESPONSE - NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY (NOA) FOR THE JURUPA VALLEY VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) – NOTICE RECEIVED 10.18.23 Dear Mr. Gonzalez:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Eastvale values its relationship with neighboring jurisdictions and is not opposed to development of this site; however, this project has the potential to generate traffic impacts in Jurupa Valley and Eastvale. The City of Eastvale offers the following comments for your consideration:
• Area to be Studied – According to the Riverside County Transportation Department’s Traffic Impact (TIA) Guidelines, the minimum area to be studied shall include any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification street, with “Collector" or higher classification street, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips, not exceeding a 5-mile radius from the project site. The Transportation Department may require deviation from these requirements based on area conditions.

Please view the attached exhibit illustrating the intersections that the City of Eastvale requests be included as part of the study area within the TIA. In addition, contribution of fair share costs for any mitigations needed for the applicable intersections (as provided in the attached exhibit), shall also be considered.

Eastvale staff would like to request a meeting to discuss these comments and potential solutions that address concerns for both cities. Please contact me at (951) 703-4499 or [email protected] to set a date and time to meet.

We look forward to working cooperatively with the City of Jurupa Valley on regional issuesthat affect our respective communities.

Sincerely,
Gustavo N. Gonzalez, AICP
Community Development Director
B-1
B-3
B-2
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter B

Exhibit:

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Responses to Comment B
City of Eastvale, Gustavo N. Gonzalez, AICP, Community Development Director, dated November 29, 2023
B-1 The commenter provides introductory and states that the Project has the potential to generate traffic impacts in Jurupa Valley and Eastvale. The commenter offers further comments addressed in responses to Comments B-2 and B-3.

B-2 The comment requests additional intersections to be included as part of the study area based on the County of Riverside Transportation Department’s Traffic Impact Guidelines. The commenter is correct that the Traffic Impact Guidelines require a minimum study area to include:
. . . any intersection of “Collector” or higher classification street, with “Collector" or higher classification street, at which the proposed project will add 50 or more peak hour trips, not exceeding a 5-mile radius from the project site. The Transportation Department may require deviation from these requirements based on area conditions.

The commenter provides an exhibit with additional intersections requested to be included as part of the study area for the Traffic Impact Analysis. The commenter also mentions the requirement for fair share contributions to applicable intersections.

Of the requested study locations, the approved Traffic Impact Analysis already includes the following intersections, based on roadway classification and the expected project trip generation and distribution:
• Bellegrave Ave @ Hamner Ave
• Limonite Ave @ Hamner Ave
• Limonite Ave @ I-15 SB ramps
The remaining intersections shown in the commenter’s exhibit for inclusion in the Traffic Impact Analysis are expected to carry fewer than 50 project trips in the peak hour and therefore were not included in the study area in accordance with County of Riverside guidelines.

Please note that Section 4.16, Transportation, of the Draft EIR discusses potential impacts related to transportation. As discussed in Section 4.16, Transportation, the changes to CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020. The Draft EIR concluded that impacts related to VMT would be significant and unavoidable even with implementation of Project Design Features and mitigation measures (Refer to Draft EIR pp. 4.16-10 through 4.16-13). The commenter does not raise any issues with this and no further response is required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

B-3 The commenter requests a meeting to discuss the comments above and potential solutions to address the concerns. The City has scheduled a meeting with the City of Eastvale staff to discuss the comments. No further response is required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter C
1 Cristina Maxey
From: Mauricio Alvarez <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2023 3:37 PM
To: Roberto Gonzalez
Subject: FW: NOA of an EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project Hello Rob,
Thank you for including Riverside Transit Agency in the review of the DraŌ EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specic Plan. AŌer reviewing the plans, there are no comments to submit for this parƟcular project at this Ɵme.

Thank you,
Mauricio Alvarez, MBA
Planning Analyst
Riverside Transit Agency
p: 951.565.5260 | e: [email protected]
Website | Facebook | Twitter | Instagram
1825 Third Street, Riverside, CA 92507
From: Nicole Morse <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: NOA of an EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project Good AŌernoon,
On behalf of the City of Jurupa Valley, please see the aƩached NoƟce of Availability of a DraŌ EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specic Plan. The DraŌ EIR is available for public review and comment from Monday, October 16, 2023 to Thursday, November 30, 2023. Please direct all comments (with the project name in the subject line) to:

Rob Gonzalez, Senior Planner
City of Jurupa Valley, Community Development Department 8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, California 92509
Tele: 951-332-6464 ext. 149
Email: [email protected]
The Specic Plan, DraŌ EIR and Technical Appendices are available for viewing at the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 and online at:
hƩps://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 under the folder labeled “MA22153.” Thank you,
Nicole M orse, Esq., Principal
T&B PLANNING, INC.
3200 El Cam ino Real, Suite 100, Irvine, CA 92602
Office: 714.505.6360 Ext. 126
M obile: 949.887.6715
nm orse@ tbplanning.com | www.tbplanning.com
C-1
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Responses to Comment C
Riverside Transit Agency, Mauricio Alvarez, Planning Analyst, dated October 20, 2023 C-1 The commenter states that the Riverside Transit Agency has no comment on the Project at this time. Thus, no further response is required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Comment Letter D
From: SoCalGasTransmissionUtilityRequest
To:

Subject:

Date:

Attachments:

Nicole Morse; rgonzalez
RE: NOA of an EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project Tuesday, October 17, 2023 10:37:03 AM
image001.png
DCF 2474-22-2001WEST 5000 NOP of an EIR and Scoping Meeting for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project.msg
Good Morning Nicole,
Please see our previous response indicating that SCG operates High Pressure Transmission facilities in the vicinity of your project. Once initial plans or drawings are available for review by an engineer please provide a copy of the plans to us and an engineer will be assigned to your request. They will coordinate with your design team to ensure any potential conflict with Transmission facilities is resolved.

Thank you,
Nerses Papazyan
Pipeline Planning Assistant-Transmission
From: Nicole Morse
Sent: Monday, October 16, 2023 4:31 PM
To: rgonzalez
Subject: [EXTERNAL] NOA of an EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Project CAUTION! EXTERNAL SENDER - STOP, ASSESS, AND VERIFY
Do you know this person? Were you expecting this email, any links or attachments? Does the content make sense? If suspicious, do not click links, open attachments, or provide credentials. Don't delete it. Report it by using the REPORT SPAM option! Good Afternoon,
On behalf of the City of Jurupa Valley, please see the attached Notice of Availability of a Draft EIR for the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. The Draft EIR is available for public review and comment from Monday, October 16, 2023 to Thursday, November 30, 2023. Please direct all comments (with the project name in the subject line) to:

Rob Gonzalez, Senior Planner
City of Jurupa Valley, Community Development Department 8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, California 92509
Tele: 951-332-6464 ext. 149
Email: [email protected]
The Specific Plan, Draft EIR and Technical Appendices are available for viewing at the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 and online at: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 [jurupavalley.org] under the folder labeled “MA22153.”
Thank you,
Nicole Morse, Esq., Principal
1 D-1
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Responses to Comment D
Southern California Gas Company, Nerses Papazyan, Pipeline Planning Assistant-Transmission dated October 17, 2023
D-1 The commenter reiterates the comments submitted during the NOP public review period that the Southern California Gas Company (SoCal Gas) operates High Pressure Transmission facilities in the vicinity of the Project site and requests initial plans or drawing when available to review to avoid potential conflict with the transmission facilities. This comment is acknowledged and the Project Applicant will coordinate with SoCal Gas to avoid potential impacts. The City has added a condition of approval to ensure that the Project does not conflict with SoCal Gas facilities (see Condition of Approval No. 14). This comment does not raise any issues concerning the environmental analysis provided in the Draft EIR and thus no further response is required.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

SECTION 3.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE PLANNING

COMMISSION HEARING RELATING TO CEQA
A Planning Commission hearing was conducted on November 29, 2023, during the Draft EIR public review period. This section addresses comments made at the Planning Commission hearing that relate to environmental topics that were analyzed in the Draft EIR. The information presented in these responses to comments does not result in any of the conditions set forth in Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, the EIR does not need to be recirculated prior to its certification.

PC-1. The Project would result in the loss of farmland.

Response to PC-1: The commenter is correct that the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to agricultural resources. As described starting on Page 4.2-8 of the Draft EIR, the Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.4 acres of “Unique Farmland” to non-agricultural use. There are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce impacts to agricultural resources (Draft EIR, pp. 4.2-9 to 4.2-10). Therefore, a statement of overriding considerations is required for Project approval.

PC-2. Migrating Geese. Will there be any acres designated for them. They come every year. It’s beautiful to go out and watch them. That’s their spot where they stop. Is there any acres designated for them?
Response to PC-2: Although beautiful, the Canada goose (Branta canadensis) is not a federal or state listed threatened, endangered or special status species and garners no protection under these respective laws. The species is protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). However, the Project site does not represent breeding habitat and no individuals would be taken as a result of the proposed action. The Canada goose generally nests on mounds or raised areas made of vegetation within close proximity to a water source in Canada with only occasional year-round documentation in southern California. Regionally, they have become accustomed to humans, thriving in urban habitats like parks, reservoirs, golf courses, and beaches where they are often characterized as a nuisance. Although not expected to breed onsite based on a lack of suitable habitat, Mitigation Measure MM 4.4- requires preconstruction nesting bird surveys during the breeding season to ensure compliance with the federal MBTA and this will apply to the Canada goose as well.

The Project does not propose open space habitat designated for Canada goose foraging. Impacts to active agricultural fields which are seasonally (when fallow) utilized for foraging by non-federal or state listed winter flocks of Canada goose would not represent a significant impact due to the presence of extensive foraging and suitable breeding habitat within the region adjacent to the Santa Ana River corridor located 1-mile south of the Project site.

PC-3. Were impacts to all of the sensitive biological resources onsite evaluated? Response to PC-3: Yes, the biological resources analysis in the Draft EIR evaluated the potential impact to all sensitive species and habitats. The analysis was based on information obtained from the Biological Resources Technical Resource Report prepared for the Project by Cadre Environmental (Cadre), dated October 2023 and included in the Draft EIR as, Technical Appendix C. All impacts to biological resources were determined to be less than significant with the exception of the potential to Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

impact burrowing owl and migratory/nesting birds during grading and construction activities.

Mitigation Measures 4.4-1 and 4.4-2 requiring preconstruction surveys for these species were incorporated to mitigate these impacts to less than significant.

PC-4. Wouldn’t the project consume less water than current agricultural uses? Response to PC-4: Yes, agricultural uses typically consume more water on a per acre basis compared to residential uses. As discussed in Section 4.18, Utilities and Service Systems, of the Draft EIR, a water supply assessment was prepared and approved for the Project on December 12, 2022 by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) Board of Directors, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10914 (Draft EIR, Technical Appendix P).

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 (Draft EIR, p. 4.18-16).

PC-5. Was the potential for soil/water contamination from agricultural activities evaluated? Response to PC-5: Yes, Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the Draft EIR, evaluated the potential for contamination due to past agricultural activities. Historically, some agricultural sites have utilized pesticides that are currently considered a health risk and no longer used. This particular environmental concern was investigated by GeoTek as part of the Phase I and Limited Phase II Assessment (Draft EIR, Technical Appendices I1-I3). Near surface soil samples were collected from the site and were analyzed for organo-chlorinated pesticides (EPA Method 8081) and arsenic (EPA Method 6010B). The laboratory testing concluded that organo-chlorinated pesticides and arsenic were not detected above regional screening levels for residential uses in the soil samples tested. Based on this laboratory testing, the historical agricultural use on the site is not considered an environmental concern (Draft EIR, p. 4.9-1).

PC-6. Have the effects of detention basins been studied? The speaker indicated that basins in other areas have failed and flooded.

Response to PC-6: 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, in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.05. Additionally, in accordance with PPP

4.7-2 of the Draft EIR, 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, prior to the issuance of grading and building permits.

Therefore, the City Engineer will ensure that the detention basin is constructed to meet engineering recommendations and would not fail or cause flooding.

PC-7. The Project is not a walkable community.

Response to PC-7: The Draft EIR evaluated whether the Project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

pedestrian facilities (Draft EIR, p. 4.16-8 and 4.16-9). The Project has been designed to include on-site pedestrian greenbelts, pathways, and trails that connect to existing pedestrian facilities within the surrounding roadways which would allow for access to existing and future transit facilities.

Specifically, the Project proposes the construction of 2.27 miles of bike and equestrian trails, and 3.41 miles of sidewalks and community paths (see Draft EIR, PPPs 4.16-2 and 4.16-3). Based upon the findings of the Draft EIR, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the circulation system and other land use plans. However, this comment is noted for the record.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

SECTION 4.0 CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS
Corrections to the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) text generated either from responses to comments or independently by the City, are stated in this section of the Final EIR. The information included in this section does not constitute substantial new information that requires recirculation of the Draft EIR. Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines states in part:
(a) A lead agency is required to recirculate an EIR when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review under Section 15087 but before certification. As used in this section, the term “information” can include changes in the project or environmental setting as well as additional data or other information. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. (b) Recirculation is not required where the new information added to the EIR merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR.

The minor Draft EIR revisions identified below are provided to clarify information in the Draft EIR.

None of the information contained in this section constitutes significant new information or changes to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR. There were no new significant environmental impacts identified following circulation of the Draft EIR. Likewise, there were no substantial increases in the severity of environmental impacts identified after circulation of the Draft EIR. Therefore, recirculation of the Draft EIR is not required because the new information added to the EIR through these modifications clarifies or amplifies information already provided in the already adequate Draft EIR.

CLARIFICATIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
This section includes recommended clarifications and revisions to the Draft EIR. This section is organized by respective sections of the Draft EIR. Deleted text is shown as strikeout and new text is underlined.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Section 4.2 – Agricultural Resources

1. Page 4.2-13 is modified due to a typographical error.

As discussed under Thresholds a and e b., the Project site contains Farmland as defined by State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G Section II(a), which would be converted to nonagricultural land use. Specifically, the Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.7 acres of “Unique Farmland” to nonagricultural use. Other lands within the City that are designated by the City’s General Plan for urban development or that may be proposed in the future for urban development (i.e., as part of future General Plan Amendments) also could result in the conversion of Farmland to nonagricultural use. The Project and other cumulative developments would contribute to the ongoing loss of “Important Farmlands” within the City. Accordingly, Project impacts to Farmland would be cumulatively considerable and significant and unavoidable.

Section 4.7 – Geology and Soils

1. Pages 4.7-9 and 4.7-21 are modified due to a typographical error with respect to the subsection heading numbering. The revised numbering is 4.7.5 Impact Analysis and 4.7.6 Cumulative Analysis.

Section 4.8 – Greenhouse Gas Emissions

1. Page 4.8-15 is modified due to a typographical error.

MM 4.8-2 Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy permits, the City shall verify that the following electric vehicle charging infrastructure has been installed. a. Single Family Home/Condo/Townhouse with attached garage: For each dwelling unit, a dedicated 208/240-volt branch circuit (40 amperes min) shall be installed in the garage.
b. Multi-Family Housing: Provide EV charging capabilities in at least 40% of homes, including 5% installed, 15% ready (breakers and wires installed), and 25% future capability w/ conduit/breaker space.

Section 4.9 – Hazards and Hazardous Materials

1. Page 4.9-19 is modified due to a typographical error.

The closest major airport is the French Valley Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 3.9 4.1 miles west of the Project site. Flabob Airport is located approximately

7.2 miles east of the Project site. The Project site is not within two miles of an any airport and the Project site is not identified as within an Airport Influence Area for airports in Riverside or San Bernardino County (Riverside County, 2019). As such, no impact would occur.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Section 4.10 – Hydrology and Water Quality

1. Page 4.10-10 is modified due to a typographical error.

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 4.10-35.9- 1 through 5.9-3). 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.

Section 4.12 – Noise

1. Page 4.12-21 is modified due to a typographical error.

The Project site is not located within two miles of an airport or airstrip. The closest major airport is the French Valley Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 3.9 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.

Section 4.14 – Public Services

1. Page 4.14-1 is hereby modified in Response to Comment A-2 and A-8.

1. Fire Stations, Staff, and Equipment
The City of Jurupa Valley contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (RCFD) in conjunction with CalFire for Citywide fire protection, emergency medical services, and fire safety education.

The four nearest Riverside County Fire Department Fire stations are the following:
• Fire Station 17 – 10400 San Sevaine Way, Mira Loma, CA is the nearest fire station.

It is approximately 2.45 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of

4.21 minutes.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

• Fire Station 16 – 9270 Limonite Avenue, Pedley, CA is the second-closest fire station.

It is approximately 3.27 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of

4.50 minutes.
• Fire Station 18 – 7545 Mission Blvd, Riverside, CA is the third-closest fire station. It is approximately 5.75 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of 7.39 minutes.
• Fire Station 38 – 5721 Mission Blvd, Riverside, CA is the fourth-closest fire station.

It is approximately 7.7 miles away and has an approximate response drive time of 10.63 minutes.

As shown in Figure 4.14-1, Existing Public Services in the City, the nearest fire station to the Project site is Station 17 located at 10400 San Sevaine Way, approximately 2.45 miles (3.21 drivable miles) northeast to the Project site. The second-closest station to the Project site is Station 16 at 9270 Limonite Ave, approximately 3.27 miles (4.75 drivable miles) southeast to the Project site.

2. Calls for Service and Response Times
In 2021, RCFD responded to a total of 11,361 calls for services citywide with the majority for medical emergency (68%), false alarms (9%), and traffic collisions (9%). Specifically, Stations 16 and 17 responded to a total of 2,554 and 2,728 calls for service, respectively. (RCFD, 2022).

Stations 17 and 16 have an approximately 4.21- and 4.506-minutes response drive time, respectively.

Section 4.18 – Utilities and Service Systems

1. Pages 4.18-1, -7, -14, and -21 are modified due to a typographical error. The modification revised the reference to the Water Supply Assessment from Technical Appendix P to O.

Section 5.0 – Other CEQA Considerations

1. Table 5-1 on Page 5-1 of the Draft EIR has been modified due to typographical errors.

Table 5-1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot Be Avoided Topic Type of Impact Details of Impact
Agriculture and
Forestry Resources,
Subsection 4.2
Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Agriculture
Impacts
The Project would result in the
permanent conversion of
approximately 175.60.1 acres of
“Prime Farmland” and 6.74 acres of
“Unique Farmland” to nonagricultural use.

No feasible mitigation measures exist
for impacts associated with
converting Farmland to nonagricultural use.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Topic Type of Impact Details of Impact
Air Quality,
Subsection 4.3
Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Air Quality
Management Plan Consistency
Impacts
The Project would result in an
inconsistency with the South Coast
Air Quality Management District’s
(South Coast AQMD’s) Air Quality
Management Plan with regards to
short-term construction-related
emissions of NOX and long-term
operational impacts from VOC, NOX,
and CO emissions.

The Project would implement
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1
through MM 4.3-6; however, these
measures would not reduce the impact
to less than significant.

Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Air Quality
Impacts
The Project would result in a
considerable increase of short-term
construction-related emissions of
NOX and VOC, NOX, and CO
emissions during long-term
operations, and exceed the South
Coast AQMD’s daily emission
thresholds.

The Project would implement
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-1
through MM 4.3-6; however, these
measures would not reduce the impact
to less than significant.

Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Subsection

4.8 Cumulatively Considerable
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Impact
The Project would result in
greenhouse gas emissions that exceed
the South Coast AQMD greenhouse
gas emissions significance threshold.

The Project would implement
Mitigation Measures MM 4.3-12
through MM 4.3-6 and MM 4.8-1 and

4.8-2; however, these measures would
not reduce the impact to less than
significant.

Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Conflict with the
2022 Scoping Plan
The Project does not include all of the
key project attributes of the 2022
Scoping Plan that reduce operational
GHG emissions and therefore has
potential to impede the State’s ability
to achieve the 40% below 1990 level
reduction target, resulting in a
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2022120318

Topic Type of Impact Details of Impact
significant impact. Incorporation of
the mitigation measures would not
ensure consistency with the 2022
Scoping Plan and would not reduce
the impact to less than significant.

Transportation,
Subsection 4.16
Direct and Cumulatively
Considerable Vehicle Miles
Traveled Impacts
The Project would result in an
increase in VMT that exceeds the
City’s VMT threshold.

The Project would implement PDF

4.16-2 and 4.16-3, Mitigation
Measures 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 and TDM
Measures however, these measures
would not reduce the impact to less
than significant.

2. Page 5-4 of the Draft EIR has been modified due to typographical errors.

Implementation of the Specific Plan would result in an increased commitment of social services and public maintenance services (e.g., police, fire, schools, libraries, and sewer and water services). The social service commitments would be long-term obligations in view of the low likelihood of returning the land to its original condition once it has been developed (see Sections 54.14, Public Services, and 54.18, Utilities and Service Systems).

Population and employment growth related to Project implementation would increase vehicle trips over the long term. Emissions associated with such vehicle trips would continue to contribute to the South Coast Air Basin’s nonattainment designation for ozone and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), under the California and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS), and nonattainment for nitrogen dioxide (NO2) under the California AAQS (see Sections 54.3, Air Quality, and 45.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions).

Section 6.0 – Alternatives

1. Page 6-2 is modified due to a typographical error.

Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Significant Direct and Cumulatively Considerable Impact:

The Project would result in the permanent conversion of approximately 170.1 175.6 acres of “Prime Farmland” and 6.47 acres of “Unique Farmland” to non-agricultural use. No feasible mitigation measures exist for impacts associated with converting Farmland to non-agricultural use.

ATTACHMENT B
Ordinance No. 2024-04 Approving Change of Zone No. 22002 -1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-04

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, 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)

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

Section 1. Project. The Applicant has applied for 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. The Specific Plan area consists of 153 acres, and the subdivision area 198.87 acres, located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue. This Ordinance addresses Change of Zone No. 22002.

General Plan Amendment No. 22003 is addressed by separate resolution. Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 will be addressed by resolution. Development Agreement No. 22001 will be addressed by a separate ordinance.

Section 2. 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. 22153 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 public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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 4 to 1 to approve the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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.
(d) 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 # 2022120318) for the Project. Change of Zone No. 22002 was included in the Project Description for the EIR and its impacts analyzed therein. (e) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project including Change of Zone No. 22002, 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, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Resolution.
(f) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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 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).”
(g) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA -3-
VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160- 050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067

FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A

3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).”
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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 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).”
(i) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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).”
(j) 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. (k) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. -4-
Section 3. Change of Zone.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Change of Zone No. 22002 to rezone as follows:
1) APNs 160-050-063, 160-050-067, 160-050-072, 160-050-068, and 1600-050-070 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) to Specific Plan (SP) as depicted in Exhibit “A.”
2) APNs 160-050-074, 160-050-005, and 160-050-023 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1), Industrial Park (I-P) and Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to Specific Plan (SP) 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 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 4. Findings for Approval of Change of Zone. In approving Change of Zone No. 22002, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) Change of Zone No. 22002 should be approved because it will create consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan. Change of Zone No. 22002 will change the -5-
zoning of APNs 160-050-063, 160-050-067, 160-050-072, 160-050-068, and 1600-050-070 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) to Specific Plan (SP) and of APNs 160-050-074, 160-050-005, and 160-050-023 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1), Industrial Park (I-P) and Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to Specific Plan (SP), as shown on Exhibit “A.” This will create consistency with the General Plan and Specific Plan as the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan will govern these parcels.

Section 5. Approval of Change of Zone No. 22002. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby:
(a) Approves Change of Zone No. 22002 to rezone APNs 160-050-063, 160- 050-067, 160-050-072, 160-050-068, and 1600-050-070 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) to Specific Plan (SP) and of APNs 160-050-074, 160-050-005, and 160-050-023 from One (1) Family Dwellings (R-1), Industrial Park (I-P) and Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) to Specific Plan (SP), as shown on Exhibit “A.”
(b) The City Council’s approval of Change of Zone No. 22002 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 22001, and shall only take effect if General Plan Amendment No. 22003, Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 are adopted by the City Council.

Section 6. 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 7. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 8. 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.
-6-
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
-7-

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. 2024-04 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

ATTACHMENT B
Exhibit A - Change of Zone Exhibit
WEBB
N
W E
S
CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT #22002
LEGEND

ATTACHMENT C
Ordinance No. 2024-05
Approving Development Agreement
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-05

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)

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

Section 1. Project. The Applicant has applied for 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. This Ordinance addresses Development Agreement No. 22001. General Plan Amendment No. 22003 is addressed by separate resolution. Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 will be addressed by resolution. Change of Zone No. 22002 will be addressed by a separate ordinance.

Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 22153 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 29, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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 4 to 1 to approve the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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.
(d) 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 # 2022120318) for the Project. Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 were included in the Project Description for the EIR and their impacts analyzed therein. (e) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project including Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504, 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, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Resolution.
(f) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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 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).”
(g) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND -3-

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160- 050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067

FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A

3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).”
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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 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).”
(i) Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced and conducted a first reading of 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).”
(j) 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. (k) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. -4-
Section 3. Development Agreement.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Development Agreement No. 22001, 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. A copy of the Development Agreement is attached as Exhibit “A”.
(b) California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 (the “Development Agreements Act”) authorize the City to enter into a binding development agreement for the development of real property within its jurisdiction with persons having legal or equitable interest in such real property.
(c) Section 65867 of the Development Agreements 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 Agreements 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 65867.5(c) also provides that a Development Agreement that includes a subdivision as defined in Section 66473.7, shall not be approved unless the agreement provides that any tentative map prepared for the subdivision will comply with Section 66473.7.

Section 4. Findings for Approval of Development Agreement. In approving Development Agreement No. 22001, 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 twenty (20) 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 2.19 thereof and vested by the Development Agreement (Government Code Section 65865.2). -5-
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. 38504:
1) The Development Agreement will obligate the Owner, as consideration for the Development Agreement, to make Community Benefit Contributions of an estimated $22,593,626 based on a 20-year projection (discounted at net present value), for: (1) general municipal services, (2) public safety, and (3) construction of public facilities. 2) The Project Approvals vested by the Development Agreement are consistent with the City’s General Plan, as amended, in that it allows for the development of up to 1,576 residential dwelling units at the density ranges allowed under the General Plan.

Specifically, the development of the residential unit is consistent with the following General Plan goals and policies:
a) LUE 1 Encourages attractive, safe, and well-maintained residential neighborhoods that offer a range of high quality housing opportunities that “fit” the community in which they are located
b) LUE 2.1 Residential Development. Accommodate the
development of single-family and multi-family residential units in areas appropriately designated by the General Plan, specific plans, the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay, and community and town center plans land use maps.
c) LUE 2.2 Higher Density Residential. Accommodate higher density residential development in walkable, pedestrian-oriented areas near major transportation corridors, concentrated employment areas, and community and town centers, and promote the development of high quality apartments and condominiums that will encourage local investment and pride of ownership.
d) LUE 2.3 Infrastructure. Ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. e) LUE 2.3 Infrastructure. Ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. -6-
f) LUE 2.5 Connectivity. Integrate residential development with a continuous network of parks, open space, public areas, bicycle trails, equestrian trails, public transit routes, and pedestrian paths to connect neighborhoods and communities with key nodes.

Key nodes include parks and recreation facilities, schools, town and neighborhood centers, and other in-city communities and surrounding cities and points of interest. g) Buffering. Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units from the impacts of abutting agricultural, roadway, commercial, and industrial uses, to the maximum extent possible.
(c) Development Agreement No. 22001 is consistent with Specific Plan No. 22001 in that:
1) Development Agreement No. 22001 establishes a mechanism for the construction of infrastructure and other public improvements identified in the Specific Plan. 2) The Development Agreement No. 22001 assures that the City will receive certain benefits and improvements that were established to implement goals and objectives of the Specific Plan No. 22001.
(d) 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.
(e) 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 4.11 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. 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 5. Approval of Development Agreement. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby:
(a) Approves the Development Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and McCune & Associates, in the substantially the same form submitted to the City Council as Exhibit “A” and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Development Agreement on behalf of the -7-
City. Upon execution by all parties, an original copy shall be kept on file in the City Clerk’s Office. 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 (b) The City Council’s approval of Development Agreement No. 22001 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 22002, and shall only take effect if General Plan Amendment No. 22003, Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 are adopted by the City Council.

Section 6. 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 7. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.

Section 8. 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 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.
-8-
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
-9-

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. 2024-05 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

ATTACHMENT C
Exhibit A – Development Agreement No. 22001
Draft: December 17, 2023
2793172.18

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

PATRICK VERNOLA, TRUSTEE OF THE CHRIS MCCABE TRUST CREATED BY THE ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST U/D/T/ DATED OCTOBER 18, 2000, BELLATERA INVESTMENTS PA 13, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; BOOMER INVESTMENTS PA 13, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND SHELLINA INVESTMENTS PA 13, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SKY COUNTRY INVESTMENT CO./EAST, LLC; AND PATRICK VERNOLA, TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST Draft: December 17, 2023
-2-
2793172.18
UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 18, 2000, AND PATRICK

VERNOLA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE PAT AND MARY ANN VERNOLA TRUST – MARITAL TRUST

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into and dated as of December 21, 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 ” PATRICK VERNOLA, TRUSTEE OF THE CHRIS MCCABE TRUST CREATED BY THE ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST U/D/T/ DATED OCTOBER 18, 2000, BELLATERA INVESTMENTS PA 13, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; BOOMER INVESTMENTS PA 13, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; AND SHELLINA INVESTMENTS PA 13, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; SKY COUNTRY INVESTMENT CO./EAST, LLC; AND PATRICK VERNOLA, TRUSTEE OF THE ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST UNDER TRUST AGREEMENT DATED OCTOBER 18, 2000, AND PATRICK VERNOLA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE OF THE PAT AND MARY ANN VERNOLA TRUST – MARITAL TRUST (collectively, 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;
Draft: December 17, 2023
-3-
2793172.18

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 200.7 acres in size, is generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue and is described on Exhibit “A” and depicted on Exhibit “B” attached hereto (the “Property”).

1.3 The Property is subject to the Project Approvals and Applicable Regulations defined in Sections 2.19 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 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 2.10, 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-4-
2793172.18
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:

1.9.1 On November 29, 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 December 21, 2023, after a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council adopted the following Resolutions approving certain land use entitlements for the Development: (1) Resolution No. 2023-___, Certifying the Environmental Impact Report, and (2) Resolution No. 2023-___, approving General Plan Amendment No. 22003 (GPA No. 22003), and (3) Resolution No. 2023-______ approving Specific Plan SP 22001 and amendment to Specific Plan No. 266 and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504, copies of which are 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 December 21, 2023, following a duly noticed public hearing, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 2023-___ and on January 18, 2024, held the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 2023-___, approving Zone Change (ZC) No. ______________, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, which Ordinance includes the findings pertaining thereto, including those relating to the CEQA documentation for the Development and this Zone Change’s consistency with City’s General Plan and each element thereof and any specific plans relating to the Property.

1.9.4 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, a copy of which is on file in the City Clerk’s Office at City Hall, 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.

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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-5-
2793172.18
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 has found and determined that: (i) this Agreement implements the goals and policies of City’s General Plan, including each element therof; (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 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 January 18, 2024 approving this Agreement.

2.4 “Cell Tower Property” is defined in Section 6.7 of this Agreement.

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

Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.)

2.6 “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.

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

2.8 “City Manager” means the City Manager of City.

2.9 “Commercial Property” means property in Planning Areas 11 and 12 of Specific Plan 266 (“SP 266”), which are Lots 28 & 29 of Tract Map 38504, as now exits or may hereafter be amended pursuant to Section 6.6.

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

Draft: December 17, 2023
-6-
2793172.18

2.11 “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.

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

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

2.14 “End User” means the owner of a lot on the Property where: (i) the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and (ii) a certificate of occupancy has been issued for a building on such lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations of Sections 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.7, and 6 of this Agreement shall survive termination as to such End Users.

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

2.16 “Multi-Family Residential Units--Medium Density” means attached or detached residential units that are on a parcel in which the density is more than eight (8) units per acre and less than twenty three (23) units per acre as designated in the Project Approvals.

2.17 “Multi-Family Residential Units--High Density” means attached or detached residential units that are on a parcel in which the density is twenty three (23) units or more per acre as designated in the Project Approvals.

2.18 “Owner” means Patrick Vernola, Trustee Of The Chris McCabe Trust Created By The Anthony P. Vernola Trust U/D/T/ Dated October 18, 2000, Bellatera Investments PA 13, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company; Boomer Investments Pa 13, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and Shellina Investments PA 13, A California Limited Liability Company; Sky Country Investment Co./East, LLC; and Patrick Vernola, Trustee of The Anthony P. Vernola Trust Under Trust Agreement Dated October 18, 2000, And Patrick Vernola, Successor Trustee of The Pat and Mary Ann Vernola Trust – Marital Trust.

Given the multiple entities with interests in the Property subject to this Agreement, the Owner hereby designates Rick Bondar to act as the agent on behalf of the Owner with respect to all matters pertaining to the Owner’s obligations concerning this Agreement and all matters pertaining to the Public Improvements, subsequent land use applications, community facilities districts concerning the Project Approvals and this Agreement. The Owner may change the agent pursuant to written notice to the City signed by each ownership entity.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-7-
2793172.18

2.19 “Project” means Development of the Property in accordance with the Project Approvals and this Agreement, inclusive of the permitted uses and Applicable Regulations set forth in this Agreement.

2.20 “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; (2) Resolution No. 2023-__, approving General Plan Amendment No. GPA No. 22003, and (3) Resolution No. 2023-____ adopting Specific Plan No. SP 22001, and amendment to SP 266 (SP 266A); Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38504; (4) Ordinance No. 2023-__, adopting Zone Change No. CZ 22002; and (5) Ordinance No. 2023-___, approving this Agreement.

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

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

2.23 “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.

2.24 “Single-Family Residential Unit” means attached or detached residential units that are on a parcel in which the density is eight (8) units or less per acre as designated in the Project Approvals.

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

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

2.27 “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.

2.28 “Term” is defined in Section 3.3 of this Agreement.

2.29 “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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-8-
2793172.18
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.

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 twenty (20) 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-9-
2793172.18

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 itself, affect any right or duty arising from entitlements or approvals set forth under the Project Approvals.

3.4.6 Termination As to End Users. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall automatically terminate with respect to any such lot and such lot shall be released and no longer be subject to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon satisfaction of both of the following conditions: (i) the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and the lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in “bulk”) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate user; and (ii) a certificate of occupancy has been issued for a building on such lot. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the obligations of Sections 5.6.2, 5.6.3, 5.7, and 6 of this Agreement shall survive termination as to such users.

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 regulations shall govern the development of the Property (“Applicable Regulations”):

4.1.3.1 The provisions of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement pertaining to property development, including without limitation, Chapter 9.267, Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee;

4.1.3.2 City ordinances and resolutions pertaining to property development in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement, and Draft: December 17, 2023
-10-
2793172.18

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

4.1.3.4 The City standards in effect as of the Effective Date of this Agreement for construction of City infrastructure improvements.

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 Development in Accordance with Agreement and Applicable Law.

Subject to the provisions of Section 4.4, if Owner proceeds with Development of the Project, Development shall proceed in accordance with this Agreement (including, without limitation, the Applicable Regulations and the Project Approvals) and in compliance with all laws, regulations, rules, and requirements of all non-City governing entities with jurisdiction over the Property.

4.1.6 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 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 used in evaluating requests of other 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 City Community Development Director shall be empowered to issue amendments to Project Approvals if authorized by the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-11-
2793172.18

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 Except as otherwise authorized in this Section 4.2.1, regulations that are not in conflict with the Project Approvals and this Agreement. Regulations shall be deemed in conflict with the Project Approvals or this Agreement if the Regulations:
(i) alter or change any land use, including permitted or conditional uses, of the Property from that permitted under this Agreement and the Applicable Regulations; (ii) limit or reduce the height or bulk of any structures of the Project from that permitted under this Agreement and the Applicable Regulations; (iii) limit or reduce the density or intensity of the Project from that permitted under this Agreement and the Applicable Regulations; (iv) except as provided in this Agreement, materially increase (by an amount greater than 15%) the cost of performance of, or preclude compliance with, any provision of the Applicable Regulations or Project Approvals; (v) limit or restrict the availability of public utilities, services, infrastructure or facilities to the Project; or (vi) require the issuance of additional permits or approvals by the City other than those required by the Applicable Regulations.

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 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-12-
2793172.18
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 latter-enacted 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.

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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-13-
2793172.18
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 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. 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 amendments shall not constitute an amendment to this Agreement nor require an amendment to this Agreement.

4.8 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-14-
2793172.18

4.9 Acquisition of Right of Way for Public Improvements.

4.9.1 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.

4.9.2 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.

4.9.3 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.

4.9.4 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 4.8.

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.

4.10 Term of Map(s) and Other Project Approvals. Pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66452.6(a) and 65863.9, 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) Draft: December 17, 2023
-15-
2793172.18
shall be deemed extended without further required action for a period of time through the scheduled termination date of this Agreement as set forth in Section 3.3 above.

4.11 Requirement of Sufficient Water Supply for Residential Subdivisions.

Any and all tentative subdivision maps approved for the Project shall comply with Government Code section 66473.7, if, and to the extent, required by Government Code Section 65867.5.

5. IMPACT FEES.

5.1 Development Impact Fees. Owner shall pay all Development Impact Fees pursuant to Chapter 3.75 or other provisions of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (“DIF”). The DIF in existence on the Effective Date at the rates on the Effective Date, shall be the sole DIF to be imposed on parcels within the Property for the first ten (10) years of the Term of this Agreement. The DIF during this ten year period is attached hereto as Exhibit “D” to this Agreement. Thereafter, the DIF and rates of DIF shall be those in effect as of the date of issuance of each building permit for the Project or such other time as the DIF may be paid as required by law. The DIF shall apply only to the City’s DIF and not to the TUMF, any similar regional impact fees described herein or to any other development impact fees imposed by another governmental agency not under the control, directly or indirectly, of 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 DIF in the amount shown in Exhibit “D” 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.

Owner shall be entitled to such credits as might be available pursuant to the terms of the DIF or other provisions of the Applicable Regulations and this Agreement.

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 acknowledges and understands 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 acknowledges and understands 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-16-
2793172.18
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.

5.4 Other Regional Development Impact Fees. Owner shall pay other regional development impact fees, or any other development impact fees imposed by another governmental agency imposed upon Development within the Property, including without limitation Mira Loma Road and Bridge Benefit District fee, 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.

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 consideration of the benefits received by Owner pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, Owner shall pay to City the following Community Benefit Contributions (“CBCs”):

5.6.1 General Municipal Services Contribution. In partial consideration of the benefits provided to Owner under this Agreement and pursuant to the Project Approvals, Owner and its successors shall pay to the City a fee of 1) one thousand dollars ($1,000) per Single Family Residential Unit, and 2) seven hundred dollars ($700) for both Multi-Family Residential Units--Medium Density and Multi-Family Residential Units--High Density. The fees specified in this Section shall be payable prior to the issuance of a building permit for the unit (“Services Contribution CBC”). The City may use the fee for general municipal purposes in order to mitigate the fiscal impact of the Project upon general municipal services.

5.6.2 Annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution. As established in Section 5.7 of this Agreement, upon the creation of the Community Facilities District (“CFD”) and the levying of special taxes through the CFD, the CFD shall pay to the City an annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution in the initial amount of 1) three hundred forty three dollars ($343) per Single-Family Residential Unit and 2) two hundred eight dollars ($208) per Multi-Family Residential Unit--Medium Density, and 3) one hundred twenty four dollars ($124) per MultiFamily Residential Unit--High Density, subject to annual increase as described below. No special tax shall be levied on undeveloped property.

5.6.2.1 The Annual Public Safety Benefit Contribution may be used for the following services: (1) police protection services; (2) fire protection services; (3) ambulance and paramedic services; and (4) acquisition of land and construction of public safety facilities.

5.6.2.2 The first Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be levied by the CFD in the first tax year following the issuance of a building permit for each type Draft: December 17, 2023
-17-
2793172.18
of property listed in Section 5.6.2 solely on parcels where a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Thereafter, the Public Safety Benefit Contribution shall be levied by the CFD on the property in perpetuity. Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which the Public Safety Benefit Contribution is being levied by the CFD, and annually thereafter, the Public Safety Benefit Contribution amount shall automatically increase by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index (All Urban Consumers; Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario). 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 and shall have a minimum annual increase of two percent (2%) and a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%).

5.6.3 Annual Facilities Benefit Contribution. As established in Section

5.7, upon the creation of the CFD and the levying of special taxes through the CFD, the CFD shall pay to the City an Annual Facilities Benefit Contribution in the initial amount of 1) three hundred twenty dollars ($320) per Single-Family Residential Unit, 2) two hundred thirty dollars ($230) per Multi-Family Residential Unit--Medium Density, and 3) one hundred forty dollars ($140) per Multi-Family Residential Unit--High Density, subject to annual increase as described below. No special tax shall be levied on undeveloped property.

5.6.3.1 The Annual Facilities Benefit contribution would 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.

5.6.3.2 The first Facilities Benefit Contribution shall be levied by the CFD in the first tax year following the issuance of a building permit for each type of property listed in Section 5.6.3 above, solely on parcels where a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued.

Thereafter, the Facilities Benefit Contribution shall be levied by the CFD on each Parcel for a period of fifty (50) years from the date of the building permit issuance. Commencing July 1st of the City’s second fiscal year in which the Facilities Benefit Contribution is being levied by the CFD, and annually thereafter, the Facilities Benefit Contribution amount shall automatically increase by two percent (2.00%).

5.6.4 City shall not impose any additional CBCs. Nothing in this Section 5.6.4 shall prohibit the City from establishing CFDs for public improvements, fees and maintenance pursuant to Sections 6.3 and 6.5.

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 Development Approvals and Owner’s obligation to satisfy the obligations of Sections 5.6.2 and 5.6.3. Such obligations may be satisfied by the formation of one or more CFDs. If the City, or a City-controlled public entity, elects not form the CFD described in this Section 5.7, then City acknowledges and agrees that the CBC established in Sections 5.6.2 and 5.6.3 shall not be imposed upon the Owner, any Transferee of Owner (as provided in Section 12 of this Agreement) or any End User of any portion of the Property. If the Owner fails to file a petition for a CFD or fails to vote in favor of the CFD as described in Section 5.7.2 and 5.7.3, or if the CFD is invalidated by a court of law or is Draft: December 17, 2023
-18-
2793172.18
subsequently repealed by the Owner, the Owner, any Transferee of Owner (as provided in Section 12 of this Agreement) or any End User of any portion of the Property shall remain obligated to pay the CBC obligations of Section 5.6.2 and 5.6.3, subject to the timing requirements specified in Sections 5.6.2.2 and 5.6.3.2.

5.7.2 No public entity other than the City or a City-controlled public entity, may form a CFD for the CBCs.

5.7.3 Owner may satisfy its obligations concerning Sections 5.6.2 and

5.6.3 through (i) filing a Petition and Waiver with City to initiate formation of a CFD, or annexation to an appropriate CFD, if one already exists; (ii) voting in favor of such CFD; and (iii) paying all costs associated with the formation of, or annexation to, a CFD pursuant to the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (Gov. Code, §§ 53311-53368.3).

5.7.4 The City and Owner shall work cooperatively to complete the CFD within twelve (12) months following the date the Owner requests the formation of such CFD.

City agrees to use reasonable efforts to develop and implement the CFD(s) subject to public hearing and election requirements of applicable State law.

5.7.5 The Maximum Special Tax for services shall be increased each fiscal year based on the increases in contributions described in Section 5.6.

5.7.6 The maximum effective tax rate for assessor's parcels within each CFD for the Project, including those described in this Section 5.7 and Section 6.5 may not exceed two percent (2.0%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the time of approval of the CFD and the Rate and Method of Apportionment.

5.8 Administrative Fee. Owner shall pay to City a one-time administrative fee in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) thirty (30) calendar days after the Effective Date of the of this Agreement

6. OBLIGATIONS OF THE PARTIES.

6.1 Owner’s Obligation to Construct Public Improvements.

6.1.1 Except as provided in Section 6.2, Owner shall, at Owner’s sole cost and expense, design, construct, install, and finally complete the Public Improvements described in the Project Approvals to be dedicated or conveyed to a public agency (“Public Improvements”).

6.1.2 The design, construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements shall be in conformance with the Applicable Regulations in effect on the Effective Date. The City Engineer shall approve, in writing, all Plans and Specifications for construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements.

6.1.3 Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement, the Public Improvements shall be completed at such time as set forth in the Project Approvals.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-19-
2793172.18

6.1.4 The Parties shall enter into City’s standard subdivision improvement agreement, or an applicable modification thereof, for the completion of the Public Improvements.

6.1.5 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 6.1 shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Owner’s indemnity obligation with respect to a specific Public Improvement specified in this subsection shall terminate two (2) years after City Council accepts the completed Public Improvement.

6.2 Partial City Funding of Median on Pat’s Ranch Road.

6.2.1 Owner is required to construct the median on Pat’s Ranch Road pursuant to the Project Approvals (“Pat’s Ranch Road Median”).

6.2.2 The City received the sum of three hundred ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty six dollars and forty cents ($397,466.40) from the developer of Tracts 33428- 1-3, easterly of the Project, for the eventual construction of the median on Pat’s Ranch Road from Limonite to Shearwater.

6.2.3 Within thirty (30) days of the City Council’s acceptance of Pat’s Ranch Road and its median and the recordation of the Certificate of Completion, the City shall pay to the Owner the sum of three hundred ninety seven thousand four hundred sixty six dollars and forty cents ($397,466.40) as partial reimbursement of Owner’s actual costs of construction the Pat’s Ranch Road Median.

6.2.4 Labor Code Section 1720(c)(2) provides that:
“If the state or a political subdivision requires a private developer to perform construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work on a public work of improvement as a condition of regulatory approval of an otherwise private development project, and the state or political subdivision contributes no more money, or the equivalent of money, to the overall project than is required to perform this public improvement work, and the state or political subdivision maintains no proprietary interest in the overall project, then only the public improvement work shall thereby become subject to this chapter.”

6.2.5 Pursuant to the provisions of Labor Code Section 1720(c)(2), the City Council finds and determines that:

Draft: December 17, 2023
-20-
2793172.18

6.2.5.1 The Project Approvals for the Project require the Owner to construct the Pat’s Ranch Road Median and other public improvements;

6.2.5.2 The City has contributed no more money, or the
equivalent of money, to the overall Project than is required to construct Pat’s Ranch Road Median and in fact is only contributing to a portion of its construction from fees received from another development designed for the Pat’s Ranch Road Median and other public improvements; and

6.2.5.3 The City will not obtain or maintain any proprietary interest in the overall Project.

6.2.6 Therefore, based on the above findings in Section 6.2, the City and Owner have determined that:

6.2.6.1 Prevailing wages pursuant to Labor Code Section 1720 et. seq. shall be paid for the construction of the Pat’s Ranch Road Median described in this Agreement and the Project Approvals; and

6.2.6.2 Prevailing wages are not required to be paid on the private improvements for the Project in accordance with to Labor Code Section 1720(c)(2).

6.2.7 Owner hereby represents to City that it understands and acknowledges the relationship of the City’s obligation to design and construct the Pat’s Ranch Road Median Public Improvements pursuant to this Agreement and the potential impact on the application of prevailing wages to development of the Project. Accordingly, Owner on behalf of itself and its successors in interest, hereby expressly and knowingly waive their respective rights under Labor Code Sections 1726 and 1781 to seek recovery against the City of any prevailing wage liabilities they may incur based upon this Agreement. Owner hereby acknowledges that it has either consulted with legal counsel, or had an opportunity to consult with legal counsel, regarding the prevailing wage issues described herein and the provisions of the California Civil Code section 1542, which provides as follows: “A general release does not extend to claims that the creditor or releasing party does not know or suspect to exist in his or her favor at the time of executing the release and that, if known by him or her, would have materially affected his or her settlement with the debtor or released party.” Owner hereby acknowledges that it may have claims which are presently unknown and unsuspected, and such claims in the future.

Nevertheless, Owner hereby acknowledges that this Agreement has been negotiated and agreed upon in light of that situation, and hereby expressly waive any and all rights which they may have under California Civil Code Section 1542, or under any statute or common law or equitable principal of similar effect.

Owner’s authorized representative initials: ___________________.

6.3 Maintenance of Public Improvements. Responsibility for the ongoing maintenance of public improvements to constructed by Owner pursuant to the Project Approvals (“City Public Improvements” shall be apportioned between the Parties in accordance with the terms of this Section 6.3.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-21-
2793172.18

6.3.1 Maintenance of City Public Improvements. City shall maintain all City Public Improvements, pursuant to a maintenance CFD described in Section 6.5, unless City and Owner have entered into one or more Operating Memoranda pursuant to Section 3.4.4 designating Owner, or a homeowner’s association formed by Owner (“HOA”), to maintain a component of the City Public Improvements. Notwithstanding the foregoing: 1) Owner shall not have any obligation to maintain landscaping within the rights-of-way on Pat’s Ranch Road; and 2) City shall maintain all flood control retention basins.

6.3.2 Maintenance of Public Improvements from Other Public Agencies.

The Project Approvals provide for the design and construction of public improvements for other public entities, including but not limited to Jurupa Area Parks and Recreation District, Jurupa Community Services District, and Riverside County Flood Control District. It shall be the responsibility of the Owner to meet with such other public entities and determine their respective maintenance responsibilities.

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, except to the extent such easements would have a material adverse economic effect on the Development. Such grants shall be at no additional cost to either Party.

6.5 Community Facilities District—Public Improvements, Fees and Maintenance.

6.5.1 Request for Public Improvement CFD. Owner may request in writing that the City or another public entity establish a CFD, or annex to an existing CFD (“Alternate CFD”), pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act and issue bonds to: 1) finance the design, construction, installation, and final completion of the Public Improvements, as required by the Project Approvals and this Agreement; 2) pay for City DIF, TUMF, MSHCP Fee, agency fees, or regional fees; and 3) any other facilities pursuant to Joint Community Facilities Agreements (“JCFA”) with other public agencies. Unless as otherwise stated in this Section 6.5, the provisions of Section 6.5 are exclusive to an City CFD or an Alternate CFD, and do not apply to the CFD provisions of Sections 5.6 and 5.7. Owner shall vote in favor of a City CFD or Alternate CFD. City agrees to use good faith efforts to enter into one of more JCFA(s). In the event owner requests a public entity other than the City, or a Citycontrolled public entity, to establish a CFD or annex to an existing CFD for Public Improvements as described in this Section 6.5.1, the Owner shall not vote in favor of such a CFD or annexation unless there is sufficient capacity under the maximum special tax rate described in Section 6.5.3 to provide for the CBC special tax described in Section 5.7. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that a similar provision will also be added to any JCFAs between the City and another public entity.

6.5.2 Request for Maintenance CFD. Owner shall request in writing that the City establish a CFD, or annex to an existing City CFD, pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities District Act, for the purpose of funding the annual costs of maintenance of the City Public Improvements described in this Section 6.5.2. Exhibit E sets forth the units of Draft: December 17, 2023
-22-
2793172.18
benefit by land use type (“Land Use Type”) which will be used to determine the special tax for maintenance based on the City Public Improvements to be maintained by the City and the size and components of those improvements (“Benefit Units”). Parcels of Taxable Property (as defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment for such maintenance CFD) shall be assigned the appropriate Benefit Unit(s) contained in the Table shown in Exhibit E based upon each parcel’s assignment to the appropriate Land Use Type. The cost per Benefit Unit shall be calculated based upon the total budget for required maintenance (including but not limited to actual costs, reserves, contingency, administration, and County fees), divided by the total number of Benefit Units for Taxable Property. The Special Tax shall be levied upon and collected from each such parcel for each fiscal year based on the Benefit Units which are assigned to the parcel as a result of its assignment to the appropriate Land Use Type. The first special tax for maintenance shall be levied by the CFD in the first tax year following the issuance of a building permit for each type of property listed in Exhibit E, but solely on parcels where a Certificate of Occupancy has been issued. Thereafter, the special tax for maintenance shall be levied by the CFD on the property in perpetuity.

6.5.3 Annual Increase in Maintenance CFD Special Tax. Commencing July 1st of City’s second fiscal year in which the special taxes are being levied by the Maintenance CFD, and annually thereafter, the maintenance costs 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, provided however, the costs of electricity shall be assessed at its actual cost. 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. No public entity other than the City or a City-controlled public entity, may form a Maintenance CFD for the City Public Improvements.

6.5.4 Annual Increase in Rate and Method of Apportionment for Public Improvement CFD. The Rate and Method of Apportionment for the financing of Public Improvements shall authorize the special tax to escalate two percent (2.00%) annually.

6.5.5 Maximum Special Tax. City agrees that the maximum effective tax rate for assessor's parcels within each City CFD or Alternate CFD, including the CFD specified in Sections 5.6 and 5.7, including, without limitation, all overlapping debt, may not exceed two percent (2.0%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the time of approval of the CFD(s) and the Rate and Method of Apportionment in accordance with the City’s Community Facilities District Policy.

6.5.6 Processing CFD; Viability of CFD. City agrees to use reasonable efforts to develop and implement all CFD(s) subject to public hearing and election requirements of applicable State and, if tax-exempt bonds are to be issued, Federal law, the Applicable Regulations and the customary and reasonable industry standards for the development of such financings for CFD(s). Owner and City acknowledge and agree that the establishment of a CFD for facilities 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-23-
2793172.18
exempt financings, housing market, value of homes in the area, absorption rates for home sales in the area, and bond underwriting criteria.

6.5.7 Commencement of Proceedings. 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. In the event the City Council does not approve the CFD for the financing of facilities and fees, the Owner may seek an alternative agency (or agencies) to form a CFD for the Property.

6.5.8 Maximum CFD Proceeds. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the CFDs shall expressly provide that Owner shall not be entitled to receive more proceeds from the CFDs than its actual costs to complete the Public Improvements (including reimbursements for Pat’s Ranch Road pursuant to Section 6.2) in order to always stay below the limits in Labor Code Section 1720(c)(2).

6.5.9 Obligation to Construct and Maintain Public Improvements Exist Whether or Not CFD or Assessment District Established. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the Owner’s obligations to design, construct, install and maintain the Public Improvements, as required by the Project Approvals and this Agreement, or City DIF, TUMF, MSHCP Fee, agency fees, or regional fees (excluding the CBCs specified in Sections 5.6.2 and 5.6.3) described in this Section 6 are required by the terms of the Project Approvals and this Agreement and that the obligations shall continue to exist whether or not a CFD is established to facilitate the construction and maintenance of the Public Improvements and whether or not the CFD is repealed by an initiative measure or invalidated by a final judgement of a court of law, subject to the timing requirements specified in Sections 5.6.2.2 and 5.6.3.2.

6.6 Commercial Property, Revision of Specific Plan.

6.6.1 Prior to seven (7) years after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, Owner may develop Planning Areas 11 and 12 of SP 266, which is Lots 28 & 29 of Tract Map (“TM”) 38504 (“Commercial Property”), in accordance with SP 266 and the Applicable Regulations, but subject to the uses described in Exhibit F of this Agreement. The parties acknowledge and agree that City may approve such applications in its sole and absolute discretion, as currently authorized in SP 266, for the development of updated retail commercial projects providing a unique character and quality with a commitment to exemplary living and reflecting contemporary trends in retail centers, including, but not limited to, grocery store, specialty grocery stores, specialty shops, sit-down restaurants, entertainment, life-style amenities (such as gathering areas, outdoor venues, recreational areas), parking, reciprocal parking and access, and related infrastructure requirements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge and agree that no Development of the Commercial Property may proceed unless and until the City complies with CEQA on such development projects.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-24-
2793172.18

6.6.2 Except as provided below, within seven (7) years after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, the Owner shall submit to the City a complete application or applications, with payment for processing, to amend SP 266 as it pertains to the Commercial Property. The amendment to the SP 266 for the Commercial Property shall provide for an updated retail commercial plan providing a unique character and quality with a commitment to exemplary living and reflecting contemporary trends in retail centers, added permitted uses including, but not limited to, grocery store, specialty grocery stores, specialty shops, sit-down restaurants, entertainment, life-style amenities (such as gathering areas, outdoor venues, recreational areas), parking and related infrastructure requirements. Any amendment to SP 266 for the Commercial Property shall require compliance with CEQA.

6.6.3 If one or more site development permits have been approved by the City for the entire area of Lot 28 of TM 38504, as configured as of the Effective Date, then the Owner of Lot 28 shall not be required to submit an application for an Amendment to SP 266 for Lot 28. If one or more site development permits have been approved by the City for the entire area of Lot 29 of TM 38504, as configured as of the Effective Date, then the Owner of Lot 29 shall not be required to submit an application for an Amendment to SP 266 for Lot 29.

6.6.4 Except as provided in Section 6.6.3, beginning seven (7) years after the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, no building permit for a structure within the Commercial Property shall be issued unless and until an amendment to the SP 266 for the Commercial Property as described in Section 6.6.2 is approved by the City Council.

6.7 Cell Towers.

6.7.1 The existing cellular communications towers on a portion of the Commercial Property (“Cell Towers”) may remain on the Commercial Property (“Cell Tower Property”) and may remain operative.

6.7.2 Owner shall design and construct a decorative concrete block wall, at least six (6) feet high, around the Cell Towers allowing sufficient space for maintenance.

Owner shall also install landscaping within three feet (3') of the wall consistent with the landscaping in the common areas of the Project.

6.7.2.1 The plans for the wall and landscaping shall be approved by the Director of Community Development.

6.7.2.2 The wall and landscaping shall be completed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any Project development which abuts the Cell Tower Property.

7. CITY’S OBLIGATIONS.

7.1 Property Approvals Independent. All approvals required for the Property 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 Property, constitute independent Draft: December 17, 2023
-25-
2793172.18
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 Property Approvals or other land use approvals and entitlements. In such cases, such approvals and entitlements will remain in effect pursuant to their own terms, provisions, and the 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.

7.3 No Action to Impede Project Approvals. City shall take no action or impose any condition that would conflict with this Agreement or the Project Approvals. Any action taken or condition imposed shall be deemed to be “in conflict with” this Agreement or the Project Approvals if such actions or conditions result in one or more of the circumstances identified in Section 4.6.

7.4 Processing During Third Party Litigation. The filing of any third party lawsuit(s) against the City or Owner relating to this Agreement, the Project Approvals, or other development issues affecting the Project or the Property, shall not delay or stop the development, processing or construction of the Project or the issuance of Subsequent Project Approvals unless the third party obtains an injunction or other court order preventing the activity.

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 brought by a third party to set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or the Project Approvals (not including Subsequent Project Approvals) (“Third Party Initial Challenge”). Any subsequent challenge to this Agreement or Subsequent Project Approvals is a “Third Party Challenge”. Concerning any Third Party Challenge, only the Owner which filed the development application subject to the Third Party Challenge shall indemnify and hold harmless the 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 brought by a third party to set aside, void, or annul the approval of this Agreement or any Subsequent Project Approval. 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-26-
2793172.18
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 accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 2778 in effect as of the Effective Date. The filing of any Third Party Initial Challenge or Third Party Challenge shall not delay or stop the Development, processing or construction of the Project or the issuance of Subsequent Project Approvals unless the third party obtains an injunction or other court order preventing the activity. City may not settle any Third Party Initial Challenge or Third Party Challenge without Owner’s prior written consent. The Term, the obligations imposed pursuant to this Agreement and the expiration date of the Project Approvals and Subsequent Project Approvals shall be extended day for day for any delay arising from or related to a Third Party Initial Challenge or Third Party Challenge until the date on which the Third Party Initial Challenge or Third Party Challenge is finally resolved, via a final nonappealable judgment, voluntary or involuntary dismissal (and the passage of any time required to appeal an involuntary dismissal), or binding written settlement agreement.

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 regarding counsel who shall represent the City), 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, contractors, subcontractors, Owner’s or agents in connection with the performance of the Owner’s obligations under this Agreement or the Project, 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. Except for a Third Party Challenge to the Project Approvals or this Agreement, the indemnity obligation specified in this Section 8.2 shall not apply to an Owner which has not submitted development applications which are subject to such litigation.

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.

8.2.2 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.

8.2.3 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-27-
2793172.18

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 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 except for matters protected from disclosure by the attorney client or attorney work product privileges.

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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-28-
2793172.18
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 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-29-
2793172.18
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 except 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 collection for any development fees due to the City or Community Benefit Contributions due to the City as described in Section 5 within six (6) years from the date the payment was due.

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 date of recordation 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 lien exists, Owner shall obtain the lien holders consent to this Agreement and a subordination of its interests to this Agreement in a form reasonably acceptable to the City Manager and City Attorneys that shall be recorded as part of this Agreement.

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. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.4.5, 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-30-
2793172.18

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.

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: (i) the Transferee has specifically assumed in writing the obligations, or a portion of the obligations of Owner, to construct the Public Improvements for the Project as provided in the Project Approvals and to comply with the Community Facilities District obligations described in Sections 5.7 and 6.5; and (ii) 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 Section 12.1.1, Owner shall notify City not more than twenty (20) business days after the transfer of the name of the Transferee, together with the corresponding entitlements being transferred to such Transferee and a copy of the Assignment and Assumption Agreement described in Section 12.1.1. In order for Owner to be released from its obligations created in this Agreement Owner and Transferee shall enter into an agreement pertaining to such transfer and 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, and shall confirm that Owner shall remain liable for the design and construction of Public Improvements pursuant to this Agreement, completed by Owner prior to any such transfer, subject to the provisions of Section 6.1.5.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-31-
2793172.18

12.1.3 Termination of Transferring Owner’s Liability Under Agreement.

Upon the entering into the assignment and assumption agreement described in Section 12.1.2, the transferring Owner shall have no liability under this Agreement, or any further obligations created in this Agreement.

12.1.4 Exempt Transfers. The following transfers shall not be subject to the foregoing restrictions of Section 12.1: (1) transfers of 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.

12.1.5 Rights and Duties of Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions of Section 3.4.5, 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.

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.

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) calendar 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.

Draft: December 17, 2023
-32-
2793172.18

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: Rick Bondar, Owner’s designated agent,
Sky Country Investment Co./East, LLC
PO Box 1295, Corona, CA 92878
With a copy to: Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP
2010 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Attn: John C. Condas, Esq.

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, inability of any utility purveyor to provide adequate service to the Project, strikes, labor disputes, lockouts, acts of the public enemy, riots, insurrections, pending litigation, 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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-33-
2793172.18
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.

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 Draft: December 17, 2023
-34-
2793172.18
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.

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 – g, identified as follows, are attached to this Agreement and are incorporated into this Agreement as though set forth in full:

Exhibit A Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B Site Map
Draft: December 17, 2023
-35-
2793172.18
Exhibit C Template Agreement for Acquisition of Property Government Code Section 66462.5
Exhibit D DIF Schedule for Ten Years After Effective Date Exhibit E Maintenance CFD Units of Benefit by Land Use
Exhibit F Permitted and Conditionally Permitted Uses in Commercial Area

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 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, no breach of this Agreement by an Owner shall constitute a breach by any other Owner. Any remedy, obligation or liability, including, without limitation, the obligations Draft: December 17, 2023
-36-
2793172.18
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 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. Notwithstanding the foregoing provisions of this Section 14.23, the Owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the obligations to construct the Public Improvements for the Project as provided in the Project Approvals and to comply with the Community Facilities District obligations described in Sections 5.7 and 6.5. [INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK; SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
Draft: December 17, 2023
-37-
2793172.18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.
“OWNER”

THE CHRIS MCCABE TRUST CREATED
BY THE ANTHONY P. VERNOLA
TRUST U/D/T/ DATED OCTOBER 18,
2000
By: __________________________
Name: Patrick Vernola
Title: Trustee
BELLATERA INVESTMENTS PA 13,
LLC, a California limited liability company
By: __________________________
Name: Patrick Vernola
Title: __________________________
BOOMER INVESTMENTS PA 13, LLC,
a California limited liability company
By: __________________________
Name: Frank Vernola
Title: __________________________
SHELLINA INVESTMENTS PA 13,
a California limited liability company
By: __________________________
Name: Rachelle Bolin
Title: __________________________

SKY COUNTRY INVESTMENT
CO./EAST, LLC, a California limited
liability company
By: __________________________
Name: Richard Bondar
Title: Manager Member
Draft: December 17, 2023
-38-
2793172.18
By: __________________________
Name: Agnes Vanderdussen
Title: Manager Member
By: __________________________
Name: Ronald Pietersma
Title: Manager Member
ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST DATED
OCTOBER 18, 2000
By: __________________________
Name: Patrick Vernola
Title: Trustee

PATRICK AND MARY ANN VERNOLA

TRUST-MARITAL TRUST
By: __________________________
Name: Patrick Vernola
Title: Successor Trustee
[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.] Draft: December 17, 2023
-39-
2793172.18
“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

EXHIBIT A
-1-

EXHIBIT A

DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

EXHIBIT B
-1-

EXHIBIT B

SITE MAP

EXHIBIT C
-1-

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 ___________________, _____, by and between ________________________________ , _________________ (“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 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 offsite 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 _________________________________ said Off-Site Property, following recordation of Tract Map No. ________.

EXHIBIT C
-2-
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 OffSite 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 be 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 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

EXHIBIT C
-3-
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 ($5,000.00) or less, Owner, five (5) business days following a written request of City, shall deliver to City such additional monies as are necessary to maintain the balance in the Acquisition Fund at ___________ Thousand Dollars ($______________.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 this paragraph, or fails to provide the monies as required by this paragraph, 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 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

EXHIBIT C
-4-
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
Owner:

With a copy to:

Allen Matkins Leck Gamble
Mallory & Natsis LLP
2010 Main Street, Suite 800
Irvine, CA 92614
Attn: John C. Condas, Esq.

EXHIBIT C
-5-
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.

EXHIBIT C
-6-
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereof have executed and entered into this Agreement as of the date set forth above.

Owner
____________________________
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.]

EXHIBIT C
-7-
EXHIBIT 1

LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND MAP DEPICTION OF THE OFF-SITE PROPERTY

EXHIBIT D

CITY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR TEN YEARS FOLLOWING

EFFECTIVE DATE OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
[Does not include TUMF, MSHCP Fees or Mira Loma RBBD fees]

EXHIBIT E

MAINTENANCE CFD UNITS OF BENEFIT BY LAND USE
Land Use Type Benefit Unit(s)
Residential Property One (1) Per Unit
Multifamily Residential Property- Medium Density Six tenths (0.6) / Unit Multifamily Residential Property- High Density Four tenths (0.4) / Unit Business Park Property Five (5) / Acre
Commercial Retail Property Five (5) / Acre
Commercial Other Property Five (5) / Acre
Light Industrial Property Two (2) / Acre
Heavy Industrial Property Two (2) / Acre
Other Non-Residential Property Three (3) / Acre
This Exhibit sets forth the units of benefit by land use type (“Land Use Type”) which will be used to determine the special tax for maintenance based on the City Public Improvements to be maintained by the City and the size and components of those improvements (“Benefit Units”).

Pursuant to Section 6.5.2, parcels of Taxable Property (as defined in the Rate and Method of Apportionment for such maintenance CFD) shall be assigned the appropriate Benefit Unit(s) contained in the Table above based upon each Parcel’s assignment to the appropriate Land Use Type. The cost per Benefit Unit shall be calculated based upon the total budget for required maintenance (including but not limited to actual costs, reserves, contingency, administration, and County fees), divided by the total number of Benefit Units for Taxable Property. The Special Tax shall be levied upon and collected from each such Parcel for each fiscal year based on the Benefit Units which are assigned to the parcel as a result of its assignment to the appropriate Land Use Type.

EXHIBIT G

PERMITTED AND CONDITIONALLY PERMITTED USES IN COMMERCIAL AREA CHAPTER 9.125. C-P-S ZONE (SCENIC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)
Sec. 9.125.010. Scope.

The provisions of this chapter shall apply in all C-P-S Zones.

Sec. 9.125.020. Uses permitted.

A. The following uses are permitted only in enclosed buildings with not more than two hundred (200) square feet of outside storage or display of materials appurtenant to such use, provided a site development permit shall have been approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.240.330:
(1) Ambulance services.
(2) Antique shops.
(3) Appliance stores, household.
(4) Art supply shops and studios.
(5) Auditoriums and conference rooms.
(6) Automobile parts and supply stores.
(7) Bakery goods distributors.
(8) Bakery shops, including baking only when incidental to retail sales on the premises. (9) Banks and financial institutions.
(10)Barber and beauty shops.
(11)Bicycle sales and rentals.
(12)Billiard and pool halls.
(13)Blueprint and duplicating services.
(14)Book stores and binders.
(15)Bowling alleys.
(16)Catering services.
(17)Ceramic sales and manufacturing for on-site sales, provided the total volume of kiln space does not exceed sixteen (16) cubic feet.
(18)Cleaning and dyeing shops.
(19)Clothing stores.
(20)Confectionery or candy stores.
(21)Costume design studios.
(22)Dance halls.
(23)Delicatessens.
(24)Department stores.
(25)Drug stores.
(26)Dry goods stores.
(27)Electrical substations.
(28)Employment agencies.
(29)Escort bureaus.
(30)Feed and grain sales.
(31)Fishing and casting pools.
(32)Florist shops.
(33)Food markets and frozen food lockers.
(34)Gift shops.
(35)Hardware stores.
(36)Household goods sales and repair, including, but not limited to, new and used appliances, furniture, carpets, draperies, lamps, radios, and television sets, including repair thereof. (37)Hobby shops.
(38)Ice cream shops.
(39)Ice sales, not including ice plants.
(40)Interior decorating shops.
(41)Jewelry stores with incidental repairs.
(42)Labor temples.
(43)Laboratories, film, dental, medical, research or testing. (44)Laundries and laundromats.
(45)Leather goods stores.
(46)Locksmith shops.
(47)Mail order businesses.
(48)Manufacturer's agent.
(49)Market, food, wholesale or jobber.
(50)Massage parlors, Turkish baths, health centers and similar personal service establishments. (51)Meat markets, not including slaughtering.
(52)Mimeographing and addressograph services.
(53)Mobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed pursuant to state law, use for:
(a) Construction offices and caretaker's quarters on construction sites for the duration of a valid building permit, providing they are inconspicuously located. (b) Agricultural worker employment offices for a maximum of ninety (90) days in any calendar year.
(c) Caretakers or watchmen and their families provided no rent is paid, where a permitted and existing commercial use is established. Not more than one (1) mobilehome shall be allowed for a parcel of land or a shopping center complex.
(54)Music stores.
(55)News stores.
(56)Notions or novelty stores.
(57)Nurseries and garden supply stores.
(58)Offices, business.
(59)One on-site operator's residence, which may be located in a commercial building. (60)Paint and wall paper stores, not including paint contractors. (61)Parking lots and parking structures.
(62)Pawn shops.
(63)Pet shops and pet supply shops.
(64)Photography shops and studios and photo engraving.
(65)Plumbing shops, not including plumbing contractors. (66)Poultry markets, not including slaughtering or live sales. (67)Printers or publishers.
(68)Produce markets.
(69)Radio and television broadcasting studios.
(70)Recording studios.
(71)Refreshment stands.
(72)Restaurants and other eating establishments without drive thru. (73)Schools, business and professional, including art, barber, beauty, dance, drama, music and swimming.
(74)Shoe stores and repair shops.
(75)Shoeshine stands.
(76)Signs, on-site advertising.
(77)Sporting goods stores.
(78)Stained glass assembly.
(79)Stationery stores.
(80)Stations, bus, railroad and taxi.
(81)Taxidermist.
(82)Tailor shops.
(83)Telephone exchanges.
(84)Theaters, not including drive-ins.
(85)Tobacco shops.
(86)Tourist information centers.
(87)Toy shops.
(88)Travel agencies.
(89)Typewriter sales and rental and incidental repairs. (90)Watch repair shops.
(91)Wedding chapels.
(92)Wholesale businesses with samples on the premises, but not to include storage. (93)Recycling collection facilities.
(94)Gasoline service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, excluding truck stops/travel centers.
(95)Golf cart sales and service.
(96)Hotels, resort hotels and motels.
(97)Day care centers.
(98)Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (99)Churches, temples and other places of religious worship.

B. Uses permitted by conditional use permit. The following uses are permitted, provided a conditional use permit has been granted pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.240.280 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code:
(1) Automobile repair garages, body shops, spray painting shops. (2) Automobile sales and rental agencies.
(3) Boat sales, rentals and services.
(4) Car washes.
(5) Drive-in theaters.
(6) Equipment rental services, including rototillers, power mowers, sanders, power saws, cement and plaster mixers not exceeding twenty (20) cubic feet in capacity and other similar equipment. (7) Heliports.
(8) Liquid petroleum service stations, with or without the concurrent sale of beer and wine, provided the total capacity of all tanks shall not exceed ten thousand (10,000) gallons pursuant to Section 9.240.490, excluding truck stops/travel centers. (9) Mortuaries.
(10)Sale, rental, repair, or demonstration of motorcycles, scooters or motorbikes of two (2) horsepower or greater.
(11)Animal hospitals.
(12)Sports and recreational facilities, not including motor-driven vehicles and riding academies, but including archery ranges, athletic fields, beaches, golf driving ranges, gymnasiums, miniature golf, parks, playgrounds, sports arenas, skating rinks, stadiums, and commercial swimming pools.
(13)Tire recapping.
(14) Tire sales and services, not including recapping.
(15)Trailer and boat storage.
(16)Travel trailers, mobilehomes and recreational vehicles sales and service. (17)Truck sales and services.
(18)Trucks and trailers; the rental of trucks not over nineteen thousand, five hundred (19,500) pounds gross weight, with body not to exceed twenty-two (22) feet in length from the back of the cab to the end of the body; and the rental of trailers not exceeding six (6) feet in width or twenty-two (22) feet in length.
(19)Underground bulk fuel storage.
(20)All uses permitted in subsection (A) of this section that have more than two hundred (200) square feet of outside storage of display of materials. (21) Gasoline service stations, Automobile Fueling Stations (as defined in 9.240.050 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code) with the concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption, excluding truck stops/travel centers.
(22) Automobile fueling station as defined in Section 9.240.050 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (2223)Convenience stores, including the sale of motor vehicle fuel. (24)Billiard and pool halls, bowling alleys, dance halls, restaurants, theaters (not including drive-ins) hotels, resort hotels, sports and recreational facilities (including motor vehicle races) archery ranges, golf driving ranges, sports arenas, skating rinks, and stadiums with alcoholic beverage sales for on-premises consumption and markets, and convenience stores with the sale of alcoholic beverages for off-premises consumption pursuant to the provisions of Section

9.240.490.
(25) Parking lots and parking structures.
(26) Dance Halls.
(27) Electrical substations.
(28) Massage parlors.
(29) Wedding chapels.
(30) Restaurants and other eating establishments with drive-thru. (31) Convenience stores, not including the sale of motor vehicle fuel.

C. The uses listed in subsections A. and B. of this section do not include sex-oriented businesses as defined in Chapter 5.60, Sex Oriented Businesses, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

D. Accessory uses. An accessory use to a permitted use is allowed, provided the accessory use is established on the same lot or parcel of land, and is incidental to, and consistent with the character of the permitted principal use, including, but not limited to, limited manufacturing, fabricating, processing, packaging, treating and incidental storage related thereto, provided any such activity shall be in the same line of merchandise or service as the trade or service business conducted on the premises and providing any such related activity does not exceed any of the following restrictions:
(1) The maximum gross floor area of the building permitted to be devoted to such accessory use shall be twenty-five (25) percent.
(2) The maximum total horsepower of all electric motors used in connection with such accessory use shall be five (5) horsepower.
(3) The accessory use shall be so conducted that noise, vibration, dust, odor, and all other objectionable factors shall be reduced to the extent that there will be no annoyance to persons outside the premises. Such accessory use shall be located not nearer than fifty (50) feet to any residential zone.
(4) Accessory uses shall be conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building.

E. Any use that is not specifically listed in subsections A. and B. of this section may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use, provided that the Community Development Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections. Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category in which it falls.

F. It is the intent of the City Council that a legally established pre-existing land use of an occupied property shall not assume a nonconforming status as a result of the adoption of the 2017 General Plan and the concurrent or subsequent adoption of a change of zone for consistency with the 2017 General Plan. Any pre-existing use certified pursuant to Section [9.240.080] that is not specifically listed in subsections a. and b. shall be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use the same as provided for such use under the zoning classification of the subject property prior to the adoption of the new zoning classification concurrent with, or subsequent to, the effective date of City Council Resolution No. 2017-14[A3] adopting the 2017 General Plan. The expansion of significant modification of such a pre-existing use shall be subject to the approval process and zoning requirements that had governed the category of use in which it fell under the prior zoning classification. However, nothing in this subsection shall be construed to mean that a site development permit or conditional use permit is required to continue such pre-existing use.

Sec. 9.125.030. Planned commercial development.

Planned commercial developments are permitted, provided a land division is approved pursuant to the provisions of Title 7.

C-3
Sec. 9.125.040. Development standards.

The following shall be the standards of development in the C-P-S Zones:
(1) There is no minimum lot area requirement, unless specifically required by zone classification for a particular area.
(2) There are no yard requirements for buildings which do not exceed thirty-five (35) feet in height, except as required for specific plans. Any portion of a building which exceeds thirty-five (35) feet in height shall be set back from the front, rear and side lot lines not less than two (2) feet for each foot by which the height exceeds thirty-five (35) feet. The front setback shall be measured from the existing street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. The rear setback shall be measured from the existing rear lot line or from any recorded alley or easement; if the rear line adjoins a street, the rear setback requirement shall be the same as required for a front setback. Each side setback shall be measured from the side lot line or from an existing adjacent street line unless a specific plan has been adopted in which case it will be measured from the specific plan street line. (3) No building or structure shall exceed fifty (50) feet in height, unless a greater height is approved pursuant to Section 9.240.370. In no event, however, shall a building or structure exceed seventy-five (75) feet in height, unless a variance is approved pursuant to Section 9.240.270. (4) Automobile storage space shall be provided as required by Section 9.240.120. (5) All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from the ground elevation view to a minimum sight distance of one thousand, three hundred and twenty (1,320) feet.

ATTACHMENT D
Resolution No. 2023-107
Approving Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment, Tentative Tract Map
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-107

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 22001, SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 266A5, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
NO. 38504 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)

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

Section 1. Project. McCune & Associates (the “Applicant”) has applied for 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 (MA No. 22153) 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. This Resolution addresses Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504. General Plan Amendment No. 22003 is addressed by separate resolution.

Development Agreement No. 22001 and Change of Zone No. 22002 are addressed by separate ordinances.

Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 22153 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 29, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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 4 to 1 to approve the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of approval. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 22135, 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.
(d) 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 # 2022120318) for the Project. Development Agreement No. 22001 was included in the Project Description for the EIR and its impacts analyzed therein. (e) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley considered the proposed Project including Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504, 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, the EIR, Findings, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to prior to adopting this Resolution.
(f) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted 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 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).”
(g) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND -3-

MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160- 050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067

FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO

CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A

3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).”
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced and conducted a first reading of 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).”
(i) Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced and conducted a first reading of 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).”
(j) 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. (k) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. -4-
Section 3. Specific Plan Adoption and Specific Plan Amendment. (a) The Applicant seeks to adopt the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” In addition, the Applicant seeks to adopt Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 (approximate 153-acre Specific Plan Area) from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan as set forth in Exhibit “B.” (b) Section 9.30.080 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that specific plans, and amendments thereto, must be heard and adopted in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et seq., as now written or hereafter amended, and in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.30.100. Further, Government Code Section 65453(a) provides that a specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. Government Code Section 65453(b) provides that specific plans may be repealed in the same manner as it is required to be amended.
(c) Section 9.30.100.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353(a) provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (d) Section 9.30.100.(2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(e) Section 9.30.100.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission. Further, Government Code Section 65355 provides that prior to adopting or amending a general plan, the legislative body shall hold at least one public hearing. Notice of the hearing must be given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090. (f) Section 9.30.100.(4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time. -5-
A decision to adopt or amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof, shall be made by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the City Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any substantial modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Commission shall first be referred to the Commission for its recommendation. Further, Government Code Section 65356 provides that the legislative body must adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any. However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning commission for its recommendation.
(g) Section 9.30.100.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a proposal to adopt or amend any part or element of the General Plan shall not be approved by the City Council until all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley CEQA implementing procedures to approve a matter have been completed.

Section 4. Tentative Tract Map
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 a Schedule “A” subdivision to subdivide 198.87 gross acres into 30 parcels to accommodate proposed land uses, preliminary grading, utility plans, street vacations, and backbone improvements associated with the proposed Specific Plan. There will be 18 residential lots, 4 lots for parks, 6 lots for pocket parks and water control features and 2 additional lots adjacent to the southern parcel that will remain in their current General Plan designation and zoning designation which is Commercial Retail (CR) and Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S). (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 “A” 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 7.15.150 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is the advisory agency authorized to directly approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all such tentative maps.
(d) 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 -6-
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. (e) Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires denial of a Tentative Tract 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:
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. 8) 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.

Section 5. Findings for Adoption of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan and Amendment to I-15 Specific Plan. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit “A” should be adopted because the proposed Specific Plan would contribute to and not be detrimental to the purposes of the General Plan in that the Specific Plan would contribute to the goals and policies of the General Plan including creating new housing opportunities, associated open space areas, and infrastructure improvements designed to promote traffic safety, and pedestrian access. -7-
(b) Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 (approximate 153-acre Specific Plan Area) should be removed from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan as these planning areas will be part of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment is shown on Exhibit “B.” Section 6. Findings for Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38504. The City Council of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 should be approved because:
1) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 38504 meets all requirements of Title 7 (Subdivisions) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. 2) The proposed land division will be consistent with the City’s General Plan and proposed Specific Plan upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan. The subdivision will be consistent with the Land Use Objectives of the General Plan to provide sustainable prosperity by expanding appropriate housing, 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. In addition, the proposed subdivision would be consistent with the following Land Use Element goals: LUE -1 Encourages attractive, safe, and well-maintained residential neighborhoods that offer a range of high quality housing opportunities that “fit” the community in which they are to be located. 3) The design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with the City’s General Plan and proposed Specific Plan in that the proposed subdivision would subdivide the project site into the 30 parcels consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use designations to accommodate the land uses, preliminary grading and utilities plan, street vacations, street improvements, and infrastructure improvements associated with the proposed Specific Plan.
4) The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development in that the Project site is largely undeveloped and can physically accommodate the proposed new land uses and new infrastructure consistent with the proposed specific Plan and all Federal, State, and local code requirements. 5) The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development in that development on the Project site will be consistent with the allowable density, floor area ratios, development standards, and infrastructure improvements as required by the proposed Specific Plan.
6) 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 in that 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. For the areas of Agriculture and Forestry Resources, Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Transportation, a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been prepared.
7) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems in that the City has prepared -8-
an Environmental Impact report which analyzed potential health problems prepared appropriate mitigation measures to reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. 8) 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 because the tentative tract map contains an easement schedule that identifies the disposition of existing easement within the Project site including relocation, quitclaim, or to remain.

Consistent with Government Code Section 66473.7, the project has been conditioned to require that a sufficient water supply shall be available to serve the development.

Section 7. Approval of Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 with Conditions. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of Jurupa Valley hereby:
(a) Approves Specific Plan No. 22001 to adopt the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan as shown on Exhibit “B,” and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 as shown on Exhibit “C” to permit the construction of up to 1,576 new residential units, recreation areas, a network of trails & parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements, and an overlay for a potential school site on an approximately 200.7-acre project site generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue, subject to the recommended conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” (b) The City Council’s approval of Specific Plan No. 22001, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Development Agreement No. 22001 and Change of Zone No. 22002, and shall only take effect if General Plan Amendment No. 22003 is adopted by the City Council.

Section 8. Certification. The Community Development Director 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
-9-
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk

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. 2023-107 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 D
Resolution No. 2023-107
Exhibit A – Vernola Ranch Specific Plan No. 22001

SPECIFIC PLAN
Submitted on November 16th, 2023
This page is left for Preparer Page
This page is left for Contributor Page
Table of Contents
I
Summary of Changes ....................................................................... 0.0-X

1.0 Introduction ................................................................................ 1.0-1

1.1 Executive Summary .............................................................................................. 1.0-1

1.2 The Vision .............................................................................................................. 1.0-1

1.3 Planning Context .................................................................................................. 1.0-2

1.4 Location ................................................................................................................ 1.0-3

1.5 Background .......................................................................................................... 1.0-6

1.6 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations ................................ 1.0-6

1.7 Surrounding Land Uses ......................................................................................... 1.0-6

1.8 Discretionary Actions ........................................................................................... 1.0-6

1.9 Objectives ............................................................................................................. 1.0-7

1.10 Organization ......................................................................................................... 1.0-8

2.0 Regulatory Framework ................................................................ 2.0-1

2.1 Purpose of the Specific Plan ............................................................................... 2.0-1

2.2 Authority and Scope ............................................................................................ 2.0-1

2.2.1 Subdivision ................................................................................................. 2.0-2

2.2.2 General Plan ............................................................................................. 2.0-2

2.2.3 Zoning Code ............................................................................................. 2.0-3

2.2.4 Inclusionary Housing/Affordable Housing in Lieu Fee ............................ 2.0-3

2.3 Environmental Assessment .................................................................................. 2.0-3

2.4 Approvals .............................................................................................................. 2.0-4

3.0 Community Plan .......................................................................... 3.0-1

3.1 Land Use Plan ....................................................................................................... 3.0-1

3.1.1 Land Use Designations ............................................................................. 3.0-2

3.1.2 Planning Areas .......................................................................................... 3.0-4

3.2 Mobility Plan.......................................................................................................... 3.0-7

3.2.1 Existing Roadway Network ....................................................................... 3.0-7

3.2.2 Ultimate Roadway Improvements .......................................................... 3.0-8

3.2.3 Project Access ........................................................................................ 3.0-16

3.2.4 Public Transit ............................................................................................ 3.0-21

3.2.5 Vehicular Circulation Plan ..................................................................... 3.0-23

3.2.6 Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas .................... 3.0-23 Table of Contents
II

3.2.7 Traffic Calming ........................................................................................ 3.0-30

3.2.8 Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan .............................................. 3.0-30

3.3 Open Space and Recreation Plan ................................................................... 3.0-33

3.3.1 Park Areas ............................................................................................... 3.0-34

3.3.2 Amenity Areas ......................................................................................... 3.0-37

3.3.3 Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus Layout ........................... 3.0-37

3.3.4 Vernola Ranch Neighborhood Park ...................................................... 3.0-39

3.3.5 Basins ....................................................................................................... 3.0-39

3.4 Public Facilities .................................................................................................... 3.0-52

3.4.1 Domestic Water ...................................................................................... 3.0-52

3.4.2 Non-Potable Water................................................................................. 3.0-52

3.4.3 Sanitary Sewer ......................................................................................... 3.0-53

3.4.4 Drainage ................................................................................................. 3.0-53

3.5 Conceptual Grading Plan ................................................................................. 3.0-61

3.6 Conceptual Phasing Plan .................................................................................. 3.0-65

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards............................ 4.0-1

4.1 Permitted Uses ...................................................................................................... 4.0-4

4.2 Surrounding Schools and School Overlay .......................................................... 4.0-5

4.3 Attached Residential Building ............................................................................. 4.0-7

4.4 Detached Cluster Homes .................................................................................. 4.0-14

4.5 Single Family Detached Homes ........................................................................ 4.0-23

4.6 Planning Area 17 ................................................................................................ 4.0-32

4.7 Planning Area 18 ................................................................................................ 4.0-37

4.8 Planning Area 19 ................................................................................................ 4.0-40

4.9 Planning Area 20 ................................................................................................ 4.0-43

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines .................................................... 5.0-1

5.1 Landscape Guidelines Description ..................................................................... 5.0-1

5.2 Planting Overview ................................................................................................ 5.0-1

5.3 General Landscape Design Guidelines ............................................................. 5.0-7

5.3.1 Streetscape Trees ..................................................................................... 5.0-7

5.3.2 Front Yard Landscaping ........................................................................... 5.0-8

5.3.3 Interior Slope Landscape ......................................................................... 5.0-8

5.3.4 Lighting ...................................................................................................... 5.0-8 Table of Contents
III

5.3.5 Signage and Monumentation ................................................................. 5.0-9

5.3.6 Irrigation ................................................................................................... 5.0-10

5.3.7 Management Considerations ............................................................... 5.0-13

5.3.8 Maintenance Responsibility ................................................................... 5.0-13

5.4 Wall and Fence Plan .......................................................................................... 5.0-14

5.4.1 Perimeter Theme Walls ........................................................................... 5.0-14

5.4.2 Residential Walls ..................................................................................... 5.0-14

5.4.3 Accent Walls and Fences ...................................................................... 5.0-15

5.4.4 View Fencing .......................................................................................... 5.0-15

6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards ................................ 6.0-1

6.1 Purpose and Intent ............................................................................................... 6.0-1

6.2 Residential Design Guidelines ............................................................................. 6.0-2

6.2.1 Neighborhood Design .............................................................................. 6.0-2

6.2.2 Residential Building Typologies ................................................................ 6.0-2

6.2.3 Livable Streets ......................................................................................... 6.0-15

6.2.4 Pedestrian Connectivity ......................................................................... 6.0-15

6.3 Building and Site Design ................................................................................... 6.0-17

6.3.1 Architectural Styles ................................................................................. 6.0-17

6.3.2 Building Placement and Orientation .................................................... 6.0-20

6.3.3 Form and Massing ................................................................................... 6.0-20

6.3.4 Garage Placement and Parking Areas ................................................ 6.0-22

6.3.5 Roof Considerations ............................................................................... 6.0-23

6.3.6 Articulation and Details .......................................................................... 6.0-24

6.3.7 Materials and Colors ............................................................................... 6.0-25

6.3.8 Functional Elements ................................................................................ 6.0-26

6.3.9 Trash Enclosures ...................................................................................... 6.0-28

7.0 Administration and Implementation .......................................... 7.0-1

7.1 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................... 7.0-1

7.1.1 General Administration ............................................................................ 7.0-1

7.1.2 Applicability .............................................................................................. 7.0-1

7.1.3 Severability ................................................................................................ 7.0-1

7.1.4 Interpretation ............................................................................................ 7.0-2

7.1.5 Specific Plan Modifications ...................................................................... 7.0-2 Table of Contents
IV

7.1.6 Implementation and Approval Process .................................................. 7.0-3

7.2 Financing Plan ...................................................................................................... 7.0-6

7.2.1 Developer Funding ................................................................................... 7.0-8

7.2.2 Special Assessment Districts ..................................................................... 7.0-8

7.2.3 Landscaping and Lighting Districts.......................................................... 7.0-8

7.2.4 Community Facilities Districts and Mello-Roos ........................................ 7.0-8

7.2.5 Other Funding Sources ............................................................................. 7.0-9

7.3 Maintenance Plan ............................................................................................... 7.0-9

7.3.1 Apportionment of Cost for Maintenance of Common Areas .............. 7.0-9

7.3.2 Master Area Maintenance ...................................................................... 7.0-9

7.3.3 Specific Facilities Maintenance ............................................................. 7.0-10

7.3.4 Plan Roadways and Roadway Landscaping ....................................... 7.0-10

7.3.5 Private Area Maintenance .................................................................... 7.0-10 Appendix A ........................................................................................... A-1 A-1 General Plan Consistency ............................................................................................ A-1 List of Acronyms
V
BMPs Best Management Practices
Burrtec Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.

Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFD Community Facilities District
cfs Cubic Feet per Second
CGB California Green Builder
CNUSD Corona-Norco Unified School District
CPTED Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
CSA County Service Area
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EV Electrical Vehicles
HOA Home Owners Association
HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning
I-15 Interstate 15
JCSD Jurupa Community Services District
kv kilovolt
LEED U.S. Green Building Council’s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
LID Low Impact Development
LLD Landscaping and Lighting Districts
MDP Master Drainage Plan
mph Miles per Hour
MWELO Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
NAHB’s National Association of Home Builders
NEV Neighborhood Electric Vehicle
NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RTA Riverside Transit Agency
RCFCWCD Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission
List of Acronyms
VI
ROW Right-of-Ways
SCE Southern California Edison
SCG Southern California Gas Company
SP Specific Plan
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
TPM Tentative Parcel Map
TTM Tentative Tract Map
VRSP Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
WM Waste Management
List of Figures
VII
Figure 1.1, Regional Map .................................................................................................. 1.0-4 Figure 1.2, Vicinity Map ..................................................................................................... 1.0-5 Figure 3.1, Land Use Plan .................................................................................................. 3.0-5 Figure 3.2 A, Pats Ranch Road - South of Boca Place................................................... 3.0-10 Figure 3.2 B, Pats Ranch Road - South of Boca Place ................................................... 3.0-11 Figure 3.3 A, Pats Ranch Road - North of Boca Place ................................................... 3.0-12 Figure 3.3 B, Pats Ranch Road - North of Boca Place ................................................... 3.0-13 Figure 3.4, Bellegrave Avenue ........................................................................................ 3.0-14 Figure 3.5, Roundabout – Pats Ranch Road & Park Center Drive ............................... 3.0-15 Figure 3.6, Main Access Points ........................................................................................ 3.0-17 Figure 3.7 A, Entry – Park Center Drive ............................................................................ 3.0-18 Figure 3.7 B, Entry – Park Center Drive – Interior Road Street “F” ................................. 3.0-19 Figure 3.8, Multi-Family Entry - South of Boca Place ..................................................... 3.0-20 Figure 3.9, Adjacent Existing Transit Services ................................................................. 3.0-22 Figure 3.10, Vehicular Circulation Plan .......................................................................... 3.0-24 Figure 3.11 A, Standard Interior Road – Street “D” & Street “C” East of Street “E”...... 3.0-25 Figure 3.11 B, Interior Road With Trail – Street “A” & “G” .............................................. 3.0-26 Figure 3.11 C, Interior Road With Trail – Street “C” West of Street “E”, Street “E” & “H” ........................................................................................................................................... 3.0-27 Figure 3.11 D, Interior Road – Street “B” .......................................................................... 3.0-28 Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas .......................... 3.0-29 Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan ................................................... 3.0-31 Figure 3.14, Conceptual Open Space and Recreation Plan ....................................... 3.0-35 Figure 3.15, Pocket Park - Conceptual Plan ................................................................... 3.0-36 Figure 3.16, Recreation Center Campus Layout ........................................................... 3.0-38 Figure 3.17, Overall Neighborhood Park Plan ................................................................ 3.0-40 Figure 3.18, Conceptual Dog Parks - Enlargements ..................................................... 3.0-41 Figure 3.19 A, Neighborhood Park Enlargement - Agrarian Area ............................... 3.0-42 Figure 3.19 B, Neighborhood Park 3D Views - Agrarian Area ...................................... 3.0-43 Figure 3.20 A, Neighborhood Park Enlargement - Activity Area .................................. 3.0-44 Figure 3.20 B, Neighborhood Park 3D Views - Activity Area ......................................... 3.0-45 Figure 3.21, Cross Section B in PA-2 & PA-19A ............................................................... 3.0-46 Figure 3.22, Cross Section C in PA-2 & PA-19A .............................................................. 3.0-47 Figure 3.23, Cross Section D in PA-3 & PA-19B ............................................................... 3.0-48 List of Figures
VIII
Figure 3.24, Cross Section E in PA-4 & PA-19C ............................................................... 3.0-49 Figure 3.25, Detention Basins Conceptual Layout ......................................................... 3.0-50 Figure 3.26, Entry and Basin Imagery .............................................................................. 3.0-51 Figure 3.27, Conceptual Water, Sanitary Sewer and Non-Potable Water Plan ......... 3.0-57 Figure 3.28, Day Creek ADP Storm Drain Infrastructure ................................................ 3.0-58 Figure 3.29, Conceptual Drainage Plan ........................................................................ 3.0-59 Figure 3.30, Basin & Drainage Area Map ........................................................................ 3.0-60 Figure 3.31, Existing Topography ...................................................................................... 3.0-63 Figure 3.32, Conceptual Grading Plan .......................................................................... 3.0-64 Figure 3.33, Conceptual Phasing Plan ........................................................................... 3.0-66 Figure 4.1, Potential School Location ................................................................................ 4.0-6 Figure 4.2, Planning Area 1 ............................................................................................. 4.0-10 Figure 4.3, Planning Area 2 ............................................................................................. 4.0-11 Figure 4.4, Planning Area 3 ............................................................................................. 4.0-12 Figure 4.5, Planning Area 4 ............................................................................................. 4.0-13 Figure 4.6, Planning Area 5 ............................................................................................. 4.0-17 Figure 4.7, Planning Area 6 ............................................................................................. 4.0-18 Figure 4.8, Planning Area 7 ............................................................................................. 4.0-19 Figure 4.9, Planning Area 8 ............................................................................................. 4.0-20 Figure 4.10, Planning Area 15 ......................................................................................... 4.0-21 Figure 4.11, Planning Area 16 ......................................................................................... 4.0-22 Figure 4.12, Planning Area 9 ........................................................................................... 4.0-26 Figure 4.13, Planning Area 10 ......................................................................................... 4.0-27 Figure 4.14, Planning Area 11 ......................................................................................... 4.0-28 Figure 4.15, Planning Area 12 ......................................................................................... 4.0-29 Figure 4.16, Planning Area 13 ......................................................................................... 4.0-30 Figure 4.17, Planning Area 14 ......................................................................................... 4.0-31 Figure 4.18, Planning Area 17 ......................................................................................... 4.0-35 Figure 4.19, Cross Section A in PA-17 .............................................................................. 4.0-36 Figure 4.20, Planning Area 18 ......................................................................................... 4.0-39 Figure 4.21, Planning Area 19 ......................................................................................... 4.0-42 Figure 4.22, Planning Area 20 ......................................................................................... 4.0-45 Figure 5.1, Street Tree Exhibit ........................................................................................... 5.0-11 Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location ....................................................... 5.0-12 List of Figures
IX
Figure 5.3, Overall Fence and Wall Plan ........................................................................ 5.0-16 Figure 5.4 A, Fence Types ................................................................................................ 5.0-17 Figure 5.4 B, Wall Types .................................................................................................... 5.0-18 Figure 6.1, Plotting Concept Examples – Single-Family Detached Homes ................... 6.0-7 Figure 6.2, Plotting Concept Examples – Detached Cluster Homes ............................. 6.0-9 Figure 6.3, Plotting Concept Examples – Attached Residential Buildings ................... 6.0-12 Figure 6.4, Pedestrian Connectivity Concepts .............................................................. 6.0-16 Figure 6.5, Front-Loaded Garage Examples ................................................................... 6.0-23 Figure 6.6, Conceptual Trash Enclosure Layout ............................................................. 6.0-29 List of Tables
X
Table A, Land Use Plan Summary and Details ................................................................. 3.0-6 Table B, Allowable Flow Rates for Line J ......................................................................... 3.0-56 Table C, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-1 to PA-16) ....................... 4.0-2 Table D, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-17)..................................... 4.0-3 Table E, Parking Ratio ........................................................................................................ 4.0-4 Table F, Plant Palette ......................................................................................................... 5.0-2 Table G, Street Tree Matrix ................................................................................................ 5.0-7 Table H, Appropriate Residential Building Typologies by Planning Areas ..................... 6.0-5 Table I, Permit Process ....................................................................................................... 7.0-5 Table J, Funding and Maintenance Responsibilities ........................................................ 7.0-7 Summary of Changes
X.0-0
This page is left as blank for Summary of Changes in the future

1.0 Introduction

1.0-1
Executive Summary
A specific plan is a policy tool to implement the vision for a defined area in greater detail than provided for in a general plan and through more customized development and design standards than those found in a zoning code.

The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (VRSP) is a residential neighborhood, north of Limonite Ave., south of Bellegrave Ave., east of the I-15 freeway, and west of Pats Ranch Rd. The VRSP will allow for high-quality and innovative residential development with an array of housing-product types, lot sizes, styles, and a variety of public benefits. The project includes 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 on approximately 153 gross acres. The Specific Plan is divided into 20 Planning Areas to guide land use types and intensity. The project also includes an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the site.

The VRSP serves as the long-range plan for development of residential, public facility, open space, and recreational amenities along with the guide to all future development proposals within the VRSP. This Specific Plan provides detailed text and conceptual exhibits describing the various land uses, development standards, design guidelines, and circulation and infrastructure improvements, as well as a systematic approach for the VRSP’s implementation and administration. This document guides the buildout of the property in a manner that is consistent with City and other applicable regulations ensuring that the various Plan elements will be developed in a coordinated manner.

The Vision
One of the primary value statements of the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan describes the City as a “Community of Communities.” The vision of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan is to provide the framework to allow a new vibrant, diverse and unique neighborhood within the community. It will provide diverse home choices that will serve both first-time and move-up home buyers. It also embraces additional value statements from the 2017 General Plan such as small town feel, open space and visual quality, active outdoor life, and mobility.

The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan is located in an area in western Jurupa Valley. The area has high potential but is limited on amenities which provides an opportunity to deliver dramatic change. A more contemporary storyline can be provided for this area by

1.0 Introduction

1.0-2
advancing a neo-traditional approach towards place-making. A neo-traditional design concept provides the most opportunity for all-age neighborhoods within the VRSP by providing a mix of housing opportunities, walkable neighborhoods, a strong sense of place, a discernible center, a network of interconnected streets, and the location of active uses at the core of the community.

The VRSP is designed to encourage distinct neighborhood spaces that provide for allage neighborhoods, recreational amenities, and public facilities. The need for amenities will be addressed by creating an overarching vision for this area and will include not only a large central social/recreational amenity to act as the heartbeat of this new community, but will provide a network of active and passive recreation facilities surrounding the community recreation center to serve residents. In addition, a host of parks, bike paths, trails and greenbelts, and land for a potential school site have been included.

The VRSP is sensitive to the site's surrounding physical and environmental conditions. A detailed evaluation of the site's environmental conditions was analyzed to establish a sound basis for land use planning decisions. Backbone infrastructure comprised of streets, sewer, water, and drainage facilities have been included to facilitate development of the site.

Planning Context
The City of Jurupa Valley was officially established July 1, 2011. The City is approximately 44 square miles, and the population consists of 105,3841 residents. Jurupa Valley is situated in northwestern Riverside County, approximately 6 miles northwest of the City of Riverside as illustrated in Figure 1.1, Regional Map. The City encompasses the communities of Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Pedley, Indian Hills, Belltown, Sunnyslope, Crestmore Heights, and Rubidoux. It borders San Bernardino County to the north, Riverside to the south and east, Eastvale and San Bernardino County to the west. Portions of the Santa Ana River traverse the southern portion of the City.
1 Department of Finance, Table E-5, Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021-2022, with 2020 Benchmark, August 11, 2021. Available at https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimatesfor-cities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/.

1.0 Introduction

1.0-3
Location
The VRSP is located along the western border of the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California on approximately 153 acres specifically located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Bellegrave Avenue and Pats Ranch Road. The VRSP is bound by Bellegrave Avenue to the north, Interstate 15 (I-15) to the west, Limonite Avenue to the south, and Pats Ranch Road to the east as reflected on Figure 1.2, Vicinity Map.

Limonite Avenue provides access to the I-15.

1.0-4
Figure 1.1, Regional Map
Not To Scale
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Figure 2 – Vicinity Map Source: Riverside County GIS, 2020 \\chqfsvm01\WO4\2021\21-0128\GIS\MyProject\MyProject.aprx; Map created 13 Oct 2022 0 500
I
1,000 2,000
US Feet
A
v
e
Cambria Dr
Goodman Way
Harmony D
H
r
amner Ave
Caxton
St
m
o
n
i
t
e
A
v
e
Hamner Ave Hamner Ave
Eastvale
Gateway
Eastvale
GatewaySouth
astvale
C
Camino
J
a
m
a
cha
L
a
n
d
o
n
D
r
I
SwanLake
15 15
Ocasa Dr
Jurup
a
R
d
A
r
g
u
e
l
l
o
D
r
Peachtree Dr
S
alvia St Forsythia St Concha Dr
Antigua
D
r
Aurora Ave Humber
Dr
Boca
P
l
Wineville Ave
Mojave
D
r
P
a
r
k
C
e
n
t
e
r
D
r
Geyser
D
r
Crown Dr
Pats Ranch Rd
Starling Dr Avocet Dr Wineville Rd
Ontario Fwy
VernolaFamily
Park
6 4
t
h
S
t
Wineville Ave
6 3
r
d
S
t
Pats Ranch Rd
Lucretia Ave
ve
Ocasa Dr
N
i
a
g
a
r
a
D
r
D
e
l
S
u
r
D
r
L
i
m
o
n
i
t
e
A
v
e
L
i
m
o
n
i
t
e
A
v
e
Express Lanes Ontario Fwy
Vernola
Marketplace
LEGEND
Project Boundary
Figure 1.2, Vicinity Map

1.0-5
Not To Scale

1.0 Introduction

1.0-6
Background
On November 2, 1993, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors adopted the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 (SP No. 266). The specific plan consists of over 750 acres fronting both sides of I-15 and generally located between Hammer Avenue to the west, Wineville Avenue to the east, Bellegrave Avenue to the north, and Oakdale/68th Street to the south. The City of Eastvale incorporated October 2010, and later the City of Jurupa Valley incorporated on July 1, 2011 resulting in the bifurcation of SP No. 266. Upon incorporation, the City of Jurupa valley adopted the Riverside County General Plan, the Jurupa Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the City. The portion of SP No. 266 west of the I-15 is now in Eastvale and the portion east of the I-15 is now located in the City of Jurupa Valley. In September 2017, the City adopted its first General Plan which defined general plan land uses for the city including the project area.

Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations
The existing site is vacant and undeveloped land utilized for irrigated farming. The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan identifies the site as having a General Plan land use designation of Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR), and Medium Density Residential (MDR) with R-1 (One Family Dwelling and I-P (Industrial Park) Zoning Designation under a Specific Plan Overlay (SP No. 266).

Surrounding Land Uses
Immediately north of the VRSP (north of Bellegrave Avenue) is the Thoroughbred Farm Specific Plan No. 376, which is vacant lands currently, includes Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, and Business Park. The areas west of VRSP (west of I-15 freeway) are mobile home parks (Medium High Density Residential), apartment buildings (High Density Residential), and the Eastvale Gateway shopping mall (Commercial Retail) in the City of Eastvale. To the east, there is a large Medium Density Residential community (Harvest Villages), Vernola Family Park, and Skyview Event Center. Adjacent properties to the south of VRSP are vacant lands and the Vernola Market Place shopping mall, designated as Business Park and Commercial Retail.

Discretionary Actions
The property is currently zoned within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 for Medium Density Residential (Planning Areas 10, 13, & 15) and Industrial Park (Planning Area 20).

This project includes a Specific Plan Amendment to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, & 20 consisting of approximately 153 Acres from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 and

1.0 Introduction

1.0-7
implement the new VRSP for this area. Planning areas 11 and 12 will remain commercially zoned with the same acreage in SP No. 266.

The project also includes a General Plan Amendment to change from Medium Density Residential, Commercial Retail, and Business Park to the appropriate designation for the proposed densities (HHDR, VHDR, HDR, MHDR, OS-R, and OS-W) , and a Change of Zone from Residential (R-1) and Industrial (I-P) to Specific Plan (SP).

Objectives
The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan will 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. • 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.
• 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. • 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. • 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.
• 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, recreation land uses to reduce the vehicle miles driven in the region. • 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.

1.0 Introduction

1.0-8
Organization
The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan has been prepared in a collaborative effort by a multidisciplinary design team and is organized as follows:

Chapter 1: Introduction. Provides planning context, Plan background, location, and summary of conceptual plan.

Chapter 2: Regulatory Framework. Establishes the purpose, intent, authority, and scope of the Specific Plan.

Chapter 3: Community Plan. Establishes the vision for the Specific Plan, and implementing strategies applicable to the proposed land uses. It begins with the land use plan and subsequently describes major development components (i.e. circulation plan, drainage plan, water and sewer plan, drainage plan, and grading plan).

Chapter 4: Development Standards and Permitted Uses. Establishes development standards specific to the residential building types and planning areas.

Chapter 5: Landscape Design Guidelines. Contains the landscape design guidelines that provide the general provisions for landscaping and irrigation.

Chapter 6: Architectural Objective Design Standards. Contains architectural design guidelines that provide a general framework for neighborhood, building, and site design.

Chapter 7: Administration and Implementation. Describes administration procedures for implementation of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, including financing mechanisms and maintenance procedures.

Appendix A: General Plan Consistency Analysis. Contains the consistency analysis between the Specific Plan and the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan.

2.0 Regulatory Framework

2.0-1

2.1. Purpose of the Specific Plan
A specific plan is defined by Government Code Section 65450, et seq. as a tool for the systematic implementation of the General Plan for all or part of the area covered by the General Plan. It effectively establishes a link between implementing policies of the General Plan and the individual development proposals in a defined area. To an extent, the range of issues contained in a specific plan is left to the discretion of the decisionmaking body. However, all specific plans must comply with §65450 - 65457 of the Government Code. These provisions require that a specific plan be consistent with the adopted general plan of the jurisdiction within which it is located. In turn, all subsequent subdivision and parcel maps, all development, all public works projects, and zoning ordinances within an area covered by a specific plan must be consistent with the specific plan. The VRSP is intended to comprehensively define the regulations, requirements, and design guidelines for the development of the neighborhoods, commercial and public facility spaces, and recreational amenities within the VRSP designed to produce a project that is consistent with the goals, objectives, and polices of the General Plan. It will establish the type, location, intensity, and character of development, and identify the required infrastructure to support the planned land uses and defines the methods and requirements necessary for development of the VRVSP to ensure that City of Jurupa Valley General Plan requirements are implemented.

2.2. Authority and Scope
The VRSP is established through the authority granted to the City of Jurupa Valley by the California Government Code, Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 3, Sections 65450 through 65457 which set forth the minimum requirements and review procedures for specific plans.

Section 65451(a) of the Government Code mandates that a “Specific Plan shall include a text and diagram or diagrams which specify all of the following:
• The distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land, including open space, within the area covered by the VRSP.
• The distribution, location, and extent and intensity of major components of public and private transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities to be located within the area and needed to support the land uses described in the VRSP.
• Standards and criteria by which improvements will proceed, and standards for the conservation, development, and utilization of natural resources, where applicable.
• A program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures to implement all of the above.

2.0 Regulatory Framework

2.0-2
• A statement of the relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.” In addition, the specific plan may address other subjects that, in the judgment of the planning agency, are necessary or desirable for implementation of the general plan.

State law permits a specific plan to be prepared, adopted, or amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance, and may be amended as often as is deemed necessary by the legislative body and must be consistent with a city’s general plan. A Planning Commission hearing and City Council hearing are required, and specific plans must be adopted by the City Council.

In addition, the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan stipulates at follows:

LUE 5.37 Specific Plan Content. Require that all specific plans must meet the requirements of state law and include four planning frameworks: Land Use, Design, Circulation, and Infrastructure/Public Facilities. Within each framework, the specific plan will provide the goals and policies that will guide future decisions on projects within the specific plan area. The plan will also include a detailed implementation plan that will identify responsibilities, financing requirements, and phasing/timing.

A Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38504) will be processed concurrently with the VRSP through the City of Jurupa Valley. TTM 38504 will be prepared pursuant to the applicable provisions of the State of California Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section 66410 through 66499), the Title 7 of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, and the applicable provisions contained within the financing, conveyance, and ultimately the VRSP. This tentative map will create the individual Planning Areas within the approximately 153 acres VRSP. In addition, approximately 36 acres to the south of VRSP will be mapped to separate that portion which will remain in the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 as commercial.

Specific plans are required to be consistent with the goals and policies of the governing General Plan. The California Government Code Section 65451 states that a “specific plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan, and

2.0 Regulatory Framework

2.0-3
further, that it may not be adopted or amended unless found to be consistent with the General Plan.” The consistency between VRSP and the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan is detailed in Appendix A, General Plan Consistency Analysis.

Future subdivisions, building permits, and public works projects must be consistent with VRSP (Government Code Sections 65455, 66473.5, 65860, and 65401). All projects that are found to be consistent with VRSP will likewise be deemed consistent with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan.

VRSP provides standards, design guidelines, and development parameters unique to the VRSP and is the “zoning code” for the VRSP. As such, VRSP is the first source for direction regarding any proposed development and use within the VRSP. However, it is not the only source. In some cases, VRSP provides direct references to the City of Jurupa Valley Code. In addition, where VRSP is silent, applicable provisions of the City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Code, as determined to be appropriate by City staff, shall be utilized. Where a conflict exists between the standards contained herein and those found in the City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Code, the standards in this document apply. Please see Chapter 7, Administration and Implementation, for more detail regarding interpretations, authority, and Plan administration. Since the land use designations and accompanying development standards are uniquely tailored to this Plan area, there is no direct correlation to any one zoning category in the City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Code. The City of Jurupa Valley adopts the VRSP by ordinance as a regulatory zoning document for this specific plan.

Implementing projects within the VRSP are subject to City of Jurupa Valley Ordinance No. 2022-14, an ordinance adding Chapter 9.267 to Title 9 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to establish an Inclusionary Housing requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee.

2.3. Environmental Assessment
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) informs decision makers, staff, and the public about the potential environmental impacts of development. The CEQA process provides an opportunity to address potential environmental impacts in order to maintain public health and safety. An environmental impact report (EIR provided under separate cover) has been prepared to analyze and disclose the significant environmental impacts

2.0 Regulatory Framework

2.0-4
of VRSP. The EIR details the consistency between VRSP and the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. The EIR also analyzes the VRSP and potential alternative projects to identify any potential significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed future development of the site. The EIR includes mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program that are required to be implemented as conditions of development approval.

2.4. Approvals
Actions and entitlements necessary to facilitate implementation of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan include the following:
• Approval of a Specific Plan Amendment, Substantial Conformance or Administrative Determination
• Approval of Tentative Tract Map(s) and Site Development Permit(s) • Certification of CEQA documentation for the VRSP

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-1
This chapter presents the VRSP that will govern the major aspects of the future development within the VRSP. It begins with the land use plan which breaks the VRSP into 20 individual “Planning Areas” and subsequently describes major development components (i.e. circulation, water, sewer, drainage, grading, and plan phasing). A Planning Area is a geographic area within the VRSP that identifies development standards and allowable land uses that may develop within that designated boundary.

Each section describes some of the existing conditions and constraints and then provides a strategy as to how the community will develop within this Plan. Community-wide development standards follow in Chapter 4, Development Standards and Permitted Uses.

Land Use Plan
The VRSP’s vision is to provide a unique community that offers an array of housing products and opportunities through a neo-traditional approach towards place making.

The land use plan has been designed to encourage walking and bicycling to destinations close to home through pedestrian friendly street patterns, offering residents a pleasant walking/riding environment. The approximately 153± acre Vernola Ranch Specific Plan features a traditional neighborhood lifestyle with pedestrian connectivity through a system of trails and sidewalks, that will link residential neighborhoods to one another as well as to parks, recreational amenities and schools. A major component of the VRSP will be a Recreation Center Campus and the Neighborhood Park that is planned for a wide range of activities that may include swimming pool, picnic areas, tot lots, dog parks, as well as informal open space and recreational areas. The pedestrian network is discussed later in Chapter 3.2.8.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-2
Approximately 153 acres
are identified for residential
development with a density
not to exceed 25 dwelling
units per acre. The VRSP
includes an array of
residential densities, lots
sizes, housing-product types
and styles.

The neighborhoods are
intended to support families
and individuals seeking
diversity in housing products and will allow for development of a school site, if necessary, on approximately 9 acres of the area designated with a School Site Overlay.

The VRSP will provide a menu of product types for residential Planning Areas 1-17 including 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 square foot single-family lots, condominium product and multi-family units. All residential product types could be for sale or rent. The VRSP’s Residential land use designations will also allow for parks, greenbelts, the Neighborhood Park, water quality features, and amenity areas as allowable uses so that development of such uses may occur within any residential Planning Area as appropriate or needed in order to better serve the community. The Planning Area will be categorized into the following five land use designations that are consistent with the density in the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan:

Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) land use designation provides for the development of detached single-family dwellings on parcels typically ranging from 3,150 to 5,000 square feet, for a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 9 to 14 will be designated as MHDR.

High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation provides for the development of smaller lot, single-family and attached dwellings. Typical allowable uses in this category include detached, small-lot single family homes, attached single-family patio homes, courtyard development, duplex, and townhouses. Clustered By Lennar Homes

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-3
development is encouraged in this category. The density is not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 5 to 8, 15, and 16 will be designated as HDR.

Very High Density Residential (VHDR) land use designation allows attached small lot single-family dwellings, homes, patio homes, zero lot line homes, duplexes, and townhouses. The potential for clustered development is also provided for in this land use category. The density is not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre. Planning Areas 1 to 4 will be designated as VHDR.

Highest Density Residential (HHDR) land use designation allows for the development of multi-family apartments, duplexes, and condominiums, with a minimum density of 23 to 25 dwelling units per acre. Planning Area 17 will be designated as HHDR.

Approximately 10.23 acres in Planning Areas 18 and 19 are identified as open spacerecreation to provide land devoted to active and passive recreational uses. This land use designation provides areas of community focal points and areas for community gatherings. Approximately 2.15 acres total of the basins in Planning Areas 20A to F designated as Open Space-Water will also provide opportunities for passive recreational uses.

Approximately 9.47 acres located in Planning Area 20 is identified as basin areas which will provide common open space areas, trails, and also serve as drainage and water quality best management practices. Approximately 2.15 acres within the basins will be available to be utilized for open space and passive recreational activities.

Approximately 9 acres are identified for possible public facility development. This land use overlay area will provide for development of a school if necessary. A portion of Planning Areas 15, 16, and all of 20F located at the northeast corner section of the VRSP is designated as a potential school site under the overlay area. If the School District declines to develop a school in this location the underlying land uses will apply. If the School Develops, any dwelling units taken by the school may be redistributed throughout

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-4
the Specific Plan up to 100 units. Density Transfers will be allowed between planning areas with Staff Level approval not to exceed the maximum allowable density of targeted planning areas.

The VRSP is divided into 20 Planning Areas to guide land use type and intensity while allowing for flexibility. The VRSP has considered the sites’ opportunities and designed around the many constraints in order to provide appropriate amenities to both the VRSP’s residents and surrounding communities. Figure 3.1, Land Use Plan identifies the location of each Planning Area and land use designation while Table A, Land Use Plan Summary and Details provides a description of each of the respective Planning Areas.

Figure 3.1, Land Use Plan

3.0-5
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-6
Table A, Land Use Plan Summary and Details

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-7
Mobility Plan
The Mobility Plan reinforces the concept of traditional neighborhood design. The VRSP includes a circulation system comprised of roads, bike lanes, and pedestrian walkways/trails to provide for efficient and effective access to and through the site. The Mobility Plan is designed to provide optimal circulation efficiency as well as safety for residents.

Existing roadway network near the site includes:

I-15 Freeway is a ten-lane regional freeway including two express lanes on both directions located along the border of City of Jurupa Valley and City of Eastvale, west of the project site. It has a north-south orientation and is one of the primary transportation corridors traversing the Jurupa Valley area.

Pats Ranch Road has been dedicated to the ultimate 118’ right of way, but the ultimate improvements have not been constructed. Pat’s Ranch Road is currently a two-lane neighborhood collector roadway which runs north to south along the eastern boundary of VRSP and provides direct access to and from the site. Pats Ranch Road intersects with Limonite Avenue to the south and Bellegrave Avenue to the north. Currently, the intersection of Pats Ranch Road at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place along the project site are all side-street stop controlled. The intersection of Pats Ranch Road and Limonite Avenue is a signalized intersection, while the intersection of Pats Ranch Road at Bellegrave Avenue is side-street stop-controlled T intersection. Currently, there is a roadway disconnection along Pats Ranch Road north of Shearwater Drive.

Existing on the east side is a 21-foot parkway with a 6-foot meandering sidewalk.

Limonite Avenue is a four to six lane major roadway located south of the project site providing access to Interstate 15 freeway. It has an east-west orientation. This roadway is primarily for through traffic and is classified as primary corridor in the City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan.

Bellegrave Avenue is classified as a major roadway located north of the project site providing east-west connection. The segment between I-15 freeway and Pats Ranch Road is a two-lane arterial. This roadway extends from Sumner Avenue on the west to Keneth Street on the east. City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan classifies Bellegrave Avenue as primary corridor.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-8
Pat’s Ranch Road will be constructed to the ultimate 118’ right-of-way per a modified section which will remove the Class II bike lanes identified in the City’s Circulation Master Plan for bicyclists and pedestrians and will construct a two-way Class I path within the parkway. The project will convert the side-street stop-controlled intersections at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place to roundabouts. These roundabouts will function as a traffic calming measure that smoothly transition the roadway to a lower speed operation within the VRSP neighborhood. Final design of Pats Ranch Road with less than 24-feet clear-width for each direction along with the proposed traffic calming design and associated mitigations will require review and approval by both the City Engineer and Riverside County Fire Department.

Pats Ranch Road between Limonite Avenue and Boca Place will be improved to a fourlane roadway depicted in Figure 3.2 A & B, Pats Ranch Road – South of Boca Place.

The Pat’s Ranch Road roadway segment between Boca Place and Bellegrave Avenue will remain as two-lane roadway. The layout consists of a 12-foot raised median, 12-foot travel lanes, 8-foot shoulder, 7-foot landscaping, 12-foot two-way Class I bike path, and an approximately 26-foot landscape setback that includes a 6 to 10-foot meandering trail on the west side of Pats Ranch Road depicted in Figures 3.3 A&B, Pats Ranch Road – North of Boca Place.

As part of the VRSP, the project will be widening the southern half of Bellegrave Avenue to the ultimate half right-of-way width of fifty-nine (59) feet as shown on Figure 3.4, Bellegrave Avenue. The widening will include five (5) additional feet of pavement, placing curb and gutter thirty-eight (38) feet south of the roadway centerline with an 8- foot-wide Class II bike lane. Within the remaining twenty-one (21) feet of the right-of-way the project will construct a 5’ wide meandering sidewalk and landscape the remaining area. The approximately nineteen (19) feet of existing pavement located north of the roadway centerline that will remain, for a total of fifty-seven (57) feet of pavement. This as an interim condition until Bellegrave Avenue is widened on the north side by a future development.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-9
The standard interior local street right-of-way width is 60 feet with two 18-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, 5 and a half-foot-wide parkways between travel lanes and sidewalks, and 1.5 feet of landscaping buffers between the sidewalk and right of way.

Roads within single family residential planning areas will be 56’ right of way with 36’ paving with two 5-foot-wide sidewalks and two 5-foot-wide parkways.

Additional interior road section will be discussed in Section 3.2.5 Vehicular Circulation Plan.

Interconnecting pedestrian friendly sidewalks, walking trails and bike facilities that connect neighborhoods and communities are an important part of VRSP. Figure 3.5, Roundabout – Pats Ranch Road and Park Center Drive provides conceptual depictions of typical roundabout details at the key access points along Park Center Drive. This concept layout reflects important ideas about how the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular network will work together. Final design of roundabouts will be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

Figure 3.2 A, Pats Ranch Road - South of Boca Place

3.0-10

PATS RANCH ROAD - SOUTH OF BOCA PLACE
Not To Scale
Figure 3.2 B, Pats Ranch Road - South of Boca Place

3.0-11

PATS RANCH ROAD - SOUTH OF BOCA PLACE
N
E W
S
Not To Scale
Figure 3.3 A, Pats Ranch Road - North of Boca Place

3.0-12

PATS RANCH ROAD - NORTH OF BOCA PLACE
Not To Scale
Figure 3.3 B, Pats Ranch Road - North of Boca Place

3.0-13

PATS RANCH ROAD - NORTH OF BOCA PLACE
N
E W
S
Not To Scale
Raised or Painted Median as approved by
City Engineering and Fire Department
Figure 3.4, Bellegrave Avenue

3.0-14
S
W
E
N
Not To Scale
E
S
N
W
Not To Scale

BELLEGRAVE AVENUE

3.0-15

ROUNDABOUT - PATS RANCH ROAD & PARK CENTER DRIVE
Figure 3.5, Roundabout – Pats Ranch Road & Park Center Drive Not To Scale Note: The figures is a graphic representation of a conceptual design, a preliminary plan shall be review and approved by the City Engineer and detailed plans will be required.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-16
Direct access to the VRSP will occur along Pats Ranch Road. The right-of-way was dedicated by the adjacent residential developments, Tract No. 33428 or Harvest Villages, to improve Pats Ranch Road as a major roadway which is reflected in the VRSP Road Sections as shown on Figure 3.2 A&B and Figure 3.3 A&B. The VRSP includes four main access points along Pats Ranch Road at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, Boca Place, and one driveway south of Boca Place for access to Planning Area 17. A number of internal roadways will facilitate access to the VRSP area from the main access points along Pats Ranch Road. Figure 3.6, Main Access Points shows the VRSP site plan and the main access points along Pats Ranch Road.

Park Center Drive is planned to be developed as the project main access point and a grand boulevard showcasing greenbelt area which will serve as bio detention basins on both sides of the main entrance. The basins will also serve as an open play area for the use of the community. Park Center Drive entrance right-of-way measures 70 feet wide with two 20 feet wide travel lanes as depicted in Figures 3.7 A&B, Entry – Park Center Drive. And Figure 3.8, Multi-Family Entry – South of Boca Place show the project access points layout at Shearwater Drive and Boca Place.

Fig
ure

3.6, M
ain
A
c
c
e
s
s
P
oints

3.0-17
LEGEND
Main Access Point
Not To Scale
PA-1
PA-2
PA-3
PA-4
PA-5
PA-6
PA-7
PA-8
PA-9
PA-10
PA-11
PA-12
PA-14
PA-15
PA-16
PA-17
PA-19A
PA-19B
PA-19C
PA-13
PA-18
PA-20E
PA-20D
PA-20C
PA-20B
PA-20A
PA-20F
Figure 3.7 A, Entry - Park Center Drive

3.0-18

ENTRY - PARK CENTER DRIVE
Not To Scale
Figure 3.7 B, Entry - Park Center Drive - Interior Road Street “F”

3.0-19
ENTRY - PARK CENTER DRIVE - INTERIOR ROAD STREET “F”
S
W E
N
E
S N
W
Not To Scale
Not To Scale
Park Center Dr. Entry - Interior Road Street “F”
Note: Sections are conceptual. Final street sections will need to be approved by City Engineering and Fire. Vertical Fire access clearance of 13’6” is required.

Figure 3.8, Multi-Family Entry - South of Boca Place

3.0-20

MULTI-FAMILY ENTRY - SOUTH OF BOCA PLACE
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-21
There are existing Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) services along Limonite Avenue and Pats Ranch Road which are accessible via the pedestrian and bicycle trail system from the main access points along the project site. The closest bus stop is located at the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Pats Ranch Road as shown on Figure 3.9, Adjacent Existing Transit Services. There are also future bus stops located along Wineville Avenue that will be accessible from the main access points of the VRSP to the east. Future stops are shown on Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan.

Figure 3.9, Adjacent Existing Transit Services

3.0-22
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-23
The internal roadway network for the VRSP establishes a design hierarchy to serve neighborhood areas as shown on Figure 3.10, Vehicular Circulation Plan. The local street network will provide access from the four main access points along Pats Ranch Road to each planning area and to individual lots within each planning area. The primary local street is Park Center Drive, an internal curvilinear neighborhood collector street that loops around the entire VRSP and runs parallel to the project boundaries. The standard interior roadway right-of-way width is 60 feet with two 18-foot-wide travel lanes, 5-foot-wide sidewalks, and 5-foot-wide parkways between travel lanes and sidewalks depicted in Figure 3.11 A, Standard Interior Road – Street “D” & Street “C” East of Street “E”. There are also three modified interior roadway sections. The sections depicted in Figure 3.11 B, Interior Road With Trail – Street “A” & “G” and Figure 3.11 C, Interior Road With Trail – Street “C” West of Street “E”, Street “E” & “H” accommodate a trail on one side. And the modified section along Planning Areas 1 through 4 allow for an expanded parkway adjacent to residential development depicted in Figure 3.11 D, Interior Road – Street “B”.

Parking will be allowed on both sides of the street.

Courts, motor courts, and streets within planning areas are set within residential planning areas and may be used to provide access to garages. As shown on Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas, the street within planning areas consists of 56-foot right-of-way with two 18-foot-wide travel lanes. The motor court right-of-way measures 24 feet wide with two 12-foot-wide travel lanes. Courts are provided with fire access and without fire access, and all courts are required minimum 26-foot width between building faces. Courts without fire access provide two 10-foot-wide travel lanes, and courts with fire access provide two 12-foot-wide travel lanes. Courts, alleys and other dead-end streets exceeding 150’ in length are required to either provide a turnaround area to accommodate or be visibly delineated though either pavement marking or signage for a maximum vehicle travel distance of 150’ for fire or waste vehicles.

Figure 3.10, Vehicular Circulation Plan

3.0-24
Not To Scale
Figure 3.11 A, Standard Interior Road - Street “D” & Street “C” East of Street “E ”

3.0-25
E
S N
W
S
W E
N
STANDARD INTERIOR ROAD - STREET “D” & STREET “C” EAST OF STREET “E” Not To Scale
Not To Scale
Standard Interior Road - Street “C” East of Street “E”, and Street “D” Figure 3.11 B, Interior Road With Trail - Street “A” & “G”

3.0-26
INTERIOR ROAD WITH TRAIL - STREET “A” & “G”
E
S N
W
Not To Scale
Interior Road With Trail - Street “A” & “G”
N
E W
S
Figure 3.11 C, Interior Road With Trail - Street “C” West of Street “E”, Street “E” & “H”

3.0-27
INTERIOR ROAD WITH TRAIL - STREET “C” WEST OF STREET “E”, STREET “E” & “H” Not To Scale
Interior Road With Trail - Street “C” West of Street “E”, Street “E” & “H” E
N S
W
S
W E
N
Figure 3.11 D, Interior Road - Street “B”

3.0-28
INTERIOR ROAD - STREET “B”
E
S N
W
Not To Scale
Not To Scale
Interior Road - Street “B”
S
W E
N
Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas

3.0-29
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-30
The VRSP identifies a number of traffic calming features which may be incorporated throughout the specific plan area by future projects to help slow vehicular traffic and support pedestrian friendly neighborhoods. Following is the list of identified traffic calming features that are required where appropriate throughout the specific plan. This list provides some examples of the potential traffic calming features that will support the traffic calming goals of the specific plan.
• Roundabouts at key intersections
• Raised medians and pedestrian refuge islands
• Enhanced/raised crosswalks
• Narrow travel lane
• Surface treatments
Traffic calming devices shall be prohibited unless approved by the fire code official.

As discussed, the project would add three roundabouts along Pats Ranch Road at key project access points at Shearwater Drive, Park Center Drive, and Boca Place for traffic calming purposes. Additionally, the VRSP is conceptually incorporating internal roundabouts, at key intersections within the project area. The traffic calming effects of roundabouts force drivers to slow down which will improve safety for pedestrians and people on bikes. The incorporation of roundabouts within the VRSP will ultimately depend on design constraints and will be subject to review by the city.

Vernola Ranch will contain a comprehensive sidewalk, bike lane, and trail system that will link neighborhoods to parks, community amenity areas, and civic facilities. The VRSP will provide for pedestrian and bicyclist movement to allow connectivity throughout the site as shown on Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan. The pedestrian and cycling network ensures that residents will have opportunities to walk, bike, and jog in different settings.

Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan

3.0-31
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-32
A Two-way Class I bike path will be separated from vehicle traffic provided within the parkway along Pats Ranch Road on the west side of the roadway. The bike path will be for the exclusive use of bicycles and is physically separated from motor vehicle traffic.

The bike path will help link various Vernola Ranch community amenities. Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan reflects these connections throughout the VRSP.

An important element of the VRSP is a system of
pedestrian friendly sidewalks and walking trails that
will connect neighborhoods and communities to
encourage walkability within the Vernola Ranch
neighborhood. This system will link residential
neighborhoods to open spaces, amenities, school,
civic uses, and to adjacent Skyview Event Center,
Vernola Family Park, and future commercial retail
areas.

Pedestrian network throughout the specific plan consists of a Meandering Decomposed Granite (D.G.) Trail along Pats Ranch Road and the Community Path network as shown in Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan. While the VRSP reflects a representation of the potential future community and neighborhood trail system that may navigate throughout the VRSP, exact locations of these facilities be subject to change based on implementing development projects. These changes are considered minor and shall receive Administrative Approval provided the Community Development Department has determined connectivity of the trails and local connections are not substantially different than intended.

An 8-foot-wide community trail runs along the western boundary of the VRSP adjacent to Interstate 15. The community walking trail runs through the Neighborhood Park, connecting the various community amenity nodes. In addition, the Neighborhood Park is connected to a network of sidewalks within the community local streets to provide pedestrian connections between the planning areas, residential lots, and commercial and recreational amenities. The Community Trail and walking network is shown in Figure

3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan.

Conceptual Meandering D.G. Trail

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-33
A 6 to 10-foot-wide local trail is located along the west side of Pats Ranch Road. This pedestrian trail lies within a wide parkway area consisting of a 6 to 10-foot-wide trail, twoway bike path and landscaped area. It runs along the entire project frontage. North of Boca Place the trail is meandering and south of Boca Place the trail is straight. The 5-footwide sidewalk network provides cohesive pedestrian access for residents within the VRSP.

It also provides pedestrian access via the Pats Ranch Road crosswalks to the adjacent Skyview Event Center and Vernola Family Park. Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan shows the location of the local pedestrian trail along Pats Ranch Road.

VRSP provides a network of 5-foot-wide pathways throughout the community to provide connectivity and circulation from the meandering trail along Pat’s Ranch Road to all passive and active recreation and open space areas throughout the community. These community paths are located at the primary entries (Boca Place, Park Center Drive and Shearwater Drive) and provide east/west connections to the parks, basins and other open space areas. The basin areas includes amenities such as fitness stations, seating areas, trails, historical placards, shade structures, open turf areas, and landscaping as permitted and approved by all public entities holding easements in this area. Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan shows the location of community paths on the site plan.

Open Space and Recreation Plan
Vernola Ranch is located within proximity of several regional recreational facilities including Limonite Meadows Park, the SilverLakes Equestrian and Sports Park, and Esplanade Park. There are also a number of
nearby public parks and recreational
facilities located within the City that are
within an approximately 3.5-mile radius of
the VRSP. The Vernola Family Park and
Skyview Event Center with the future gym
and classrooms are directly adjacent to the
east. The Vernola Family Park offers three
baseball fields, two basketball half-courts,
barbeque and picnic areas, and play
equipment. At build-out, the Skyview Event
Center will include a multi-purpose room, Vernola Family Park and Skyview Event Center

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-34
kitchen and restroom facilities, as well as four classrooms/meeting rooms, and two indoor basketball courts with volleyball overlays.

As depicted in Figure 3.14, Conceptual Open Space and Recreation Plan, a distinguishing feature of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan community is the variety of open space, greenbelts, and amenity areas that will be provided to community and surrounding residents. The Open Space and Recreation Plan establishes a community-wide system of open space land and amenity areas important to the VRSP’s goal of providing a highquality living environment for future residents.

Park areas within the VRSP shall develop in accordance with the Planning Area Standards. Planning Area 18 and 19 are designated as Open-Space Recreation and is planned with active recreational amenities, meeting the City’s requirements for parkland recreational amenities. As an example shown on Figure 3.15, Pocket Park - Conceptual Plan, parks will also provide for universally accessible facilities; activities and amenities that promote a higher level of inclusive play regardless of abilities or age.

Conceptual Dog Park and the Neighborhood Park Areas
Fig
ure

3.14, C
o
n
c
e
ptu
al O
p
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
R
e
cre
atio
n
Pla
n
LEGEND
PA-19A
PA-19B
PA-19C
PA-18
PA-20F
PA-20E
PA-20D
PA-20C
PA-20B
PA-20A

3.0-35

VERNOLA
FAMILY
PARK

SKYVIEW
EVENT
CENTER
PA-4
PA-5
PA-13
PA-14
Not To Scale
Pocket Park
Open SpaceWater
Open SpaceRecreation
Adjacent Public Park
&
Recreational Facility
Recreation Center
PA-3
PA-2
PA-11
*
*
Figure 3.15, Pocket Park - Conceptual Plan

3.0-36
Not To Scale
Pocket Parks

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-37
The Vernola Ranch Specific Plan will allow for development of both major and minor amenity areas throughout the site. Development of minor amenities are primarily intended to provide for outdoor space. The VRSP will provide two major facilities: the Neighborhood Park is outdoor and will allow for active and passive recreational opportunities. The Recreation Center Campus located at the center of the VRSP will provide both outdoor and indoor gathering opportunities. The Recreation Center Campus and its surrounding campus is intended to serve as the focal point and gathering point for the entire community.

The Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus is depicted in Figure 3.16, Recreation Center Campus Layout. The facility will consist of approximately 3 acres and shall include a minimum of 7 of the amenities listed below, the media room/entertainment center, pool and spa, and community garden shown below in bold text are required:
• Multi-purpose Room/Community Center
• Indoor Kitchen Facilities
• Media Room/Entertainment Center
• Co-Working Lounge
• Fitness Center/Exercise Room
• Pool and spa
• Splash pad
• Lounge areas
• Cabanas and shade structures
• Community garden
• BBQ and picnic tables
• Trails and walkways
By Lennar Homes
Figure 3.16, Recreation Center Campus Layout

3.0-38
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-39
The Vernola Ranch Neighborhood
Park is an approximately 7.5 Acre
park that will run along the western
boundary of the VRSP adjacent to
Interstate 15. The Neighborhood Park
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 as shown on Figure

3.17, Overall Neighborhood Park Plan, and Figure 3.18, Conceptual Dog Parks Enlargements. In the center is the agrarian area that may include community gardens, vineyards, orchards and historic placards. A community trail which is eight-foot wide runs through the Neighborhood Park and connects to greenbelts and other recreational amenities throughout Vernola Ranch. The Neighborhood Park is depicted in Figure 3.19 A and Figure 3.20 A, Neighborhood Park Enlargement – Agrarian Area & Activity Area, Figure 3.19 B and Figure 3.20 B, Neighborhood Park 3D Views – Agrarian Area & Activity Area, and Figures 3.21 to 3.24, Cross Section B to E.

VRSP provides greenbelt areas including six basins that will also serve as open space areas for the community. Basins may incorporate passive recreation opportunities where possible without impacting the function of the basins. The basins are located on the eastern portion of the specific plan area; two located at the southeast corner of the site, two located on each side of primary entry (Park Center Drive), and two in the northerly quadrant. The basins will be connected by a network of walking paths and trails to provide smooth pedestrian connection and transition from neighborhoods to green spaces as shown on Figure 3.25, Detention Basins Conceptual Layout and Figure 3.26, Entry and Basin Imagery.

Figure 3.17, Overall Neighborhood Park Plan

3.0-40
Not To Scale
E
S N
W
S
W E
N
Not To Scale
Figure 3.18, Conceptual Dog Parks - Enlargements

3.0-41
Dog Park #1
Dog Park #2
DOG PARK #1 Not To Scale DOG PARK #2 Not To Scale
Note: Park design and location will be identified with implementing projects.

CONCEPTUAL DOG PARKS - ENLARGEMENTS
Figure 3.19 A, Neighborhood Park Enlargement - Agrarian Area

3.0-42

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ENLARGEMENT - AGRARIAN AREA
Not To Scale

3.0-43
Figure 3.19 B, Neighborhood Park 3D Views - Agrarian Area NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 3D VIEWS - AGRARIAN AREA
Figure 3.20 A, Neighborhood Park Enlargement - Activity Area

3.0-44

NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ENLARGEMENT - ACTIVITY AREA
Not To Scale
Figure 3.20 B, Neighborhood Park 3D Views - Activity Area

3.0-45
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK 3D VIEWS - ACTIVITY AREA
Figure 3.21, Cross Section B in PA-2 & PA-19A

3.0-46
S
W E
N
Not To Scale
Figure 3.22, Cross Section C in PA-2 & PA-19A

3.0-47
S
W E
N
Not To Scale
Figure 3.23, Cross Section D in PA-3 & PA-19B

3.0-48
S
W E
N
Not To Scale
Figure 3.24, Cross Section E in PA-4 & PA-19C

3.0-49
S
W E
N
Not To Scale
Figure 3.25, Detention Basins Conceptual Layout

3.0-50
Not To Scale
Note: The figures is a graphic representation of a conceptual design, a preliminary plan shall be review and approved by the City Engineer and detailed plans will be required.

DETENTION BASINS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT
Figure 3.26, Entry and Basin Imagery

3.0-51

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-52
Public Facilities
Conceptual infrastructure facility and service preliminary layouts have been developed for VRSP to provide domestic water, non-potable water, sewer, and storm drain services to the community and to identify the utility service companies servicing VRSP as shown on Figure 3.27, Conceptual Water, Sanitary Sewer and Non-Potable Water Plan and Figure

3.29, Conceptual Drainage Plan. These infrastructure plans are conceptual, based on preliminary service layouts and evaluations, and may be subject to modifications due to more precise engineering studies.

Jurupa Community services District (JCSD) will provide domestic water service to VRSP.

Domestic water provided by JCSD is supplied from wells within the Chino Groundwater Basin. The existing infrastructure within Pats Ranch Road is adequate to provide domestic water service to the 1,576 units within VRSP.

A Conceptual Water Plan has been developed which identifies the major domestic water infrastructure to serve VRSP. Domestic water infrastructure will be connected to the Existing 16-inch diameter domestic water pipeline located within Pats Ranch Road. VRSP will require the design and installation of adequate infrastructure domestic water pipelines to serve the project, which will connect to the existing 16-inch diameter domestic water pipeline located within Pats Ranch Road.

In order to provide a reliable source of water for firefighting purposes, domestic water is also delivered to all fire hydrants and fire sprinkler systems utilizing the domestic water system. Thus, piping facilities for domestic water are designed to accommodate both the domestic demand and the firefighting demand.

Parks and common landscape areas are considered prime candidates for non-potable water usage, as described in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. The design and installation of such facilities will be implemented in accordance with the JCSD Master Plan concepts, policies, and/or guidelines. JCSD will provide non-potable water service to VRSP. There is an existing 8-inch non-potable water line located within the Pats Ranch Road right-of-way and an existing 16-inch line in Bellegrave Ave. The community’s Non-Potable Water Plan includes recycle water lines that will be located in selected interior roads to provide irrigation services to common area landscaping. Non-potable

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-53
pipe sizes may range in diameter from 4-inch to 8-inch and will connect to the existing 8- inch non-potable waterline in Pats Ranch Road.

In addition to Domestic Water and Non-potable Water, JCSD will also provide Sanitary Sewer service to VRSP. An existing sanitary sewer line is located in Pats Ranch Road, and varies in size from 10-inch to 12-inch in diameter. The community’s Sanitary Sewer plan includes new infrastructure ranging in diameter from 8-inches to 10-inch with connection points as generally depicted on Figure 3.27, Conceptual Water, Sanitary Sewer and NonPotable Water Plan.

VRSP is located within the Santa Ana River Watershed. Specifically, VRSP is located within the boundary of the Riverside County Flood Control District Day Creek Area Drainage Plan (ADP). The ADP outlines a master plan for orderly development of flood control facilities for ultimate “build-out” of the area.

Land within the VRSP is subject to an area drainage fee which finances the improvements identified in the plan to mitigate flood-related impacts. Additionally, projects within the VRSP will be required to participate in this plan by the construction and financing of improvements necessary to flood-proof all land within the Specific Plan.

The VSRP project is roughly bounded by Bellegrave Avenue to the north, Limonite Avenue to the south, Interstate 15 to the west and Pat Ranch Road to the east. Figure 3.28, Day Creek ADP Storm Drain Infrastructure has been developed to illustrate the existing and proposed area drainage plan facilities that are identified in the Day Creek ADP. There are several storm drain facilities that have been constructed to date. The following major storm drain infrastructure facilities have been constructed and provide regional flood protection for the VSRP, as shown on Figure 3.28:
• Bellegrave Basin: The basin is a regional system that has been designed to collect and detain runoff emanating north of Bellegrave Avenue. The regional basin is used to reduce the peak flow rate that is discharged into the Line J storm drain facility.
• Line C Storm Drain: The existing storm drain collects runoff emanating north of Bellegrave Avenue and conveys the runoff into the Bellegrave Basin.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-54
• Line E Storm Drain: The existing storm drain collects runoff emanating north of Bellegrave Avenue and extends north along Wineville Avneue. The Line E system conveys the runoff into the Bellegrave Basin.
• Line J Storm Drain: The existing storm drain conveys the runoff from the Bellegrave Avenue Basin to an existing concrete channel located south of 68th Street. The concrete channel then conveys the flows and discharges them directly into the Santa Ana River.

The existing Line J Storm Drain and associated laterals have been constructed along Pats Ranch Road. The Line J Storm Drain systems is part of RCFC&WCD Project Number 1-272.

The existing storm drain system ranges in size from a 42-inch to 78-inch diameter pipe north of Limonite Avenue and a 8’W X 5’H Reinforced Concrete Box (RCB) south of Limonite to a Double 10’W x 5’ H RCB at the downstream terminus. The RCFC&WCD Line J Improvement plans have provided a total of four laterals that have been identified to collect flows from the VSRP project. The improvement plans have identified the following laterals:
• Lateral J-7 is a 48” storm drain lateral that has been designed to intercept approximately 83 cfs from the project site. This system was identified in the Day Creek ADP.
• Lateral J-9 is a 36” storm drain lateral that has been designed to intercept approximately 27 cfs. This lateral was not identified in the Day Creek ADP. • Lateral J-11 is a 42” storm drain lateral that has been designed to intercept approximately 43 cfs. This lateral was not identified in the Day Creek ADP. • Lateral J-13 is a 42” storm drain lateral that has been designed to intercept approximately 74 cfs. This lateral was not identified in the Day Creek ADP as Lateral J-8.
• Lateral J-15 is a 24” storm drain lateral that has been designed to intercept approximately 28 cfs. This lateral was not identified in the Day Creek ADP as Lateral J-8.

Based on the approved design shown on the Line J Storm Drain Improvement Plans, the VRSP has been provided connection points that will allow the project to discharge a total peak flow rate of 255 cfs. As a result, the VRSP will ensure that, with the use of detention basins and proposed laterals, the inflow into Line J will not exceed 255 cfs.

Figure 3.29, Conceptual Drainage Plan was developed to focus on the conceptual drainage solution that will be implemented by the project. As stated previously, the

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-55
existing Line J Storm Drain has provided a total of 5 lateral connections using storm drain sizes that range from 24 inches to 48 inches in diameter. The data collected as part of the research process for the project and the existing storm drain facilities shown on Figure

3.29 establish the required drainage solution required for the project. The following criteria was established to provide the hydrology and hydraulic control for the project:
• The conceptual drainage solution had to utilize the existing laterals or place new lateral downstream of the existing laterals to ensure the project would not impact the operation of the Line J system.
• The conceptual drainage solution includes detention/water quality basins to ensure runoff from the project was treated to meet the requirements of the MS4 Permit and to ensure that the project did not discharge more than the allotted flow rate identified on the approved Line J storm drain improvement plans.

The conceptual design requires the implementation of four detention/water quality basins design within the residential development and a subsurface storage system within Planning Area 17. The design of the basins is based on 5 drainage areas that have been identified in Figure 3.30, Basin & Drainage Area Map. The Basin & Drainage Area Map was used to develop a grading concept that would ensure that the project would be consistent with the design of Line J storm drain system. The design of the four detention/water quality basins and the subsurface storage system will ensure that the project mitigates for water quality and hydrology impacts as required by CEQA in the following manner:
• The basins and subsurface system will be designed to meet water quality standards as required by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Board. • Using the existing Line J storm drain system, the project will ensure that the project is not altering existing drainage patterns or creating excess runoff that will impact downstream properties.
• The project will provide onsite storm drain facilities that will collect and convey runoff into the basins and subsurface system that will provide 100 year flood protection for the community.
• The project will provide onsite storm drain facilities and basins and subsurface system eliminate exposing people and structures from potential flooding.

It is acceptable to have above or below ground treatment and or drainage facilities.

Treatment will need to comply with the applicable standards and requirements at the time of development.

Per Figure 3.30, Basin & Drainage Area Map, the Basin and Drainage Area Map, the project will convey approximately 160 acres of development area into Line J. As stated

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-56
previously, the Line J system has been designed to accept a total flow rate of 255 cfs or a flow rate yield of about 1.6 cfs per developable acre. The flow rate yield of 1.6 cfs/acre was used to establish a flow rate for the drainage areas identified as Areas B, C, D, E and F. Table B below provides the allowable flow rate that the basins may discharge into the Line J system.

Table B – Allowable Flow Rates for Line J
Basin Name Drainage Area Acreage Allowable Q100
Basin B B 25 40
Basin C C 37.6 60
Basin E & F E & F 40.3 65
Basin D D 57.1 90
In closing, the Conceptual Drainage Solution shown in Figure 3.29, Conceptual Drainage Plan provides the required onsite storm drain systems and detention basins to provide 100 year flood protection and to address water quality impacts for the community. The conceptual drainage solution is consistent with the approved Line J storm drain improvement plans and the Day Creek Area Drainage Plan.

Figure 3.27, Conceptual Water, Sanitary Sewer and Non-Potable Water Plan

3.0-57
Not To Scale
Figure 3.28, Day Creek ADP Storm Drain Infrastructure

3.0-58
Not To Scale
Figure 3.29, Conceptual Drainage Plan

3.0-59
Not To Scale
Figure 3.30, Basin & Drainage Area Map

3.0-60
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-61
Conceptual Grading Plan
The primary purpose of grading is to construct developable building lots, roads, drainage, and water quality features, and to provide access to the individual Planning Areas.

Grading will occur in multiple phases over the VRSP and include the commercial property located immediately south of VRSP. Grading design and plans will include multiple mass grading, rough grading, and precise grading plan sets, with grading phases that may encompass more than one construction phase or planning area. Grading will be designed to balance earthwork on site or as approved by the City of Jurupa Valley.

Approximately 1,013,200 cubic yards of material will be moved overall (total estimated cut plus fill) to achieve a balanced site. This quantity may vary as final grading plans are developed. It is not anticipated that earthwork will balance in each Planning Area, and therefore a limited amount of grading may occur outside a designated planning area to allow for borrow and/or stock piling of material, this will be included with the grading phase and identified on the final grading plans.

This Grading Plan is conceptual in nature; therefore, as each development phase or Planning Area is submitted, a phase-specific grading plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Grading may occur in phases as development applications are processed.

The existing topography indicates that the project slopes in a northerly/southerly direction. The natural terrain slopes at approximately 1% and follows the existing grades along Pat Ranch Road, see Figure 3.31, Existing Topography. The conceptual grading design was developed using the following design criteria:
• Provided a conceptual grading concept that attempts to follow the natural terrain.
• Develop conceptual grading concept that will allow street grades to meet the minimum street slope criteria established by the City of Jurupa Valley. • Develop conceptual grading concept that will adhere to California Building Code (CBC) requirements.
• Develop a conceptual grading design that would follow the drainage areas that have been established for the project area and defined by the allowable flow rates defined in the approved Line J storm drain improvement plans. • Develop a grading concept that will ensure that runoff emanating from the project site will be conveyed into the detention/water quality basins identified as part of the project.

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-62
Figure 3.32, Conceptual Grading Plan provides the proposed grading concept developed for the project site based on the above criteria while considering the various planning areas identified as part of the land use plan. The grading ensures that the gradient of the proposed surface will allow the project to provide adequate slopes to allow street to meet street design criteria and to provide flood protection for the future building pads within the project area.

Figure 3.31, Existing Topography

3.0-63
Not To Scale
Figure 3.32, Conceptual Grading Plan

3.0-64
Not To Scale

3.0 Community Plan

3.0-65
Conceptual Phasing Plan
The ultimate phasing of Vernola Ranch will be determined by market demand and infrastructure availability. The utilities and backbone systems within the community will be constructed in phases as needed to facilitate the development of the site and support development within any one individual Planning Area. It is anticipated that the Vernola Ranch will develop in 4 phases as depicted in Figure 3.33, Conceptual Phasing Plan. This conceptual development phasing represents the best estimate of the applicant and may change. The phasing plan does not prohibit, and specifically allows the simultaneous development of more than one phase. Each phase of the project can also be divided into sub-phases if market demand dictates. The exact phasing and timing in which the roads and other infrastructure are constructed may be dependent on the processing of off-site improvement permits and extension of off-site improvements.

Additionally, the exact order in which internal streets and other infrastructure are constructed is dependent on the location of each Planning Area and its estimated timing. Therefore, changes to the Conceptual Phasing Plan will be considered minor and shall receive administrative approval provided the Community Development Department and Engineering Department have determined that infrastructure is available to serve that phase, and that any mitigation measures linked to that phase, location, or level of development are implemented, as outlined in Chapter 7, Administration and Implementation. The conceptual phasing plan may be amended in conjunction with approval of tentative maps and site plans without requiring an amendment to the Specific Plan as outlined in Chapter 7, Administration and Implementation.

The phasing of Vernola Ranch Recreation Center Campus, located in Planning Area 18, shall be tied with the 600th certificate of occupancy for Planning Area 1 through Planning Area 16.

Figure 3.33, Conceptual Phasing Plan

3.0-66
Not To Scale
PA-17 PA-1
PA-2
PA-19A
PA-20A PA-20C PA-20E PA-20B PA-20D PA-20F
PA-19B
PA-19C
PA-5
PA-8
PA-13 PA-14
PA-15
PA-16
PA-9
PA-18
PA-10 PA-11
PA-12
PA-6
PA-3 PA-7
PA-4

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-1
Permitted Uses and Development Standards
The primary implementation guidance tool for development of the area is the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan, which establishes the character of the development through the definition of permitted land uses, required infrastructure, development regulations and design guidelines. The standards and regulations contained in this section, along with those in Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines and Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provide the framework upon which all subsequent implementation planning decisions are based, and criteria for determining consistency of site specific design with the Specific Plan objectives.

It is the purpose of this chapter to serve as the development regulations for the VRSP.

Where the Specific Plan is silent on a development issue, regulation or procedure, or where reference is made to a specific ordinance section, the applicable section(s) of the City Municipal Code shall prevail. Where design guidelines or development standards of the Specific Plan do not agree with the City ordinances, this Specific Plan shall apply.

In order to ensure the orderly development of the residential and recreational uses identified within the Specific Plan, zoning standards have been created. These are discussed in further detail below.

Chapter 4 – Development Standards and Permitted Uses, addresses allowable uses, and development standards for each individual Planning Area by residential building typologies and land use designations, such as, but not limited to, minimum lot sizes, acceptable housing product types, and primary and secondary vehicular access points.

For an overview of the residential planning standards, Tables C and D, Residential Planning Development Standards have been provided and are broken down by product types (Single Family Detached, Cluster Homes, and Attached Residential Buildings). The development standards for each individual Planning Area also provide reference to applicable graphics contained throughout this Specific Plan. Each individual Planning Area is assigned with a land use designation, density, and primary vehicular access.

Vernola Ranch Specific Plan shall comply the following standards of parking ratio, which is depicted in Table E, Parking Ratio.

Table C, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-1 to PA-16)

4.0-2

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-3
Table D, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-17)

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-4
Table E, Parking Ratio

UNIT TYPES PARKING RATIO
No Seniors
Studio/Efficiency 1.25 Spaces/Unit
1 Bedroom 1.25 Spaces/Unit
2 Bedrooms 2.25 Spaces/Unit
3+ Bedrooms 2.75 Spaces/Unit
Seniors
All Unit Types 1.25 Spaces/Unit
Notes
(1) Parking requirements not specifically outlined within VRSP will comply with the City’s Municipal Code.
(2) Guest parking is included in the above.
(3) Open parking spaces can be unassigned or assigned.
(4) Maximum distance from any unit to assigned parking 300 feet. (5) Lofts, mezzanines, dens, offices, workspace in a work/live unit or other similarly used spaces shall not be considered a bedroom for purposes of parking. (6) Tandem parking (in any physical combination) shall be allowed and countable towards the minimum parking requirements if assigned to the same unit and is a minimum size of 9’ X 36’.
(7) The parking of large commercial trucks, trailers, and truck cabs on publicstreets in residential areas is prohibited. (8) For multi-family development within PA-17, a minimum of 5% of the total required parking stalls will be equipped with electrical vehicle (EV) charging stations.
(9) For multi-family development within PA-17, a minimum of 1 space per unit will be provided with covered parking in either a garage or carport.

Permitted Uses
The following uses are permitted in the VRSP:
• Residential uses including single-family and multi-family dwellings. • Open space, recreation areas, and parks.
• Public facilities, including, but not limited to, schools, libraries, government buildings, and water and sewer facilities.
• Home occupations pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code • Detached accessory buildings/structures

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-5
Surrounding Schools and School Overlay
Future residents of Vernola Ranch would be served by the Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) for grades TK-12. Elementary school students (grades TK-8) residing within the VRSP will attend Del Sol Academy, less than one mile northeast of VRSP. High school students (grades 9-12) will attend Jurupa Valley High School, approximately 1.5 miles to the northeast.

Additional schools to serve the Vernola Ranch site and the surrounding area may be built in the future as demand and funding allows. The VRSP allows for approximately 9 acres within Planning Areas 15, 16, and 20F to be developed as an elementary school site, if needed, as reflected in Figure 4.1, Potential School Location. JUSD will decide if they wish to acquire the school by the 100th certificate of occupancy. If the school district declined to purchase this site for development of a school; the site can be developed in accordance with the underlying residential land use of High Density Residential not to exceed 14 du/ac. Planning Area 15 currently identifies 49 target dwelling units and Planning Area 16 currently identifies 51 target dwelling units. If there are underutilized units within earlier phases of the VRSP, additional units could be transferred to Planning Area 15 and/or 16 provided they do not exceed the maximum density of 14 du/ac. If the district purchases the site, the project will allow for the transfer of any units within Planning Area 15 and 16 lost to the school site (up to all 100 units within Planning Area 15 and 16) to any remaining undeveloped Planning Areas provided and no Planning Area exceeds the maximum density designated.

Any potential school shall comply with Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) and shall be sited in accordance with CCR Title 5, Division 1, Chapter 13, Subchapter 1, Article 2.

Fig
ure

4.1, P
ote
ntial S
c
h
o
ol L
o
c
atio
n
LEGEND
School Overlay Area
PA-15
PA-16
PA-20F
PA-20E
PA-14
PA-11
PA-12

4.0-6
BELLEGRAVE AVE.

PATS RANCH RD.

VERNOLA

FAMILY PARK
Not To Scale

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-7
Attached Residential Building
The residential building typology of attached residential building includes PA-1, PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4. The development standards for these Planning Areas will provide some
flexibility to allow for
varying product
types to meet a
range of housing
needs. Please refer
to Table H in
Chapter 6 to know
appropriate
residential building
typologies in these
Planning Areas.

Planning Area 1 is designated as VHDR Very High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 52 dwelling units on approximately 3.37 acres with a density not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 15.43 du/acre.

Planning Area 2 is designated as VHDR Very High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 116 dwelling units on approximately 6.94 acres with a density not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 16.71 du/acre.

Planning Area 3 is designated as VHDR Very High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 68 dwelling units on approximately 4.89 acres with a density not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 13.91 du/acre.

Planning Area 4 is designated as VHDR Very High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 94 dwelling units on approximately 7.28 acres with a density not to exceed 20 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 12.91 du/acre.

Sample Product Types By Kevin L. Crook Architects

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-8
Please refer to Table C, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-1 to PA16) to know development standards of these Planning Areas.

Interior backbone roads will provide primary access to courts and motor courts for the individual dwelling units.

Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Figures 3.11 B and D, Interior Roads.

For the standards of courts and motor courts, please refer to Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas.

Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed to allow for a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of the street, or sidewalk and trail in accordance with Figures 3.11 B, and D, Interior Road. An 8-foot-wide Community Trail is provided within PA-19 and will traverse through PA-2 and PA-4 for connectivity to the sidewalk and trail system throughout the VRSP. Two 5-foot-wide Community Paths will cross PA-3 to create additional linkages with the 8’ wide Community Trail in PA-19.

Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use within the community when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

The pocket/dog parks/paseos shall be located in PA-2, PA-3, and PA-4 as shown on Figure 3.14, Conceptual Open Space and Recreation Plan.

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-9
Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

Additional monuments may be incorporated within Planning Areas subject to review and approval by Planning and Engineering staff.

These Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines. Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provides standards for home architecture.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Areas 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Fig
ure

4.2, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 1
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
PA-2 PA-1
PA-8
PA-5
PA-17
PA-20A
PA-20B

4.0-10
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Not To Scale
Fig
ure

4.3, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
2 PA-19A
PA-2
PA-3
PA-19B
PA-1
PA-5
PA-17
I-15 I-15

4.0-11
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path
Not To Scale
Pedestrian Access to
PA-17
PA-3
PA-2
PA-6
PA-19C
PA-19B
PA-4
Fig
ure

4.4, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
3 I-15
I-15
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path

4.0-12
Not To Scale
PA-4
PA-12
PA-7
PA-19C
Fig
ure

4.5, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
4 PA-16 BELLEGRAVE AVE.

LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path

4.0-13
Not To Scale

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-14
Detached Cluster Homes
The residential building
typology of detached
cluster homes includes
PA-5, PA-6, PA-7, PA-8,
PA-15, and PA-16. The
development standards
for these Planning Areas
will provide some flexibility
to allow for varying
product types to meet a
range of housing needs.

Please refer to Table H in
Chapter 6 to know
appropriate residential
building typologies in
these Planning Areas.

Planning Area 5 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 47 dwelling units on approximately 5.18 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 9.07 du/acre.

Planning Area 6 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 39 dwelling units on approximately 4.12 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 9.47 du/acre.

Planning Area 7 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 24 dwelling units on approximately 2.64 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 9.09 du/acre.

Sample Product Types By Kevin L. Crook Architects

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-15
Planning Area 8 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 81 dwelling units on approximately 8.8 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 9.20 du/acre.

Planning Area 15 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 49 dwelling units on approximately 6.03 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 8.13 du/acre.

Planning Area 16 is designated as HDR High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 51 dwelling units on approximately 5.25 acres with a density not to exceed 14 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 9.71 du/acre.

Please refer to Table C, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-1 to PA16) to know development standards of these Planning Areas.

Interior backbone roads will provide primary access to courts, motor courts and roads within Planning Areas for access to the individual dwelling units.

Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Figures 3.11 A, B, C, and D, Interior Road.

For the standards of courts, motor courts, and streets within Planning Areas please refer to Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas. If streets are private streets, rolled curbs may be utilized. For any transition from public streets to private streets decorative or enhanced paving will be required.

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-16
Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed to allow for a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of the street, or sidewalk and trail in accordance with Figures 3.11 A, B, C and D, Interior Road. The 5-foot-wide Community Paths will traverse PA-5, PA-6, PA-7, and PA-8.

Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use within the neighborhood when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

A pocket/dog park shall be located in PA-5 as shown on Figure 3.14, Conceptual Open Space and Recreation Plan.

Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

These Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines. Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provides standards for home architecture.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Areas 5, 6, 7, 8, 15, and 16.

PA-5
PA-8
PA-2
Fig
ure

4.6, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
5 PA-9
I-15 I-15
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path

4.0-17
Not To Scale
PA-6
PA-10
PA-3
Fig
ure

4.7, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
6 PA-11
PA-5
PA-7
I-15
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path

4.0-18
Not To Scale
PA-7
PA-4
Fig
ure

4.8, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
7 PA-6
PA-12
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-19
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Not To Scale
PA-8
PA-5
Fig
ure

4.9, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
8 PA-9
PA-1
PA-13
PA-20B
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-20
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Not To Scale
PA-15
Fig
ure

4.10, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 15
PA-20F
PA-20E
PA-12
PA-16 PATS RANCH RD.

BELLEGRAVE AVE.

4.0-21
Not To Scale
*
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Bike Lane System
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
* Entry Monument
PA-16
Fig
ure

4.11, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 16
PA-20F PA-20E
PA-15
PATS RANCH RD.

BELLEGRAVE AVE.

Bike Lane System

4.0-22
Not To Scale
*
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
* Entry Monument

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-23
Single Family Detached Homes
The residential building typology of single family detached homes includes PA-9, PA-10, PA-11, PA-12, PA-13, and PA-14. Please refer to Table H in Chapter 6 to know appropriate residential building typologies in these Planning Areas. Single story plans may be used, but are not required within Single Family Detached Homes Planning Areas.

Planning Area 9 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses.

This Planning Area is planned for the development of 26 dwelling units on approximately 4.46 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 5.83 du/acre.

Planning Area 10 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 42 dwelling units on approximately 8.01 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 5.24 du/acre.

Planning Area 11 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 55 dwelling units on approximately 7.09 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 7.76 du/acre.

Sample Product Types By Kevin L. Crook Architects

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-24
Planning Area 12 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 77 dwelling units on approximately 13.1 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 5.88 du/acre.

Planning Area 13 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 61 dwelling units on approximately 10.17 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 6.0 du/acre.

Planning Area 14 is designated as MHDR Medium High Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area is planned for the development of 90 dwelling units on approximately 12.1 acres with a density not to exceed 8 dwelling units per acre and a target density of 7.44 du/acre.

Please refer to Table C, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-1 to PA16) to know development standards of these Planning Areas.

Interior backbone roads will provide primary access for these Planning Areas. And streets within Planning Areas will provide internal circulation and access for single family detached homes.

Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Figures 3.11 B and C, Interior Road and streets within Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Figure 3.12, Courts, Motor Courts, and Streets within Planning Areas.

Interior backbone roads fronting these Planning Areas shall be developed to allow for a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of the street, or sidewalk and trail in accordance with Figures 3.11 B and C, Interior Road. The 5-foot-wide Community Paths will traverse PA-9, PA-10, PA-11, and PA-12.

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-25
Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use within the neighborhood when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

Pocket parks may be provided in PA-11, PA-13, and PA-14 as shown on Figure 3.14, Conceptual Open Space and Recreation Plan.

Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

These Planning Areas shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines. Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provides standards for home architecture.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Areas 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14.

PA-9
Fig
ure

4.12, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
9 PA-8
PA-18
PA-5
PA-13
PA-10
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-26
Not To Scale
PA-10
Fig
ure

4.13, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 10
PA-11
PA-6
PA-18
PA-9
PA-14
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-27
Not To Scale
PA-11
Fig
ure

4.14, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 11
PA-12
PA-6
PA-10
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-28
Not To Scale
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
PA-12
Fig
ure

4.15, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 12
PA-4
PA-7
PA-11
PA-15
External Traffic Circulation
BELLEGRAVE AVE.

4.0-29
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Not To Scale
PA-13
Fig
ure

4.16, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 13
PA-8
PA-20B
PA-20C
PA-9
PA-18
PATS RANCH RD.

4.0-30
Not To Scale
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Bike Lane System
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Main Entry Monument
Entry Sign
PA-14
Fig
ure

4.17, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 14
PA-10
PA-11
PA-20D
PA-20E PA-20F
PATS RANCH RD.

4.0-31
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Bike Lane System
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Not To Scale
Entry Sign

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-32
Planning Area 17
Planning Area 17 is located in the southern portion of Vernola Ranch and depicted in Figure 4.18, Planning Area 17. Multi-family stacked flats or a blend of stacked flats and townhomes are allowed
in Planning Area 17. The units can
be for lease, for sale, or could be
age restricted for seniors. Please
refer to Table H in Chapter 6 to
know appropriate residential
building typologies in this Planning
Area. Gated communities are
permitted, and gates will be
analyzed during the site
development review process for
queuing and turnaround.

Planning Area 17 is designated as HHDR Highest Density Residential land uses. This Planning Area will be developed with 604 dwelling units on approximately 24.1 acres for a target density of 23 to 25 du/acre as identified in the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element.

Please refer to Table D, Residential Planning Development Standards (PA-17) to know development standards of this Planning Area.

The interface from residential structures to the I-15 Corridor shall be setback one hundred feet (100’) as shown on Figure 4.19, Cross Section A in PA-17.

Pats Ranch Road will provide primary access to the Planning Area. Internal circulation will include private drive aisles and courts.

Sample Product Type By Architects Orange

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-33
Private Streets, Driveways, or alleys will provide for internal circulation within this Planning Area.

Pedestrian circulation should be designed to promote alternatives to automobile use for transportation within the neighborhood.

A pedestrian access gate shall be provided to the adjacent neighborhood park in Planning Area 19, and another pedestrian access gate shall be provided to the future commercial site located to the south in the adjacent I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 as conceptually shown on Figure 3.13 Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan. The locations will be determined with the development of Planning Area 17.

Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

This Planning Area shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines. Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provides standards for home architecture.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Area 17.

For balconies or decks that face the I-15, an acoustical consultant should provide design recommendations for noise reduction as feasible.

This Planning Area shall include a minimum of 7 of the following amenities:
• Main Pool and Spa:
o Covered area and outdoor kitchen
o Deck area with chaise lounges, tables, chairs and umbrellas o Small cabanas for shade (likely cloth cabana).

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-34
• Fitness room/Yoga Room
• Indoor Gourmet kitchen
• “Spa” bathroom
• Bar area
• Executive high tech co-working lounge
• Multi-Purpose Room
• Walking paths
• Outdoor gathering areas such as BBQ area with chairs and tables • Dog park
• Concierge service
PA-17
Fig
ure

4.18, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 17
PA-1 PA-20A
PA-2
PA-19A
PATS RANCH RD.

4.0-35
Not To Scale
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Bike Lane System
Entry Monument
Entry Sign
Pedestrian Access to
PA-17
Figure 4.19, Cross Section A in PA-17

4.0-36
S
W E
N
Not To Scale

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-37
Planning Area 18
Planning Area 18 is located in the middle
portion of Vernola Ranch and depicted in
Figure 4.20, Planning Area 18. A community
recreation center is located in Planning Area

18. Planning Area 18 provides for approximately 3.0 acres of OS-R Open Space Recreation land uses. Active recreational elements for this Planning Area may include but are not limited to, amenities such as a ranch house, creative playfield, pool, etc. Passive recreational elements may include but are not limited to, amenities such as a community garden, BBQ pavilion, and shade pavilions, etc.

Support facilities for this park and community recreation center may include but are not limited to, amenities such as a parking lot, community event lawn, restroom, security lighting, fencing, etc.

Interior backbone roads will provide primary access.

The 5-foot-wide Community Paths will traverse PA-18.

Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use for transportation within the neighborhood when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

By Architects Orange

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-38
This Planning Area shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5, Landscape Design Guidelines. Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards provides standards for architecture.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Area 18.

PA-18
PA-13
PA-9
Fig
ure

4.2 0, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 18
PA-20D
PA-10
PA-20C
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry

4.0-39
Not To Scale

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-40
Planning Area 19
Planning Area 19 which consists of 3
separate areas which are all located
in along the western boundary of
Vernola Ranch and depicted in
Figure 4.21, Planning Area 19. The
Neighborhood Park is located in
Planning Area 19.

Planning Area 19 provides for approximately 7.23 acres of OS-R Open Space Recreation land uses. Active recreational elements for this Planning Area may include but are not limited to, amenities such as activity turf panels, bocce ball courts, etc. Passive recreational elements may include but are not limited to, amenities such as family picnic nodes, community trails, community gardens, etc.

Support facilities for this park may include but are not limited to amenities such as historic placards, security lighting, fencing, etc.

Planning Area 19 will include an 8-foot-wide Community Trail that will provide connectivity between the Community Paths and sidewalks as depicted in Figure

3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan.

A pedestrian access gate shall be provided from the adjacent Planning Area 17 located to the south as conceptually shown on Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan.

Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use for transportation within the community when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-41
Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

This Planning Area shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5 – Landscape Design Guidelines. Decorative lighting shall be provided along the Community Trail within Planning Area 19 as depicted in Figure 3.19 A through Figure 3.20 B.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Area 19.

PA-19C
PA-19B
PA-19A
PA-3
PA-4
PA-2
Fig
ure

4.21, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a 19
I-15
I-15

4.0-42
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Community Path
Not To Scale
Pedestrian Access to
PA-17

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-43
Planning Area 20
Planning Area 20 which consists of 6 separate areas which are all located in along the eastern boundary of Vernola Ranch
and depicted in Figure 4.22, Planning Area

20. Basins and common open spaces are
located in Planning Area 20.

Approximately 2.15 acres total of the
basins in Planning Areas 20A to 20F
designated as Open Space-Water will also
provide opportunities for passive
recreational uses.

Planning Area 20 provides for approximately 9.47 acres of OS-W Open Space Water land uses.

Interior backbone roads will provide access to this Planning Area.

Interior backbone roads fronting this Planning Area shall be developed to allow for a 5-foot-wide sidewalk on each side of the street in accordance with Figure

3.7 B, Entry-Park Center Drive-Interior Road Street “F” and Figure 3.11 A, B, and C, Interior Road.

Planning Area 20 will include 5-foot-wide Community Paths that will provide connectivity between the Meandering D.G. Trail along Pat’s Ranch Road to the Community Trail and sidewalks as depicted in Figure 3.13, Pedestrian and Cycling Circulation Plan.

Pedestrian access openings from internal streets and cul-de-sacs are encouraged to promote alternatives to automobile use for transportation within the neighborhood when compliance with applicable building and safety, fire, transportation, and other codes are attainable for such access openings.

By Sitescapes

4.0 Permitted Uses and Development Standards

4.0-44
Neighborhood entry monuments shall be provided and developed at key access points in accordance with Figure 5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location in Chapter 5.3.5.

This Planning Area shall be developed in accordance with Chapter 5 – Landscape Design Guidelines.

Please refer to Table I, Permit Process in Chapter 7 to know required permits for Planning Area 20.

PA-20A
PA-20B
PA-20C
PA-20D
PA-20E
PA-20F
PA-15 PA-16
PA-14
PA-12
PA-18
PA-13
Fig
ure

4.2 2, Pla
n
nin
g
Are
a
2 0
PATS RANCH RD. PATS RANCH RD.

4.0-45
Not To Scale
LEGEND
Sidewalk
Vehicular Circulation
Community Trail
Community Path
Neighborhood Entry
Neighborhood / Pocket Park
Meadering D.G. Trail
Primary Entry
External Traffic Circulation
Bike Lane System
Main Entry Monument
Entry Sign
Pedestrian Access to
PA-17

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-1
Landscape Guidelines Description
In the pursuit of building a holistic community development at Vernola Ranch, the landscape design program will lean heavily on the history of the land and the surrounding Jurupa Valley community. The agrarian history of Vernola Ranch will become the central theme in developing this cohesive and responsive landscape design program. Creating agriculture themed elements such “grove” type elements, developing a “wind screen” along the edge of the I-15 corridor, providing community gardening opportunities are just a part of the comprehensive program intended to deliver on this promise. The Table F, Plant Palette is developed to provide a variety of plant material that, not only reflects this theme, but also considers the drought-tolerant native plant communities endemic to the area. Complementary to the landscape within the VRSP, the hardscape elements within the community, such as entry monuments, walls and fences, will further the central design theme and community character. These design elements are also provided within the VRSP so as to provide direction and control of the vision for this community.

The landscape theme will be expressed throughout the community open spaces including streetscapes, community entries, recreational amenities, perimeter edges and open spaces.

Planting Overview
The intent of these guidelines is to provide a simple plant palette that complements and enhances the historic and thematic settings for the community. In addition, this plant palette has been selected for the plant’s appropriateness to climatic conditions, soil conditions, and long-term concerns for maintenance and water conservation. Plant selections shall be grouped to have similar cultural requirements so irrigation can be designed to minimize water use and plant material can thrive under optimal conditions.

All plantings within the VRSP shall be in accordance with the County of Riverside Guide to California Friendly Landscaping (Landscaping Guide), dated December 2009. Plant species that are prohibited by the Landscaping Guide shall not be allowed within any plant palettes in the VRSP.

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-2
Table F, Plant Palette
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PF¹
TREES
Arbutus ‘Marina’ Strawberry Tree L
Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree LCercidium hybrid ‘Desert Museum’ Hybrid Palo Verde LCercis canadensis ‘Forest Pansy’ Forest Pansy Redbu d L
Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow LChitalpa tashkentensis ‘Pink Dawn’ Chitalpa LCinnamomum camphora Camphor Tree MCitrus species Geijera parviflora Australian Willow M
Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree
M
Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda M
Koelreuteria paniculata Golden Rain Tree LLagerstroemia indica varieties Crape Myrtle M
Laurus nobilis ‘Saragota’ Saragota Laurel LMagnolia grandiflora ‘D.D. Blanchard’ Southern Magnolia MOlea europaea ‘Wilsonii’ Wilson Olive (Fruitless) LPinus eldarica Afghan Pine LPlatanus acerifolia 'Bloodgood' London Plane Tree LPlatanus racemosa California Sycamore LPodocarpus gracilior Fern Pine M
Punica granatum Pomegranate MPyrus calleryana ‘Chanticleer’ Chanticleer Pear M
Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak L

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-3
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PF¹
Quercus ilex Holly Oak LRhus lancea African Sumac LTabebuia ipe Pink Trumpet Tree M
Tristania conferta Brisbane Box MUlmus parvifolia 'True Green' Evergreen Elm MPALMS Phoenix dactylifera Date Palm LTrachycarpus fortuneii Windmill Palm M Washingtonia robusta hybrida Hybrid Fan Palm L SHRUBS Agave ‘Blue Flame’ Blue Flame Agave LAgave attenuata Foxtail Agave LAgave desmettiana Dwarf Century Plant LAloe arborescens Tree Aloe LAloe bainesii (barberae) N.C.N. LAloe vera Medicinal Aloe LAlyogne huegelii ‘MONleon’ Leon’s Purple Delight Lilac Hibiscus LArbutus unedo ‘Elfin King’ Elfin King Strawberry King L Buxus microphylla japonica Japanese Boxwood MCalandrinia spectabilis Rock Purslane LCallistemon viminalis ‘LittleJohn’ Dwarf Bottlebrush MCarissa grandiflora ‘Green Carpet’ Natal Plum M
Cotoneaster horizontalis Rock Cotoneaster LDietes grandiflora Fortnight Lily LFeijoa sellowiana Pineapple Guava M
Hemerocallis ‘Dwarf Red’ Day Lily
M

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-4
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PF¹
Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca LHeteromeles arbutifolia Toyon LIlex crenata 'Sky Pencil' Sky Pencil Ilex M
Ilex vomitoria 'Stokes' Stokes Holly L Lantana hybrids ‘New Gold’ New Gold Lantana L Lantana montevedensis ‘Monma’ White Lightin’ Lantana MLigustrum japonicum 'Texanum' Wax Leaf Privet Moraea bicolor Fortnight Lily MOlea europaea ‘Montra’ P.P.#6266 Little Ollie Dwarf Olive LPhilodendron x ‘Xanadu’ Dwarf Philodendron M
Phormium tenax 'Bronze Baby' New Zealand Flax (Reddish) MPhotinia fraseri Frasier's Photinia MPittosporum tobira Tobira M
Podocarpus elongatus ‘Monmal’ Icee Blue Yellow-Wood
M
Prunus caroliniana 'Bright n' Tight' Carolina Cherry MPunica granatum ‘nana’ Dwarf Pomegranate M
Rhaphiolepis indica ‘Clara’ Dwarf Indian Hawthorne
M
Rhaphiolepis x. ‘Montic’ Majestic Beauty Indian Hawthorne MRhaphiolepis umbellata ‘Minor’ Dwarf Yeddo Hawthorne LRosa ‘Flower Carpet var. Noatraum’ Pink Carpet Rose MRosa f. 'Ice Berg' White Shrub Rose MRosmarinus officinalis ‘Tuscan Blue’ Tuscan Blue Rosemary LStrelizia reginae Bird-of-Paradise MTecoma stans ‘Sierra Apricot’ Sierra Apricot MWestringia fruticosa ‘Morning Light’ Coast Rosemary LWestringia 'Wynyabbie Gem' Coast Rosemary L

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-5
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PF¹
Yucca filamentosa ‘Golden Sword’ Golden Sword Yucca LGROUNDCOVERBaccharis pilularis ‘Pigeon Point’ Dwarf Coyote Brush LCotoneaster horizontalis Rock Cotoneaster LMahonia repens Creeping Mahonia M
Myoporum parvifolium ‘Putah Creek’ Prostratum Myoprum LOlea europaea ‘Montra’ P.P.#6266 Little Ollie Dwarf Olive LRosmarinus officianalis ‘Huntington Carpet’ Huntington Rosemary Carpet LSenecio mandraliscae Blue Chalk Sticks LTrachelospermum jasminoides Trachelospermum jasminoides M
GRASSESCarex divulsa Berkeley Sedge LChondropetalum tectorum Cape Rush M
Dianella revoluta ‘DR5000’ Little Rev Flax Lily M Dianella tasmanica ‘Silver Streak’ Silver Streak Flax Lily M Juncus patens California Gray Rush
M
Lomandra longifolia ‘LM300’ Breeze Dwarf Mat Rush
M
Miscanthus sinensis ‘Morning Light’ Morning Light Maiden Grass MMuhlenbergia capillaris ‘Regal Mist’ Regal Mist Muhly M
Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass
M
Pennisetum 'Fairy Tails' Fairy Tails Fountain Grass
M
Stipa tenuissima Mexican Feather Grass L VINECalliandra haematocephala Pink Powder Puff M
Clytostoma callistegioides Violet Trumpet Vine MDistictus buccinatoria Blood Red Trumpet Vine M

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-6
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME PF¹
Eriobotrya deflexa Bronze Loquat
M
Ficus pumila (repens) Creeping Fig
M
Parthenocissus tricuspidata Boston Ivy
M
TURF GRASS - SEEDTurf Marathon II, Tall Fescue
H

FOOTNOTES

1. “PF” denotes the plant factor. The following plant water use requirements are identified as follows:

L = Low M = Moderate H = High

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-7
General Landscape Design Guidelines
General landscape requirements are presented below and address a variety of topics such as drought tolerance, planting time, climate constraints, irrigation standards, lighting, and landscape maintenance standards.

All street trees to be planted in rights-of-way along roadways classified as expressway, urban arterial, major, and collector level shall be a minimum container size and spacing in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley landscape standards unless otherwise shown on Street Section Figures within Chapter 3 of VRSP (Figure 3.2 A&B and Figure 3.3 A&B).

Figure 5.1, Street Tree Exhibit reflects these concerns throughout the VRSP. The following criteria will apply:
• Street trees will be chosen from Table G, Street Tree Matrix below. • Street trees shall be located so as not to interfere with:
o Street lights
o Utilities
o Sight lines
o Fire Access Vertical Clearance of 13’6”
Table G, Street Tree Matrix
Street Name Tree Avg. Spacing
Pats Ranch Road Prosopis chilensis (Chilean Mesquite)
Lophostemon conferta
(Brisbane Box)
40’ o.c.
30’ o.c.

Bellegrave Avenue Laurus nobilis (Bay Laurel) 40’ o.c.

Project Entries (Grove Tree) Olea europaea (Olive)
Entry Streets Boca Place
Park Center Drive Sheerwater Drive
Platanus acerifolia @ Parkways
(London Plane Tree)
Lagerstroemia indica “Muskogee” @ Medians
(Crape Myrtle)
40’ o.c.

Main Loop Roads Podocarpus gracilior (Fern Pine) 40’ o.c.

Secondary Loop Roads Lagerstroemia indica “Muskogee” (Crape Myrtle)
40’ o.c.

Local Streets or Courts Lophostemon conferta (Brisbane Box) Brachychiton populneus
(Bottle Tree)
30’ o.c.

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-8
All interior slopes shall be landscaped and irrigated per the City of Jurupa Valley landscape standards. The merchant builder shall install all required slopes not designated as common area. Each builder should confirm the slope erosion control standards with the City of Jurupa Valley. All common area slopes will be per City of Jurupa Valley Standards.

All streets located within the VRSP shall have uniform lighting standards with regard to style, materials, and colors in order to ensure consistent design. Each residential Planning Area may develop its own lighting standards, provided that the selected lighting fixture style is used consistently throughout the Planning Area and is complementary and cohesive to the style selected for the neighborhood as a whole. Lighting fixtures shall be well integrated into the visual environment and complimentary to the chosen architectural style of the neighborhood. All lighting fixtures within the VRSP shall comply with the following regulations and provisions:
1) 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. Low intensity, energyconserving night lighting is preferred.

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-9
2) Lights shall be of metal or durable plastic, recessed, or otherwise designed to reduce the problems associated with damage and replacement of fixtures.

Fixtures shall be vandal-resistant.
3) Neon and similar types of lighting are prohibited within the VRSP. 4) All exterior lighting designs should develop a sense of hierarchy by varying fixtures and illumination levels. Proper lighting helps to define the organization of streets and also distinguishes vehicular and pedestrian circulation patterns. Entry areas (both pedestrian and vehicular), community facilities, and highly used recreation areas shall be creatively lit to develop a sense of place and arrival. 5) All exterior lighting designs shall address the issue of security. Parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and building entrances shall be well lighted for security reasons.
6) All exterior lights should be shielded where feasible and focused to minimize spill light into the night sky or adjacent properties.
7) No freestanding lighting fixtures shall exceed twenty-five feet (25') in height. 8) Service area lighting shall be contained within the service yard boundaries and enclosure walls.
9) The lighting concept of the entry monumentation features is to illuminate the sign graphics and to gently wash the walls and pilasters with light. Concealed uplight fixtures should illuminate trees and other landscape features. 10) All electrical meter pedestals and light switch/control equipment shall be located with minimum public visibility, if possible, or shall be screened with appropriate plant materials.
11) 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. Energy conservation, safety, and security should be emphasized when designing any light system.

Special landscaping and decorative signage are intended to highlight arrival to the VRSP and provide a sense of place and quality design, and is conceptually depicted in Figure

5.2, Conceptual Monumentation Location. A single thematic sign program for each Planning Area (or group of geographically related Planning Areas) should be developed.

The design of this sign program must be incorporated with the master community landscape plan throughout the neighborhood. Prior to the installation of signs located within the VRSP, the Master Developer and City Planning Division must approve all signs.

All signs must comply with the City of Jurupa Valley sign ordinances and guidelines.

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-10
Corner monument/project entries areas shall include a minimum of two (2) 48” box trees at each location. The sign element will be made of laser cut metal (1/4” thick maximum) with a painted or corten finish. All sign elements shall be backlit. 1) All landscaped areas shall be watered with a permanent underground irrigation system, except for slopes which may have a permanent above-ground irrigation system. Irrigation systems, which adjoin a separate maintenance responsibility area, shall be designed in a manner to ensure complete water coverage between the areas. All irrigation shall comply with Chapter 9.283, City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, and standards established and required by Jurupa Community Services District.
2) Proper consideration of irrigation system design and installation in the climate extremes of the VRSP is critical to the success of the landscape investment. In particular, the combined summer elements of heat and wind must be carefully considered in proper irrigation design and equipment selection. 3) Overhead spray irrigation systems shall be designed with head-to-head 100 percent double coverage at a minimum. Native and drought tolerant slope areas will use a combination of spray and drip or bubbler irrigation for shrubs and trees.

In addition, irrigation controllers shall be weather based controllers. All irrigation heads adjacent to walks, drives, and curbs shall be of the pop-up type. 4) Irrigation backflow prevention devices and controllers shall be located with minimum public visibility or shall be screened with appropriate plant materials.

Irrigation systems designed for use with both domestic and reclaimed water are encouraged. All irrigation systems for parks, open spaces, and common landscaped areas shall be designed to use reclaimed water.
• Drip and/or bubbler irrigation will be used where appropriate. • Use of weather-based central control irrigation systems may be incorporated where appropriate.
• Irrigation systems will be designed per Assembly Bill 1881 guidelines or city equal.

Figure 5.1, Street Tree Exhibit

5.0-11
Not To Scale
Note: Street trees shall be placed so as not to interfere with Fire Access Vertical Clearance of 13’6”.

Figure 5.2, Concept Monumentation Location

5.0-12

CONCEPTUAL MONUMENTATION LOCATION
Not To Scale

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-13
Although a plant may be drought tolerant, that plant still requires proper care, installation, watering, and maintenance to maximize its drought tolerance capabilities. 1) Degrees of Drought Tolerance: There are degrees of drought tolerance with some plants able to withstand or go without water for a greater period of time than others.
2) Plant Installation Water Demand: Drought tolerant plants, like other plants, require more watering during the initial installation period and for at least a three-month maintenance period to become established. Therefore, if drought tolerant plants are installed in the warmer months, more supplemental water will be required until the plant is established.
3) Deep Watering Practices: Drought tolerant plants, like most plants, need the proper deep watering practices to encourage deep root system development.

Drought tolerant plants with a shallow root system resulting from frequent light applications of water will not be drought tolerant.
4) Warmer Months Water Application: Although a plant is labeled drought tolerant, summer watering is still required. The plant may have low water requirements.

Depending upon the plant, drought tolerant plants will look better, thrive, and survive the warmer months with infrequent deep watering. 5) Full Season Plant Water Requirements: After drought tolerant plants have grown a full season, the water application rate should be diminished and the drought tolerant plant allowed to survive on less water.
6) Maintenance: Drought tolerant and California native plants still need regular maintenance such as pruning, fertilizing, deep watering, and checking for pests and diseases.

Plant material palettes for the VRSP contained herein are compatible with the climatic setting of the area. The utilization of some materials, depending upon their site location, exposure, and relationship to other influential factors, may not be appropriate.

Maintenance of common areas and street scenes within the VRSP will be provided by the City of Jurupa Valley or Home Owners' Association and shall be carried out per City

5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines

5.0-14
of Jurupa Valley maintenance standards. Please refer to Chapter 7, Administration and Implementation, for further discussion of maintenance responsibilities.

Wall and Fence Plan
Walls and fencing are used throughout the VRSP as shown on Figure 5.3, Overall Fence and Wall Plan and Figure 5.4 A&B, Fence and Wall Types, to compliment the overall design, establish community identity, to provide visual and physical privacy sight lines for views, buffering between different uses, and to allow for privacy and security in residential areas.

Perimeter theme walls will define "private" and "public" spaces occurring along major roadways, and in situations where privacy and security is desired, or view opportunities are not available. They shall also occur on local streets where side or rear yard conditions face the street. Textured and/or colored masonry walls are anticipated, with masonry or concrete cap treatments. Plain concrete block walls, wood, stucco-covered or other like-material walls are not permitted along reverse frontage areas. Colors must be earth tones and complement the material chosen for monumentation. A mortar wash finish over slump block is acceptable; however, the coloring must be approved by the Community Development Department and be consistent throughout the VRSP. Stone pilasters may be used at focal points in lieu of masonry. All walls shall have a minimum of three feet (3') of landscaping between the walls and any adjacent paving to allow for shrubs and vines. The use of vines or other vegetative material is highly encouraged to reduce the likelihood of graffiti. Wall height should not exceed six (6) feet, unless necessary for noise attenuation or other special circumstance such as project entries.