Cities Index.
Agenda

Jurupa Valley City Council
December 21, 2023

Document
Agenda
Meeting
December 21, 2023
Body
Jurupa Valley City Council
Pages
39
Original file
328.8 MB
Text extracted from the city's file for reading and search. Open the original on www.jurupavalley.org. That file is the official record.

Page - 1 -

REGULAR MEETING AGENDA

OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, December 21, 2023
Closed Session: 6:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting: 7:00 p.m.

City Council Chamber
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

1. 6:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR CLOSED SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member

2. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney and Special Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to two matters of pending litigation: 1) City of Jurupa Valley v. Juan Carmelo Nunez Salazar, et al. (Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC2002036); and 2) City of Jurupa Valley v.

A. As a courtesy to those in attendance, we ask that cell phones be turned off or set to their silent mode and that you keep talking to a minimum so that all persons can hear the comments of the public and City Council.

B. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Comments must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. Each agenda item up will be open for public comments before taking action. Public comments on subjects that are not on the agenda can be made during the “Public Appearance/Comments” portion of the agenda.

C. Members of the public who wish to comment on the CONSENT CALENDAR may do so during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda prior to the adoption of the Consent Calendar.

D. As a courtesy to others and to assure that each person wishing to be heard has an opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to 3 minutes.

Page - 2 -
Juan Carmelo Nunez, et al. (Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2202444).

3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS IN CLOSED

SESSION

4. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member

5. CITY COUNCIL REORGANIZATION
Pursuant to Resolution No. 2013-01, the City Council shall select from among its members a Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem to serve for the following year. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem shall take office on January 1 of each year. The term of office for the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tem shall be a calendar year from January 1 through December 31.

A. ELECTION OF MAYOR
Requested Action: That the City Council nominate and elect one of its members to serve as Mayor for a term expiring December 31, 2024.

B. ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM
Requested Action: That the City Council nominate and elect one of its members to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for a term expiring December 31, 2024.

6. INVOCATION

7. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

8. APPROVAL OF AGENDA

9. PRESENTATIONS

10. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
Page - 3 -

11. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND

ANNOUNCEMENTS

12. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING

REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS

1. UPDATE ON THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS – ADMINISTRATION AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2023
B. MAYOR PRO TEM GUILLERMO SILVA

1. UPDATE ON THE NORTHWEST MOSQUITO AND VECTOR
CONTROL DISTRICT MEETING OF DECEMBER 19, 2023
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON

1. UPDATE ON THE METROLINK/SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY MEETING OF DECEMBER 8,
2023

2. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING OF DECEMBER 13, 2023

3. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE TRANSIT AGENCY MEETING OF
DECEMBER 14, 2023

13. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE

14. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. DECEMBER 7, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects other than those listed on the Agenda are requested to do so at this time. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Appearance/Comments OR the Consent Calendar must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. When addressing the City Council, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. While listing your name and address is not required, it helps us to provide follow-up information to you if needed. In order to conduct a timely meeting, we ask that you keep your comments to 3 minutes. Government Code Section 54954.2 prohibits the City Council from taking action on a specific item until it appears on an agenda.

Page - 4 -

15. CONSENT CALENDAR (COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA TAKEN HERE) (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Councilmember requests a separate action on a specific item on the Consent Calendar. If an item is removed from the Consent Calendar, it will be discussed individually and acted upon separately.)
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF

THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED IN

THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.

B. ORDINANCE NO. 2023-18
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-18, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONE
(CZ 23007) OF APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OR REAL PROPERTY

LOCATED NORTH OF MISSION BOULEVARD BETWEEN CAMINO
REAL AND SOTO AVENUE (APNS: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, AND 174-150-022) FROM LIMITED AGRICULTURE (A-1) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P) AND DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
C. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF
ZONE AA (CANTU GAS PM 37679) TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-
CONSOLIDATED (“CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD 89-1-C”),

NORTHWEST CORNER OF CANTU GALLEANO RANCH ROAD AND

PIER ENTERPRISES WAY INTERSECTION

1. Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-97, entitled:

A RESOLUITON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS

FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND THE

LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH
TERRITORY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PURSUANT TO THE
Page - 5 -
PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE AND ARTICLE XIII D OF THE

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

2. Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-98, entitled:

A RESOLUITON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REPORT OF

THE ENGINEER REGARDING THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION

OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE
AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-

CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND THE LEVY AND

COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1-
CONSOLIDATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

3. Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-99, entitled:

A RESOLUITON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION

TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
89-1-CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND TO LEVY AND

COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND

HIGHWAYS CODE AND ARTICLE XIII D OF THE CALIFORNIA

CONSTITUTION AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE FOR

HEARING PROTESTS
D. APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FROM LENNAR

HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, CONSISTING OF FOUR LOTS WITH A CUMULATIVE AREA OF 3.8 ACRES

1. Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-100, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE OF THE
GRANT DEED FOR APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050
AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1302 AS A PART OF

THE APPROVAL OF THE RIVERBEND COMMUNITY
Page - 6 -

2. That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the quitclaim deed and authorize the City Manager to execute all property transfer documents on behalf of the City.

16. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR

17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 17132:
"RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK" – 1.18 MILLION SQUARE-FOOT
INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH 5 BUILDINGS; LOCATED EASTERLY OF

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

TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE
CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET AND EAST OF 28TH
STREET; (APPLICANT: PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC)
(CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 7, 2023 MEETING)
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and consider the following two options:

1. Affirm the Planning Commission action and Adopt Resolution No. 2023- 101 to deny the project, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, DENYING MASTER APPLICATION NO.
17132 CONSISTING OF CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ 21003),
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677), SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), AND A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001)

BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18

MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

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

OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF
AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET, AND MAKING

A FINDING PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE
PARK)

2. Approve the project by:

A. Adopting Resolution No. 2023-102, entitled:

Page - 7 -

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
B. Introducing and conducting a first reading of Ordinance No. 2024- 01, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

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

SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

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

SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND
NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH

STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)
C. Introducing and conducting a first reading of Ordinance No. 2024- 02, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001) BETWEEN THE CITY

AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION

SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

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

SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND
NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH

STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)
D. Adopting Resolution No. 2023-103, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MASTER APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF
TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677) AND
SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), TO
Page - 8 -

PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE

1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH

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

LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE

CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND
EAST OF 28TH STREET (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)
E. The City Council initiate a Code Amendment that introduces appropriate standards and broadens the areas within the City where educational facilities can be located, including the M-SC Zone.

B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 21272 LAS PALMAS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21009; CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) NO. 21011 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
(TTM) NO. 37857 AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM; PROJECT: LAS PALMAS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT - SUBDIVIDE 3.84 ACRES OF LAND INTO 36 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES; LOCATION: NORTH OF
45TH STREET BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APNs:
182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017); (APPLICANT: RC HOBBS

COMPANY)

1. Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and:

2. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-104, entitled:

CITY COUNCIL OF JURUPA VALLEY ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR
THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLEFAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND
PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190- 017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)

3. Conduct the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-03, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR CHANGE
OF ZONE NO. 21011 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 3.84
ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL
STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) CHANGING THE ZONING MAP FROM ONE
Page - 9 -
FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-1) TO PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)

4. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-105, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
37857 TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT
OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE
SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL
STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 22153 (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) TO

ESTABLISH THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW UP
TO 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY, TOWNHOMES, AND OTHER HOUSING TYPES),

RECREATION AREAS, A NETWORK OF TRAILS AND PARKS,

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

ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT, AND CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT

OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM;
LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE

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

1. Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and:

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

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND 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,
Page - 10 -

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)

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

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

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

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO. 22001 (DA 22001) BETWEEN THE CITY AND MCCUNE &

ASSOCIATES TO IMPLEMENT THE VERNOLA RANCH

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

RECREATION AREAS, TRAIL AND PARK NETWORKS, OPEN

SPACE, LANDSCAPING AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS

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

ROAD TO THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH
(VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT)

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

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

RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN WHICH PROVIDES FOR THE
Page - 11 -
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)
D. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
BATCH:
(1) LAS PALMAS - MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 21272: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21009; CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) NO. 21011 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 37857 AND ADOPTION

OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; LAS PALMAS PLANNED
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - SUBDIVIDE 3.84 ACRES OF LAND
INTO 36 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES LOCATED
NORTH OF 45TH STREET BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC
AVENUE (APNs: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017); APPLICANT:

RC HOBBS COMPANY
(2) VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN - MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 22153: (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001)

TO ESTABLISH THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW
UP TO 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (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 ON 153-ACRES; SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 266A5 TO REMOVE PLANNING AREAS 10, 13, 15, AND 20 FROM THE I-15 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN; CHANGE OF
ZONE NO. 22002 TO APPLY THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 22001; AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 38504 TO SUBDIVIDE 198.87 GROSS ACRES TO

ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT, AND CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT

OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM;
LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE

WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO THE EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO
THE NORTH, LIMONITE TO THE SOUTH; APPLICANT: MCCUNE &
ASSOCIATES, INC.

1. That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and;
Page - 12 -

2. Receive staff report and adopt 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 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, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES
(LAS PALMAS PROJECT)

18. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. APPOINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Requested Action: That Mayor Chris Barajas and Council Member Brian Berkson each make an appointment to fill two unscheduled vacancies on the Community Development Advisory Committee for a term expiring in December 2026, or until their successors are appointed and sworn-in, whichever is later and which nominations shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council, pursuant to Chapter 2.36 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

B. ANNUAL RECONFIRMATION PROCESS FOR MEMBERS OF THE

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2019-04, the terms of the members of the City’s Community Development Advisory Committee shall be subject to reconfirmation by the City Council in December of each year.

Page - 13 -
Requested Action: That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointment of Committee members Rachel Lopez, Joanna Medina, and David McEachern, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2019-04.

C. ANNUAL RECONFIRMATION PROCESS FOR MEMBERS OF THE

PLANNING COMMISSION
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2013-11, the terms of the members of the City’s Planning Commission shall be subject to reconfirmation by the City Council in December of each year.

Requested Action: That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointment of Planning Commissioners Hakan Jackson, Penny Newman, Arleen Pruitt, Laura Schultz, and Yesenia Villagomez pursuant to Section 2.35.030(E) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

D. ANNUAL RECONFIRMATION PROCESS FOR MEMBERS OF THE

PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In accordance with Ordinance No. 2022-13, the terms of the members of the City’s Public Works Advisory Committee shall be subject to reconfirmation by the City Council in December of each year.

Requested Action: That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointments of Jose Cuellar, Uriel De La Torre, Robert Galindo, Mayra Jackson, and Alondra Munoz, pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-13.

E. APPOINTMENT OF REPRESENTATIVES AND ALTERNATES TO

REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMITTEES

1. Requested Action: That the City Council consider the following appointments to the following Boards and/or Committees for the 2024 calendar year:
a) Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District (2-year term) b) Public Entity Risk Management Authority (PERMA)
c) Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC)
d) Riverside Transit Agency (RTA)
e) Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG)
f) Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)
g) City Celebration Committee
h) Legislative Ad Hoc Committee

2. That the City Council approve travel and/or reimbursement of expenses to attend upcoming conferences for the 2024 Calendar Year.

Page - 14 -

3. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING A REVISED
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION FORM 806

REFLECTING THE APPOINTMENTS MADE TO THE REGIONAL

BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
Requested Action: That the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 2023-109, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, APPROVING A REVISED FAIR POLITICAL
PRACTICES COMMISSION FORM 806 REGARDING THE

APPOINTMENT OF COUNCIL MEMBERS TO COMPENSATED

POSITIONS

19. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT

20. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS

21. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of January 18, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council or other services, please contact Jurupa Valley City Hall at (951) 332-6464. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.

Agendas of public meetings and any other writings distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the City Council are public records. If such writing is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a public meeting, the writing will be made available for public inspection at the City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members. The City Council may also post the writing on its Internet website at www.jurupavalley.org.

Agendas and Minutes are posted on the City’s website at www.jurupavalley.org.

AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.A
-1-

MINUTES

OF THE REGULAR MEETING

OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
December 7, 2023

1. 6:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR CLOSED SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the closed session meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.

Council Member Armando Carmona arrived at 6:03 p.m.

2. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
There were no public comments regarding the closed session items.

B. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City
Council met in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the sale of a portion of the City owned Parcel 44 as shown by Map on file in book 25, pages 66 and 67 of Records of Survey, Riverside County, California (0.28Acres) generally located at Golden West Avenue, east of Avenue Juan Bautista and north of Limonite Avenue to Rubidoux Community Services District to relocate the existing booster station across the street. The negotiating parties are the City of Jurupa Valley and Rubidoux Community Services District. Negotiators for the City are Rod Butler and Paul Toor. Under negotiation is the price and terms of payment for the purchase.

3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS IN CLOSED

SESSION
City Attorney Peter Thorson announced that there were no reportable actions taken.

4. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING

RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

An announcement was made that Spanish translation services will be available at tonight’s meeting.

5. INVOCATION was given by members of the Buddhist Meditation Center.

6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Council Member Brian Berkson.

7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to approve the Agenda.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

8. PRESENTATIONS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES -
INTRODUCTION OF “PET OF THE MONTH”
Due to technical difficulties, the video for this month’s adoptable pet was not available.

B. UPDATE – HEALTHY JURUPA VALLEY
Natalie Hildalgo, representing Reach Out, gave an update on Healthy Jurupa Valley.

C. QUARTERLY UPDATE – JURUPA VALLEY CHAMBER OF

COMMERCE
Don Malloy, President, gave an update on the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce.

9. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
George Ruiz thanked City staff for their efforts to work with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District which resulted in new funding to alleviate various -3-
flooding issues in the City. He noted that at today’s budget hearing the City of Jurupa Valley was well represented.

10. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND

ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Armando Carmona thanked all the residents who helped with last week’s community cleanup at the Mary Tyo Staging Area trailhead. He gave a shout-out to a local Escaramuza team which trains in Jurupa Valley that made it to the Charrería Finals in Mexico. He specifically acknowledged the following local high school students: Deanna Vallejo, Estefania Lopez, Natalie Areola, Veronica Valdes, Vanessa Rodriguez, and Hailey Santiago. He announced that he will host a toy drive on December 16 at the Mary Tyo Staging Area. There will be lots of family friendly activities.

Council Member Leslie Altamirano announced that the Santa Express Christmas Parade will be visiting Jurupa Valley neighborhoods in Rubidoux, Indian Hills, and Rancho Del Sol starting this Friday, Saturday and Sunday.

Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva announced that there will be a “Christmas with Friends” event on Saturday December 17 from 12:00 pm to 3:00 pm at Vernola Family Park.

Mayor Chris Barajas thanked the Jurupa Unified School Board and Superintendent Trent Hanson for allowing him the opportunity to be a judge at today’s Innovation Science Fair.

He discussed his visit to Rubidoux High School where he spoke about programming careers and learning to code. He is sponsoring the Jurupa Lions Toy Drive on December 16 at Avalon Park and the toy drive and food drive at the United Sikh Mission on December

23. 11. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING

REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS

1. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Interagency Coordinating Council meeting of November 17, 2023.

2. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Western Riverside Council of Governments Executive Committee meeting of December 4, 2023.

B. COUNCIL MEMBER LESLIE ALTAMIRANO

1. Council Member Leslie Altamirano gave an update on the Regional Conservation Authority meeting of December 4, 2023.
-4-
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON

1. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside County Transportation Commission meeting of November 8, 2023.

2. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Metrolink / Southern California Regional Rail Authority meeting of November 17, 2023.

3. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside County Transportation Committee – Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting of November 27, 2023.

4. Council Member Brian Berkson stated that he was unable to attend the Southern California Association of Governments Annual Economic Summit of December 7, 2023.

12. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Rod Butler reported that another wind event is expected this weekend.

Should Southern California Edison decide to shut-off power if the wind is severe, residents may obtain information regarding public safety power shutoffs at www.SCE.com/psps He thanked all the City staff who helped with the annual Holiday Open House at City Hall as it is always a popular holiday event.

13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. NOVEMBER 16, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, to approve the Minutes of the November 16, 2023 regular meeting.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

14. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF

THE TITLE AND TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS

INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of each ordinance is included on the -5-
published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City’s website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance.

B. CONSIDERATION OF CHECK REGISTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$6,400,775.37
Requested Action: That the City Council ratify the check registers dated October 26, and November 2, 8, and 16, 2023 as well as the payroll registers dated October 27, 31 and November 10, 2023.

C. ORDINANCE NO. 2023-17 – REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-17, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 7.85 TO TITLE 7 (SUBDIVISIONS), AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10, AMENDING SECTIONS 9.45.010, 9.55.010, 9.60.020, AND

9.65.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 9.300 TO TITLE 9 (PLANNING AND

ZONING) OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLIT

PARCEL MAPS AND QUALIFYING HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9 (2021), AND MAKING A

FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
D. APPROVAL OF CITY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE – REMOVED FROM THE

CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council pass and adopt Resolution No. 2023-95, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING HOLIDAYS ON WHICH CITY
OFFICES SHALL BE CLOSED FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024
E. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO MISSION BLVD. (9880 MISSION, LLC, APN 170-240-030)

1. Requested Action: That the City Council accept the offer of dedication of an easement for public road and utility purposes, including public services purposes over, upon, across, and within the area as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B of DED22-002.
-6-

2. Authorize the Director of Public Works and City Clerk to sign the Acceptance of Dedication for DED22-002.

F. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT ADJACENT TO 3742 RIVERVIEW DR. (TRUSTEE OF THE ROBERT CHARLES SCOTT, SR. REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, APN 170-070-007)

1. Requested Action: That the City Council accept the offer of dedication of an easement for public road and utility purposes, including public services purposes over, upon, across, and within the area as described in Exhibit A and shown on Exhibit B of DED23-002.

2. Authorize the Director of Public Works and City Clerk to sign the Acceptance of Dedication for DED23-002.

G. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND

CALIFORNIA WOOD RECYCLING, INC DBA AGROMIN FOR
SENATE BILL 1383 PROCUREMENT – REMOVED FROM THE

CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and California Wood Recycling, Inc. DBA Agromin for Senate Bill 1383 procurement and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.

H. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF FY 2022-23 DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN ZONE K OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 89-1-C AND PLACEMENT ON THE SECOND

INSTALLMENT OF THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR
2023-2024
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-96, entitled:

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF FY 2022-23 DELINQUENT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN

ZONE K OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1- CONSOLIDATED OF

THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF

CALIFORNIA, ON THE PROPERTY TAX ROLL FOR FISCAL YEAR
2023-2024
-7-
I. APPROVAL TO PURCHASE FORD ESCAPE HYBRID
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the purchase of a Ford Escape Hybrid vehicle for $37,022.23, including taxes and fees.

J. APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH

RRM DESIGN FOR THE PREPARATION OF PERMIT-READY

ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PLANS
Requested Action: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to the Agreement with RRM Design Group for the preparation of permit ready accessory dwelling unit (PRADU) plans.

K. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND
STORM WATER INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC.

FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM
TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES – REMOVED FROM THE

CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Storm Water Inspection & Maintenance Services, Inc. (“SWIMS”), for an amount not to exceed $112,785.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.

A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Items 14.C, 14.D, 14.G, and 14.K, which were removed for further discussion.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

15. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT

CALENDAR

14.C ORDINANCE NO. 2023-17
Council Member Armando Carmona requested that Item 14.C be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. He referenced the Council’s previous discussion of this item at the last meeting, stating that he would again request that this item be continued and direct staff to conduct a more thorough analysis of the zoning within the equestrian overlay in an effort to have consistent zoning within the equestrian overlay zone.
-8-
Mayor Chris Barajas stated that since SB 9 is already state law, it is already in effect. The proposed ordinance is only an effort to add development standards. He stated that he is willing to reassess the zoning at a later date.

Council Member Brian Berkson stated that this as a standalone item that will enforce basic standards on how SB 9 housing is built, however, the zoning issue is a separate issue that he would be happy to bring back.

Further discussion followed.

A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, seconded by Mayor Chris Barajas, to conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-17, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
ADDING CHAPTER 7.85 TO TITLE 7 (SUBDIVISIONS), AMENDING CHAPTER 9.10, AMENDING SECTIONS 9.45.010, 9.55.010, 9.60.020, AND

9.65.020 AND ADDING CHAPTER 9.300 TO TITLE 9 (PLANNING AND

ZONING) OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLIT

PARCEL MAPS AND QUALIFYING HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9 (2021), AND MAKING A

FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson
Noes: A. Carmona

Absent: None
Abstained: G. Silva
D. APPROVAL OF CITY HOLIDAY SCHEDULE – REMOVED FROM THE

CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION
Council Member Armando Carmona requested that Item 14.D be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. He suggested that Juneteenth be added as a recognized City holiday as it commemorates the end of slavery and is a recognized federal and state holiday.

Further discussion followed.

A motion was made by Council Member Armando Carmona, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to pass and adopt Resolution No. 2023-95 as revised to include Juneteenth as an official City holiday, entitled:
-9-

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DESIGNATING HOLIDAYS ON WHICH CITY
OFFICES SHALL BE CLOSED FOR CALENDAR YEAR 2024
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

14.G AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND

CALIFORNIA WOOD RECYCLING, INC DBA AGROMIN FOR
SENATE BILL 1383 PROCUREMENT
Council Member Brian Berkson requested that Item 14.G be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Paul Toor, Director of Public Works, provided additional information and responded to Council’s questions.

A motion was made by Mayor Chris Barajas, seconded by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, to approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and California Wood Recycling, Inc. DBA Agromin for Senate Bill 1383 procurement and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, G. Silva
Noes: B. Berkson, A. Carmona,

Absent: None

14.K AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND
STORM WATER INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE SERVICES INC.

FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CERTIFIED FULL CAPTURE SYSTEM

TRASH TREATMENT CONTROL DEVICES
Council Member Brian Berkson requested that Item 14.K be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Paul Toor, Director of Public Works, provided additional information and responded to Council’s questions.

A motion was made by Mayor Chris Barajas, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Storm Water Inspection & Maintenance Services, Inc. (“SWIMS”), for an amount not to exceed $112,785.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney. -10-
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO

THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
CHANGING THE ZONE (CZ 23007) OF APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES

OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF MISSION BOULEVARD
BETWEEN CAMINO REAL AND SOTO AVENUE (APNS: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, AND 174-150-022) FROM LIMITED AGRICULTURE (A-1) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P) AND

DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS

REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT
Tamara Campbell, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. Ms. Campbell provided the location of the proposed zone change. She noted that all three parcels have zoning for A-1 which is Limited Agriculture. City staff is recommending a Rezone from A-1 to C-1/C-P General Commercial, which would allow retail sales in an area that is predominately commercial.

Further discussion followed.

Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing.

David Butler, stated that he is the owner of the Ace Hardware and he is proposing a potential expansion of the building. Due to the zoning inconsistency he is requesting approval of the zone change to fix the inconsistency to allow him to move forward with the improvements.

There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.

A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, to introduce Ordinance No. 2023-18, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,

APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONE (CZ 23007) OF
APPROXIMATELY 9 ACRES OR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED

NORTH OF MISSION BOULEVARD BETWEEN CAMINO REAL AND
SOTO AVENUE (APNS: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, AND 174- 150-022) FROM LIMITED AGRICULTURE (A-1) TO GENERAL
-11-
COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P) AND DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 17132:
"RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK" – 1.18 MILLION SQUARE-FOOT
INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH 5 BUILDINGS; LOCATED EASTERLY OF

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

TWO PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE
CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET AND EAST OF 28TH
STREET; (APPLICANT: PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC)
By consensus, the City Council continued this item to the December 21, 2023 meeting to allow additional time to evaluate the project.

Anthony Kelly discussed how this project first came before the Council while he was serving as mayor at the time. He voiced a concern that there are homes in this area and they will be located near 1.18 million square feet of warehousing.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

17. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND AWARD OF 2023 COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANTS
Michael Flad, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Mr. Flad provided information on the annual community grant process, noting the eligibility requirements and cost effectiveness of how the funding will be utilized. He reported that this year the City received 19 applications totaling $87,000, with 12 applications recommended for funding in the amount of $52,000.

Lori Drengson, representing the Corona-Norco Family YMCA, spoke in support of their request for the Community Service Grant to promote literacy through library and community partnerships.

Council Member Armando Carmona suggested that $3,000 be allocated to the Friends of the Rubidoux Library to support their STEM learning programs, which are serving the community’s youth.
-12-
A motion was made by Council Member Armando Carmona, seconded by Mayor Chris Barajas, to approve the Community Service Grant (CSG) Committee recommendations for the 2023 CSG program and award funding to the first 12 applicants as indicated on the chart attached to the staff report in the amount of $52,000, with an additional $3,000 allocated to the Friends of the Rubidoux Library.

Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None

Absent: None

18. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no requests for future Agenda items.

19. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Peter Thorson had no report.

20. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Council Member Brian Berkson conveyed a happy Hanukkah to all of his Jewish friends.

Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva announced that “Christmas with Friends” is scheduled on Saturday, December 17 from noon to 3:00 pm at Vernola Family Park.

Council Member Armando Carmona stated that in 2020, the City Council commemorated Juneteenth with a City Proclamation. He thanked City Clerk Vicki Wasko for being part of that process and he is pleased that the City Council will be celebrating and honoring that important day.

21. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas adjourned the meeting at 9:01 p.m.

The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held December 21, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.

Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.B
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-18

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
CHANGING THE ZONE (CZ 23007) OF APPROXIMATELY
9 ACRES OR REAL PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF

MISSION BOULEVARD BETWEEN CAMINO REAL AND
SOTO AVENUE (APNS: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-
021, AND 174-150-022) FROM LIMITED AGRICULTURE (A1) TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL (C-1/C-P) AND

DETERMINE THAT NO FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL

REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

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

Section 1. Project. On September 7, 2017, the City Council adopted the 2017 General Plan as well as limited changes to the Zoning Map and Ordinance. The adoption included 21 amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map that addressed land use issues, including providing additional commercial and residential uses and buffering residential development from industrial uses. By law, a city’s zoning must be consistent with its General Plan. Many of the 21 Land Use Map changes resulted in making the existing zoning on the affected properties inconsistent with the General Plan. The owner of Crown Ace Hardware retail business at 7351 Mission Boulevard discussed an expansion of the business with members of the Community Development Department. During that discussion, it became apparent that reinvestment into the property would not be possible due to the inconsistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Map. Two neighboring sites have the same conflicting General Plan and Zoning Map designations. The City Council initiated a rezone of approximately 9 acres of real property located north of Mission Boulevard between Camino Real and Soto Avenue (the “Project”) (APNs: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, and 174-150-022 (Sites A, B and C)) from Limited Agriculture (A-1) to General Commercial (C-1/C-P) as depicted in Exhibit “A” so that the zoning map and General Plan Land Use Map are consistent for these properties.

Section 2. Change of Zone.
(a) The City Council desires to adopt a rezone of approximately 9 acres of real property located north of Mission Boulevard between Camino Real and Soto Avenue (APNs: 174- 160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, and 174-150-022 (Sites A, B, and C) from Limited Agriculture (A-1) to General Commercial (C-1/C-P) as depicted in Exhibit “A” so that the zoning map and General Plan Land Use Map are consistent for these properties. (b) Section 9.285.010. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that amendments to Title 9 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 65800 et seq., as now enacted or hereafter amended, and with the requirements of Title 9. Government Code Section 65853 provides that an

RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
amendment to a zoning ordinance, which amendment changes any property from one zone to another, shall be adopted in the manner set forth in Sections 65854 to 65857, inclusive. (c) Government Code Section 65854 provides that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance, with notice of the hearing given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and, if the proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance affects the permitted uses of real property, also given pursuant to Government Code Section 65091. Additionally, Sections 9.285.040.(1) and (2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing on a proposed amendment to Title 9 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code that proposes to change property from one zone to another.
(d) Government Code Section 65855 provides that after the hearing, the Planning Commission must render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the legislative body, which must include the reasons for the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed amendment to applicable general and specific plans, and must transmit the recommendation to the legislative body in such form and manner as may be specified by the legislative body. Additionally, Section 9.285.040.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission must 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 the relationship of the proposed amendment to the 2017 General Plan. 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. (e) Government Code Section 65856(a) provides that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the legislative body must hold a public hearing.

Additionally, 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) Government Code Section 65857 provides that the legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing, must first be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, but the Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. Additionally, Section 9.285.040.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time and may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any proposed modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Planning Commission must first be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.

Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine, and declare that:
-3-
(a) The application for MA No. 23012 (CZ23007) was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances.
(b) On September 27, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 23012 (CZ23007), 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 adopted Resolution No. PC-2023-19 on a 4-0 vote recommending approval of the Project, subject to conditions of approval.
(c) On December 7, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing on MA No. 23012 (CZ23007) 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) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.

Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of proposed Change of Zone No. 23007:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), a Previous Environmental Document (PED) Review Determination was prepared to determine if the zone change is within the scope of the analysis contained in City of Jurupa Valley, 2017 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) State Clearinghouse No. 2016021025 certified by the City Council on September 17, 2017, and to ensure that the zone change does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts as compared to those identified previously. The effects associated with the zone changes would be substantially the same as those reported for the approved 2017 General Plan FEIR, and is within the scope of the analysis contained in the 2017 General Plan FEIR and the Project does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts as compared to those identified in the 2017 General Plan FEIR, thus no Supplemental or Subsequent Environmental Review is required.

Section 5. Findings for Approval of Change of Zone. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby finds and determines that Change of Zone No. 23007 should be adopted because:
(a) The proposed Project will comply with the development standards applicable to developments on premises in the C-1/C-P Zone as set forth in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sections 9.115.020.
(b) The proposed C-1/C-P Zone is consistent with the Commercial Retail land use designation of the City’s General Plan and the C-1/C-P zone land use regulations are compatible with the existing and proposed pattern of development in the immediate vicinity of the site.
-4-
Section 6. Approval of Change of Zone. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby adopts Change of Zone No. 23007, and rezones approximately 9 acres of real property located north of Mission Boulevard between Camino Real and Soto Avenue (APNs: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, and 174-150-002) from Limited Agriculture (A-1) to General Commercial (C-1/C-P) as depicted in Exhibit “A,” and directs the City Manager to revise the official City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Map to designate the property as being in this new zone.

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

Section 8. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance or resolution of the County of Riverside incorporated by the City of Jurupa Valley that may in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance.

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

Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-5-

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. 2023-18 was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7
th day of December, 2023 and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of December, 2023, 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 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
A-1
EXHIBIT “A”
CZ 23007 Change of Zone from A-1 (Light Agriculture) to C-1/C-P (General Commercial) Assessor Parcel Numbers: 174-160-003, 174-160-010, 174-180-021, 174-150-022 Existing Zoning
A-2
Exhibit A (Continued)
Proposed Zoning
Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/ CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.C

ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF
ZONE AA (CANTU GAS PM 37679) TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-
CONSOLIDATED (“CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD 89-1-C”),

NORTHWEST CORNER OF CANTU GALLEANO RANCH ROAD AND

PIER ENTERPRISES WAY INTERSECTION

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-97, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND THE LEVY AND

COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF
DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE AND

ARTICLE XIII D OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

2. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-98, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

APPROVING THE REPORT OF THE ENGINEER REGARDING THE

PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-

CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF

ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

3. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-99, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-

CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE

CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE AND ARTICLE XIII D OF

THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND APPOINTING A TIME AND PLACE

FOR HEARING PROTESTS

BACKGROUND
Upon incorporation on July 1, 2011, the City of Jurupa Valley assumed the responsibility for certain City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD 89-1-C zones now within the City’s jurisdictional boundaries. As such, the City is now responsible for the services and charges provided by the City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD 89-1-C zones within its boundaries. City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD No. 89-1-C currently includes 70 locations within 61 zones; and currently maintains and services 52 locations (43 Zones) throughout the City of Jurupa Valley. The District contains 41 landscaping assessment zones and 20 street lighting assessment zones. The annual levy of assessments on the parcels within the boundaries of L&LMD No. 89-1-C is consistent with the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.

On February 4, 2016, the City Council adopted Resolution 2016-01 clarifying that the City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD 89-1-C is distinct from the County of Riverside Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1-Consolidated and assumes all responsibility for such district, including annexation of territory to the district.

The property owner, Westates Holdings, LLC, requested annexation of the site into the existing City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD 89-1-C in order to cover costs associated with the maintenance of public improvements within the annexation known as ZONE AA and be compliant with the conditions of approval set forth in project entitlement. The territory proposed to be annexed includes two parcels identified as APNs 160-040-053 and 160- 040-052, located at the northwest corner of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Pier Enterprises Way intersection. The annexation is proposed in order to maintain the street right-of-way/streetscape area which maintenance includes:
• The installation and planting of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation within the public right-of-way parkway landscaped area on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved L&LMD Landscape Plans for this ZONE AA;
• The installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris; • The installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, water irrigation, drainage or electrical facilities; and,
• The operation and maintenance cost of streetlights located within the public right- Page | 3
of-way on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved Streetlight Plans IP21-013 for Parcel Map No. 37679 and related to this ZONE AA; • The operation and maintenance cost and/or servicing of any of the foregoing.

The maintenance of landscape within the public right-of-way fronting the development will be performed by the property owner; however, the property will be annexed into the City’s L&LMD 89-1-C Zone AA to establish a dormant special tax for the landscape and irrigation improvements.

ANALYSIS
Adoption of Resolution Nos. 2023-97, 2023-98, and 2023-99 will allow the City of Jurupa Valley to collect funds to maintain ZONE AA of this Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District. The special tax would be approved but shall not be levied in any year; unless and until the City identifies that the improvements have not been maintained by the owner to a standard acceptable to the City as identified in the corresponding dormancy agreement.

The proposed annexation will have an initial Maximum Assessment for the Zone in the amount of $21,827.00; to be equally divided by the number of assessable parcels within the zone boundary. These rates may be adjusted annually by the greater of two percent (2%) or the cumulative percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index over the base year of 2024. The owners have filed a petition representing their willingness to move forward.

OTHER INFORMATION
Consistent with the City Council’s direction regarding compliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution and the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, the attached resolutions have been prepared and a public hearing scheduled for 7:00 p.m. on February 15, 2024 to receive testimony for and against the proposed assessments.

The project associated with proposed ZONE AA is the subdivision known as Parcel Map No. 37679 and the development of a gas station within the subdivision boundaries.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The property owners are responsible for the annual payments of the special assessment.

The City will file the special assessment with the County Auditor-Controller for inclusion on the annual property tax roll. In the event that the special assessment would start at a time different than such identified by the County Auditor-Controller has required, the City Finance Department would directly send the invoice to the corresponding owner(s).

The property owners have posted a deposit with their application to form ZONE AA, in order to cover City costs incurred in connection with the annexation. Approval of this resolution does not in any way commit the City to any financial contribution or liability by ZONE AA. The City’s cost to administer ZONE AA annually will be reimbursed through the special assessment charged to property owners.

Page | 5
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-97

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR THE

ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-

CONSOLIDATED AS ZONE AA AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF
ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024- 2025 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF

THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE AND ARTICLE

XIII D OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley proposes to annex territory, described below in Section 2 of this Resolution, to an existing landscaping and lighting district located within the City of Jurupa Valley, which was established pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and which is designated as City of Jurupa Valley Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1-Consolidated (hereinafter referred to as the "District") and to levy and collect assessments pursuant to the Act and Article XIII D of the California Constitution against lots and parcels within such territory to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described below in Section 3 of this Resolution for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025.

Section 2. The territory proposed to be annexed to the District includes two (2) parcels identified as Assessor Parcel (APNs) 160-040-053 and 160-040-052, located at the northwest corner of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Pier Enterprises Way intersection. Such territory is shown on a map on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection.

Section 3. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The installation and planting of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation within the public right-of-way parkway landscaped area on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved L&LMD Landscape Plans for this ZONE AA; the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris; the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, water irrigation, drainage or electrical facilities; and the operation and maintenance cost of streetlights located within the public right-of-way on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved Streetlight Plans IP21-013 for Parcel Map No. 37679 and related to this ZONE AA; the operation and maintenance cost and/or servicing of any of the foregoing.

Section 4. After the proposed territory is annexed to the District, the District shall continue to be designated as City of Jurupa Valley Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1- Consolidated.
-2-
12774-0001\1909270v1.doc
Section 5. Lots or parcels of land within the territory proposed to be annexed to the District that are owned or used by any county, city, city and county, special district or any other local governmental entity, the State of California, or the United States shall be assessed unless the City demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that such lots or parcels receive no special benefit from the proposed improvements.

Section 6. The City Council hereby orders the City Engineer, or his designee, to prepare and file with the City Clerk a report in writing in connection with the annexation of territory described herein to the District and the levy and collection of assessments against lots and parcels of land within such territory. This report shall be prepared in accordance with the Act and Section 4 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:

Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-3-
12774-0001\1909270v1.doc

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. 2023-97 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
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-98

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

REPORT OF THE ENGINEER REGARDING THE

PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY TO CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED AS

ZONE AA AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF

ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), did by previous resolution order the City Engineer, or the City Engineer’s designee, to prepare and file a written report in accordance with the Act and Article XIII D of the California Constitution in connection with the proposed annexation of territory to City of Jurupa Valley Lighting District No. 89-1-Consolidated as ZONE AA and the levy and collection of assessments against lots and parcels of land within City of Jurupa Valley Lighting District No. 89-1-Consolidated for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2024 and ending June 30, 2025.

Section 2. The Engineer has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council such report entitled "Engineer’s Report for City of Jurupa Valley Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1-Consolidated, ZONE AA, Cantu Gas PM 37679" (the "Report").

Section 3. The City Council has carefully examined and reviewed the Report, and the Report is hereby approved as filed.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
-2-
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. 2023-98 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
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-99

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS

INTENTION TO ANNEX TERRITORY TO CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED AS

ZONE AA AND TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS
WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025
PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF
DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND

HIGHWAYS CODE AND ARTICLE XIII D OF THE

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION AND APPOINTING A

TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING PROTESTS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and as provided by Article XIII D of the California Constitution, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, by previous Resolution, has initiated proceedings for the annexation of territory described below in Section 4 of this Resolution to City of Jurupa Valley Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1-Consolidated (hereinafter referred to as the "District") as ZONE AA, and the levy and collection of assessments against the lots and parcels of land within such territory for fiscal year 2024-2025 to pay for the costs and expenses of the improvements described below in Section 6 of this Resolution.

Section 2. The Engineer selected by the City Council has prepared and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley and the City Clerk has presented to the City Council a report in connection with the proposed annexation of territory to the District and the levy and collection of assessments against the lots and parcels of land within such territory for fiscal year 2024-2025, and the City Council did by previous Resolution approve such report.

Section 3. The City Council hereby declares its intention to order the annexation of territory described below in Section 4 of this Resolution to the District and to levy and collect assessments against the lots and parcels of land within such territory for fiscal year 2024-2025 to pay for the costs of the improvements described below in Section 6 of this Resolution. The Council hereby determines that the public interest requires this annexation to the District and levy and collection of assessments.

Section 4. The territory proposed to be annexed to the District includes (2) parcels identified as Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 160-040-053 and 160-040-052, northwest corner of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Pier Enterprises Way intersection. Such territory is shown on a map on file in the office of the City Clerk and open to public inspection. -2-
Section 5. After the proposed territory is annexed to the District, the District shall continue to be designated as City of Jurupa Valley Landscape and Lighting Maintenance District No. 89-1- Consolidated.

Section 6. The proposed improvements are briefly described as follows: The installation and planting of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass and other ornamental vegetation within the public right-of-way parkway landscaped area on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved L&LMD Landscape Plans for this ZONE AA; the installation or construction of any facilities which are appurtenant to any of the foregoing, or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance or servicing thereof, including, but not limited to, grading, clearing, removal of debris; the installation or construction of curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, water irrigation, drainage or electrical facilities; and the operation and maintenance cost of streetlights located within the public right-of-way on Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, as identified on the approved Streetlight Plans IP21-013 for Parcel Map No. 37679 and related to this ZONE AA; the operation and maintenance cost and/or servicing of any of the foregoing.

Section 7. Lots or parcels of land within the District that are owned or used by any county, city, city and county, special district or any other local governmental entity, the State of California, or the United States shall be assessed unless the City demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that such lots or parcels receive no special benefit from the proposed improvements.

Section 8. Reference is hereby made to the report of the Engineer entitled "Engineer’s Report for City of Jurupa Valley Landscape & Lighting Maintenance District 89-1-Consolidated, ZONE AA, Cantu Gas PM 37679" on file with the City Clerk for a full and detailed description of the improvements, the boundaries of the territory proposed to be annexed to the District, the boundaries of the existing District and the zones therein, and the proposed assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within the territory proposed to be annexed to the District.

Section 9. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024, AT 7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 8930

LIMONITE AVENUE, JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, IS THE TIME AND PLACE

FIXED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE QUESTION OF

THE ANNEXATION OF THE TERRITORY TO THE DISTRICT DESCRIBED ABOVE IN SECTION 4 OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE DISTRICT AND THE LEVY AND COLLECTION OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 AGAINST THE LOTS AND PARCELS OF LAND WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY. All interested persons shall be afforded the opportunity to hear and be heard.

Section 10. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of such hearing as provided by law by causing a notice of the public hearing and an assessment ballot to be mailed by first class mail to the record owners of the parcels in the territory proposed to be annexed to the District no less than 45 days before the date of the public hearing.

Section 11. The City Council hereby designates Victoria Wasko, City Clerk, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California, (951) 332-6464 to answer inquiries regarding the hearing, protest proceedings, and procedural or technical matters.
-3-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:

Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
_
-4-

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. 2023-99 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
0 | P a g e
V
8 9 3 0 L i m o n i t e A v e n u e | J u r u p a V a l l e y , C A 9 2 5 0 9 December 2023

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ENGINEER’S REPORT FOR

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING

MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 89-1-CONSOLIDATED

ZONE AA
CANTU GAS PM 37679
Prepared By:

HR Green Pacific
1260 Corona Pointe Court, Suite 305
855.900.4742
www.hrgreen.com
1 | P a g e
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................4 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................4 DEFINITIONS..............................................................................................................................................4 PART I – BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT.......................................................................................................6 LOCATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ZONE.....................................................................................................6 PART II – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD NO. 89-1-C ZONE AA ...........7 LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS...............................................................................................................7 STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS..........................................................................................................8 PART III – FINANCIAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................9 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................9 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY...............................................................................................9 COST ESTIMATE.......................................................................................................................................10 PART IV – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM..............................................................................................................12 PART V – ASSESSMENT ROLLS.....................................................................................................................13 2 | P a g e
AGENCY: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
SUBJECT: ANNEXATION OF CANTU GAS PM 37679 TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.89-1-CONSOLIDATED (“CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD NO.89-1-C”) AS ZONE AA
TO: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Pursuant to the direction from the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (“City Council”), California, this Engineer’s Report (“Report”) is prepared and hereby submitted for the City of Jurupa Valley (“City”) in compliance with the provisions of Section 22565 through 22574 of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 (“1972 Act”), said Act being Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, Section 4 of Article XIII D of the California Constitution.

This Report provides for the annexation of the development known as CANTU GAS PM 37679 to City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD No. 89-1-C as ZONE AA and establishes the Maximum Assessment to be levied in the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025 (2024-2025) and continuing in all subsequent Fiscal Years, for this area to be known and designated as:

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD NO. 89-1-C ZONE AA
CANTU GAS PM 37679
I do hereby assess and apportion the total amount of the costs and expenses upon several parcels of land within said designated area liable therefor and benefited thereby, in proportion to the estimated benefits that each parcel receives, respectively, from said services.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, the appointed ENGINEER, acting on behalf of the City of Jurupa Valley, pursuant to the 1972 Act, do hereby submit the following:

Pursuant to the provisions of law, the costs and expenses of the Zone have been assessed upon the parcels of land in the Zone benefited thereby in direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said parcels. For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map, a reduced copy of which is included herein.

As required by law, an Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map is filed herewith, showing the Zone, as well as the boundaries of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within said Zone as they exist, as of the date of this Report, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots, respectively, have been assigned a parcel/lot number within a specific tract and indicated on said Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map and in the Assessment Roll contained herein.

The separate numbers given the subdivisions and parcels of land, as shown on said Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map and Assessment Roll, correspond with the numbers assigned to each parcel by the Riverside County Assessor. Reference is made to the County Assessor Roll for a description of the lots or parcels.
3 | P a g e
As of the date of this Report, there are no parcels or lots within ZONE AA that are owned by a federal, state or other local governmental agency that will benefit from the services to be provided by the assessments to be collected.

December 21st , 2023.

Steve Loriso, R.C.E. 64701
4 | P a g e

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the provisions of law, the costs and expenses of the Zone have been assessed upon the parcels of land in the Zone benefited thereby in direct proportion and relation to the estimated benefits to be received by each of said parcels. For particulars as to the identification of said parcels, reference is made to the Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map, a reduced copy of which is included herein. On this 7th day of December, 2023 the City Council, City of Jurupa Valley, State of California, ordering the preparation of the Report providing for the annexation of the development known as Cantu Gas PM 37679 to L&LMD No. 89-1-C as ZONE AA did, pursuant to the provisions of the 1972 Act, being Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, adopt Resolution No. 2023-XX for a special assessment district zone known and designated as:

ZONE AA
CANTU GAS PM 37679
The annexation of ZONE AA includes the parcels of land within the commercial development known as subdivision Parcel Map No. 37679. As of the date of this report, the zone contains two (2) assessable parcels; also identified by the Assessor Parcel Number(s) 160-040-053 and 160-040- 052 . As required by law, an Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map is filed herewith, showing the Zone, as well as the boundaries and dimensions of the respective parcels and subdivisions of land within said Zone as they exist, as of the date of this Report, each of which subdivisions of land or parcels or lots, respectively, have been assigned a parcel/lot number within a specific tract and indicated on the Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map and in the Assessment Roll contained herein.

The following report presents the engineering analysis for the annexation of Zone AA and the establishment of the Maximum Assessment to be levied and collected commencing Fiscal Year 2024-2025 and all subsequent fiscal years.

DEFINITIONS
Agency – Means the local government, City of Jurupa Valley.

Capital cost – Means the cost of acquisition, installation, construction, reconstruction, or replacement of a permanent public improvement by the Agency.

District – Means an area determined by the Agency to contain all parcels which will receive a special benefit from a proposed public improvement of property-related service.

Maintenance and operation expenses - Means the cost of rent, repair, replacement, rehabilitation, fuel, power, electrical current, care, and supervision necessary to properly operate and maintain a permanent public improvement.
5 | P a g e
Ad Valorem Reduction – The corresponding general benefit value of the improvements.

Special benefit – Means a particular and distinct benefit over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large. General enhancement of property value does not constitute “special benefit.”
6 | P a g e
PART I – BOUNDARIES OF THE DISTRICT

LOCATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ZONE
Zone AA shall consist of a benefit zone encompassing the properties within the commercial development known as Cantu Gas and Parcel Map No. 37679. The proposed improvements described in this Report are based on current development and improvement plans provided as of the date of this Report.

Zone AA is generally located on the northwest corner of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road and Pier Enterprises Way intersection, in the City of Jurupa Valley, in the County of Riverside, State of California. At the time of this assessment, the assessment zone consists of 2 assessable (legal) parcels and zero non-assessable parcels. Zone AA consists of all lots/units, parcels, and subdivisions of land located in the following development area:

CANTU GAS PM No.37679
Assessor Parcel Numbers as of date of this Report: 160-040-053 and 160-040-052 7 | P a g e
PART II – PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD NO. 89-1-C ZONE AA
The services to be funded by City of Jurupa Valley L&LMD No. 89-1-C ZONE AA include the landscape and streetlight maintenance related to the commercial development designated as Cantu Gas and subdivision identified as Parcel Map No. 37679. The proposed improvements, the associated costs, and assessments have been carefully reviewed, identified, and allocated based on:
a. Level of Service
b. Improvement Types
c. Proximity to Improvement
d. Levels of Special Benefit from Zone (on Public versus Private) The 1972 Act permits the establishment of assessment districts by agencies for the purpose of providing certain public improvements, which include the construction, maintenance, and servicing of public lights, landscaping, dedicated easements for landscape use, and appurtenant facilities. The 1972 Act further provides that assessments may be apportioned upon all assessable lot(s) or parcel(s) of land within an assessment district in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the improvements rather than by assessed value.

It was determined that the improvements identified by this report will directly benefit the parcels to be assessed within ZONE AA. The assessments and method of apportionment is based on the premise that the assessments will be used to construct, operate, and maintain landscape and lighting improvements within the existing district as well as provide for annual maintenance of those improvements and the assessment revenues generated by the Zone will be used solely for such purpose.

LANDSCAPING IMPROVEMENTS
The assessment will provide for landscaping servicing and maintenance on public right-of-way (Cantu Galleano Ranch Road) and as approved by the City during the Cantu Gas PM 37679 development approval.

The following apply:

1. Servicing: the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping or the maintenance of any other improvements.

2. Maintenance: the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including the repair, removal, or replacement of all of part of landscape improvements. Maintenance shall also include tree trimming for the treesidentified on the approved L&LMD Landscape Plans for Zone AA.

The benefits associated with landscaping improvements include:

1. Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels through improved erosion resistance, dust and debris control, and fire protection.

2. Reduced criminal activity and property-related crimes (especially vandalism) against properties through well-maintained surrounding and amenities.
8 | P a g e

3. Enhanced environmental quality of the parcels by moderating temperatures, providing oxygenation and attenuation noise.

STREET LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
The assessment will provide for the operating energy cost and maintenance of the street lights servicing the commercial development along the public right-of-way, Cantu Gas PM 37679, as shown in the Street Improvement Plans prepared for the development and approved by the City Engineer, IP21-013.

The benefits associated with streetlight improvements include:

1. Enhanced deterrence of crime such as vandalism and other criminal activities which would reduce damage to improvements or property.

2. Improved visibility to assist police in the protection of property.

3. Improved visibility for egress from and ingress to the property.

There are three (3) streetlights considered for this assessment. The streetlights are located along the north side of Cantu Galleano Ranch Road.
9 | P a g e
PART III – FINANCIAL ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION
The formula used for calculating assessments reflects the composition of the parcels and the improvements and services provided by the Zone AA to fairly apportion the costs based on the estimated benefit to each parcel.

The landscaping and streetlighting improvements included on this assessment for ZONE AA provide direct and special benefit to the lots or parcels within the Zone. Therefore, the maintenance of these improvements also provides direct and special benefit by maintaining the functionality of the improvements and allowing the improvements to operate in a proper manner.

Because all benefiting properties consist of a uniform land use, it is determined that all (any) parcels (2) benefit equally from the improvements and the costs and expenses for the maintenance and servicing of landscaping and streetlight are apportioned on a per parcel basis.

The total benefit from the works of improvement is a combination of the special benefits to the parcels within the Zone and the general benefits to the public at large and to adjacent property owners. A portion of the total maintenance costs for the landscaping and streetlights, if any, associated with general benefits will not be assessed to the parcels in the Zone, but will be paid from other City of Jurupa Valley funds.

No property is assessed in excess of the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on that property. Additionally, because the benefiting properties consist of a uniform land use (industrial), it is determined that each of the parcels within the Zone benefit equally form the improvements. Therefore, the proportionate share of the costs and expenses for the provisions of landscaping, as well as costs and expenses for the maintenance of the landscaping, are apportioned equally on a per parcel basis.

MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
The following methodology was adopted by City Council in Resolution No. 2016-01 dated February 4, 2016. Such methodology has been maintained in preparation of this Report. The purpose of establishing a Maximum Assessment formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustments to annual assessments without requiring costly noticing and mailing procedures, which would add to the Zone AA costs and assessments.

The Maximum Assessment formula shall be applied to all assessable parcels of land within the Zone. For Zone AA, the initial Maximum Assessment(s) for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 are as follows:

1. The initial Total Maximum Assessment established within Zone AA shall be $21,827.00.

2. The initial Maximum Assessment per assessable parcel shall be $10,914.00.

The initial Maximum Assessment is subject to an annual inflator starting in Fiscal Year 2025-2026. The initial Maximum Assessment shall be adjusted by the greater of two percent (2%) or the cumulative 10 | P a g e
percentage increase in the CPI-U Index published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario.

The Maximum Assessment is adjusted annually and is calculated independent of Zone AA’s annual budget and proposed annual assessment. The proposed annual assessment (rate per assessable parcel) applied in any fiscal year is not considered to be an increased assessment if less than or equal to the Maximum Assessment amount. In no case shall the annual assessment exceed the Maximum Assessment.

Although the Maximum Assessment will increase each year, the actual Zone AA assessments may remain virtually unchanged. The Maximum Assessment adjustment is designed to establish reasonable limits on Zone AA assessments. The Maximum Assessment calculated each year does not require or facilitate an increase of the annual assessment and neither does it restrict assessments to the adjusted maximum amount. If the budget and assessments for the fiscal year require an increase and the increase is more than the adjusted Maximum Assessment, it is considered an increased assessment.

To impose an increase assessment, the City of Jurupa Valley must comply with the provisions of the California Constitution Article XIII D Section 4c, that requires a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Property owner through the balloting process must approve the proposed assessment increase. If the proposed assessment is approved, then a new Maximum Assessment is established for Zone AA. If the proposed assessment is not approved, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the adjusted Maximum Assessment previously established for Zone AA.

COST ESTIMATE
The Ad Valorem reduction is the corresponding general benefit value of the improvements, and it is determined by identifying the general public benefit from the installation and upkeep of the improvements identified on this report. All proposed landscape and lighting improvements contained within this report and shown on the development plans are located directly in front of the assessed zone and the construction and installation of the improvements were only necessary for the development of properties within the Zone. Therefore, it was determined that any public access or use of these local improvements by others is incidental and there is no measurable general benefit to properties outside the one or to the public at large. The Ad Valorem reduction for these improvements is zero.

The Assessment for Zone AA is calculated by dividing the total Annual Balance (maintenance and incidental cost) minus the Ad Valorem Reduction by the total number of assessable parcels within Zone AA to determine the Annual Assessment per assessable parcel.

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐵𝑎𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 (𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑛𝑐𝑒 & 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝑡) − 𝐴𝑑 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑚 𝑅𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑠 =
𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟
𝑎𝑠𝑠𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙
The Annual Balance to Levy is the Total Annual Landscaping Costs plus the Total Annual Streetlight Costs as seen in the following summary table:
11 | P a g e
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD NO. 89-1-C ZONE AA
CANTU GAS PM 37679
FY 2024-2025
Total Assessable Parcels: 2
Cost Description *Total Cost for

ZONE AA
Cost per Parcel
for ZONE AA
Landscaping:

Annual Landscaping Maintenance: $8,065.00 $4,032.50
Tree Trimming : $960.00 $480.00
Water (including water meter) $4,017.00 $2,008.50
Fertilizer Injector $220.00 $110.00
Electricity (including electric meter) $500.00 $250.00
Mulch : $812.00 $406.00
Calsense Single: $250.00 $125.00
Backflow Certificate : $50.00 $25.00
Repairs & Replacements (15%) $2,231.00 $1,115.50
TOTAL ANNUAL LANDSCAPING COSTS : $17,105.00 $8,552.50
Streetlighting:

Streetlights LED (Cantu Galleano Ranch Road -3@150W LED): $598.00 $299.00 Streetlights Repairs & Maintenance (7%) $42.00 $21.00
TOTAL ANNUAL STREETLIGHTING COSTS (Plus Repairs and
Maintenance) :
$640.00 $320.00
ADMINISTRATION (8%) $1,420.00 $710.00
INSPECTION (5%) $887.00 $443.50
OPERATING RESERVE, REPARIS AND REPLACEMENTS (10%) $1,775.00 $887.50 TOTAL ANNUAL ASSESSMENT: *$21,827.00 *$10,914.00
*Rounded up to nearest dollar
INITIAL MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT PER ASSESSABLE PARCEL : $10,914.00 12 | P a g e
PART IV – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
(See next page)
14 | P a g e
15 | P a g e
PART V – ASSESSMENT ROLLS
Parcel identification for each parcel within Zone AA shall be the parcels as shown on the Riverside County Secured Roll for the year in which this Report is prepared and reflective of the Assessor’s Parcel Maps.

Zone AA includes the following Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) as of the date of this Report: 160-040- 053 and 160-040-052.

The assessment to be levied upon each parcel that benefits from the annexation of Zone AA to L&LMD No. 89-1-C will be $10,914.00 per parcel for fiscal year 2024-25. As stated in this Report, the total budget for Zone AA for the fiscal year 2024-25 is $21,827.00. The initial Maximum Assessments per assessable parcel for Zone AA are as follows:

APN Assessment Per
Parcel
Maximum
Assessment
FY24-25
160-040-053 $10,914.00 $10,914.00
160-040-052 $10,914.00 $10,914.00
The initial Maximum Assessment shall be adjusted annually by the greater of two percent (2%) or the cumulative percentage increase in the CPI-U for All Items Index published by the BLS for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario area.

Page | 1
120

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.D

APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FROM LENNAR

HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, CONSISTING OF FOUR LOTS WITH A CUMULATIVE AREA OF 3.8 ACRES

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2023-100, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE THE GRANT DEED FOR APN:
157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO, 1302 AS A PART OF THE APPROVAL OF THE RIVERBEND

COMMUNITY

2. That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the quitclaim deed and authorize the City Manager to execute all property transfer documents on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
Tract Map 36391 (Riverbend Community) is a previously approved project consisting of 464 single family residential units on approximately 211 acres located on 68th Street between Pats Ranch Road and Dana Avenue. As a part of the Riverbend Community approval the City entered into a Development Agreement (DA1302) on November 7, 2013 with CV INLAND INVESTMENTS 1, L.P. the developer. As a part of DA section 5.F, the developer is to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JAPRD) for the 3.8-acre property as described in Figure 1 below. Under the PSA, if Developer acquires the Land, Developer agrees to sell the Land, and JAPRD agrees to buy the Land, based upon commercially reasonable terms. If the developer acquires the Land and the PSA is not established and a sale is not completed

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
on or before December 31, 2013, the Developer shall dedicate the 3.8-acre property to the City. If the Developer is not able to enter into a PSA and unable to acquire the 3.8- acre property, the Developer shall pay the City an amount of One Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($1,075.00) per unit as described under Section 5.F. of the Development Agreement.

The Developer was able to acquire 3.8-acre property but a PSA was not established and a sale was not completed to JAPRD as stipulated by the DA, therefore the Developer is requesting the City to take over ownership of the property.

The 3.8-acre property is located north of 68th Street, between Frank Ave and Smith Ave, consisting of four parcels (APNs: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, and 157-190- 009) as shown below.

FIGURE 1- VICINITY MAP

ANALYSIS
As described above, the Developer did not enter into the PSA with JARPD, therefore, as subject to the Development Agreement; the Developer shall pay the City an amount of One Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($1,075.00) per unit or dedicate the 3.8-acre property to the City. City staff has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to acquire the property; therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept the grant deed.

Page | 3

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated impact to the general fund.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt Resolution 2023-100, accepting the Grant Deeds of the dedication, and provide alternative direction to staff.
************************SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE************************

-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-100

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT DEED FOR APN: 157-190-
006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009 PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050 AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 1302 AS A PART OF

THE APPROVAL OF THE RIVERBEND COMMUNITY

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) LOTS 230,231,232 AND 233 OF RIVERDALE ACRES (APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009) recorded in Book 13, Pages 76 & 77 of maps, of Riverside County.
(b) The owner of APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, and 157-190-009 dedicated the real property described on Exhibit “A” and depicted on the Grant Deed under the terms of Development Agreement No. 1302, which approved the Riverbend Community.

Section 2. Pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 7050, the City Council hereby accepts the Grant Deed described in Section 1.(b) of this Resolution and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Certificate of Acceptance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as through set forth in full and attach it to the Grant Deed prior to its recordation.

Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
-2-
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. 2023-100 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
A-1
Exhibit “A”
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attn: City Clerk
Exempt: Government Code Section 6103

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
APNs: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 27281)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the attached Grant Deed or grant dated 31st day of March 2023 from Lennar Homes of California, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, doing business as LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, to CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, a municipal corporation(“Grantee”), is hereby accepted by Resolution No 2023-100 of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023 and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

Dated: __________________________, 2023

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ATTEST:

Rod B. Butler
City Manager
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 1 192002-001324
675 Placentia Avenue, Suite 225
Brea, CA 92821
Office Phone: (949)404-2500
Office Fax: (714)667-0338
Title Officer Email: [email protected]
Lennar Homes - Inland
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 302
Corona, CA 92879-1792
Attn: Matthew Gevergiz
Your Ref: City of Jurupa Valley
Our Order No.: 192002-001324
Version No. 1 - 4/4/2023
Property Address: 11695 68th Street, Jurupa Valley,
CA
Preliminary Report Dated as of March 24, 2023 at 7:30 a.m..

IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, Doma Title Insurance, Inc.

Hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and limitations on covered risks of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The Policy to be issued may contain an Arbitration Clause. When the amount of insurance is less than that set forth in the Arbitration Clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the Parties. Limitations on covered risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a deductible amount and a maximum dollar limit of liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A.

Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.

The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:

ALTA Extended Loan Policy (6/17/06)
ALTA Homeowners Policy One-to-Four Family
Please note that the America First Homeowner's Policy (CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) can only be issued on transactions involving individuals as purchasers and residential 1-4 properties. Any indication that the America First Homeowner's Policy (CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) will be issued in a transaction that does not meet these criteria is hereby revised to state that the policy contemplated is a Standard Coverage Policy.

Randy Dean, Title Officer
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 2 192002-001324

SCHEDULE A

1. The estate or interest in the land herein after described or referred to covered by this report is:

Fee Simple

2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:

Lennar Homes of California, LLC, a California limited liability company (as successor-in-interest by conversion to Lennar Homes of California, Inc.)

3. Real Property in the City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

See attached Legal Description
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 3 192002-001324

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real Property in the City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

LOTS 230, 231, 232 AND 233, OF RIVERDALE ACRES, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGES 76 & 77 OF MAPS, OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008 and 157-190-009 Prelim (CA/NV) Page 4 192002-001324

SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in the policy form designated on the face page of this report would be as follows:

1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2023-2024, a lien not yet due or payable.

2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022--2023.

First Installment: $1,310.07, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,310.07, OPEN, (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $169.06
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-006

3. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,486.27, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,486.27, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $186.68
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-007

4. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,486.27, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,486.27, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $186.68
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-008

5. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,302.57, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,302.57, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $168.31
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-009

6. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

7. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records.

8. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: The Stearns Ranchos Company and The Jurupa Land and Water Company Purpose: Ditches, canals or pipe lines as may be deemed necessary for the proper irrigation of any other lands in the Jurupa Rancho, or for the supplying of the main canal with water, provided, however, that such ditches shall, when practicable, follow the line of the surveyed subdivision of the Rancho Recorded: in Book 13, Page 227, of Deeds
Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 5 192002-001324
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.

9. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: Santa Ana River Water Company
Purpose: Pipe lines
Recorded: June 29, 1927 in Book 727, Page 95, of Deeds
Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

10. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from Commonwealth Home Builders, a corporation, to M.O. Cragg, a widow, filed for record March 28, 1933, as Instrument No. 1199 in Book 116, Page 489 of Official Records.

Affects: Lot 233

11. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: Santa Ana River Water Company
Purpose: Pipelines
Recorded: March 22, 1937 in Book 316, Page 269, Official Records Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

12. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from Metzler & Company of California, a corporation, to W.B. Miron and Olive C. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record July 1, 1942 as Instrument No. 25 in Book 550, Page 164 of Official Records
Affects: Lot 231

13. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from United Mortgage Co., formerly Commonwealth Home Builders, to George T. Miron and Florence E. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record May 7, 1943, as Instrument No. 814 in Book 580, Page 185 of Official Records Affects: Lot 232

14. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from United Mortgage Company, a corporation, to W.B.

Miron and Olive C. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record September 27, 1944 as Instrument No. 2569 in Book 643, Page 233 of Official Records
Affects: Lot 230

15. The ownership of said Land does not include rights of access to or from the street, highway, or freeway abutting said Land, such rights having been relinquished by the document, Recording Date: September 21, 1988
Recording No: 88-272564, Official Records
Affects: Access

16. The fact that said land is included within the Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Area, and that Prelim (CA/NV) Page 6 192002-001324
proceedings for redevelopment have been instituted.

Recorded: July 10, 1996 as Instrument No. 256410 of Official Records and July 16, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0459694 of Official Records

17. An Agreement providing for exemption of land from water standby charge executed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case Te Maaten, dated (not shown), recorded August 9, 1996 as Instrument No. 301809 of Official Records.

Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

18. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by an inspection:
a) Polelines exists along both sides of 68th Street and the East line of Lot 233 of Parcel 9. b) Irrigation pipes run through out the parcels south of 68th Street. c) 4 well sites exists on said land, 2 in use and 2 are abandoned

19. An option to purchase said Land with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions as set forth therein.

Optionor: The Ter Maaten Family Partnership
Optionee: CV Communities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Disclosed by: Memorandum of Option
Recording Date: April 11, 2011
Recording No: 2011-0157950, Official Records
By mesne assignments of record the Optionee’s interest was assigned to Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation by document recorded January 14, 2014 as Instrument No. 14-14677, Official Records.

20. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Development Agreement Riverbend Project
Dated: November 7, 2013
Executed by: City of Jurupa Valley and CV Inland Investments 1, L.P.

Recording Date: March 14, 2014
Recording No: 2014-0095880, Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

21. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "First Operating Memorandum to the "Development Agreement Riverbend Project by and between the City of Jurupa Valley and CV Inland Investments 1, LP."", recorded January 20, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-0022184 of Official Records.

22. A grant of permanent water easement, in the document recorded May 28, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-0221701 of Official Records.

23. An easement for right of way, in the document recorded March 21, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0108157 of Official Records.

24. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Amended Bylaws of the Santa Ana River Water Company, a Mutual Water Company", recorded March 24, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0114594 Prelim (CA/NV) Page 7 192002-001324
of Official Records.

25. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Resolution No. 2014-50", recorded May 6, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0184674 of Official Records.

26. A grant of easement, in the document recorded February 4, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0048223 of Official Records.

27. An easement for permanent sewer easement, in the document recorded March 30, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0122750 of Official Records.

28. An easement for permanent sewer easement, in the document recorded March 30, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0122751 of Official Records.

29. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Subdivision Guarantee", recorded April 21, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0158519 of Official Records.

30. No known matters otherwise appropriate to be shown have been deleted from this report, which is not a policy of Title insurance but a report to facilitate the issuance of a policy of Title insurance.

For purposes of policy issuance, items (None) may be eliminated on the basis of an indemnity agreement or other agreement satisfactory to the Company as insurer. *********************END OF REPORT********************* Prelim (CA/NV) Page 8 192002-001324
__________________________________________________________________________________________ ********************NOTES*********************

NOTICE OF RECORDING PROCEDURE
Pursuant to Cal. Revenue & Tax Code §480.3, all Deeds and other Documents that reflect a change in ownership must be accompanied by a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report to be completed by the transferee. If this special report is not presented at the time of recording, an additional recording fee of $20.00, as required by law, will be charged. Preliminary Change in Ownership forms, instructions on how to complete them, and a nonexclusive list of documents that are affected by this change, are available from the County Recorder's Office or the Office of the County Assessor.

Effective January 1, 2018, Cal. Government Code §27388.1 imposes an additional fee of $75.00 to be paid at the time of recording for every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to record, except those expressly exempted from payment.

GOOD FUNDS LAW
Under Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, Lennar Title, Inc. may only make funds available for disbursement in accordance with the following rules:

Same day availability. Disbursement on the date of deposit is allowed only when funds are deposited to Lennar Title, Inc. by Cash or Electronic Transfer (Wire). Cash will be accepted only under special circumstances and upon approval by management.

Next business day availability. If funds are deposited to Lennar Title, Inc. by cashier's checks, certified checks or teller's checks, disbursement may be on the next business day following deposit. A “teller's check” is one drawn by an insured financial institution against another insured financial institution (e.g., a savings and loan funding with a check drawn against a FDIC insured bank).

Second business day availability. If the deposit is made by checks other than those described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, disbursement may occur on the day when funds must be made available to depositors under Federal Reserve Regulation CC. In most cases, these checks will be available on the second business day following deposit. (For further details, consult California Insurance Code Section 12413, et seq. and Regulation CC).

These are the minimum periods before funds will be made available. Lennar Title, Inc. is not obligated to disburse funds at the expiration of the time periods above, and expressly reserves the right to require additional time before disbursing on deposited funds. Close of escrow and final disbursement will not be made based on deposits in the form of personal checks, corporate checks, credit union checks, money market checks, travelers checks and official checks until confirmation of final clearance of the funds.

Lennar Title, Inc. will not be responsible for accruals of interest or other charges resulting from compliance with the disbursement restrictions imposed by state law.

Lennar Title, Inc. charges for recording the transaction documents include charges for services performed by Lennar Title, Inc., in addition to an estimate of payments to be made to governmental agencies.

Note: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than the certain dollar amount set forth in any applicable arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. If you desire to review the terms of the policy, including any arbitration clause that may be included, contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtain a sample of the policy jacket for the policy that is to be issued in connection with your transaction.

The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. Lennar Title, Inc.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 9 192002-001324
expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached.

Additional Notes:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 10 192002-001324

AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT DISCLOSURE
Referring Party: Lennar Title, Inc., CalAtlantic Title, Inc., Lennar Title, LLC, or Lennar Closing Services, Inc., as applicable (“Lennar Title”)
This is to give notice that Lennar Title has a business relationship with North American Title Insurance Company (“NATIC”) and Lennar Insurance Agency, LLC (“LIA”) because Lennar Title’s parent, Lennar Title Group, LLC (“LTG”), has an indirect 20% ownership interest in NATIC’s parent company and an 80% ownership interest in LIA. Because of this relationship, this referral of services may provide Lennar Title a financial or other benefit.

Set forth below are the estimated charges or range of charges for the settlement services provided by NATIC and LIA. You are NOT required to use NATIC or LIA as a condition for closing your transaction and obtaining insurance.

THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER SETTLEMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AVAILABLE WITH SIMILAR SERVICES. YOU ARE FREE TO SHOP AROUND TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE RECEIVING THE BEST SERVICES AND THE BEST RATE FOR THESE SERVICES.

Title Insurance Fees
Lennar Title provides closing services and title insurance through numerous title insurance underwriters, one of which is NATIC. If NATIC is selected as the title insurer, the following fees apply:
10% - 40% of costs for lender’s and/or owner’s title insurance, as applicable, depending on the property state, and as shown on the Loan Estimate and/or Closing Disclosure provided by your lender.

Contact your local CAT representative for a more detailed title insurance quote based on your specific transaction.

Insurance
Lennar Insurance Agency, LLC (LIA) is an insurance agent that provides, among other products, homeowner’s/hazard and flood insurance. Set forth below are the estimated range of charges by LIA for the settlement services listed.

Description of Settlement Service Range of Charges - Annual Premium Homeowner’s/Hazard Insurance 0.2% - 2.5% of purchase price amount Flood Insurance 0.1% - 0.5% of purchase price amount
NOTE: The above premium ranges for homeowner’s/hazard and flood insurance are from LIA. If enhancements to the standard policy such as increased limits, scheduled articles, and/or earthquake coverage are required, the premium may increase. Actual quote and acceptance by LIA is subject to LIA’s application of their underwriting guidelines, including but not limited to verification of your credit score and previous loss history. Of course, the cost of your insurance may vary due to many factors including, without limitation, the size, location and cost of your home.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 11 192002-001324

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I/we have read this disclosure form, and understand that Lennar Title is referring me/us to purchase the above-described settlement service and may receive a financial or other benefit as the result of this referral.

Buyer/Borrower:

Date:

Seller:

Date:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 12 192002-001324
LENNAR TITLE, INC.
675 Placentia Avenue, Suite 225
Brea, CA 92821
Office Phone: (949)404-2500
Office Fax: (714)667-0338
Attention:

Your Ref:

Our Order No.: 192002-001324

LENDERS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Dated as of April 4, 2023 at 07:30 AM.

Title Officer: Randy Dean
The above numbered report (including any supplements or amendments thereto) is hereby modified and/or supplemented in order to reflect the following additional items relating to the issuance of an American Land Title Association loan form policy of Title Insurance:

Our ALTA Loan Policy, when issued, will contain ALTA 9-06, ALTA 8.2-08 and ALTA 22-06 There is located on said land a Commercial
Known as: 11695 68th Street, Jurupa Valley, CA
City of Jurupa Valley
County of RiversideState of California.

NOTE: According to the public records, there have been no Deeds conveying the land described herein within a period of 24 months prior to the date of this Report, except as follows: none Prelim (CA/NV) Page 13 192002-001324
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 14 192002-001324
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 15 192002-001324
CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Exhibit A (Rev. 05-06-16) CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

31. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.

32. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

33. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate
or interest insured by this policy.

34. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.

35. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.

36. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.

4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.

CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.

4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 16 192002-001324

6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.

7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws.

8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows:
 For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500 $10,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000 $25,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000 $25,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500 $5,000 (whichever is less)
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14);
or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
[Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,[ t[or T]his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 17 192002-001324
[PART I
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. ]

PART II
In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Company insures against loss or damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:] 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

1. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

2. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.

3. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

4. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.

7. [Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R's, etc. shown here.] Prelim (CA/NV) Page 18 192002-001324
ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY - ASSESSMENTS PRIORITY (04-02-15)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26.

6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.

8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.

9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.

10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

Page | 1
120

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.D

APPROVAL OF ACQUISITION OF REAL PROPERTY FROM LENNAR

HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, LLC, CONSISTING OF FOUR LOTS WITH A CUMULATIVE AREA OF 3.8 ACRES

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2023-100, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ACCEPTANCE THE GRANT DEED FOR APN:
157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050 AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
NO, 1302 AS A PART OF THE APPROVAL OF THE RIVERBEND

COMMUNITY

2. That the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign the Certificate of Acceptance of the quitclaim deed and authorize the City Manager to execute all property transfer documents on behalf of the City.

BACKGROUND
Tract Map 36391 (Riverbend Community) is a previously approved project consisting of 464 single family residential units on approximately 211 acres located on 68th Street between Pats Ranch Road and Dana Avenue. As a part of the Riverbend Community approval the City entered into a Development Agreement (DA1302) on November 7, 2013 with CV INLAND INVESTMENTS 1, L.P. the developer. As a part of DA section 5.F, the developer is to enter into a Purchase and Sale Agreement (PSA) with the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JAPRD) for the 3.8-acre property as described in Figure 1 below. Under the PSA, if Developer acquires the Land, Developer agrees to sell the Land, and JAPRD agrees to buy the Land, based upon commercially reasonable terms. If the developer acquires the Land and the PSA is not established and a sale is not completed

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
on or before December 31, 2013, the Developer shall dedicate the 3.8-acre property to the City. If the Developer is not able to enter into a PSA and unable to acquire the 3.8- acre property, the Developer shall pay the City an amount of One Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($1,075.00) per unit as described under Section 5.F. of the Development Agreement.

The Developer was able to acquire 3.8-acre property but a PSA was not established and a sale was not completed to JAPRD as stipulated by the DA, therefore the Developer is requesting the City to take over ownership of the property.

The 3.8-acre property is located north of 68th Street, between Frank Ave and Smith Ave, consisting of four parcels (APNs: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, and 157-190- 009) as shown below.

FIGURE 1- VICINITY MAP

ANALYSIS
As described above, the Developer did not enter into the PSA with JARPD, therefore, as subject to the Development Agreement; the Developer shall pay the City an amount of One Thousand Seventy Five Dollars ($1,075.00) per unit or dedicate the 3.8-acre property to the City. City staff has determined that it is in the best interest of the City to acquire the property; therefore, staff recommends that the City Council accept the grant deed.

Page | 3

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no anticipated impact to the general fund.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not adopt Resolution 2023-100, accepting the Grant Deeds of the dedication, and provide alternative direction to staff.
************************SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE************************

-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-100

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
ACCEPTANCE OF THE GRANT DEED FOR APN: 157-190-
006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009 PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050 AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 1302 AS A PART OF

THE APPROVAL OF THE RIVERBEND COMMUNITY

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) LOTS 230,231,232 AND 233 OF RIVERDALE ACRES (APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009) recorded in Book 13, Pages 76 & 77 of maps, of Riverside County.
(b) The owner of APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, and 157-190-009 dedicated the real property described on Exhibit “A” and depicted on the Grant Deed under the terms of Development Agreement No. 1302, which approved the Riverbend Community.

Section 2. Pursuant to the authority of Government Code Section 7050, the City Council hereby accepts the Grant Deed described in Section 1.(b) of this Resolution and authorizes the Mayor to execute the Certificate of Acceptance, attached hereto and incorporated herein as through set forth in full and attach it to the Grant Deed prior to its recordation.

Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption.

Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
-2-
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. 2023-100 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
A-1
Exhibit “A”
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attn: City Clerk
Exempt: Government Code Section 6103

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
APNs: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008, 157-190-009

CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 27281)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property conveyed by the attached Grant Deed or grant dated 31st day of March 2023 from Lennar Homes of California, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company, doing business as LENNAR HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, to CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, a municipal corporation(“Grantee”), is hereby accepted by Resolution No 2023-100 of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023 and the Grantee consents to recordation thereof by its duly authorized officer.

Dated: __________________________, 2023

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ATTEST:

Rod B. Butler
City Manager
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 1 192002-001324
675 Placentia Avenue, Suite 225
Brea, CA 92821
Office Phone: (949)404-2500
Office Fax: (714)667-0338
Title Officer Email: [email protected]
Lennar Homes - Inland
980 Montecito Drive, Suite 302
Corona, CA 92879-1792
Attn: Matthew Gevergiz
Your Ref: City of Jurupa Valley
Our Order No.: 192002-001324
Version No. 1 - 4/4/2023
Property Address: 11695 68th Street, Jurupa Valley,
CA
Preliminary Report Dated as of March 24, 2023 at 7:30 a.m..

IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION FOR A POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE, Doma Title Insurance, Inc.

Hereby reports that it is prepared to issue, or cause to be issued, as of the date hereof, a Policy or Policies of Title Insurance describing the land and the estate or interest therein hereinafter set forth, insuring against loss which may be sustained by reason of any defect, lien or encumbrance not shown or referred to as an Exception below or not excluded from coverage pursuant to the printed Schedules, Conditions and Stipulations of said Policy forms.

The printed Exceptions and Exclusions from the coverage and limitations on covered risks of said Policy or Policies are set forth in Exhibit A attached. The Policy to be issued may contain an Arbitration Clause. When the amount of insurance is less than that set forth in the Arbitration Clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the Parties. Limitations on covered risks applicable to the CLTA and ALTA Homeowner's Policies of Title Insurance which establish a deductible amount and a maximum dollar limit of liability for certain coverages are also set forth in Exhibit A.

Copies of the Policy forms should be read. They are available from the office which issued this report.

Please read the exceptions shown or referred to below and the exceptions and exclusions set forth in Exhibit A of this report carefully. The exceptions and exclusions are meant to provide you with notice of matters which are not covered under the terms of the title insurance policy and should be carefully considered.

It is important to note that this preliminary report is not a written representation as to the condition of title and may not list all liens, defects, and encumbrances affecting title to the land.

This report (and any supplements or amendments hereto) is issued solely for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of a policy of title insurance and no liability is assumed hereby. If it is desired that liability be assumed prior to the issuance of a policy of title insurance, a Binder or Commitment should be requested.

The form of Policy of title insurance contemplated by this report is:

ALTA Extended Loan Policy (6/17/06)
ALTA Homeowners Policy One-to-Four Family
Please note that the America First Homeowner's Policy (CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) can only be issued on transactions involving individuals as purchasers and residential 1-4 properties. Any indication that the America First Homeowner's Policy (CLTA/ ALTA Homeowner's Policy) will be issued in a transaction that does not meet these criteria is hereby revised to state that the policy contemplated is a Standard Coverage Policy.

Randy Dean, Title Officer
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 2 192002-001324

SCHEDULE A

1. The estate or interest in the land herein after described or referred to covered by this report is:

Fee Simple

2. Title to said estate or interest at the date hereof is vested in:

Lennar Homes of California, LLC, a California limited liability company (as successor-in-interest by conversion to Lennar Homes of California, Inc.)

3. Real Property in the City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

See attached Legal Description
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 3 192002-001324

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real Property in the City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:

LOTS 230, 231, 232 AND 233, OF RIVERDALE ACRES, IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 13, PAGES 76 & 77 OF MAPS, OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY.

APN: 157-190-006, 157-190-007, 157-190-008 and 157-190-009 Prelim (CA/NV) Page 4 192002-001324

SCHEDULE B
At the date hereof exceptions to coverage in addition to the printed exceptions and exclusions in the policy form designated on the face page of this report would be as follows:

1. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2023-2024, a lien not yet due or payable.

2. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022--2023.

First Installment: $1,310.07, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,310.07, OPEN, (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $169.06
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-006

3. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,486.27, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,486.27, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $186.68
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-007

4. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,486.27, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,486.27, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $186.68
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-008

5. General and special taxes and assessments for the fiscal year 2022-2023.

First Installment: $1,302.57, PAID
Penalty: $
Second Installment: $1,302.57, OPEN (Delinquent date: 4/10/2023) Penalty: $168.31
Tax Rate Area: 028-134
A. P. No.: 157-190-009

6. The lien of supplemental taxes, if any, assessed pursuant to Chapter 3.5 commencing with Section 75 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.

7. Water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not disclosed by the public records.

8. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: The Stearns Ranchos Company and The Jurupa Land and Water Company Purpose: Ditches, canals or pipe lines as may be deemed necessary for the proper irrigation of any other lands in the Jurupa Rancho, or for the supplying of the main canal with water, provided, however, that such ditches shall, when practicable, follow the line of the surveyed subdivision of the Rancho Recorded: in Book 13, Page 227, of Deeds
Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 5 192002-001324
The exact location and extent of said easement is not disclosed of record.

9. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: Santa Ana River Water Company
Purpose: Pipe lines
Recorded: June 29, 1927 in Book 727, Page 95, of Deeds
Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

10. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from Commonwealth Home Builders, a corporation, to M.O. Cragg, a widow, filed for record March 28, 1933, as Instrument No. 1199 in Book 116, Page 489 of Official Records.

Affects: Lot 233

11. An easement for the purpose shown below and rights incidental thereto as set forth in a document. (No representation is made as to the present ownership of said easement) In Favor of: Santa Ana River Water Company
Purpose: Pipelines
Recorded: March 22, 1937 in Book 316, Page 269, Official Records Affects: That portion of said land as described in the document attached hereto.

12. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from Metzler & Company of California, a corporation, to W.B. Miron and Olive C. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record July 1, 1942 as Instrument No. 25 in Book 550, Page 164 of Official Records
Affects: Lot 231

13. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from United Mortgage Co., formerly Commonwealth Home Builders, to George T. Miron and Florence E. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record May 7, 1943, as Instrument No. 814 in Book 580, Page 185 of Official Records Affects: Lot 232

14. Rights of way for utilities as reserved in the deed from United Mortgage Company, a corporation, to W.B.

Miron and Olive C. Miron, his wife, as joint tenants, filed for record September 27, 1944 as Instrument No. 2569 in Book 643, Page 233 of Official Records
Affects: Lot 230

15. The ownership of said Land does not include rights of access to or from the street, highway, or freeway abutting said Land, such rights having been relinquished by the document, Recording Date: September 21, 1988
Recording No: 88-272564, Official Records
Affects: Access

16. The fact that said land is included within the Jurupa Valley Redevelopment Project Area, and that Prelim (CA/NV) Page 6 192002-001324
proceedings for redevelopment have been instituted.

Recorded: July 10, 1996 as Instrument No. 256410 of Official Records and July 16, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0459694 of Official Records

17. An Agreement providing for exemption of land from water standby charge executed by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Case Te Maaten, dated (not shown), recorded August 9, 1996 as Instrument No. 301809 of Official Records.

Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

18. Any facts, rights, interests or claims which may exist or arise by reason of the following matters disclosed by an inspection:
a) Polelines exists along both sides of 68th Street and the East line of Lot 233 of Parcel 9. b) Irrigation pipes run through out the parcels south of 68th Street. c) 4 well sites exists on said land, 2 in use and 2 are abandoned

19. An option to purchase said Land with certain terms, covenants, conditions and provisions as set forth therein.

Optionor: The Ter Maaten Family Partnership
Optionee: CV Communities, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company Disclosed by: Memorandum of Option
Recording Date: April 11, 2011
Recording No: 2011-0157950, Official Records
By mesne assignments of record the Optionee’s interest was assigned to Lennar Homes of California, Inc., a California corporation by document recorded January 14, 2014 as Instrument No. 14-14677, Official Records.

20. Matters contained in that certain document
Entitled: Development Agreement Riverbend Project
Dated: November 7, 2013
Executed by: City of Jurupa Valley and CV Inland Investments 1, L.P.

Recording Date: March 14, 2014
Recording No: 2014-0095880, Official Records
Reference is hereby made to said document for full particulars.

21. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "First Operating Memorandum to the "Development Agreement Riverbend Project by and between the City of Jurupa Valley and CV Inland Investments 1, LP."", recorded January 20, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-0022184 of Official Records.

22. A grant of permanent water easement, in the document recorded May 28, 2015 as Instrument No. 2015-0221701 of Official Records.

23. An easement for right of way, in the document recorded March 21, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0108157 of Official Records.

24. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Amended Bylaws of the Santa Ana River Water Company, a Mutual Water Company", recorded March 24, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0114594 Prelim (CA/NV) Page 7 192002-001324
of Official Records.

25. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Resolution No. 2014-50", recorded May 6, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0184674 of Official Records.

26. A grant of easement, in the document recorded February 4, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0048223 of Official Records.

27. An easement for permanent sewer easement, in the document recorded March 30, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0122750 of Official Records.

28. An easement for permanent sewer easement, in the document recorded March 30, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0122751 of Official Records.

29. The terms and provisions contained in the document entitled "Subdivision Guarantee", recorded April 21, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-0158519 of Official Records.

30. No known matters otherwise appropriate to be shown have been deleted from this report, which is not a policy of Title insurance but a report to facilitate the issuance of a policy of Title insurance.

For purposes of policy issuance, items (None) may be eliminated on the basis of an indemnity agreement or other agreement satisfactory to the Company as insurer. *********************END OF REPORT********************* Prelim (CA/NV) Page 8 192002-001324
__________________________________________________________________________________________ ********************NOTES*********************

NOTICE OF RECORDING PROCEDURE
Pursuant to Cal. Revenue & Tax Code §480.3, all Deeds and other Documents that reflect a change in ownership must be accompanied by a Preliminary Change of Ownership Report to be completed by the transferee. If this special report is not presented at the time of recording, an additional recording fee of $20.00, as required by law, will be charged. Preliminary Change in Ownership forms, instructions on how to complete them, and a nonexclusive list of documents that are affected by this change, are available from the County Recorder's Office or the Office of the County Assessor.

Effective January 1, 2018, Cal. Government Code §27388.1 imposes an additional fee of $75.00 to be paid at the time of recording for every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to record, except those expressly exempted from payment.

GOOD FUNDS LAW
Under Section 12413.1 of the California Insurance Code, Lennar Title, Inc. may only make funds available for disbursement in accordance with the following rules:

Same day availability. Disbursement on the date of deposit is allowed only when funds are deposited to Lennar Title, Inc. by Cash or Electronic Transfer (Wire). Cash will be accepted only under special circumstances and upon approval by management.

Next business day availability. If funds are deposited to Lennar Title, Inc. by cashier's checks, certified checks or teller's checks, disbursement may be on the next business day following deposit. A “teller's check” is one drawn by an insured financial institution against another insured financial institution (e.g., a savings and loan funding with a check drawn against a FDIC insured bank).

Second business day availability. If the deposit is made by checks other than those described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, disbursement may occur on the day when funds must be made available to depositors under Federal Reserve Regulation CC. In most cases, these checks will be available on the second business day following deposit. (For further details, consult California Insurance Code Section 12413, et seq. and Regulation CC).

These are the minimum periods before funds will be made available. Lennar Title, Inc. is not obligated to disburse funds at the expiration of the time periods above, and expressly reserves the right to require additional time before disbursing on deposited funds. Close of escrow and final disbursement will not be made based on deposits in the form of personal checks, corporate checks, credit union checks, money market checks, travelers checks and official checks until confirmation of final clearance of the funds.

Lennar Title, Inc. will not be responsible for accruals of interest or other charges resulting from compliance with the disbursement restrictions imposed by state law.

Lennar Title, Inc. charges for recording the transaction documents include charges for services performed by Lennar Title, Inc., in addition to an estimate of payments to be made to governmental agencies.

Note: The policy to be issued may contain an arbitration clause. When the Amount of Insurance is less than the certain dollar amount set forth in any applicable arbitration clause, all arbitrable matters shall be arbitrated at the option of either the Company or the Insured as the exclusive remedy of the parties. If you desire to review the terms of the policy, including any arbitration clause that may be included, contact the office that issued this Commitment or Report to obtain a sample of the policy jacket for the policy that is to be issued in connection with your transaction.

The map attached, if any, may or may not be a survey of the land depicted hereon. Lennar Title, Inc.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 9 192002-001324
expressly disclaims any liability for loss or damage which may result from reliance on this map except to the extent coverage for such loss or damage is expressly provided by the terms and provisions of the title insurance policy, if any, to which this map is attached.

Additional Notes:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 10 192002-001324

AFFILIATED BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT DISCLOSURE
Referring Party: Lennar Title, Inc., CalAtlantic Title, Inc., Lennar Title, LLC, or Lennar Closing Services, Inc., as applicable (“Lennar Title”)
This is to give notice that Lennar Title has a business relationship with North American Title Insurance Company (“NATIC”) and Lennar Insurance Agency, LLC (“LIA”) because Lennar Title’s parent, Lennar Title Group, LLC (“LTG”), has an indirect 20% ownership interest in NATIC’s parent company and an 80% ownership interest in LIA. Because of this relationship, this referral of services may provide Lennar Title a financial or other benefit.

Set forth below are the estimated charges or range of charges for the settlement services provided by NATIC and LIA. You are NOT required to use NATIC or LIA as a condition for closing your transaction and obtaining insurance.

THERE ARE FREQUENTLY OTHER SETTLEMENT SERVICE PROVIDERS AVAILABLE WITH SIMILAR SERVICES. YOU ARE FREE TO SHOP AROUND TO DETERMINE THAT YOU ARE RECEIVING THE BEST SERVICES AND THE BEST RATE FOR THESE SERVICES.

Title Insurance Fees
Lennar Title provides closing services and title insurance through numerous title insurance underwriters, one of which is NATIC. If NATIC is selected as the title insurer, the following fees apply:
10% - 40% of costs for lender’s and/or owner’s title insurance, as applicable, depending on the property state, and as shown on the Loan Estimate and/or Closing Disclosure provided by your lender.

Contact your local CAT representative for a more detailed title insurance quote based on your specific transaction.

Insurance
Lennar Insurance Agency, LLC (LIA) is an insurance agent that provides, among other products, homeowner’s/hazard and flood insurance. Set forth below are the estimated range of charges by LIA for the settlement services listed.

Description of Settlement Service Range of Charges - Annual Premium Homeowner’s/Hazard Insurance 0.2% - 2.5% of purchase price amount Flood Insurance 0.1% - 0.5% of purchase price amount
NOTE: The above premium ranges for homeowner’s/hazard and flood insurance are from LIA. If enhancements to the standard policy such as increased limits, scheduled articles, and/or earthquake coverage are required, the premium may increase. Actual quote and acceptance by LIA is subject to LIA’s application of their underwriting guidelines, including but not limited to verification of your credit score and previous loss history. Of course, the cost of your insurance may vary due to many factors including, without limitation, the size, location and cost of your home.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 11 192002-001324

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
I/we have read this disclosure form, and understand that Lennar Title is referring me/us to purchase the above-described settlement service and may receive a financial or other benefit as the result of this referral.

Buyer/Borrower:

Date:

Seller:

Date:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 12 192002-001324
LENNAR TITLE, INC.
675 Placentia Avenue, Suite 225
Brea, CA 92821
Office Phone: (949)404-2500
Office Fax: (714)667-0338
Attention:

Your Ref:

Our Order No.: 192002-001324

LENDERS SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
Dated as of April 4, 2023 at 07:30 AM.

Title Officer: Randy Dean
The above numbered report (including any supplements or amendments thereto) is hereby modified and/or supplemented in order to reflect the following additional items relating to the issuance of an American Land Title Association loan form policy of Title Insurance:

Our ALTA Loan Policy, when issued, will contain ALTA 9-06, ALTA 8.2-08 and ALTA 22-06 There is located on said land a Commercial
Known as: 11695 68th Street, Jurupa Valley, CA
City of Jurupa Valley
County of RiversideState of California.

NOTE: According to the public records, there have been no Deeds conveying the land described herein within a period of 24 months prior to the date of this Report, except as follows: none Prelim (CA/NV) Page 13 192002-001324
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 14 192002-001324
Prelim (CA/NV) Page 15 192002-001324
CLTA Preliminary Report Form - Exhibit A (Rev. 05-06-16) CLTA STANDARD COVERAGE POLICY - 1990

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

31. (a) Any law, ordinance or governmental regulation (including but not limited to building or zoning laws, ordinances, or regulations) restricting, regulating, prohibiting or relating (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the land; (ii) the character, dimensions or location of any improvement now or hereafter erected on the land; (iii) a separation in ownership or a change in the dimensions or area of the land or any parcel of which the land is or was a part; or (iv) environmental protection, or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances or governmental regulations, except to the extent that a notice of the enforcement thereof or a notice of a defect, lien, or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy. (b) Any governmental police power not excluded by (a) above, except to the extent that a notice of the exercise thereof or notice of a defect, lien or encumbrance resulting from a violation or alleged violation affecting the land has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy.

32. Rights of eminent domain unless notice of the exercise thereof has been recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but not excluding from coverage any taking which has occurred prior to Date of Policy which would be binding on the rights of a purchaser for value without knowledge.

33. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters:
(a) whether or not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by the insured claimant; (b) not known to the Company, not recorded in the public records at Date of Policy, but known to the insured claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the insured claimant prior to the date the insured claimant became an insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the insured claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy; or (e) resulting in loss or damage which would not have been sustained if the insured claimant had paid value for the insured mortgage or for the estate
or interest insured by this policy.

34. Unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage because of the inability or failure of the insured at Date of Policy, or the inability or failure of any subsequent owner of the indebtedness, to comply with the applicable doing business laws of the state in which the land is situated.

35. Invalidity or unenforceability of the lien of the insured mortgage, or claim thereof, which arises out of the transaction evidenced by the insured mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth in lending law.

36. Any claim, which arises out of the transaction vesting in the insured the estate of interest insured by this policy or the transaction creating the interest of the insured lender, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency or similar creditors' rights laws.

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE - SCHEDULE B, PART I
This policy does not insure against loss or damage (and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses) which arise by reason of:

1. Taxes or assessments which are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the public records.

Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the public records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims which are not shown by the public records but which could be ascertained by an inspection of the land or which may be asserted by persons in possession thereof.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the public records.

4. Discrepancies, conflicts in boundary lines, shortage in area, encroachments, or any other facts which a correct survey would disclose, and which are not shown by the public records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b) or (c) are shown by the public records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the public records.

CLTA/ALTA HOMEOWNER'S POLICY OF TITLE INSURANCE (12-02-13)

EXCLUSIONS
In addition to the Exceptions in Schedule B, You are not insured against loss, costs, attorneys' fees, and expenses resulting from:

1. Governmental police power, and the existence or violation of those portions of any law or government regulation concerning:
a. building;
b. zoning;
c. land use;
d. improvements on the Land;
e. land division; and
f. environmental protection.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 8.a., 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 or 27.

2. The failure of Your existing structures, or any part of them, to be constructed in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 14 or 15.

3. The right to take the Land by condemning it. This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 17.

4. Risks:
a. that are created, allowed, or agreed to by You, whether or not they are recorded in the Public Records; b. that are Known to You at the Policy Date, but not to Us, unless they are recorded in the Public Records at the Policy Date; c. that result in no loss to You; or
d. that first occur after the Policy Date - this does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 7, 8.e., 25, 26, 27 or 28.

5. Failure to pay value for Your Title.

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 16 192002-001324

6. Lack of a right:
a. to any land outside the area specifically described and referred to in paragraph 3 of Schedule A; and b. in streets, alleys, or waterways that touch the Land.

This Exclusion does not limit the coverage described in Covered Risk 11 or 21.

7. The transfer of the Title to You is invalid as a preferential transfer or as a fraudulent transfer or conveyance under federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws.

8. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

9. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

LIMITATIONS ON COVERED RISKS
Your insurance for the following Covered Risks is limited on the Owner's Coverage Statement as follows:
 For Covered Risk 16, 18, 19, and 21 Your Deductible Amount and Our Maximum Dollar Limit of Liability shown in Schedule A.

The deductible amounts and maximum dollar limits shown on Schedule A are as follows:

Your Deductible Amount Our Maximum Dollar
Limit of Liability
Covered Risk 16: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500 $10,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 18: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000 $25,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 19: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $5,000 $25,000 (whichever is less)
Covered Risk 21: 1% of Policy Amount Shown in Schedule A or $2,500 $5,000 (whichever is less)
2006 ALTA LOAN POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 13, or 14);
or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law.

6. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 13(b) of this policy.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the Insured Mortgage in the Public Records. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11(b).

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
[Except as provided in Schedule B - Part II,[ t[or T]his policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:

Prelim (CA/NV) Page 17 192002-001324
[PART I
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown by the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records. ]

PART II
In addition to the matters set forth in Part I of this Schedule, the Title is subject to the following matters, and the Company insures against loss or damage sustained in the event that they are not subordinate to the lien of the Insured Mortgage:] 2006 ALTA OWNER'S POLICY (06-17-06)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy, and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees, or expenses that arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to
(i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land;
(ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5.
(b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 6.

1. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

2. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 9 and 10); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Title.

3. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction vesting the Title as shown in Schedule A, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer; or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 9 of this policy.

4. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching between Date of Policy and the date of recording of the deed or other instrument of transfer in the Public Records that vests Title as shown in Schedule A.

The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

EXCEPTIONS FROM COVERAGE
This policy does not insure against loss or damage, and the Company will not pay costs, attorneys' fees or expenses, that arise by reason of:
[The above policy form may be issued to afford either Standard Coverage or Extended Coverage. In addition to the above Exclusions from Coverage, the Exceptions from Coverage in a Standard Coverage policy will also include the following Exceptions from Coverage:

1. (a) Taxes or assessments that are not shown as existing liens by the records of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property or by the Public Records; (b) proceedings by a public agency that may result in taxes or assessments, or notices of such proceedings, whether or not shown by the records of such agency or by the Public Records.

2. Any facts, rights, interests, or claims that are not shown in the Public Records but that could be ascertained by an inspection of the Land or that may be asserted by persons in possession of the Land.

3. Easements, liens or encumbrances, or claims thereof, not shown by the Public Records.

4. Any encroachment, encumbrance, violation, variation, or adverse circumstance affecting the Title that would be disclosed by an accurate and complete land survey of the Land and that are not shown by the Public Records.

5. (a) Unpatented mining claims; (b) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (c) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excepted under (a), (b), or (c) are shown by the Public Records.

6. Any lien or right to a lien for services, labor or material not shown by the Public Records.

7. [Variable exceptions such as taxes, easements, CC&R's, etc. shown here.] Prelim (CA/NV) Page 18 192002-001324
ALTA EXPANDED COVERAGE RESIDENTIAL LOAN POLICY - ASSESSMENTS PRIORITY (04-02-15)

EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE
The following matters are expressly excluded from the coverage of this policy and the Company will not pay loss or damage, costs, attorneys' fees or expenses which arise by reason of:

1. (a) Any law, ordinance, permit, or governmental regulation (including those relating to building and zoning) restricting, regulating, prohibiting, or relating to (i) the occupancy, use, or enjoyment of the Land; (ii) the character, dimensions, or location of any improvement erected on the Land; (iii) the subdivision of land; or
(iv) environmental protection;
or the effect of any violation of these laws, ordinances, or governmental regulations. This Exclusion 1(a) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16. (b) Any governmental police power. This Exclusion 1(b) does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 5, 6, 13(c), 13(d), 14 or 16.

2. Rights of eminent domain. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 7 or 8.

3. Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims, or other matters (a) created, suffered, assumed, or agreed to by the Insured Claimant; (b) not Known to the Company, not recorded in the Public Records at Date of Policy, but Known to the Insured Claimant and not disclosed in writing to the Company by the Insured Claimant prior to the date the Insured Claimant became an Insured under this policy; (c) resulting in no loss or damage to the Insured Claimant; (d) attaching or created subsequent to Date of Policy (however, this does not modify or limit the coverage provided under Covered Risk 11, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27 or 28); or
(e) resulting in loss or damage that would not have been sustained if the Insured Claimant had paid value for the Insured Mortgage.

4. Unenforceability of the lien of the Insured Mortgage because of the inability or failure of an Insured to comply with applicable doing-business laws of the state where the Land is situated.

5. Invalidity or unenforceability in whole or in part of the lien of the Insured Mortgage that arises out of the transaction evidenced by the Insured Mortgage and is based upon usury, or any consumer credit protection or truth-in-lending law. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 26.

6. Any claim of invalidity, unenforceability or lack of priority of the lien of the Insured Mortgage as to Advances or modifications made after the Insured has Knowledge that the vestee shown in Schedule A is no longer the owner of the estate or interest covered by this policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11.

7. Any lien on the Title for real estate taxes or assessments imposed by governmental authority and created or attaching subsequent to Date of Policy. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 11(b) or 25.

8. The failure of the residential structure, or any portion of it, to have been constructed before, on or after Date of Policy in accordance with applicable building codes. This Exclusion does not modify or limit the coverage provided in Covered Risk 5 or 6.

9. Any claim, by reason of the operation of federal bankruptcy, state insolvency, or similar creditors' rights laws, that the transaction creating the lien of the Insured Mortgage, is
(a) a fraudulent conveyance or fraudulent transfer, or
(b) a preferential transfer for any reason not stated in Covered Risk 27(b) of this policy.

10. Contamination, explosion, fire, flooding, vibration, fracturing, earthquake, or subsidence.

11. Negligence by a person or an Entity exercising a right to extract or develop minerals, water, or any other substances.

Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.A

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION DENIAL OF MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 17132:
"RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK" – 1.18 MILLION SQUARE-FOOT
INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH 5 BUILDINGS; LOCATED EASTERLY OF

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

TWO PARCELS ARE LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST

RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET AND
EAST OF 28TH STREET; (APPLICANT: PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC) (CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 7, 2023 MEETING)

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and consider the following two options:
1) Affirm the Planning Commission action and Adopt Resolution No. 2023-101, to deny the project, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DENYING MASTER APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ 21003), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001) BETWEEN THE CITY AND

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

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

PARCELS LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET, AND

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

MAKING A FINDING PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL

QUALITY ACT (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)
2) Approve the project by:

A) Adopting Resolution No. 2023-102, 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
B) Introducing and conducting a first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-01, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 21003 (CZ 21003) TO

CHANGE THE ZONE FROM MEDIUM-MANUFACTURING TO

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

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

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

COMMERCE PARK)
C) Introducing and conducting a first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-02, entitled:

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA
19001) BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION

SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED WESTERLY OF WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL, SOUTHERLY OF 25TH
STREET, NORTHERLY OF 28TH STREET, AND TWO PARCELS

LOCATED SOUTHEAST OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND
NORTHWEST OF AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET
(RUBIDOUX COMMERCE PARK)
D) Adopting Resolution No. 2023-103, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING MASTER APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677) AND SITE
Page | 3
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT

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

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

COMMERCE PARK)
E) The City Council initiate a Code Amendment that introduces appropriate standards and broadens the areas within the City where educational facilities can be located, including the M-SC Zone.

BACKGROUND
2018 City Council General Plan Amendment Initiation
On July 5, 2018, the City Council considered the applicant's request for a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to allow logistics use on the project site (see Figure 1: Project Location), which is located outside the General Plan Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays. The Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays allow warehouse and distribution centers, logistics, intermodal transfer facilities, trucking terminals, and other similar logistics uses only within the Overlays. After the City Council discussion, the City Council, without consideration of the merits of the Project, initiated a General Plan Amendment to analyze and review the applicant's request to develop Rubidoux Commerce Park at the applicant's risk. The current Project has eliminated the request for a Distribution Warehouse Use, which is discussed further in the City Council Study Session summary below.

Page | 4
Figure 1: Project Location
Page | 5
2019 City Council – Meeting
At the August 15, 2019 City Council meeting to consider an agreement with T & B Planning to prepare the Environmental Impact Report, the City Council tabled the item due to concerns regarding the proposed warehousing and logistics and requested an informational workshop.
2019 City Council – Study Session
At the October 17, 2019 City Council Informational workshop, staff presented the project, and the City Council commented that this is a sensitive site due to its proximity to residential development and that the developer may proceed at their own risk. The City Council then approved the agreement with T & B Planning to prepare an Environmental Impact Report.
2021 First Environmental Justice Informational Session
On November 3, 2021, an information session was held in compliance with the General Plan's Environmental Justice Element on the previously proposed 1,261,904 s.f. warehouse and distribution use project. The meeting was held at the project site (2625 Avalon St.) for the residents in the neighborhood, which 22 people attended. The information session included an overview of the Project and the entitlement process. This includes the environmental review requirements for the Project and how citizens can participate in the process. At the meeting, residents supported the Project and were encouraged that the Project would help clean up the area and, if approved, provide improvements to the Crestmore Heights residential streets. Other residents expressed concerns about the impacts of truck traffic in their neighborhood. 2022 Planning Commission Study Session
A Planning Commission study session introducing the previously proposed project was held on January 26, 2022. After the presentation, the Planning Commission provided feedback regarding traffic impacts, possible tenants of the building, air quality, street maintenance, and benefits to the community.
2022 City Council Study Session
On March 17, 2022, a City Council study session was held to review the previously proposed warehouse and distribution center use and provide feedback (See Figure 2).

After a staff presentation and public comments, the City Council indicated they were not supportive of the proposed 1,261,904 s.f. warehouse and distribution center use at this location due to the close proximity to residential. It was recommended that the applicant pursue manufacturing or other industrial uses that are allowed under the existing General Plan land use designation and zoning. The City Council expressed concerns about potential impacts on residential, the large size of the building, the warehouse distribution center with over 500 truck trips a day projected, and 200 truck bay doors.

Following the study session, the applicant decided to revise the project by changing the warehouse and distribution center use to an industrial park that would accommodate manufacturing and other industrial use as allowed under the existing General Plan designation of Light Industrial land use. The total number of buildings was changed from one large building into five smaller buildings. Because of these changes, the project Page | 6
required the Environmental Impact Report to be updated and recirculated for public review.

Figure 2 Previous Proposal – Warehouse & Distribution Use 2023 Second Environmental Justice Informational Session On October 2, 2023, a second information meeting was held to provide information on the currently proposed Project (industrial park that consists of 5 buildings) to the neighborhood. The meeting provided information regarding the proposed project and possible impacts; the entitlement process; ways in which the public can participate; and the environmental review process.

A total of 9 residents attended the meeting and made the following comments:
 Expressed support for the project
 Concern regarding the congestion at the Rubidoux and SR-60 interchange  Several people asked that the project allocate resources for improvements to local area neighborhoods and streets, rather than other locations in the City.

Page | 7
Planning Commission Meetings
On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission received a staff presentation regarding the proposed Rubidoux Commerce Park and considered public comments. During the deliberation, Commissioners Pruitt, Jackson, and Villagomez voiced their opposition to the project, citing concerns that the anticipated community benefits would not adequately counterbalance the anticipated environmental impacts on the area. Specific apprehensions included inadequacy of the buffer zone between the project and residential areas, unmitigated greenhouse gas impacts, the number of dock doors, and possible use of buildings for logistic uses.

Chair Schultz expressed support for the project, emphasizing its potential positive impact on the community, such as the creation of higher-paying jobs. She also highlighted that the project aimed to rezone the property from Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) to the less intensive Manufacturing-Service Commercial zone. She stated it would be beneficial because it would make the property consistent with the General Plan. Chair Schultz further noted her belief that other potential projects permitted under the existing zoning would likely exceed greenhouse gas thresholds.

Following deliberations, the Planning Commission voted 3-1 to deny the proposed industrial park development and directed the City Attorney to prepare a resolution of denial. Chair Pro Tem Newman was absent. Subsequently, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision to recommend denial of the project (Attachment 9).

At the November 29, 2023 Planning Commission meeting, the resolution for denial was on the consent calendar for consideration. Chair Pro Tem Newman requested the removal of the item from the consent calendar to facilitate further discussion. She stated her concern regarding the Planning Commission categorizing the project as a warehouse when the proposal pertained to proposed manufacturing. Chair Pro Tem Newman highlighted the necessity of dock doors and storage in manufacturing processes, citing their importance in handling raw materials and shipping products. Moreover, she emphasized that the 1,000-foot distance requirement is more applicable to logistics warehouse uses than manufacturing. Following a brief deliberation, the Planning Commission, in a vote of 3-2, adopted the resolution to deny the project.

PROJECT SUMMARY
The Applicant, Proficiency Capital LLC, is requesting the approval of the following entitlements to construct a five-building industrial park, with building sizes ranging from 33,688 to 388,222 s.f. see Figure 3 Project Site Plan, on 80.8 acres:
 Change of Zone (CZ): Rezone Parcels 1 – 4 from Manufacturing-Manufacturing Medium (M-M) to Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC), consistent with the General Plan. Parcel 5 is zoned M-SC so a change of zone is not necessary.  Development Agreement (DA): Provides long-term vesting rights of five industrial manufacturing buildings on the Project site in exchange for long-term community benefits to offset project impacts.
 Tentative Tract Map (TPM): Subdivision of the 80.8-acre project site into five parcels (one for each building).

Page | 8
 Site Development Permit (SDP): To allow the construction of the industrial park with other related site improvements such as landscaping, access and drive aisles, parking area, walls and fences, street and infrastructure improvements. No use is proposed at this time.

Figure 3 Project Site Plan
See Figure 4 for the existing General Plan Land Use designation and Zoning maps. The Project site has a Light Industrial General Plan Land Use designation and is zoned Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) for Parcels 1 - 4 and Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) for Parcel 5. Parcel 5 is currently developed with three commercial buildings that were previously used as a church and presently serves as a community meeting center.

The existing buildings on Parcel 5 would be demolished and replaced with one industrial building as part of this proposed project. If the proposed Development Agreement is adopted, this property, with the existing buildings, would be given to the City as a community benefit.

Page | 9
Figure 4 Existing General Plan Land Use and Zoning
Surface Mining & Reclamation Plan. The Project site was initially entitled as an aggregate mining operation (CA Mine #91-33-00002) and operated as such for a period of several decades. The Project site currently has an active mining permit with a reclamation plan from the State of California. While the original conditional use permit issued by the County of Riverside lapsed in 2018, the active mining permit from the State means the site may at some point be reactivated. However, upon approval of the Project, the applicant must complete the reclamation of the mine in accordance with the adopted reclamation plan.

Subsequently, the State would terminate the Surface Mining permit upon completion of the reclamation.

Site Area & Building Area Information. The proposed project consists of the construction of five (5) manufacturing speculative buildings, which totals 1,184,704 square-feet in building area. There are no proposed uses and the future tenants are unknown. Each building number corresponds to the parcel number. Building 1 is on Parcel 1 and Building 2 is on Parcel 2. The information regarding the buildings is presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Building and Site Summary
Bldg. Number Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2 Bldg. 3 Bldg. 4 Bldg. 5
Parcel Number Parcel 1 Parcel 2 Parcel 3 Parcel 4 Parcel 5 Site Area (net sf) 1,012,948 956,541 510,970 692,351 108,468 Site Area (acres) 23.3 22.0 11.7 15.9 2.5
Page | 10
Each proposed parcel with a building exceeds the required development standards for vehicles and truck-trailer parking spaces. Because these are speculative buildings, the parking required would be evaluated again once the company and the operational needs are known. All buildings provide parking spaces for automobiles, ADA, Clean Air recharging (8% of parking spaces), and trailer parking spaces in accordance with the City’s parking standards.

The project will be subject to the M-SC zoning district guidelines and standards for development and design if the Change of Zone is approved. The proposed project meets or exceeds all required standards, as shown in Table 2.

Proximity to Residential
It is important for the Project to maintain a buffer zone consisting of separation distance, natural landscape elements, and physical obstructions such as buildings and berms to separate the loading docks where trucks would be operating from the approved “Emerald Ridge North” residential project located to the south. Emerald Ridge North is approved for 184 single-family units, and it is currently unconstructed. Based on the cross-section and partial site plan shown in Figure 5 and 6, the proposed buffer zone is 562 feet and it is between Building 1’s dock doors and Emerald Ridge North’s property line. Figure 7 depicts Emerald Ridge North and this project.

Included in the buffer is a 51-foot wide landscape area to be planted with Afghan pine trees and shrubs that includes a sloping terrain with a 3:1 ratio (ranging in height from 2 to 12 feet), a 14-foot-high screen wall, as well 390 wide, 45-foot tall Building #1.

The 2005 Air Quality and Land Use Handbook from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) suggests a sitting distance of 1,000 feet between sensitive land uses and warehouses. However, it is crucial to acknowledge that the proposal was changed from a warehouse distribution center to an industrial park which generates fewer truck trips. In addition, considerable progress in emission reduction technologies for newer trucks in recent years. According to the Ramboll analysis of the CARB recommendation, the indicate that the 1000 foot distance appears outdated, given the advancements in truck and diesel-fueled Transport Refrigeration Unit emission standards over the past two decades. With the implementation of new emission reduction technologies, distances smaller than 1,000 feet from sensitive areas may now be deemed safe.

Office 1st floor 10,000 sf 10,000 sf 6,000 sf 10,000 sf 2,000 sf Office 2nd floor 4,000 sf 4,000 sf 3,000 sf 3,000 sf 1,500 sf Storage Area 295,870 sf 374,222 sf 162,966 sf 262,958 sf 32,188 sf Total Bldg. Area 309,870 sf 388,222 sf 171,966 sf 275,958sf 35,688 sf Page | 11
Figure 5 Cross Section & Site Plan Showing Distance from Emerald Ridge North Page | 12
Figure 6 Approved Emerald Ridge North & the Project
Traffic, Circulation and Access
A traffic analysis assessed potential circulation system issues arising from the proposed Project's development. The proposed Project is anticipated to generate a total of 6,364 actual vehicle trip-ends per day. To mitigate the Project's impact on traffic circulation due to the vehicular trips it is projected to generate per day, recommendations were made to align with General Plan goals and policies. Based on this analysis, the following roadway and circulation improvements would be constructed with the development of the project:

1. Van Dell Road would be constructed between 20th Street and 25th Street, as an industrial collector Street with a 78-foot right-of-way that includes:
o 56-foot pavement section (measured from curb face to curb face). o 11-foot wide parkway to include 6-foot sidewalk adjacent to curb and a 5-foot wide landscape strip.
o Trucks shall be prohibited from making left turns on 20th Street from Van Dell Road.

Only right turns would be permitted.

2. Primavera Avenue between the easterly boundary of 25th Street and the cul-de-sac would be improved as an Industrial Collector with a 78-foot right-of-way and provide the following:
o A 56-foot paved section.
o 11-foot wide parkway to include 6-foot sidewalk adjacent to curb and 5-foot wide landscape strip.
o The cul-de-sac design that can accommodate the turnaround of tractor-trailers. o Access gates placed where it intersects with the emergency access easement. o Emergency access only signs would be required to be posted at the access gates. 26th St28th St Avalon St.

Emerald Ridge North
Page | 13
o Signage prohibiting parking would be required to be installed in the cul-de-sac.

3. 25th Street, along the project’s frontage, is classified as a local road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 64-foot and would include the following:
o Right-of-way would be required to be dedicated along 25th Street adjacent to the subject property.
o The street improvements would include half of the right-of-way width of 32-foot. o Would construct a 21-foot half pavement section south of the centerline and 12- foot section north of the centerline.
o 11-foot wide parkway along the project frontage would include 6-foot sidewalk adjacent to curb with 5-foot landscaping.

4. 26th Street, between Avalon and Van Dell Boulevard, is classified as a local road with an ultimate full-section width of 66 feet with include the following:
o Construct 44-foot pavement section, curb, gutter and sidewalk.

5. Emergency access road, between the new cul-de-sac and Primavera Ave (end of 26th Street).
o Construct 24-foot wide paved emergency access roads per CalFire and City Standards
o Requires an approval letter from Union Pacific Railroad Company for any improvements within the railroad right-of-way.
o Access gates would be required to be installed between both ends of the emergency access road.

6. Avalon Street would be improved from 28th Street to the north end of APN 178-090- 010 (approximately 2,700 feet) to provide the following:
o Avalon Street shall be improved full width to match the Avalon Street improvements being constructed by Tentative Tract Map 37640 (Emerald Ridge South) including a 44 foot-wide paved section with curb, gutter and sidewalk. o 18-foot wide parkway to include a 7-foot wide landscape strip adjacent to curb, 5- foot sidewalk, and 6-foot wide landscape strip adjacent to the westerly property line.

7. 28th Street, along the project’s frontage, is classified as a local road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 66-foot and the following improvements would be made:
o Half of the right-of-way width of 30-foot shall be paved (Emerald Ridge North development is responsible for the construction of the other half of the street) o A 15’ parkway on the north side of the street with a 6-foot sidewalk. o Termination of 28th Street must be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, which will be either a hammerhead or a cul-de-sac to be determined prior to the issuance of any building permits.

Page | 14
Access to all the industrial buildings is proposed off the extension of Van Dell Road and internal circulation would be on private roads. For Building 5 located on Avalon Street, the only access would be taken from Avalon Street and no access points from 26th Street.

Emergency vehicle access would be provided to Buildings 1-4 from Primavera Street (26th Street). This emergency access at the cul-de-sac to Avalon would be built to CalFire standards with 24 feet in pavement width. It would also include gates blocking through traffic and be signed emergency access only. The railroad crossing would be required to meet CalFire and Union Pacific standards. As a condition of approval of the project, the applicant is required to provide the City with approved Union Pacific Railroad Plans.

Figure 7 Project Access
Page | 15
Truck Routes
Trucks for Buildings 1 - 4 would take access from Van Dell Road; a recommended condition of approval would prohibit truck access from 26th Street. The Project is projected to generate 422 truck trips per day. The proposed truck routes (see Figure 8) would require trucks to use the following streets to access State Route (SR) 60 and Interstate 10: Rubidoux Blvd., Market St., Hall Ave., and Riverside Ave. See Figure 8 truck trip distribution map. The internal truck circulation for the Project is located on the north side of Building 1 which is 46 feet in height and 390 feet in width. Building 1 provides a physical barrier from the Emerald Ridge residential development to the south.

Figure 8 Truck Trip Distribution Map
Grading Design
The Project's Conceptual Grading Plan strategy approximates the site's existing topography. The plan proposes moving approximately 939,021 cubic yards of soil from cuts and adding about 722,306 cubic yards of fill, resulting in a net export of 216,715 cubic yards of material.

Page | 16
To aid in grading, the plan includes the construction of retaining walls and manufactured slopes. The northwest side of the site would have manufactured slopes up to 60 feet in height with a 2:1 slope. These slopes would feature benches for drainage and to keep individual slopes under 25 feet in height. Similar 2:1 manufactured slopes, up to 25 feet high, are proposed on the southwest, northeast, and southeast sides of the site. Retaining walls up to 14 feet and 24.67 feet in height are planned southeast of Buildings 4 and 1-2, respectively.

Furthermore, two detention/infiltration basins would be located along the southeastern boundary of the site, with a 3:1 slope gradient. A small manufactured slope up to 12 feet in height at a 2:1 gradient is proposed in the northeast portion of the Building 5 site.

Architectural Design
The Project proposes a modern architectural style for the five concrete tilt-up buildings.

Each building includes variable roof lines reaching a maximum height of 46 feet, with entrances located at the building corner. The entrances include extended glazing, highlighting colors, and double-door entries. Exterior paint includes a mix of various shades of grey, blue, and white colors. The proposed architectural design for Rubidoux Commerce Park includes five buildings, each with a variable roofline reaching a maximum height of 46 feet. These buildings share a common design theme with variable rooflines and a modern color palette, incorporating office spaces and glazing at their entrances for aesthetics and functionality.

Figure 9 Architectural Design and Color Scheme

ANALYSIS
General Plan
The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan and its policies. The site is designated as Light Industrial in the General Plan. The Light Industrial land use is intended to allow industrial and manufacturing uses and is consistent with the proposed Page | 17
Manufacturing-Service Commercial zone. The proposed project would accommodate the permitted uses under M-SC zone and is consistent with the General Plan land use designation’s vision and policies. In addition, the project is projected to provide approximately 980 well-paying jobs. Attachment 4 provides estimated salary earnings for all M-SC Zone list of allowed uses for Riverside County (See Attachment 4, Riverside projected wages for Rubidoux Commerce Park).

Change of Zone
The Project proposes to rezone Parcels 1 – 4 from Manufacturing-Medium (M-M), which is not consistent with the General Plan Light Industrial land use, to Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC), which is consistent. See Figure 10 for the existing and proposed zones.

Figure 10 Existing and Proposed Zoning
Parcel 5 is already zoned as M-SC, so there is no need to modify its zoning. Parcel 5 is already zoned M-SC so there is no need to change the zoning. Section 9.285.020 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (JVMC) provides two requirements that must be met before setting a Change of Zone for a public hearing. The following two requirements below have been satisfied:

A. 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. The City has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in accordance with all CEQA requirements.

Page | 18
B. The requested Change of Zone is consistent with the Jurupa Valley General Plan.

According to the General Plan Land Use Element, the proposed Manufacturing– Service Commercial (M-SC) zone is a designated zone that is consistent with the Light Industrial (LI) General Plan Land Use Designation.

Title 7 Subdivision Regulations
The Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37677 subdivides the project site into four new parcels with the fifth, parcel five, being a preexisting parcel, so there is one parcel for each industrial building to accommodate proposed parking, circulation, and infrastructure for each building site. The TPM complies with all applicable provisions of Section

7.15.070 and the Subdivision Map Act for standards and process and is consistent with the Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC) Zone. The Engineering Department has reviewed the project for access, circulation, grading, and drainage. The recommended conditions address subdivision, circulation, access, grading, drainage, maintenance, and water quality.

Title 9 Zoning Regulations
The Project proposes a Zone Change to modify the site’s underlying zoning from Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) to Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC). Per Chapter 9.148, M-SC Zone, of the City’s Zoning Code, industrial and manufacturing uses are permitted within this zone; therefore, the Project is consistent with the allowed uses.

The City reviewed the Project’s plans for conformance with the development standards applicable within the M-SC Zone including setbacks, building height, floor area ratios, landscape, and parking, and are consistent with the development requirements.

Page | 19
Table 2 – Compliance with M-SC Development Standards
Development
Standards for M-SC
Zone
Bldg. 1 Bldg. 2 Bldg. 3 Bldg. 4 Bldg. 5
Requirements Provided Provided Provided Provided Provided Min. Lot Size – 10,000 sf 23.3 acres 22 acres 11.7 acres 15.9 acres 2.5 acres Building Height
50 feet / 75 feet w/City
approval
46 feet 46 feet 46 feet 46 feet 46 feet
Building Setbacks:

None Req, however,
adjoins the R Zone or a
street = 25’ min.

Min of 130
feet
Min of 98
feet
Min of 38
feet
Min of 126
feet
Min of 30
feet
Parking Requirements
Industrial Office
1 space per 250 gross sf
Req 56
spaces
Req 56
spaces
Req 36
spaces
Req 52
spaces
Req 14
spaces
Storage Parking:
1/2,000 sq. foot. of gross
floor
Req 148
spaces
Req 188
spaces
Req 83
spaces
Req 132
spaces
Req 17
spaces
Auto Parking Totals 352
spaces
provided
291
spaces
provided
143
spaces
provided
223
spaces
provided
42 spaces
provided
Trailer parking –
provided (10’ x 55’)
60 spaces
139
spaces
68 spaces 48
spaces
N/A
Dock Doors 34 doors 41 doors 26 doors 34 doors 5 doors
Landscaping
Figure 11 shows the Project's proposed landscape plan. Landscaping would be provided throughout the project site. Landscaping would include a combination of trees, shrubs, and ground cover. The 51-foot wide on-site landscape area along 28th Street consists of a 17-foot high slope that tappers down to 2 feet in height and a 14-foot high concrete tiltup screen wall. The Afghan pine and African sumac trees, shrubs and ground, slope, and wall increase the buffer between the Project and Emerald Ridge residential neighborhood and other nearby residential properties.

Page | 20
Along the proposed driveway entrance to Buildings 1 - 4 from Van Dell Road, on-site landscaping would include Chitalpa, African Sumac and Olive trees, shrubs, and groundcover. Passenger vehicle parking areas would be landscaped with Chitalpa, California sycamore, Chinese pistache Afghan Pine, and Olive trees. The proposed manufactured slopes in the northwestern portion of the Buildings 1, 2, and 3 would be landscaped with African sumac, Afghan pine and African sumac, along with a variety of shrubs. Proposed tree planting sizes would be 24-, 36- and 48-inch box. The proposed detention basins on Parcels 1, 2 and 4 would be landscaped with California sycamore, Afghan pine, and African sumac, along with shrubs and ground cover. The proposed landscape strip north of Primavera Avenue (26th Street) would be landscaped with Chinese pistache and California sycamore, along with shrubs and ground cover. In total, the proposed landscape plan includes over 1,087 new trees in addition to shrubs, groundcover and accent plants evenly distributed throughout the project area. The zoning code requires 10% of the site to be landscaped and irrigated, the Project proposed at least 28% for each parcel as shown in Table 3.

Figure 11 Landscape Plan
Page | 21
Table 3 Landscape Area
Site Development Permit
Per Section 9.240.330(3) Requirements for Approval, no Site Development Permit shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:

A. The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley.

The Project site is currently zoned M-M (Manufacturing-Medium) which is inconsistent with the current General Plan for Light Industrial land use. The applicant’s request includes a Change of Zone to change the zone from M-M to MSC. This change makes the Project zoning consistent with the General Plan.

The proposed development of an industrial park to accommodate permitted manufacturing or other industrial uses is consistent with the General Plan’s vision and intent for Light Industrial.

B. The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof.

The proposed development, as demonstrated in the Site Plan, has been designed to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of surrounding sensitive land uses by incorporating screen walls and dense landscaping along the entire southern property line and by locating loading doors towards the north portions of the buildings, facing similar industrial land uses. Further, the truck circulation within the project is located within the interior of the project behind building 1 to maintain a buffer between truck operations and the Emerald Ridge residential development to the South. The building layout, landscaping and public improvements conform to the logical development of the land and are compatible with the present and future development of the surrounding area.

Page | 22
The project would require public right-of-way improvements and dedication along Van Dell Rd., Primavera Avenue, 28th St., 26th St., 25th St., and Avalon St. including landscaped parkway, sidewalk, curb, and gutter. Furthermore, the Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (PWQMP) was reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department for the grading and drainage requirements.

C. All site development permits which permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel shall, in addition to all other requirements, be subject to a condition which prohibits the sale of any existing or subsequently constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with Title 7 in such a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel.

A recommended condition of approval would require the Tentative Parcel Map 37677 be finaled prior to the sale of any of the Project buildings.

Development Agreement
The proposed Development Agreement (DA) provides the Owner vested rights to proceed with the development of the Project Site in accordance with the terms and conditions of the DA. By entering into the DA, the City is securing certain public benefits which enhance the public health, safety and welfare. The purposes of the DA are as follows:
 Ensuring high-quality development in accordance with comprehensive plans;  Reducing uncertainty in the development approval process that might otherwise result in a waste of resources, discourage investment, and escalate the cost of development to the consumer;
 Strengthening City’s comprehensive planning process to provide for the most efficient use of public and private resources by encouraging private participation in the comprehensive planning process;
 Assuring Owners of land that upon approval, they may proceed with their development projects in accordance with defined policies, rules, regulations, and conditions of approval;
 Providing for the financing and/or construction of necessary public facilities and services;
 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; and  Employment and increased revenue for City (See Attachment 4. Projected Wages for Rubidoux Commerce Park).

Term. The term of the DA is for 10 years, unless extended by mutual consent. The benefit of the DA for the applicant is the protection of the approvals.

Page | 23
Community Benefits. Table 4 is a summary of several proposed community benefits that the applicant would provide to the City. The estimated total benefit amount, based on a 10-year projection (discounted at net present value), is $12,848,618. See Attachment 4 Exhibit A for the proposed Development Agreement.

Table 4 – PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT
Type of Community Benefit Purpose Amount of Payment
Facilities Benefit Contribution For construction of
public facilities for
City, including, but
not limited to, those
public facilities
described on City’s
Capital
Improvement Plan
$34,591 (paid
annually)
 $0.03 per SF
for nonresidential
Automatic annual
rate increase 2% per
year
Maintenance of Infrastructure Benefit
Contribution
For operation,
maintenance and
repair of City
infrastructure
required by Project
approvals,
including, but not
limited to, flood and
storm protection
services, sidewalks,
roads, road
medians, street
lighting, traffic
signals and similar
City facilities
$22,290 (paid
annually)
 $300 per acre
for
Manufacturing
Automatic annual
rate increase 2% per
year
Public Safety Benefit Contribution To supplement
police, fire,
emergency medical
and other public
safety services for
Project in addition
to services
currently provided
$25,367 (paid
annually)
 $0.022 per SF
for
Manufacturing
Automatic annual
rate increase by 5%
Annual General Community Benefit To be used for
general municipal
purposes
$80,713 (paid
annually)
Page | 24
Table 4 – PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT
Type of Community Benefit Purpose Amount of Payment
Term of 10 years
Automatic annual
rate increase by CPI
(maximum of 3%)
One-Time Community Benefit To be used for
general municipal
purposes
$1,153,037 (one-time
payment)
Belltown Neighborhood
Infrastructure Improvements
To be used for
public
improvements and
beautification of the
Belltown
Neighborhood,
including but not
limited to lighting,
sidewalks, and
landscaping
$1,000,000 (one-time
payment)
Rubidoux Downtown Master Plan Support City’s
efforts to develop
Rubidoux
Downtown Master
Plan
$150,000 (one-time
payment)
Former Church Site Contribution
(Bldg. #5)
To be used as
public facility
$8,922,000 (value
represents lost
opportunity cost)
Community Meals To fund meal/food
deliveries for the
community
$100,000 (to be paid
in two annual
installments of
$50,000)
Page | 25
Table 4 – PROPOSED COMMUNITY BENEFITS OF DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT
Type of Community Benefit Purpose Amount of Payment
Administrative Fee To compensate
City for costs
incurred in
drafting/processing
Development
Agreement
$25,000 (to be paid
in five annual
installments of
$5,000)
Automatic annual
rate increase by CPI
(maximum of 3%)
Comparison of Manufacturing and Logistic/Warehouse Buildings In response to concerns that the project might accommodate a logistics use rather than a manufacturing use, RSG (City’s consultant) has provided an analysis for the comparison. This was a particular concern raised at the November 8, 2023 Planning Commission meeting. The analysis determined that there are 10 manufacturing facilities larger than 100,000 square feet within a 10-mile radius of the project site that were constructed on or after the year 2000. However, there has been a limited number of manufacturing buildings erected in the last 5 years. In contrast, there are 23 buildings for logistics larger than 100,000 square feet within the same radius, completed construction in the last two years, indicating a significantly larger sample size of buildings for logistics in the area.

A significant distinction between the buildings for manufacturing use and logistics use is based on the number of loading docks. Logistics/warehouse facilities generally require more loading docks than manufacturing. This is quantified as a loading dock ratio, calculated as the number of loading docks per 10,000 building square feet. Rubidoux Commerce Park’s loading dock ratio (1.15) is slightly below the average loading dock per 10,000 building square feet when compared to other manufacturing buildings (1.19).

Table 5 below offers a detailed breakdown comparing the two uses to the proposed Rubidoux Commerce Park project.

Table 5: Comparison of Manufacturing, Logistic Warehouse Use, and Rubidoux Commerce Park
Manufacturing Logistics/Warehouse Rubidoux
Commerce
Park
(Proposed)
Range Average Range Average
Loading
Dock Ratio
(Docks per

0.72 to 1.84 1.19 0.96 to 2.18 1.40 1.15
Page | 26
Table 5: Comparison of Manufacturing, Logistic Warehouse Use, and Rubidoux Commerce Park
Manufacturing Logistics/Warehouse Rubidoux
Commerce
Park
(Proposed)
Range Average Range Average
10,000
square
feet)
Land use Comparison of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
In response to concerns raised about the project’s Projected Air Quality Emissions, Urban Crossroads, the traffic consultant for the project, has prepared a comparison of comparable sized retail and residential scenarios to the proposed Rubidoux Commerce Park. Table 6 below demonstrates that the Proposed Project would have generally lower traffic, air quality and greenhouse gas emissions compared to the Retail Scenario.

Compared to the Residential scenario, it shows the Project would have lower traffic and Air Quality Emissions but is slightly higher in Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

TABLE 6 Retail and Residential Comparison to the Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Proposed Project Retail Scenario Residential
Scenario
Traffic
2-way Avg. Daily
Trips
5,724 23,120 6,104
Air Quality Emissions
Carbon Monoxide
lbs/day
314 1,043 11,344
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Carbon Dioxide
Equivalent (CO2e)
MT/yr
13,576 28,891 11,344
Project Size 1,188,715 total sq.
ft.
 594,358 square
feet of General
879,912 sq. ft.
shopping center
(0.25 FAR on 80.8
acres)
647 Single Family
Detached
Residential
Dwelling Units
Page | 27
TABLE 6 Retail and Residential Comparison to the Project Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Proposed Project Retail Scenario Residential
Scenario
Light Industrial
(50% of total)
 594,357 square
feet of
Manufacturing
(50% of total)
(8 Dwelling
Units/Acre)
Initiation of a Code Amendment – Technical Trade Center in multiple zones The Riverside Community College District (RCCD) has expressed interest in Rubidoux Commerce Park as a prospective site for their Riverside Inland Empire Technical Trade Center (IETTC). Presently, the Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) zone does not include educational institutions as an allowable use. To support RCCD in establishing the IETTC training facilities within the City, it is recommended that the City Council consider initiating a Code Amendment that introduces appropriate standards and broadens the areas within the City where educational facilities can be located. This amendment would provide greater flexibility in site selection for schools and training centers.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Rubidoux Commerce Park Project. All impacts, with the exception of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, of the proposed the Rubidoux Commerce Park Project can be mitigated to a level of less than significant with the implementation of the mitigation measures.

The only impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of less than significant is greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The Project would result in greenhouse gas emissions that exceed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) greenhouse gas emissions significance threshold. The Project would implement MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-6; however, these measures would not reduce the impact to less than significant. Since mobile sources of emissions are not under the control of the City, GHG emissions are considered significant and unavoidable.

Statement of Overriding Considerations
It is recommended that the City adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, which finds that:

1. The foregoing benefits provided through approval of the Project outweigh the identified significant adverse environmental impacts.

2. 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.

Page | 28

3. Each of the benefits listed within Exhibit A of Attachment 1, is sufficient justification for the City Council to override these unavoidable environmental impacts.

Public Review of the Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) During the 45-day public review period (August 22, 2023 through October 9, 2023) of the Draft Recirculated Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). The project was recirculated because the project was revised from a Warehouse Distribution Center to an Industrial Park. The City received comments from the following agencies, departments, or individuals and has provided responses to those comments:

1. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2

2. Department of Toxic Substance Control

3. South Coast Air Quality Management District

4. City of Riverside

5. California Air Resources Board

6. CalFire

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
The Community Development Department mailed a detailed project information sheet with the required public hearing notice in both English and Spanish to (1) property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project site, (2) property owners and occupants notified as part of the Environmental Justice outreach, and (3) to the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ).

Notices were mailed 10-days prior to the public hearing date. Additionally, a legal advertisement was published in the Press Enterprise on November 27, 2023. As of the date of this staff report, there have not been any inquiries or correspondence from any property owners or residents related to this project.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff time and fees associated with the applications are covered by the applicant’s deposit. The Development Agreement is projected to provide $12,848,618 of public benefit over the ten-year term.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Affirm the Planning Commission’s Denial of Project: Adopt Resolution No. 2023-101 to deny Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No.19008, Tentative Tract Map 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001 to allow the construction of the proposed industrial park.

2. Approve the Project: Adopt Resolution No. 2023-102 to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Make Findings, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program (MMRP); approve Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No.19008, Tentative Tract Map 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001.

Page | 30
4) City Council Ordinance No 2024-02 Approving DA19001
a) Exhibit A: Development Agreement
5) City Council Resolution No. 2023-103 Approving MA17132 (TPM37677, SDP19008) a) Exhibit A: Conditions of Approval
6) Link to Final Environmental Impact Report, Dated November 2023 (Document Center • Jurupa Valley, CA • CivicEngage)
7) Project Plans, Site Plan, Elevations, Landscape Plans, Grading, Drainage 8) Riverside Projected Wages for Rubidoux Commerce Park 9) Applicant’s Appeal of the Planning Commission Denial of the Project ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution for Denial of MA 17132
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-101

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNA, DENYING MASTER
APPLICATION NO. 17132 CONSISTING OF CHANGE OF ZONE
(CZ 21003), TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 37677 (TPM 37677), SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 19008 (SDP 19008), AND A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 19001 (DA 19001)

BETWEEN THE CITY AND PROFICIENCY CAPITAL, LLC TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN APPROXIMATE 1.18

MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK WITH FIVE

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

OF THE WEST RIVERSIDE CANAL AND NORTHWEST OF
AVALON STREET, AND EAST OF 28TH STREET, AND MAKING

A FINDING PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (RUBIDOUX COMMERCE
PARK)

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

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

Section 2. Project. The Applicant applied for Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001 (collectively, Master Application No. 17132 or MA No. 17132) to permit the construction of a proposed 1.18 million square foot industrial complex consisting of five buildings on the property located westerly of West Riverside Canal, southerly of 25th Street, northerly of 28th Street, and two parcels located southeast of the West Riverside Canal and northwest of Avalon Street, and east of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178-070-001, 002, 003(the “Project”).
-2-
Section 3. Change of Zone.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Change of Zone No. 21003 to rezone four parcels located Easterly of Montana Avenue, Westerly of West Riverside Canal, Southerly of 25th Street, and Northerly of 28th Street (APNs: 178-030,001, 002, 003, 006, 008, 009, 010, 178- 070-001, 002, 003 from Manufacturing-Manufacturing Medium (M-M) to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) as depicted in Exhibit “A.”
(b) Section 9.285.040.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that propose to change property from one zone to another. (c) Section 9.285.020(C) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code states that an application for a 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. Tentative Parcel Map.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 a Schedule “E” subdivision to subdivide the project site into five parcels. (b) Section 7.05.020.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission is designated as the “Advisory Agency” charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of all proposed tentative Schedule “E” maps. Further, Section 7.05.020.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is authorized to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all -3-
such tentative map land divisions and report the action directly to the City Council and the land divider.
(c) Section 7.15.130.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that within fifty (50) days after the date of filing of a tract map or commercial parcel map, a public hearing on the map must be held before the Planning Commission. Section 7.15.130.B. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed tentative map, file notice of the decision with the City Clerk, and mail notice of the decision to the land divider, or his or her authorized agent, and any interested party requesting a copy. (d) Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires denial of a Tentative Parcel Map if it does not meet all of the requirements of Title 7 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, or if any of the following findings are made:
1) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
3) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
5) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (e) Notwithstanding subsection 5) above, a tentative map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. -4-
(f) Section 9.05.110 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that in the event that a project requires a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan specific plan amendment, development agreement or other legislative action in addition to the tentative subdivision map, site development permit, conditional use permit, variance or other quasi-judicial land use applications for the project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, modify or deny the applications for the legislative action for the project and a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny the quasi-judicial land use applications. The Council shall hear the applications for the legislative actions along with applications for the quasi-judicial actions for the project in one public hearing before the Council in accordance with the applicable procedures of Section 9.05.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

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

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

Section 6. Development Agreement.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Development Agreement No. 19001, which agreement would provide: (i) the Applicant with assurance that development of the Project may proceed subject to the rules and regulations in effect at the time of Project approval, (ii) the City with assurance that certain obligations of the Applicant’s will be met. (b) California Government Code Sections 65864-65869.5 (the “Development Agreement Act”) authorize the City to enter into a binding development agreement for the development of real property within its jurisdiction with persons having legal or equitable interest in such real property.
(c) Section 65867 of the Development Agreement Act provides that a public hearing on an application for a development agreement shall be held by the planning agency and by the legislative body. Notice of intention to consider adoption of a development agreement shall be given as provided in Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 in addition to any other notice required by law for other actions to be considered concurrently with the development agreement.
(d) Section 65867.5(b) of the Development Agreement Act provides that a development agreement shall not be approved unless the legislative body finds that the provisions of the agreement are consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan. Section 65867.5(b) of the Development Agreement Act 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 7. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 17132 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3-1 to deny the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On November 29, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the Project. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
-6-
(d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 8. California Environmental Quality Act Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the denial of the Project:
(a) Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(5) provides that CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. As such, CEQA does not apply to this Project.

Section 9. Findings for Denial of Change of Zone. In denying Change of Zone No. 21003, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) A change of zone is proposed to change the zone for the Project site from Medium-Manufacturing (M-M) to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) to allow for the construction of the Project. The change of zone should be denied because it is inconsistent with Policy LUE 3.15 of the General Plan’s Land Use Element which provides that industrial and business park uses should be concentrated near major transportation facilities and utilities and along public transit corridors and that these uses should not be located close to residentially zoned neighborhoods or where truck traffic will be routed through residential neighborhoods. Here, the industrial building 1 will be located 562 feet from the approved Emerald Ridge residential development in contravention of the above referenced General Plan Land Use Policy.

Section 10. Findings for Denial of Tentative Parcel Map. In denying Tentative Parcel Map No. 37667 the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The Project is located in close proximity to residences and there is not a sufficient buffer to protect the residents from the harmful effects of the warehouse use. (b) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems because of the close proximity to residences. The Project proposes five industrial buildings with 140 dock doors. The dock doors to one of the industrial buildings is located 562 feet away from the Emerald Ridge residential project. This will expose the residents of the Emerald Ridge community to emissions from trucks and vehicles. The environmental impact report for the Project found that impacts related to greenhouse gases could not be mitigated to a less than significant level demonstrating that this Project could cause harm to the residents that will live in the area.

Section 11. Findings for Denial of Site Development Permit. In denying Site Development Permit No. 19008, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The proposed development has not been designed to protect the health, safety, and general welfare of surrounding sensitive land uses. The Emerald Ridge residential development that has been approved, will be located 562 feet away from building 1 on the Project -7-
site. This does not create a sufficient buffer between the industrial building and the residences such that the residents will be exposed to emissions from the trucks.

Section 12. Findings for Denial of Development Agreement. In denying Development Agreement No. 19001, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) Development Agreement No. 19001 is inconsistent with the City’s General Plan because the Project would allow an industrial project in close proximity to a residential development. Policy LUE 3.15 of the General Plan’s Land Use Element which provides that industrial and business park uses should be concentrated near major transportation facilities and utilities and along public transit corridors and that these uses should not be located close to residentially zoned neighborhoods or where truck traffic will be routed through residential neighborhoods. Here, the industrial building 1 will be located 562 feet from the approved Emerald Ridge residential development in contravention of the above referenced General Plan Land Use Policy.

Section 13. Denial of Master Application No. 17132. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby denies Master Application No. 17132 comprised of Change of Zone 21003, Site Development Permit 19008, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677 and Development Agreement 19001.

Section 14. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
-8-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:

Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-9-

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-101 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
Exhibit A
Change of Zone from M-M Zone to M-SC
ATTACHMENT 2
Resolution Certifying EIR, Findings,
Statement of Overriding Considerations and
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for MA 17132
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-102

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING AN

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF AN
APPROXIMATE 1.18 MILLION SQUARE FOOT INDUSTRIAL

PARK WITH FIVE BUILDINGS LOCATED EASTERLY OF

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

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

COMMERCE PARK)

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

Section 1. Background. On July 5, 2018, the City Council considered Proficiency Capital, LLC’s (the “Applicant”) request for a General Plan Amendment (“GPA”) to allow a logistics use on the project site, which is located outside of the General Plan Mira Loma and Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlays. The City Council, without consideration of the merits of the proposed project, initiated a GPA to analyze and review the Applicant’s request to develop the Rubidoux Commerce Park on the Project site. In 2022, the Planning Commission and City Council held study sessions on the proposed project. On March 17, 2022, the City Council expressed a lack of support for the project as then proposed, including the proposed distribution warehouse use at this Project site, and the Applicant decided to modify the proposed project in response to these comments.

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

Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 17132 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. -2-
(b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a duly-noticed public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters.

Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3-1 to deny the Project, and directed staff to prepare a resolution of denial. On November 29, 2023 the Planning Commission adopted a resolution denying the project. (c) The Applicant timely appealed the denial of the Project. (d) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa held a dulynoticed public hearing on MA No. 17132, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing.
(e) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the version of the proposed Project as previously proposed and as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that the thenproposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA. (b) Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project (both prior and current versions) because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. (c) The City determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required for the then-proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on November 30, 2020. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2020110449), responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties and posted on the City's website on November 30, 2020.

The thirty (30)-day public review period on the NOP ran from November 30, 2020 to December 29, 2020 and its purpose was to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Project. (d) In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15082(c)(1), a scoping meeting was held during the NOP review period, on Tuesday, December 8, 2020, to solicit additional suggestions on the scope of the Draft EIR. Attendees were provided an opportunity to identify verbally or in writing the issues they felt should be addressed in the Draft EIR. (e) Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the then-proposed version of the Project, including preparation and review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with -3-
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the then-proposed Project’s potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the then-proposed Project. (f) Upon completion of the Draft EIR on November 30, 2020, the City initiated a public comment period by preparing and sending a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR to all interested persons, agencies, and organizations; the NOA also was published in the Press Enterprise. In response to the comments received from the City Council as well as comments received from the public, the Applicant revised the project from a warehouse distribution project to an industrial park project (the current proposed Project). (g) A revised Draft EIR (Recirculated Draft EIR) for the Project as currently proposed was prepared. The Recirculated Draft EIR was made available for a forty-five (45)-day public review period beginning August 22, 2023 and ending on October 9, 2023. On August 21, 2023, the City filed a Notice of Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research. (h) Copies of the Recirculated Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the Jurupa Valley City Hall and two Jurupa Valley Public Library facilities (Glen Avon Library, and Louis Rubidoux Library). The Recirculated Draft EIR was also made available for download via the City’s website:
http://www.jurupavalley.org.
(i) In response to the Recirculated Draft EIR, written comments were received from various agencies. In compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15088, written responses to all comments that were timely received on the Recirculated Draft EIR were prepared. None of the comments presented any new significant environmental impacts or otherwise constituted significant new information requiring recirculation of the Recirculated Draft EIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.
(j) The Final EIR consists of the Recirculated Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, additional appendices, and clarifications/revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR. The Final EIR was made available to the public and to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a). (k) Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, -4-
3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (l) These required written findings are set forth in Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
(m) CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. The Statement of Overriding Considerations is included in the findings as part of Exhibit “A” attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted. (n) CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “B”, is herein incorporated by reference as if set forth in full, and is hereby adopted. (o) Prior to taking action on this Resolution, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, including the written and oral comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project.
(p) Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California, 92509.

Section 5. California Environmental Quality Act Substantive Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, California does hereby:
(a) Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference.
(b) Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Recirculated Draft EIR and the proposed Project. (c) Find and declare that the City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final EIR, the written and oral comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, staff reports and responses to comments incorporated into the Final EIR, additional appendices, clarifications/revisions to the Recirculated Draft EIR, and all testimony related to environmental issues regarding the proposed Project.
-5-
(d) Find and determine that the Final EIR fully analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the proposed Project, and that those impacts have been mitigated or avoided to the extent feasible for the reasons set forth in the Findings attached as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, with the exception of those impacts found to be significant and unmitigable as discussed therein.
(e) Find and declare that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The City Council further finds that the additional information provided in the staff reports, in comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, the responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR, and the evidence presented in written and oral testimony does not constitute new information requiring recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. None of the information presented has deprived the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial environmental impact of the proposed Project or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative that the City has declined to implement.
(f) The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR as being in compliance with CEQA, adopts the Findings pursuant to CEQA and the Statement of Overriding Considerations as set forth in Exhibit “A”, and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached as Exhibit “B.” The City Council further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in the Final EIR and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearings before the Planning Commission, and in the record of the proceedings. The City Council further finds that each of the overriding benefits stated in Exhibit “A” by itself, would individually justify proceeding with the proposed Project despite any significant unavoidable impacts identified in the Final EIR or alleged in the record of proceedings. (g) The City Council hereby imposes as a condition on the Project each mitigation measure specified in Exhibit “B,” and directs City staff to implement and to monitor the mitigation measures as described in Exhibit “B.”
(h) The City Council directs staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152.

Section 6. Effective Date. This Resolution shall not go into effect until the Effective Date of the Ordinance approving Change of Zone No. 21003 and Development Agreement No. 19001.

Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
-6-
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. 2023-102 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

EXHIBIT A
Facts and Findings Regarding the
Environmental Effects of the Approval of the:

Rubidoux Commerce Park Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110449
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
Proficiency Rubidoux, LLC
11777 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 780
Los Angeles, CA 90049
November 2023

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 1
Table of Contents
Section Page

1.0 Introduction and Purpose........................................................................................................ 6

1.1 Findings Required Under CEQA............................................................................... 6

1.2 Project Summary........................................................................................................ 6

1.2.1 Site Location.................................................................................................. 6

1.2.2 Project Overview........................................................................................... 7

1.2.3 Project Background ....................................................................................... 7

1.2.4 Project Objectives.......................................................................................... 8

1.2.5 City of Jurupa Valley Actions Covered by the EIR ...................................... 8

1.2.6 Approvals From Other Agencies................................................................... 9

1.3 Environmental Review and Public Participation ....................................................... 9

2.0 Environmental Impacts and Findings................................................................................... 12

3.0 Environmental Impacts not Requiring Mitigation................................................................ 13

3.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................. 13

3.1.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 13

3.1.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 13

3.1.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 14

3.1.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 15

3.2 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 16

3.2.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 16

3.2.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 17

3.2.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 17

3.2.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 19

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 2

3.3 Biological Impacts................................................................................................... 19

3.3.1 Threshold B................................................................................................. 19

3.3.2 Threshold C................................................................................................. 20

3.3.3 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 20

3.4 Cultural Resources................................................................................................... 21

3.4.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 21

3.4.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 22

3.4.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 23

3.5 Energy...................................................................................................................... 24

3.5.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 24

3.5.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 25

3.6 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................... 25

3.6.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 25

3.6.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 27

3.6.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 28

3.6.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 28

3.6.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 29

3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials............................................................................ 29

3.7.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 29

3.7.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 31

3.7.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 32

3.7.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 32

3.7.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 33

3.7.6 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 33

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 3

3.7.7 Threshold G................................................................................................. 34

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality.................................................................................. 35

3.8.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 35

3.8.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 35

3.8.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 37

3.8.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 38

3.8.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 38

3.9 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................ 39

3.9.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 39

3.9.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 40

3.10 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................... 41

3.10.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 41

3.10.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 42

3.11 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 42

3.11.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 42

3.11.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 43

3.11.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 44

3.12 Transportation.......................................................................................................... 45

3.12.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 45

3.12.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 45

3.12.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 45

3.12.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 46

3.13 Utilities and Service Systems................................................................................... 47

3.13.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 47

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 4

3.13.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 48

3.13.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 49

3.13.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 50

3.13.5 Threshold E ................................................................................................. 51

3.14 Wildfire .................................................................................................................... 51

3.14.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 51

3.14.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 52

3.14.3 Threshold C................................................................................................. 53

3.14.4 Threshold D................................................................................................. 54

4.0 Environmental Impacts Mitigated to a Level of Less-than-Significant ............................... 56

4.1 Biological Resources ............................................................................................... 56

4.1.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 56

4.1.2 Threshold D................................................................................................. 58

4.1.3 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 60

4.2 Geology and Soils.................................................................................................... 60

4.2.1 Threshold F.................................................................................................. 60

4.3 Tribal Cultural Resource.......................................................................................... 63

4.3.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 63

5.0 Environmental Impacts That Remain Significant and Unavoidable After Mitigation ......... 67

5.1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions...................................................................................... 67

5.1.1 Threshold A................................................................................................. 67

5.1.2 Threshold B................................................................................................. 69

6.0 Other CEQA Considerations................................................................................................ 70

6.1 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes..................................................... 70

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 5

6.2 Growth Inducing Impacts ........................................................................................ 71

7.0 Alternatives........................................................................................................................... 74

7.1 Alternative Considered and Rejected....................................................................... 74

7.1.1 Alternative Sites .......................................................................................... 74

7.1.2 Office Use Alternative................................................................................. 75

7.2 Alternatives Selected for Analysis in the EIR ......................................................... 75

7.2.1 No Project/No Development Alternative .................................................... 76

7.2.2 Reduced Intensity Alternative ..................................................................... 76

7.3 Environmentally Superior Alternative ..................................................................... 77

8.0 Statement of Overriding Considerations.............................................................................. 79

9.0 Additional Facts on Record .................................................................................................. 82

9.1 Custodian of Record ................................................................................................ 82

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 6

1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (the “City Council”) in approving the Rubidoux Commerce Park project (the “Project”) makes the Findings described below. The Findings are based upon the entire record before the City Council, as described in Subsection 1.3 below, including the Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) prepared for the Project with the City of Jurupa Valley (the “City”) acting as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”).

Hereafter, the Notice of Preparation, Notice of Availability, Recirculated Draft EIR, Technical Studies, and Recirculated Final EIR (containing responses to public comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR and textual revisions to the Recirculated Final EIR), will be referred to collectively herein as the “EIR” unless otherwise specified.

1.1 FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA
Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that “public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects[.]” The statute also provides that the procedures required by CEQA are “intended to assist public agencies in systematically identifying both the significant effects of projects and the feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures which will avoid or lessen such significant effects.” Finally, Section 21002 indicates that “in the event [that] specific economic, social, or other conditions make infeasible such project alternatives or such mitigation measures, individual projects may be approved in spite of one or more significant effects thereof.”
The mandate described in Public Resources Code Section 21002 is implemented, in part, through the requirement that agencies must adopt findings before approving projects for which EIRs are required.

For each significant environmental effect identified in an EIR for a project, the approving agency must issue a written finding reaching one or more of three permissible conclusions. The first such finding is that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. The second finding is that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. The third finding is that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, §15091.) Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, legal, and technological factors."

1.2 PROJECT SUMMARY

1.2.1 SITE LOCATION
The approximately 80.8-gross acre Project site is located in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California. State Route 60 (SR-60) is located approximately 0.5 mile south of the Project site,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 7
Interstate 215 (I-215) is located approximately 2.6 miles southeast of the Project site, and SR-91 is located 2.7 miles southeast of the Project site. The Project site is immediately bounded by industrial development to the north and east, industrial and residential development to the south, vacant land to the southwest, and open space to the west. The Project site is bisected by the Union Pacific Railroad and West Riverside Canal. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) for the Project site are: 178-030- 001, 178-030-002, 178-030-003, 178-030-006, 178-030-008, 178-030-009, 178-030-010, 178-060- 013, 178-070-001, 178-070-002, 178-070-003, 178-080-009, 178-080-011, and 178-090-010.

1.2.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project entails development of the 80.8-acre property with five industrial buildings (“Building 1,” “Building 2,” Building 3,” “Building 4,” and “Building 5”) totaling 1,118,102 square feet (s.f.) and related site improvements including landscaping, parking, and infrastructure facilities. Building 1 would include 309,870 s.f. of building area, Building 2 would include 388,222 s.f. of building area, Building 3 would include 174,364 s.f. of building area, Building 4 would include 275,958 s.f. of building area, and Building 5 would include 35,688 s.f. of building area. Although the future tenant(s) of the building is not known, industrial uses would allow for high-cube fulfillment, manufacturing and general light industrial uses.

The principal discretionary actions required of the City of Jurupa Valley to implement the Project include: Zone Change No. 21003, Development Agreement No. 19001, Tentative Parcel Map No. 37677, and Site Development Permit No. 19008. Additionally, the Project includes the closure and reclamation of the aggregate mining operation. The Project will result in re-compaction of the site to commercial standards that will facilitate the Project. Upon approval of the Project, the State mining permit would be terminated and closed, and completion of the grading operation would complete reclamation of the mine and close out the mine permit.

1.2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
A Draft EIR was distributed for a 45-day public review period from October 18, 2021 to December 1, 2021 to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21092(b)(3), the EIR was provided to all parties who previously requested copies. The Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the EIR were distributed as required by CEQA. The Draft EIR, its technical appendices, and all documents incorporated by reference, were made available for review.

Following the close of the public review period, the Project Applicant revised the site plan to limit land uses of the Project site. The previously circulated Draft EIR would have amended the General Plan to extend the boundary of the Agua Mansa Warehouse Distribution Center General Plan Overlay to allow for logistics uses. Under the revised site plan, the request for a General Plan Amendment to extend the boundary of the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center General Plan Overlay over the Project site would not occur and uses on the Project site would be limited to those under the existing Manufacturing-Service Commercial zoning designation. With this revision, the Project will no longer allow for logistics uses within the Project site. Therefore, in order to address the changes that were

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 8
made to the site plan, a Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“DEIR”) was prepared to analyze the changes to the Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5.

1.2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a vacant, undeveloped, and under-utilized property with industrial buildings that will serve the local market demand for industrial building space. The following is a list of specific objectives that the proposed Project is intended to achieve.

1. To efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the substantial and unmet regional demands for goods movement facilities consistent with Southern California Association of Governments’ Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy).

2. To expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Jurupa Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to or near already-established industrial uses.

3. To make efficient use of a property in Jurupa Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.

4. To develop Class A1speculative industrial buildings in Jurupa Valley that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region.

5. To develop industrial buildings in close proximity to the SR-60, I-215, and I-10 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network.

6. To develop a vacant property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.

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

1.2.5 CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ACTIONS COVERED BY THE EIR
The following discretionary and administrative actions are required of the City to implement the Project. The EIR prepared for the Project covers all discretionary and administrative approvals which may be needed to construct or implement the Project, whether or not they are explicitly listed below. • Approve Zone Change (ZC) No. 21003;
• Approve Site Development Permit (SDP) No. 19008;
• Approve Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) No. 37677; and
• Approve Development Agreement (DA) No. 19001.
1 A Class A building is defined as high-quality and premium grade facility constructed using modern construction methods and energy efficient systems.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 9

1.2.6 APPROVALS FROM OTHER AGENCIES
The California Public Resource Code (§ 21104) requires that all EIRs be reviewed by responsible and trustee agencies (see also CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 and Section 15086(a)). As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15381, “the term ‘Responsible Agency’ includes all public agencies other than the Lead Agency that have discretionary approval power over the project.” A “Trustee Agency” is defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15386 as “a state agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project which are held in trust for the people of the State of California.” The anticipated agencies expected to use the EIR are described below. However, the EIR can be used by any Trustee Agency or Responsible Agency, whether identified in the EIR or not, as part of their decision-making processes in relation to the proposed Project.

Agency Action
Responsible Agencies
Riverside County Flood
Control and Water
Conservation District
Responsible for the master planned drainage infrastructure that would be utilized by the Project and issuing an encroachment permit for any construction related activities occurring within District right of way or facilities.

Rubidoux Community Services
District (“RCSD”)
Approvals required for the installation of new RCSD facilities/connections to service the Project.

Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board
(“RWQCB”)
Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for the protection of California’s water resources and water quality. The Santa Ana RWQCB is responsible for issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit to ensure that during and after Project construction, on-site water flows do not result in siltation, other erosional actions, or degradation of surface or subsurface water quality.

South Coast Air Quality
Management District
(“SCAQMD”)
Responsible for the issuance of construction-related permits that allow for the construction and operation of the Project to ensure that during and postProject construction and during Project operation, Project emissions do not result in significant impacts to air quality.

Southern California Edison
(“SCE”)
Approvals required for the installation of new SCE facilities/connections to service the Project.

Southern California Gas
Company (“SoCal Gas”)
Approvals required for the installation of new SoCal Gas facilities/connections to service the Project.

California Department of
Conservation
Closure and implementation of the reclamation plan pursuant to the Surface Mining and Reclamation Action of 1975 (“SMARA”).

1.3 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The City conducted an extensive environmental review of the Project to ensure that the City’s decision makers and the public are fully informed about the potential significant environmental effects of the Project; to identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced; and to prevent significant, avoidable damage to the environment by requiring changes in the Project using mitigation measures which have been found to be feasible. To do this, the City, acting as lead agency under CEQA, undertook the following:

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 10
• Circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to the California Office of Planning and Research (the “State Clearinghouse”), Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, and other interested parties on November 30, 2020 for a 30-day review period between November 30, 2020 and December 29, 2020;
• Held a publicly noticed EIR Scoping Meeting at City Hall, located at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA on December 8, 2020, to solicit comments from the public on the environmental issue areas that should be analyzed in the EIR; • Sent a Notice of Completion (NOC) and copies of the Draft EIR to the California Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse, on October 15, 2021; • Mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Riverside County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice to inform recipients that the Draft EIR was available for a 45- day review period beginning on October 15, 2021, and ending on November 29, 2021; • Published the NOA in The Press-Enterprise, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on October 15, 2021;
• Made an electronic copy of the Draft EIR available on the City’s website; • Conducted two (2) Environmental Justice Informational Sessions on November 3, 2021 and October 2, 2023;
• Conducted a Planning Commission Study Session on January 26, 2021; • Mailed a Notice of Availability (NOA) to all Responsible Agencies, Trustee Agencies, the Riverside County Clerk, other interested parties, and organizations and individuals who had previously requested the Notice to inform recipients that the Recirculated Draft EIR was available for a 45-day review period beginning on August 22, 2023, and ending on October 9, 2023;
• Published the NOA for the Recirculated Draft EIR in The Press-Enterprise, which is the newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the Project, on August 22, 2023; • Made an electronic copy of the Recirculated Draft EIR available on the City’s website; • Prepared responses to comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR received during the 45-day comment period on the Recirculated Draft EIR, which have been included in the Final EIR; • Mailed notice of the Planning Commission hearing to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000-foot radius of the Project site;

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 11
• Published the notice of the Planning Commission hearing in The Press-Enterprise on October 27, 2023;
• Held a Planning Commission hearings on November 8, 2023; • Sent individual responses to all public agencies, organizations, and individuals who submitted comments the Recirculated Draft EIR on November 27, 2023; • Mailed notice of the City Council hearing to all property owners and occupants within a 1,000- foot radius of the Project site; and
• Held a City Council hearing.

All the documents identified above and all the documents which are required to be part of the record pursuant to Public Resources Code §21167.6(e) are on file with the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division located at 8930 Limonite Avenue in Jurupa Valley, CA 92509. Questions should be directed to Jim Pechous, Principal Planner.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 12

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND FINDINGS
The EIR was prepared by T&B Planning, Inc., an independent, professional consulting firm hired by the City of Jurupa Valley and working under the supervision and direction of the Planning staff of the City’s Planning Division. The professional qualifications and reputation of the EIR Consultant, the supervision and direction of the EIR Consultant by City staff, the thorough and independent review of the Draft EIR and Final EIR, including comments and responses by City staff, and the review and careful consideration of the Final EIR by the City Council, including comments and responses, all conclusively show that the Final EIR is the product of and reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City as the Lead Agency.

Based on the Initial Study, Technical Appendix A to the Draft EIR, and the responses of the NOP, the EIR analyzed 16 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project. The 16 potential areas where significant environmental impacts could result from the development of the Project include: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, mineral resources, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, utilities and service systems, and wildfire.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 13

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS NOT REQUIRING MITIGATION
The City Council hereby finds that the following potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Rubidoux Project are less-than-significant and therefore do not require the imposition of mitigation measures.

3.1 AESTHETICS

3.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial effect on a scenic vista. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) 4.1- 1 through 4.1-3 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to aesthetics. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantive Evidence
The City’s General Plan defines scenic vistas as “points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes.” The Project site is located approximately

1.08-miles west of the Santa Ana River, approximately 2.67 miles east of the Jurupa Mountains, and

2.96 miles northeast of the Pedley Hills. Due to distance from identified scenic vistas, intervening development, and topography, the Project site and the immediate surrounding area do not provide publicly accessible vantage points to view these scenic areas. Further, the Project site is not located near a scenic corridor. The public rights-of-way surrounding the Project site provide distant and partial views of the San Bernardino Mountains (approximately 12.7 miles) and San Gabriel Mountains (approximately 14.8 miles) to the north and northwest; La Loma Hills (approximately 1.20 miles), Blue Mountain (approximately 4.30 miles) and Sugarloaf Mountain (approximately 3.67 miles) to the east; and Rattlesnake Mountain (approximately 1.3 miles) to the west. Although the Project would result in the development of the site with the proposed industrial buildings, due to the orientation and height of the proposed buildings, the on-site structures would not substantially block the partial views to these landforms. The partial views to these natural landforms would still be publicly available from the surrounding rights-of-way following the development of the Project site. As a result, the implementation of the Project does not have the potential to have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-11)

3.1.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 14
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project, which includes design features that are intended to create aesthetically pleasing industrial buildings and site design, would comply with the City’s Municipal Code with respect to Threshold b. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project would result in no impacts with respect to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantive Evidence
According to California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’) list of designated and eligible routes, and pursuant to the Streets and Highway Code, Sections 260-263, there are no OfficiallyDesignated State scenic highways within the City of Jurupa Valley or in proximity to the Project site.

As previously stated, the nearest Officially-Designated State scenic highway is State Route 38 (SR38) located approximately 12.9 miles northeast of the Project site and the nearest eligible scenic highway is Interstate 215 (I-215) from SR-74 near Romoland to SR-74 near Perris located approximately 22 miles southeast of the Project site. As the site would not be visible from SR-38 or the eligible portion I-215 due to distance, intervening development, and topography, the Project does not have the potential to substantially damage any scenic resources, including trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings, within a scenic highway. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.1-12)

3.1.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not, in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.1-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to aesthetics. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantive Evidence
Buildout of the Project would change the existing visual character of the Project site from vacant and underutilized to a developed site consisting of five industrial buildings totaling 1,184,102 s.f. and associated site improvements. The Project would be visually compatible with the existing industrial uses that surround the Project site and would be compliant with the General Plan policies and Code requirements pertaining to scenic quality. The Project Applicant would incorporate several landscaping treatments to screen portions of the proposed buildings from the surrounding development.

Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-17)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 15

3.1.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.1.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.1-2 and 4.1-3 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce light impacts and glare. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantive Evidence
Under existing conditions, the Project site is vacant and underutilized and does not produce any light or glare; therefore, implementation of the Project would result in an increase in ambient light generation, primarily associated with building lights, security/parking lot lighting. The Project would implement parking lot and building lighting based on City approval for consistency with the City’s lighting standards. The Project would produce artificial light similar to existing surrounding land uses to the north, east, and south. Although the Project would increase the light levels relative to existing conditions within the Project site, the proposed lighting levels would be consistent with the lighting that occurs under existing conditions within the surrounding area that is associated with existing industrial/residential development. Light spillage to the northwest edge abutting the open space area would be lessened by the distance, slope area, and extensive landscaping around the Project site.

Furthermore, coverings, fixtures, placement, and orientation of the proposed lighting have been designed to limit spillage of light on to adjacent properties or create a substantial new source of sky glow in accordance with 9.148.040 and 9.240.120 (6) (vii) of the City’s Municipal Code. With mandatory compliance to the City’s Municipal Code, including Sections 9.148.040, 9.240 (6) (vii) and the incorporation of Project Design Features which include low wattage and dimmable downlight on the exterior of the proposed structures, it is anticipated that the Project’s proposed lighting would not substantially affect daytime or nighttime views within the area and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-18)
The Project would introduce limited sources of glare at the Project site, including reflective building materials such as glass windows (i.e., at the entryways to the proposed buildings). The proposed buildings would be constructed of painted, tilt-up concrete panels and would feature metal shading devices over upper-level windows. Moreover, the proposed landscaping would screen potential sources of glare from affecting nearby motorists or residents. As such, impacts related to glare would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.1-18)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 16

3.2 AIR QUALITY

3.2.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with and/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 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.2.1 through 4.2-5 and PDFs 4.2- 1 through 4.2-6 to reduce impacts to air quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The violations that Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to are the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). CAAQS and NAAQS violations would occur if regional or localized significance thresholds (LSTs) were exceeded. As described under Threshold b, the Project’s regional and localized construction-source emissions would not exceed applicable regional significance threshold and LST thresholds. Additionally, the Project would not exceed the applicable regional and LSTs for operational activity. As such, the Project would not conflict with the AQMP according to this criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.2-36) The AQMP demonstrates that the applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the timeframes required under federal law. Growth projections from local general plans adopted by cities in the district are provided to the SCAG, which develops regional growth forecasts, which are then used to develop future air quality forecasts for the AQMP. Development consistent with the growth projections in City of Jurupa Valley General Plan is considered to be consistent with the AQMP. (DEIR, p. 4.2-36)
Peak day emissions generated by construction activities are largely independent of land use assignments, but rather are a function of development scope and maximum area of disturbance.

Irrespective of the site’s land use designation, development of the site to its maximum potential would likely occur, with disturbance of the entire site occurring during construction activities. As such, when considering that no emissions thresholds will be exceeded, a less than significant impact would result. (DEIR, p. 4.2-36)
The Project site, according to the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, is designated for Light Industrial (LI) uses. The LI land use designation allows for a wide variety of industrial and related uses, including assembly and light manufacturing, repair and other service facilities. The Project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation for the Project site and a portion of the Project would require a zone change from Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) to Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC), which would be within the growth projections assumed in the AQMP. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with the goals and objectives of the AQMP. Furthermore, the Project, as

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 17
evaluated herein, would not exceed the regional or localized air quality significance thresholds.

Therefore, the Project is determined to be consistent with the second criterion. (DEIR, p. 4.2-36) Based on the AQMP consistency analysis presented herein, the Project would not have the potential to result in or cause NAAQS or CAAQS violations. Additionally, Project construction and operationalsource emissions would not exceed the regional or localized significance thresholds. The Project is therefore considered to be consistent with the AQMP. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-37)

3.2.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in 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 4.2.6 of the Draft EIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.2.1 through 4.2-5 and PDFs

4.2-1 through 4.2-6 to reduce impacts to air quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. All construction projects in the SCAB are subject to South Coast AQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction, including Rule 403. The Project’s regional daily construction emissions of criteria pollutants would not exceed their respective South Coast AQMD thresholds and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-37 – 4.2-38) Operational activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. The Project related operational air quality impacts derive primarily from vehicle trips generated by the Project. The Project is expected to generate a total of approximately 5,724 two-way vehicular trips per day which includes 422 two-way truck trips per day (211 inbound and 211 outbound). The Project would not exceed any South Coast AQMD regional thresholds. Accordingly, operational impacts would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-38 – 4.2-40)

3.2.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 18
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.2-1 through 4.2-5 and PDFs 4.2- 1 through 4.2-6 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to air quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantive Evidence
Project-related construction emissions would not exceed any South Coast AQMD thresholds.

Accordingly, construction of the Project would result in less than significant impacts. At the maximally exposed individual receptor (MEIR), the maximum incremental cancer risk attributable to Project DPM source emissions is estimated at 4.45 in one million, which is less than the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s (South Coast AQMD’s) significance threshold of 10 in one million. At this same location, non-cancer risks were estimated to be less than 0.01, which would not exceed the applicable significance threshold of 1.0. Because all other modeled residential receptors are exposed to lesser concentrations and are located at a greater distance than the MEIR analyzed herein, and DPM generally dissipates with distance from the source, all other residential receptors in the vicinity of the Project site would be exposed to less emissions and therefore less risk than the MEIR identified herein.

As such, the Project will not cause a significant human health or cancer risk to nearby residences. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-41 – 4.2-42)
Project-related operational emissions would not exceed South Coast AQMD’s LST for NOx, CO, PM10, or PM2.5 at the nearest sensitive receptor. Accordingly, operation of the Project would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, localized emissions from Project operation would result in less than significant impacts with respect to Threshold c. (DEIR, p. 4.2-44)
The highest trips on a segment of road for the proposed Project during AM and PM traffic is 5,517 vehicles per hour (vph) and 5,587 vph, respectively, on Cedar Avenue and I-10 Westbound Ramps. As such, Project-related traffic volumes are less than the traffic volumes identified in the 2003 AQMP.

The Project would not produce the volume of traffic required to generate a CO “hot spot” either in the context of the 2003 Los Angeles hot spot study or based on representative BAAQMD CO threshold considerations. Therefore, CO “hot spots” are not an environmental impact of concern for the Project.

Localized air quality impacts related to mobile-source emissions would therefore be less than significant.

All health risk levels to nearby residents and workers from Project-related emissions of TAC would be well below SCAQMD’s Health Risk Assessment (HRA) thresholds; therefore, the Project would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and the resulting impact would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-45 – 4.2-47)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 19

3.2.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.2.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.2-7 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to air quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantive Evidence
The Project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s (long-term operational) uses. Standard construction requirements would minimize odor impacts from construction. The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and are thus considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.2-48)
The Project consists of industrial uses, similar in nature to the existing surrounding uses, and would not include land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Additionally, trash associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational use could be a potential source of odor; however, Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations, thereby precluding any significant odor impact. Furthermore, the proposed Project would also be required to comply with South Coast AQMD Rule 402 to prevent occurrences of public nuisances. Therefore, odors associated with Project operation would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.2-48 – 4.2-49)

3.3 BIOLOGICAL IMPACTS

3.3.1 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive community identified in local or regional plans, polices, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Services. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. This City Council finds that the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 20
development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
No evidence of riparian vegetation, or conditions which sustain riparian vegetation were observed within the Project site. The West Riverside Canal includes a bed, bank, and channel; however, because the canal was built for purposes of carrying irrigation flows, which have now been eliminated, the feature does not carry more than minimal flows and is not an aquatic feature. Accordingly, the canal would not be subject to review under MSHCP Riparian River policies and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-22)
Although the Project site is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) Survey Area as established by the Western Riverside County MSHCP, no suitable habitat was observed for the three (3) narrow endemic plant species that were identified for the Project area. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species were detected onsite. No other California Native Plant Society (CNPS), special-status plants, or species of local concern were observed onsite. No sensitive vegetation communities listed by CDFW were documented within or adjacent to the Project site, therefore, impacts are less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-22)

3.3.2 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not located within or adjacent to a State or federally protected wetland. Furthermore, no vernal pools were documented onsite based on a lack of suitable soils and characteristics of vernal pool plant species. The Project site is dominated by sandy loam substrates, and the features do not provide long-term conservation value for any target MSHCP vernal pool species. Accordingly, no impacts to wetlands are anticipated. (DEIR, p. 4.3-23)

3.3.3 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 21
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.3.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project would be consistent with all applicable General Plan policies pertaining to biological resources including Conservation and Open Space Policies COS 1.2 (Protection of Significant Trees),

1.3 (Other Significant Vegetation), 2.1 (MSHCP Implementation), and 2.3 (Biological Reports). In particular, COS 1.2 calls for the protection of significant trees. Significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. In particular, California native trees should be protected. No native trees or oak species occur onsite and the removal of primarily Peruvian pepper trees would not conflict with any City of Jurupa Valley protected tree ordinance or oak tree management guidelines. Therefore, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.3-26)

3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES

3.4.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
A cultural records search for the Project site and the surrounding area within a one-mile radius was conducted at the EIC at UCR. The search results identified 76 cultural resources within one mile of the Project, however, none of which are located within the Project site. Two resources, a historic water conveyance system with an associated trash scatter and a historic isolated artifact (RIV-3499H and P33-024777, respectively), are mapped adjacent to, but outside of, the western boundary of the Project site. An additional two resources, a segment of the historic West Riverside Canal and a spur of the historic Union Pacific Railroad (RIV-5044H and RIV-7325, respectively), run between the eastern and western parcels that comprise the Project. (DEIR, p. 4.4-13) During the pedestrian field survey conducted on January 28, 2020, no historical resources were identified on the Project site. Previously recorded historic resources, RIV-5044H and RIV-7325, are located on separate parcels that run from north to south between the eastern and western portions of the property. Despite their proximity to the Project, they are not included as part of the development.

Both previously recorded resources were identified during the survey and confirmed to be outside of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 22
the impact area. Both resources were previously evaluated as ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR based upon a lack of integrity; as such, no direct or indirect adverse impacts to significant historical resources will occur as a result of the project. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-13 – 4.4-14) Previously recorded historic resources RIV-3499H (a historic water conveyance system with an associated trash scatter) and P-33-024777 (a historic isolated artifact) are mapped adjacent to, but outside of, the western boundary of the project. Despite their proximity to the project, they are not included as part of the development. Both previously recorded resources were confirmed to be outside of the Project site. Regardless, RIV-3499H was previously evaluated “as not significant in 1988” and “did not qualify as a historical resource pursuant to CEQA” in 2005. The identified isolate, P-33- 024777, and isolates in general, are not considered significant resources. Therefore, impacts to historical resources would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-14)

3.4.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project does not have the potential to cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.4.6.

This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The records searches conducted at ECI resulted in 76 cultural resources being recorded within 1 mile of the Project site; 27 of the resources are prehistoric, and include 15 prehistoric bedrock milling feature sites; five prehistoric possible rock shelters, two of which have associated ceramic scatters, one of which has an associated lithic scatter, one of which contains a possible prehistoric hearth feature, and one of which has no associated artifacts or features; and seven prehistoric isolated artifacts. Two sites are multicomponent, consisting of both prehistoric and historic artifacts, and include one prehistoric bedrock milling feature site with a historic isolated artifact and one prehistoric rock shelter complex with historic rock art. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15)
The Phase I cultural resources field survey of the Project site did not identify any archaeological resources within the Project area, nor were any archaeological sites recorded within the property on the record search results from the EIC. The records search indicated that there had been seven previous surveys involving the Project site and the results were also negative. Based upon a field survey of unobstructed ground surface and areas of exposed excavations associated with the prior mining operations, there does not appear to be any potential to encounter archaeological deposits within the Project. Since no archaeological resources have been identified within the Project site, after several surveys, there is no potential to encounter buried archaeological deposits during grading activities. (DEIR, p. 4.4-15)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 23

3.4.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.4.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.4-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to cultural resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. Field surveys conducted on the Project site did not identify the presence of any human remains and no human remains are known to exist beneath the surface of the Project site. Nevertheless, the remote potential exists that human remains may be unearthed during grading and excavation activities associated with Project construction. (DEIR, p. 4.4-16) If human remains are unearthed during Project construction, the construction contractor would be required by law to comply with California Health and Safety Code, § 7050.5, “Disturbance of Human Remains.” According to § 7050.5(b) and (c), if human remains are discovered, the County Coroner must be contacted and if the Coroner recognizes the human remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, the Coroner is required to contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code § 5097.98, whenever the NAHC receives notification of a discovery of Native American human remains from a county coroner, the NAHC is required to immediately notify those persons it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. The descendants may, with the permission of the owner of the land, or his or her authorized representative, inspect the site of the discovery of the Native American human remains and may recommend to the owner or the person responsible for the excavation work means for treatment or disposition, with appropriate dignity, of the human remains and any associated grave goods. The descendants shall complete their inspection and make recommendations or preferences for treatment within 48 hours of being granted access to the site.

According to Public Resources Code § 5097.94(k), the NAHC is authorized to mediate disputes arising between landowners and known descendants relating to the treatment and disposition of Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials. (DEIR, pp. 4.4-16 – 4.4-17)
It is not expected that human remains will be unearthed during construction activities, although a remote potential exists. With mandatory compliance to California Health and Safety Code § 7050.5 and Public Resources Code § 5097.98, any potential impacts to human remains, including human remains of a Native American descent, would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.4-17)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 24

3.5 ENERGY

3.5.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.5-1 and 4.5-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to energy resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
Construction equipment used by the Project would result in single event consumption of approximately 150,663 gallons of diesel fuel. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the Project’s proposed construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. (DEIR, p. 4.5- 7)
Construction worker trips for full construction of the Project would result in the estimated fuel consumption 134,707 gallons of fuel. Construction worker trips would represent a single-event gasoline fuel demand and would not require on-going or permanent commitment of fuel resources for this purpose. Construction vendor trips would generate a total of 71,094 gallons of fuel and fuel consumption from hauling trips (HHDs) would total approximately 90,235 gallons. (DEIR, p. 4.5-7) The estimated power cost of on-site electricity usage during the construction of the Project is assumed to be approximately $250,798.53. Additionally, based on the assumed power cost, it is estimated that the total electricity usage during the entire course of construction is calculated to be approximately 1,938,764 kWh. Energy usage on the Project site during construction would be temporary in nature and would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources. Therefore, construction activities would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Energy impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-8)
The Project would generate an estimated 21,782,868 annual VMT along area roadways for all vehicle types with full build-out of the Project and consume 1,118,029 gallons of fuel. Trip generation and VMT generated by the Project are consistent with other industrial uses of similar scale and configuration. As such, Project operations would not result in excess and wasteful vehicle energy consumption compared to other industrial land uses. (DEIR, pp. 4.5-8 – 4.5-9)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 25
The Project’s operation would generate an annual electricity demand of 11,427,098 kWh. The Project proposes conventional industrial uses reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other industrial land use projects of similar scale and configuration. Additionally, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary. (DEIR, p. 4.5-9) As supported by the preceding analyses, Project construction and operations would not result in the inefficient, wasteful or unnecessary consumption of energy. Energy consumption by the Project would be relatively small in comparison to the State’s available energy sources and would not impact supply.

The Project would therefore not cause or result in the need for additional energy producing or transmission facilities. The Project would not engage in wasteful or inefficient uses of energy and aims to achieve energy conservations goals within the State of California, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.5-10)

3.5.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.5.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.5-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to energy resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project was analyzed for consistency with the Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR); the State of California Energy Plan; California Code Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency Standards; CALGreen; the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS); and SB 350. The Project would not conflict with any of the state or local plans. As such, a less than significant impact is expected. (DEIR, p. 4.5-11)

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

3.6.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, and/or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 26
substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42).

2. Strong seismic ground shaking.

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.

4. Landslides.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
No active or potentially active faults are known to exist at the Project site and the Project site does not lie within any Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones and as shown in the City’s General Plan, Figure 8-4, Mapped Fault Zones. The nearest known active fault is the Rialto-Colton Fault located approximately 5 miles to the northeast of the Project site. Because the Project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and because no known active faults underlie the Project site, the Project site would not be exposed to fault rupture during a seismic event and no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.6-8)
As with much of the southern California region, the Project site is located in a seismically active area.

The buildings and supporting infrastructure improvements proposed within the Project site would be subject to ground shaking during seismic events along local and regional faults that would occur during the lifetime operation of the proposed Project. Therefore, the Project has the potential to expose people or structures to adverse effects associated with seismic events. The design and construction of the improvements at the Project site would be subject to the mandatory requirements and standards of the California Building Standards Code (CBSC) Title 24 (CALGreen) and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, which are designed to attenuate the effects of strong ground shaking. Compliance with applicable requirements of CBSC CALGreen and the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code would be assured through City review of grading and building permits which would ensure that seismic ground shaking effects are attenuated (these requirements would be required through adherence to PPP 4.6-1 and 4.6-2). The requirements identified in the CBSC CALGreen regulations are designed to ensure that buildings are able to withstand the levels of seismic ground shaking to which the proposed Project would be subject. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact associated with seismically-induced ground shaking and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-8 – 4.6-9)
The potential for liquefaction at the Project site is low due to the absence of shallow groundwater and the relatively high density of subsurface soils, high shear wave velocity and bedrock outcrop.

Additionally, as shown in General Plan Figure 8-5, Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley, the Project site is not identified as being susceptible to liquefaction. Thus, the proposed Project would have

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 27
a less than significant impact regarding seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)
The topography of the Project site is relatively flat in the south and southwesterly portions of the Project site while the northern area of the site contains previous mining operations and slopes generally east with some terraces around the granite outcrop. Additionally, the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Figure 8-6, Landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley, does not identify the Project site as within an area at risk of landslide. Thus, the occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows within the area would not occur and the Project would have no impact with respect to landslides. (DEIR, p. 4.6-9)

3.6.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.6-3 and 4.6-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The proposed grading activities associated with the Project would temporarily expose underlying soils to water and air which would increase erosion susceptibility while the soils are exposed. Pursuant to the requirements of the State Water Resources Control Board, the Project Applicant is required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities.

The NPDES permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area. As part of the mandatory Municipal Code and NPDES requirements, the Project Applicant would also be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would identify construction best management practices (BMPs). BMPs (i.e. silt fencing, sand bags, etc.) would be implemented during the construction phase to reduce the Project site’s potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. In addition, construction activities associated with the Project would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403, Fugitive Dust, which would preclude wind-related erosion hazards during construction activities. Mandatory compliance with the Project’s NPDES permit and the SCAQMD Rule 403 would ensure that water and wind erosion during the Project’s construction-related activities would be minimized. Accordingly, construction-related impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-10 – 4.6-11) Following construction, wind and water erosion on the Project site would be minimized, as the areas disturbed during construction would be landscaped or covered with impervious surfaces (i.e., building foundations and paved parking areas). Minimal areas of exposed soil would occur in the Project site’s

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 28
landscaped areas. The only potential for erosion effects to occur during Project operation would be indirect effects from stormwater discharged from the property. Drainage of the site sheet flows towards Avalon Street. The Project Applicant is required to prepare and submit to the City a Project-specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The WQMP is required to identify and implement an effective combination of erosion control and sediment control measures (i.e., BMPs) to reduce or eliminate discharge to surface water from stormwater and non-stormwater discharges. Adherence to the requirements noted in the Project’s required WQMP, and City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, would ensure that the Project’s potential erosion impacts during operation would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-11)

3.6.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site and the surrounding properties are relatively flat. Thus, the potential occurrence of mass movement failures such as landslides, rockfalls, or debris flows within the Project area is considered very low. Additionally, the absence of shallow groundwater and the relatively high density of subsurface soils, high shear wave velocity and bedrock outcrop, the potential for liquefaction is considered low. Due to the presence of high density of subsurface soils and bedrock, the total seismic settlement is estimated to be negligible. With the implementation of the recommendations provided in the Project-specific Geotechnical Investigation as required by PPP 4.6-1 and 4.6-2, the Project’s potential impacts related to geologic stability will be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-12) The Project-specific Geotechnical Engineering Investigation did not identify any potential for hazards associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapsible soils at the Project site. Further, compliance with the standards of CBSC CALGreen and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code would ensure that the Project would not result in any potential impacts associated with lateral spreading, subsidence, or collapse. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-12)

3.6.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 29
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.6-1 and 4.6-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to geologic and soil resources. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
Onsite soils have an expansion index of 4, correlating to a “very low” expansion potential.

Additionally, mandatory implementation of the standards of CBSC CALGreen and Title 8, Buildings and Construction, of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, would further ensure that impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.6-13)

3.6.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.6.5 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project proposes to install wastewater collection and conveyance facilities that would connect to the Rubidoux Community Services District sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the Project. Accordingly, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p.

4.6-14)

3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

3.7.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. ❑ 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 PPPs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 30
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain any RECs, HRECs, or CRECs, nor is the Project site affected by any off-site hazards or hazardous materials. No USTs, ASTs, hazardous materials, hazardous wastes, or petroleum products were observed at the Project site. Minor areas of trash and debris were noted on site, as well as areas of homeless encampments and significant debris disposal noted off-site along the perimeter of the western and southern portions of the southern parcel. Furthermore, the former ponds located to the north of the Project site were closed in place under regulatory oversight with the addition of Portland cement to fix the contents in place. A deed restriction was recorded that prevents the former pond area from being disturbed and would therefore not be considered a REC to the Project site. The historical uses of the Project site do not represent a REC or human health risk. No RECs or HRECs were identified that would negatively impact the environment. As a result, implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts related to on-site soil contamination. (DEIR, p.

4.8-11)
Heavy equipment that would be used during construction of the proposed Project would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. These materials would not be in such quantities or stored in such a manner as to pose a significant safety hazard to onsite construction workers or the general public. Construction activities would also be short-term or one time in nature and would cease upon completion of the proposed Project’s construction phase. 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). (DEIR, p. 4.8-11) Construction activities required to develop the Project site would involve the disturbance of onsite soils. As stated, there were no identified impacted soils found onsite; no RECs, HRECs, or CRECs were identified that would negatively impact the environment. 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 less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-11 – 4.8-12) Any business that operates any of the facilities at the Project site and that handles and/or stores substantial quantities of hazardous materials (as defined by § 25500 of California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would be required to prepare and submit a Hazards Materials Business Emergency Plan (HMBEP) to the RCDEH in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. Such business is also required to comply with California’s Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Law, which requires immediate reporting to Riverside County Fire Department and State Office of Emergency Services regarding any release or threatened release of a hazardous material, regardless of the amount handled by the business. (DEIR, p. 4.8-12) The operation of the Project would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations to ensure the proper transport, use, and disposal of hazardous substances. With mandatory regulatory compliance, potential hazardous materials impacts associated with long-term operation of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 31
the Project is not expected to pose a significant hazard to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would the Project increase the potential for accident operations which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Impacts are regarded as less than significant and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-12)

3.7.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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.
❑ 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 PPPs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project’s Phase I Environmental Site Assessment did not identify any potential hazardous materials at the Project site, or any RECs or HRECs. Accordingly, there would be no impact with respect to 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 associated with the existing conditions at the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.8-13) The Project’s near-term construction activities would not have a significant impact associated with hazardous materials handling or disposal. Construction activities would also 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. Thus, impacts due to construction activities would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions, and impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-13 – 4.8-14) The long-term operation of the proposed Project would not result in any significant adverse effects associated with hazardous materials handling or disposal. The operation of the proposed Project would not include any components associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials beyond those typical of a similar land use, which would be conducted in accordance with all applicable local, State, and federal regulations. Any business that operates any of the facilities at the Project site and that handles and/or stores substantial quantities of hazardous materials (as defined by California

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 32
Health and Safety Code, § 25500, Division 20, Chapter 6.95) would be required to prepare and submit an HMBEP to the RCDEH in order to register the business as a hazardous materials handler. General cleaning activities on-site that contain toxic substances are usually low in concentration and small in amount; therefore, there is no significant risk to humans or the environment from the use of such cleaning products. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not 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, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-14)

3.7.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The nearest existing school to the Project site is Ina Arbuckle Elementary School, located approximately 0.81-mile south of the Project site. There are no schools planned within 0.25-mile of the Project site. Accordingly, the Project has no potential to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school. Thus, no impact would occur and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.8-15)

3.7.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project site would not be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.8-1 and 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hazards and hazardous materials. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 33
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is not identified on the list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Project was listed in two government agency databases but did not have any RECs in either listing. The listings generally indicate that chemical use, storage, and generation of hazardous waste occurred at the Site in moderate to large quantities and some records of air pollution violations were found as a result of the previous operation of the site. Additionally, there were several “ponds” noted to the north of the Site at the United Forest Services Plant. The ponds were in operation from 1965-1980 and reportedly used to contain wastewater with asbestos waste from the manufacture of asbestos containing concrete pipe. The ponds were closed in place under regulatory oversight with the addition of Portland cement to fix the contents in place. A deed restriction was recorded that prevents the former pond area from being disturbed. As such, this would not be considered an REC to the Site. (DEIR, pp. 4.8-16 – 4.8-17) Based on the review of the available regulatory information, the Project site is located in an area of historic commercial and industrial operations. Several facilities in the vicinity are noted to have used chemicals but none have experienced releases. Additionally, facilities in the Project site vicinity are not considered to be RECsto the Project site. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.8-17)

3.7.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project site is not within two miles of an airport and the Project site is not identified as within an airport influence area.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located less than two miles away from Flabob Airport. However, the Flabob Airport has an adopted airport land use plan which does not encompass the Project site. The Project site is not within two miles of an any other airport and the Project site is not identified as within an Airport Influence Area for airports in Riverside or San Bernardino County. As such, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-18)

3.7.6 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 34
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to emergency response or evacuation plans. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold f; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the proposed Project would be required to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. The proposed Project would not substantially impede emergency response routes in the local area. Accordingly, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Thus, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-19)

3.7.7 THRESHOLD G
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold g are discussed in detail in Section 4.8.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to wildland fires. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold g; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is identified as within a “High” fire hazard Zone in Figure 8-10, Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley, of the City’s General Plan. Under existing conditions, the Project site contains a mixture of native and nonnative vegetation. The Project would convert vacant land with potentially combustible vegetation to a developed state and would thereby reduce the presence of combustible vegetation on site. The Project would reduce the presence of combustible plant matter on site which would further separate the adjacent built land uses from the open space to the northwest. Furthermore, subject to the City’s General Plan, the Project would be required use drought tolerant, irrigated landscaping. Accordingly, the project would not expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. Thus, no impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.8-20)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 35

3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

3.8.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.9-1 and 4.9-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
Mandatory compliance with the SWPPP and the erosion control plan would ensure that implementation of the Project would not result in a violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements during construction activities. Therefore, water quality impacts associated with construction activities would be less than significant and no mitigation measures would be required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-9)
To meet the requirements of the City’s NPDES permit and in accordance with the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 6.05, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP), which is a Project site-specific post-construction water quality management program designed to minimize the release of potential waterborne pollutants, including pollutants of concern for downstream receiving waters, under long-term conditions via BMPs. Implementation of the WQMP ensures on-going, long-term protection of the watershed basin. (DEIR, p. 4.9-9)
In addition to mandatory implementation of a WQMP, the NDPES program also requires industrial land uses to prepare a SWPPP for operational activities and to implement a long-term water quality sampling and monitoring program. Because the permit is dependent upon the operational activities of the building, and the Project’s future building occupants and their operations are not known at this time, details of the SWPPP (including BMPs) cannot be determined at this time. However, based on the requirements of the NPDES Industrial General Permit, it is assured that mandatory compliance with all applicable regulations would further reduce potential water quality impacts during long-term Project operation. Impacts would be less than significant and mitigation is not required. (DEIR, p. 4.9- 9)

3.8.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Project would impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 36
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project would be served with potable water from RCSD, which pulls all of their service water from groundwater pumped from the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin. The UWMP calculates that the district’s water demand (both potable and non-potable water) for the year 2020 is anticipated to be approximately 10,397 acre-feet. Based on the adopted Water Supply Assessment for the Project, RCSD forecasted water demand for the Project site is 16.7 acre-feet of water per year. According to the U.S.

Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, warehouses and storage buildings use a total annual average of 3.4 gallons/sf of floor space. As the Project proposes a total of approximately 1,184,102 sf, the Project would require approximately 4,025,947 gallons/year (12.4 acre-feet of water per year). In adopting the WSA, the RCSD Board determined that there would be adequate water supplies available during normal, single-, and multipledry water years to meet the projected water demand of the Project, in addition to the existing and other planned future uses of RCSD’s system. The finding is based on RCSD’s reliable supply of groundwater, continued success with water conservation programs, and the growth accounted for within the RCSD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. The Project was determined to not result in substantial population or employment growth. The proposed Project is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. Because the Project would be consistent with the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan land use designation for the site, and the Project would not result in substantial direct or indirect population growth, the water demand associated with the Project was considered in the demand anticipated by the UWMP. It should also be noted that the Project Applicant does not propose the use of any wells or other groundwater extraction activities.

Accordingly, implementation of the proposed Project would not substantially or directly decrease groundwater supplies and the Project’s impact to groundwater supplies would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-11 – 4.9-12)
Development of the Project would increase impervious surface coverage on the Project site, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of water percolating down into the groundwater sub-basin that underlies the Project site (i.e., Riverside County portion of the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin).

Percolation is just one of several sources of groundwater recharge for the Riverside-Arlington Subbasin. The Project would include the installation of an infiltration basin, an underground chambers system, and permeable landscape areas on the Project site to continue allowing the direct percolation of Project runoff into the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin. Based on the small size of the Project site in relation to the size of the groundwater basin and the design features proposed by the Project to allow percolation, implementation of the Project is determined to result in incremental changes to local percolation and would not result in substantial adverse effects to local groundwater recharge.

Finally, the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin is an adjudicated basin; adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 37
under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the sub-basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin. (DEIR, p. 4.9-12)

3.8.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would: result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite; create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or impede or redirect flood flows.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project would include the installation of an integrated, on-site system of underground storm drain pipes, catch basins, an underground infiltration basin, and an underground chamber system. The integrated storm water system is designed to capture on-site stormwater runoff flows, convey the runoff across the site, and treat the runoff to minimize the amount of water-borne pollutants transported from the Project site. Under Project conditions, runoff would be conveyed to an existing storm drain in 28th Street and Avalon Street. Pursuant to City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 8.70.060, the Project’s construction contractor would be required to implement an erosion control plan to minimize water- and windborne erosion during construction activities. Furthermore, implementation of SWPPP requirements including site-specific BMPs would ensure no substantial erosion would occur and runoff from the Project site would be similar to existing conditions. Furthermore, the treatment controls proposed (i.e. infiltration basins and chambers, and catch basin filters) for the Project site are effective at removing sediment from stormwater runoff during long-term operation. Compliance with the WQMP, and long-term maintenance of on-site stormwater conveyance and retention infrastructure by the property owner or operator to ensure their long-term effectiveness, would be required by the City (pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 6.05). Therefore, stormwater runoff flows leaving the Project site would not carry substantial amounts of sediment. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-13 – 4.9-14)
Implementation of the Project would not exceed the capacities for Basin “A” or Basin “B”, and all runoff would be conveyed to the 72-inch 28th Street storm drain. Although runoff from the Project site would increase post-construction stormwater flows from existing conditions, the design flow of the existing storm drain system has adequate capacity to accommodate the increase rate of runoff from the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 38
capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-15)
The Project’s construction contractors would be required to comply with a NPDES Construction General Permit, NPDES Industrial General Permit, a site-specific SWPPP, an erosion control plan, and the Preliminary WQMP to ensure that Project-related construction activities and operational activities do not result in substantial amounts of polluted runoff. Impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)
The entirety of the Project site is located within an identified Zone X (unshaded). Zone X is defined as an area of minimal flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as outside the 500‐year flood level and protected by levee from 100-year flood. Additionally, the Project site is not identified within a flood hazard area per the Riverside County GIS database. Accordingly, the Project site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area and would have no potential to impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year floodplain. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-16)

3.8.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Pacific Ocean is located more than 40 miles southwest of the Project site; consequently, there is no potential for the Project site to be inundated by a tsunami. The nearest large bodies of surface water are approximately 10.9 miles southwest of the Project (Lake Mathews) and approximately 15.6 miles southeast of the Project (Lake Perris), respectively, which are both too far away from the subject property to result in inundation in the event of a seiche. The Project also is located outside of the 100- year floodplain. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not risk release of pollutants due to inundation. No impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.9-17)

3.8.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.9.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.9-1 and 4.9-4 to comply with the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 39
City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to hydrology and water quality. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Basin and Project-related construction and operational activities would be required to comply with the Santa Ana RWQCB’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan by preparing and adhering to a SWPPP and WQMP and by installing and maintaining the on-site stormwater infrastructure that is designed to minimize impacts associated with water quality and polluted runoff from the Project site. Implementation of the Project would not conflict with or obstruct the Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Plan and impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, pp. 4.9-17 – 4.9-18) The Project site is located within the portion of the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin that is adjudicated under the 1969 Western-San Bernardino Judgment. Adjudicated basins, like the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Sub-basin. No component of the Project would obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Riverside-Arlington Sub-basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.9-18)

3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING

3.9.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not physically divide an established community. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is located approximately 0.5 mile south of State Route 60 (SR-), 2.6 miles west of Interstate 215 (I-215), and 2.7 miles west of SR-61. Although the Project site is predominantly surrounded by industrial and commercial development, there are residential land uses located to the southwest. The Project site is mostly undeveloped without any improvements. The Project area is generally characterized by industrial, residential, vacant, and open space land uses. North of the Project site are industrial uses; east of the Project are industrial land uses; south of the Project are industrial and residential land uses; southwest of the Project is vacant land; and west of the Project site is open space. As the Project site is surrounded by roadways and existing industrial development,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 40
implementation of the Project represents a logical expansion of industrial land uses to the Project site. (DEIR, p. 4.10-5)
Although the site shares an adjacent property boundary with residential uses, the Project proposes the installment of new 8-foot-tall metal fencing and 14-foot-tall screen walls around the truck courts. The Project site is currently physically separated from neighboring properties under existing conditions, and the Project does not propose any infrastructure or physical barriers to mobility in the area.

Implementation of the Project would result in less than significant impacts associated with the physical division of an established community; development of the Project site with five industrial buildings would not physically divide an established community. (DEIR, p. 4.10-5)

3.9.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.10.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The land use plans, policies, and regulations applicable to the Project for purposes of determining if the Project would cause a significant environmental effect due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect include the City’s General Plan and Municipal Code and SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal).

As shown in DEIR Table 4.10-1, the Project would not conflict with General Plan policies. During the City’s review of the Project’s application materials, the Jurupa Valley Planning Department reviewed the proposed development for consistency with all applicable policies of the General Plan and found that there would be no conflict with any applicable General Plan policies resulting from development of the Project site with the Project. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the City’s General Plan. (DEIR, pp. 4.10-6 – 4.10-23) Under existing conditions, the current Zoning Classification for the Project site is ManufacturingMedium (M-M) to the north of the West Riverside Canal and Manufacturing-Service Commercial (MSC) in the parcels to the south. The Project Applicant proposes a Zone Change to modify the site’s underlying zoning from Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) to M-SC. Per Chapter 9.148, M-SC Zone (Manufacturing-Service Commercial), of the City’s Zoning Code, industrial and manufacturing uses are permitted within this zone; therefore, the Project is consistent with the allowed uses. The Project’s application materials were reviewed by the City for conformance with the development standards applicable within the M-SC Zone, as set forth in Chapter 9.148 of the City’s Zoning Code. Project

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 41
consistency with the City’s Zoning Code is a land use planning issue and would not result in environmental impacts. (DEIR, p. 4.10-23)
SCAG’s Connect SoCal is the applicable SCAG planning documents that apply to the Project. Connect SoCal identifies voluntary best practices to approach growth and infrastructure challenges in an integrated and comprehensive way. The Connect SoCal goals are meant to provide guidance for considering proposed projects for municipalities throughout the SCAG jurisdictional area within the context of regional goals and policies. As shown in DEIR Table 4.10-2, SCAG Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the adopted Connect SoCal. (DEIR, p. 4.10-23–4.10-26)

3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES

3.10.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The northern portion of the Project site was previously used for mining of decomposed granite. Mining activities within the Project site have been ongoing since 1989 under the Surface Mining Permit (SMP) 171. SMP 171 expired in 1999 and a subsequent permit SMP 206 was approved in 2004 to extend the permit for ten years until 2014. Compared to other surface mining operations within the western Riverside and San Bernardino County, mining operations at the Project site were relatively small.

Materials produced from the mine are acceptable for aggregate base for roadways and general fill material. Mining operations at the Project site have been completed. The reclamation plan was approved in 2004. The Project includes closure and implementation of the reclamation plan, which would occur concurrent with grading activities on site. The Project will result in re-compaction of the site to commercial standards that will facilitate the Project. Once the Project is approved, the State mining permit will be terminated and closed, thus ensuring mining operations never occur at the Project site in the future. Reclamation of the Project site would occur in accordance with existing regulations under SMARA and in the City’s Municipal Code in order to allow for future development of the site. (DEIR, p. 4.11-3)
The Project site does not contain a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the State. Accordingly, the proposed Project has no potential to result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. (DEIR, p. 4.11-3)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 42

3.10.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.11.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
Mineral resource sites are designated as Mineral Resources (OS-MR) by the General Plan. The Project site is currently designated as Light Industrial (LI). As such, the site is not designated as a mineral resource recovery site by the City’s General Plan, and there are no other land use plans that identify the site for containing mineral resources. The closure and reclamation plan for the existing mine on the Project site is part of the Project and the Project will result in re-compaction of the site to commercial standards. Accordingly, the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan. (DEIR, p. 4.11-4)

3.11 NOISE

3.11.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to noise. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The unmitigated construction noise levels are expected to range from 56.5 to 71.7 dBA Leq at the nearby receiver locations. To demonstrate compliance with the City of Jurupa Valley daytime and nighttime thresholds during short-term Project construction activities, this analysis relies on the Leq thresholds of significance. The unmitigated Lmax construction noise levels will range from 64.5 dBA Lmax to 79.7 dBA Lmax. However, since City of Jurupa Valley relies on the Leq noise metric to assess the construction noise levels, the Lmax construction noise levels are presented for informational purposes only. The concrete pouring equipment noise levels are expected to range from 62.5 to 67.6

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 43
dBA Leq when equipment is operating at the closest point from the edge of Project construction activities to the nearby sensitive receiver locations. The highest construction noise levels at the potentially impacted receiver locations will satisfy the City of Jurupa Valley 80 dBA Leq daytime and 70 dBA Leq nighttime thresholds (requiring authorization for nighttime work from the City of Jurupa Valley) during short-term Project construction activities. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction including nighttime concrete pouring activities are considered less than significant at all noise sensitive receiver locations. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-14 – 4.12-17) The Existing without Project exterior noise levels are expected to range from 71.7 to 80.2 dBA CNEL, without accounting for any noise attenuation features such as noise barriers or topography. The Project off-site traffic noise level increases will range from 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. The Existing with Project will range from 71.7 to 80.3 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of approximately 0.0 to 0.1 dBA CNEL. The EAC with Project will range from 73.8 to 82.1 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of approximately 0.0 to 0.2 dBA CNEL. The HY with Project will range from 73.7 to 81.5 dBA CNEL, resulting in an increase of approximately 0.0 to 0.3 dBA CNEL. Since the Project would result in less than a 3 dBA CNEL noise increase under all scenarios, the land uses adjacent to the study area roadway segments would experience less than significant noise level increases due to unmitigated Projectrelated traffic noise levels. Long-term Traffic related noise impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-17–4.12-19)
The Project daytime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from

37.6 to 47.7 dBA Leq. The Project nighttime hourly noise levels at the off-site receiver locations are expected to range from 37.2 to 47.6 dBA Leq. The unmitigated operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Jurupa Valley 65 dBA Leq daytime exterior noise level standards at all nearby receiver locations. The unmitigated operational noise levels associated with the Project will satisfy the City of Jurupa Valley 45 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards at nearby receiver locations R1, R2, R3, R5 and R6. However, the operational analysis shows that exterior noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive receiver location R4 will exceed City of Jurupa Valley 45 dBA Leq nighttime exterior noise level standards. However, a review of the existing conditions at receiver location R4 shows that this location is no longer used for residential purposes and the buildings are currently supporting CMS metal fabrication. Therefore, R4 does not represent a noise sensitive residential use, and the operational noise analysis shows that Project-related operational noise level impacts are considered less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-19 – 4.12-20)

3.11.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.12-1 and 4.12-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to noise. This City Council finds that the development of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 44
the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
At distances ranging from 33 to 231 feet from Project construction activities, construction vibration velocity levels are estimated to range from 0.0032 to 0.0587 in/sec PPV and will remain below the City of Jurupa Valley threshold of 0.2 in/sec PPV at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Projectrelated vibration impacts are considered less than significant during the construction activities at the Project site. Moreover, the impacts at the site of the closest sensitive receivers are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site perimeter. (DEIR, pp. 4.12-21 – 4.12- 22)
To assess the potential vibration impacts from truck haul trips associated with operational activities the City of Jurupa Valley threshold for vibration of 0.2 in/sec PPV is used. Truck vibration levels are dependent on vehicle characteristics, load, speed, and pavement conditions. Typical vibration levels for the Project heavy truck activity at normal traffic speeds will approach 0.004 in/sec PPV at 25 feet based on the FTA Transit Noise Impact and Vibration Assessment. Additionally, trucks transiting on site will be travelling at very low speeds, which would further reduce vibration levels. Delivery truck vibration impacts at nearby homes will satisfy the 0.2 in/sec PPV threshold, and therefore, will be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-22)

3.11.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.12.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Flabob Airport is located approximately 1.5 miles south of the Project site. The Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document includes policies for determining the land use compatibility of the Project. The Flabob Airport Compatibility, Map FL-1, indicates that the Project site is located outside the Airport Influence Area Boundaries. Therefore, airport noise level impacts are considered less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.12-23)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 45

3.12 TRANSPORTATION

3.12.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement Project Design Features (PDFs) 4.13-1 through 4.13-3 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to transportation. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
Implementation of the Project would be consistent with the goals and policies of Connect SoCal (see DEIR Table 4.10-2). The Project does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, including policies outlined in the City’s General Plan (see DEIR Table 4.10-1). Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and no mitigation is required. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11)

3.12.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not 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 4.13.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The baseline project generated VMT per employee is 36.5 or 24.0% less than the City’s threshold of

48.0 VMT per employee. Whereas the cumulative project generated VMT per employee is 36.6 or

22.8% less than the City’s threshold of 47.4 VMT per employee. Therefore, the Project’s VMT impact is less than significant based on the comparison of baseline and cumulative project generated VMT per employee to the City’s baseline and cumulative thresholds, respectively. (DEIR, p. 4.13-11–4.13-13)

3.12.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment).

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 46
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6 of the DEIR. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required. ❑ Substantial Evidence
Proposed roadway improvements along the Project site frontage would occur within the public rightsof-way and would be installed in conformance with the City’s design standards. Due to the typical wide turning radius of large trucks, a truck turning template has been overlaid on the site plan at each applicable Project driveway anticipated to be utilized by heavy trucks in order to determine appropriate curb radii and to verify that trucks will have sufficient space to execute turning maneuvers. A WB‐67 (53‐foot trailer) has been utilized at all applicable driveways that are anticipated to be accessed by heavy trucks. Driveway 1 and Driveway 2 on Van Dell Road are anticipated to accommodate the wide turning radius of the heavy trucks as currently designed and no additional modifications are necessary.

Driveway 2 will be modified to provide a 35‐foot curb radius on the northeast corner in order to accommodate the wide turning radius of trucks and prevent trucks from traveling in the opposing traffic lane. (DEIR, p. 4.13-14)
The Project area is generally characterized by industrial, residential, vacant, and open space land uses.

Traffic generated by the Project would be typical of an industrial development and be compatible with the type of traffic generated by the surrounding development. The City of Jurupa Valley Traffic Engineering Division reviewed the Project’s application materials and determined that no hazardous transportation design features would be introduced by the Project. Additionally, at the time of final grading, landscape, and street improvement plans, the City will review project access points to ensure adequate sight distance. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not create or substantially increase safety hazards due to a design feature or incompatible use. The Project would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.13-14)

3.12.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.13.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to transportation. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
During the course of the City of Jurupa Valley’s review of the proposed Project, the City evaluated the Project’s design, including but not limited to proposed driveway locations and parking lot/drive aisle

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 47
configuration, to ensure that adequate access would be provided for emergency vehicles at Project build out. Furthermore, the Project would provide adequate emergency access along abutting roadways during temporary construction activities within the public right-of-way. Furthermore, the Project would implement an emergency access only road along Primavera Avenue. Moreover, the Project Applicant would be required to comply with PPP 4.8-3 which would ensure that the Project is designed and constructed to provide adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles. Therefore, the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and a less than significant impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.13-15)

3.13 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

3.13.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.15-1 and 4.15-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
No existing water or wastewater lines would be relocated or upsized as part of the proposed Project.

The Project would include the installation of water and wastewater lines within the Project Site, connecting to existing facilities within Rubidoux Boulevard. Installation of water and wastewater lines on the Project site is considered an inherent component of the Project’s construction process, and no significant impacts have been identified throughout the EIR specifically related to installation of the water and sewer lines.

Water service to the Project site would be provided by the RCSD. The northern portion of the proposed Project site would connect to existing portions of the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) infrastructure via a proposed 12-inch looped water main that would extend along Primavera Avenue (26th Street) to an existing 24-inch water main south of Rubidoux Boulevard. For the southern portion of the Project site, water service for Building 5 would be accommodated via a connection to the existing 8-inch water line within Avalon Street.

The Project would involve utility connections to provide electric power and telecommunications services to the Project site. Installation of dry utilities on the Project Site is considered an inherent component of the Project’s construction process, and no significant impacts have been identified throughout the EIR specifically related to their installation.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 48
In summary, the installation of the utility and service system infrastructure improvements proposed by the Project Applicant would result in physical environmental impacts inherent in the Project’s construction process; however, these impacts have already been included in the analyses of construction-related effects presented throughout the EIR. In instances where the Project’s construction phase would result in specific, significant impacts, feasible mitigation measures are provided. The construction of infrastructure necessary to serve the proposed Project would not result in any significant physical effects on the environment that are not already identified and disclosed elsewhere in the EIR. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant and additional mitigation measures beyond those identified throughout other subsections of the EIR would not be required. (DEIR, p. 4.15- 7–4.15-8)

3.13.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.15-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
RCSD is responsible for supplying potable water to the Project site. A WSA was prepared and approved for the Project on April 2021 by RCSD’s Board of Directors, pursuant to California Water Code Sections 10910 through 10914. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration’s 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, warehouses and storage buildings use a total annual average of 3.4 gallons/sf of floor space. With a total of approximately 1,184,102 sf of floor area, the Project would require approximately 4,025,947 gallons/year (12.4 acre-feet of water per year).

The RCSD Board determined that there would be adequate water supplies available during normal, single-, and multiple-dry water years to meet the projected water demand of the Project, in addition to the existing and other planned future uses of RCSD’s system. The finding is based on RCSD’s reliable supply of groundwater, continued success with water conservation programs, and the growth accounted for within the RCSD 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. (DEIR, p. 4.15-9) As discussed in the RCSD’s UWMP, water supplies are projected to significantly exceed demand through 2040 under normal, historic single-dry and historic multiple-dry year conditions. Under each water planning scenario (normal year, single dry year, multiple dry years) RCSD water supply is projected to exceed demand by a minimum of 22 percent. As shown in Table 4-1 of the UWMP, RCSD projected the addition of approximately 111 acre-feet of water per year for Commercial/Industrial/Institutional water use between 2020 and 2025. Therefore, there is sufficient

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 49
water supply to accommodate the Project. RCSD’s projections are also based on the population projections of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), which rely on adopted general plan land use maps and land use designations. The proposed Project is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial. Therefore, buildout of the Project site with industrial uses is consistent with the underlying General Plan land use designation and previously considered in the SCAG population projections and the UWMP. As stated above, the RCSD expects to have adequate water supplies to meet all its demands through year 2040. Therefore, implementation of the Project would result in a less than significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.15-9)

3.13.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.15-1 and 4.15-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
RCSD is responsible for supplying wastewater services to the Project site. As discussed in the UWMP, RCSD projects quantities of wastewater based on 32% of water production, which is the average of wastewater quantities as a percentage of total production for years 2010-2015. For the purposes of this Project, it is conservatively assumed that indoor water usage accounts for 60% of water usage.

Therefore, the amount of wastewater that would be generated by the Project is conservatively assumed to be 6,618 gallons per day (gpd), which is 100% percent of indoor water use. The daily amount of wastewater generated would result in an annual generation of approximately 2.43 million gallons per year of wastewater that will be conveyed to the City of Riverside RWQCP, which is located in the City of Riverside. With the expansion of the RWQCP completed in September 2017, the RWQCP currently has a capacity of 46 million gpd.

Based on the City of Riverside’s Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities, the Project site is located in Area 82 (which projects 94,416 gpd) and Area 105 (which projects 7,068 gpd) for a total of 101,484 gpd of wastewater projected for the Project site. The Project’s discharge rate of 6,618 gpd would therefore be within the RWQCP’s assumptions for the Project site and therefore assumed within the Master Plan for the Wastewater Collection and Treatment Facilities. (DEIR, p. 4.15-10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 50

3.13.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.15-3 and 4.15-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
Construction and operation of the Project would result in the generation of solid waste, requiring disposal at a landfill. During construction of the Project, solid waste in the form of demolition material (demolition of the church facility site), materials and debris currently stored on-site, and remnants of unused construction materials would require disposal at a landfill. Waste also would be generated by the construction process, primarily consisting of discarded materials and packaging. Section 5.408 of the 2016 California Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen; Part 11 of Title 24, California Code of Regulations) requires that 65 percent of construction/demolition waste be diverted from landfills, and 100 percent of trees, stumps, rocks, and associated vegetation and soils resulting from land clearing be reused or recycled. (DEIR, p. 4.15-12)
Solid waste from the Project site will be hauled by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. and transferred to the Agua Mansa Material Recovery Facility (MRF)/Transfer Station. From the MRF, non-recyclable materials will likely be disposed at Badlands Sanitary Landfill or the El Sobrante Landfill. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 15,748,799 cubic yards. The Badlands Sanitary Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2022. The El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day with a remaining capacity of 143,977,170 tons. The El Sobrante Landfill is estimated to reach capacity, at the earliest time, in the year 2051. (DEIR, p. 4.15-12) Based on the County of Riverside General Plan Environmental Impact Report, the current solid waste generation rates are anticipated to be 10.8 tons of solid waste per year for every 1,000 s.f. of industrial space. The Project currently proposes 1,184,102 s.f. of industrial building space which would result in approximately 12,787.2 tons of solid waste per year (10.8 tons x 1,184 thousand s.f.). As previously stated, the Badlands Sanitary Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 4,800 tons per day (1,752,000 tons per year) and the El Sobrante Landfill has a permitted disposal capacity of 16,054 tons per day (5,859,710 tons per year). Since the Project is estimated to generate approximately 35.0 tons of solid waste per day (12,787.2 tons per year ÷ 365 days in a year), this amount represents a nominal portion of the landfill’s capacity and would not contribute significantly to the daily landfill capacity,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 51
and the landfill facilities are sufficient. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.15-12)

3.13.5 THRESHOLD E
Impact Statement: The Project would comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold e are discussed in detail in Section 4.15.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.15-3 and 4.15-4 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to utilities and service systems. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold e; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The California Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill (AB) 939), signed into law in 1989, established an integrated waste management system that focused on source reduction, recycling, composting, and land disposal of waste. In addition, the bill established a 50% waste reduction requirement for cities and counties by the year 2000, along with a process to ensure environmentally safe disposal of waste that could not be diverted. (DEIR, p. 4.15-13) The proposed Project would be required to coordinate with Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc., the waste hauler, to develop collection of recyclable material for the Project on a common schedule as set forth in applicable local, regional, and state programs. Recyclable materials that could be recycled by the Project include paper products, glass, aluminum, and plastic. (DEIR, p. 4.15-13) Additionally, the Project would be required to implement PPP 4.15-3 and PPP 4.15-4 and comply with applicable elements of AB 1327, Chapter 18 (California Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Act of 1991; Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 42901) and other applicable local, state, and federal solid waste disposal standards. This would ensure that the solid waste stream to regional landfills is reduced in accordance with existing regulations. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p.

4.15-13)

3.14 WILDFIRE

3.14.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-2 and PDF 4.16-1 to comply

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 52
with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts related to wildfire. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold a; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is designated within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone within an SRA by the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and CalFire. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate access for emergency vehicles. (DEIR, p. 4.16-6) During Project construction, travel lanes along existing roadways would be maintained, and construction materials and equipment would be staged on-site. The Project is not anticipated to result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of an existing road that would impair or interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. No impacts would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.16-6) Under operational conditions, Primavera Avenue (26th Street) would serve emergency vehicles only, to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles on-site. The Project does not include any features that would physically impair or otherwise conflict with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. Additionally, as part of the City’s discretionary review process, the City of Jurupa Valley reviewed the Project’s application materials to ensure that appropriate emergency ingress and egress would be available to-and-from the Project site and that the Project would not substantially impede emergency response times in the local area. (DEIR, p. 4.16-6) The Project would not substantially impede emergency response routes in the local area based on the Project’s ingress and egress, access driveways, and circulation design. Accordingly, the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan. Thus, no impact would occur. (DEIR, p. 4.16-6)

3.14.2 THRESHOLD B
Impact Statement: The Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildlife risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold b are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-2 and PDF 4.16-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts related to wildfire. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold b; therefore, no mitigation is required.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 53
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is currently undeveloped and contains native and non-native vegetation. The Project would result in the development of the Project site with five industrial buildings that would remove the native and non-native vegetation which would reduce the presence of fuel in the event of a wildfire.

Furthermore, as required by the City’s General Plan and PPP 4.16-1, all landscaping improvements implemented by the Project would be drought tolerant. (DEIR, p. 4.16-7) In addition to an overall reduction of vegetative fuel at the Project site, development of the vacant site would increase the buffer between open space and adjoining residential, industrial, and commercial uses. The Project’s proposed design features, which include asphalt roads and parking stalls, and a fully irrigated landscape, would reduce the risk of wildfire at the Project site. Moreover, all structures would be protected by an automatic, internal fire sprinkler system. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for the Project’s interior fire sprinkler systems for all the Project’s proposed structures. The development of the Project site with the Project would not facilitate the spread of wildfire and create or exacerbate offsite fire risk to neighboring resources. As such, the Project is not anticipated to expose Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.16-7)

3.14.3 THRESHOLD C
Impact Statement: The Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines, or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold c are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.8-2 and PDF 4.16-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts related to wildfire. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold c; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project does not require the installation of infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk. The northern portion of the proposed Project site would connect to existing portions of the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) infrastructure via a proposed 12-inch looped water main that would extend along Primavera Avenue (26th Street) to an existing 24-inch water main south of Rubidoux Boulevard.

For the southern portion of the Project site, water service for Building 4 would be accommodated via a connection to the existing 8-inch water line within Avalon Street. (DEIR, p. 4.16-8) Sanitary sewer service to the Project site would also be provided by the RCSD. The northern portion of the proposed Project site would connect to existing RCSD infrastructure via a proposed 8-inch sewer line that would extend along Primavera Avenue to an existing 8-inch sewer main located south of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 54
Rubidoux Boulevard. For the southern portion of the Project site, Building 4, would also connect to the proposed 8-inch sewer line that would extend along Primavera Avenue via a 6-inch connection line. The Project would involve utility connections to provide electric power and telecommunications services to the Project site. Although the Project would require the installation of utility infrastructure and utility infrastructure connection, the construction of these improvements is inherent to the Project’s construction phase and impacts associated with the Project construction phase are evaluated throughout the EIR. In addition to the Project’s utility infrastructure, the Project would result in the installation of on-site fire hydrants, that are designed in accordance with the RCFD standards. The internal waterlines are anticipated to supply sufficient fire flows and pressure to meet the demands required for on-site fire hydrants. Therefore, the proposed connections to existing infrastructure would not be anticipated to exacerbate fire risk on or off-site or result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment.

Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.16-8 – 4.16-9)

3.14.4 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project would not expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire instability or drainage change.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in Section 4.16.5 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PDF 4.16-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts related to wildfire. This City Council finds that the development of the proposed Project will not result in significant impacts related to Threshold d; therefore, no mitigation is required.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site is within an area of minimal flooding. The Project would result in minor changes to the existing drainage patterns of the Project site. However, such changes would not increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding or result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. The Project would replace undeveloped, vacant land that contains vegetation susceptible to wildfire with buildings, streets, driveways, parking lot areas, detention basins, and irrigated landscaping that would not readily transmit wildfire. Therefore, the Project would reduce the risk of wildfire spread. In the event that wildfire occurs in the Project vicinity, the Project would not result in an increased risk of downslope or downstream flooding because it is within an area of minimal flooding and Project runoff would be adequately conveyed by the existing storm drain infrastructure.

Therefore, the implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of downslope or downstream flooding. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.16-9 – 4.16-10) The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Figure 8-6, Landslide Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley, does not identify the Project site as within an area at risk of landslide. Regardless of the landslide susceptibility, the Project would be required by the California Building Code (CBC) and Jurupa Valley Building Code to comply with the recommendations identified in the Project’s Preliminary

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 55
Geotechnical Investigation, which would ensure that the Project is engineered and constructed to maximize stability and preclude safety hazards to on-site areas. The implementation of the Project would not increase the risk of landslides after a wildfire compared to existing conditions. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.16-10)
Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project is not anticipated to expose people or structure to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides as a result of runoff, postfire instability, or drainage change. Impacts would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.16-10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 56

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF LESS-THANSIGNIFICANT

4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

4.1.1 THRESHOLD A
Impact Statement: The Project could have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold a are discussed in detail in EIR Section 4.3.6. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site occurs almost completely within a predetermined Survey Area for three (3) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) narrow endemic plant species including: San Diego ambrosia, San Miguel savory, and Brand’s phacelia. Suitable soil conditions and vegetation were documented onsite for all three sensitive plant species. Focused surveys were conducted during the Spring of 2020. No state or federally listed threatened or endangered plant species were detected on the Project site, and none of the three (3) MSHCP narrow endemic plants were observed on the Project site. Accordingly, the Project would not impact any candidate, sensitive, or special status plant species. (DEIR, p. 4.3-20)
Incidental MSHCP covered species documented during the habitat assessment and/or focused survey efforts include Loggerhead shrike (SSC), San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (SSC), and California horned lark (CWL). Additionally, suitable habitat for MSHCP covered species, including orangethroated whiptail (CWL), coastal western whiptail (SSC), red-diamond rattlesnake (SSC), coast horned lizard (SSC), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (CWL), Bell's sage sparrow (CWL), whitetailed kite (SFP), coastal California gnatcatcher (FT, SSC), and northwestern San Diego pocket mouse (SSC), was detected onsite. The MSHCP has determined that all of these sensitive species documented within Rubidoux Commerce Park Project site have been adequately covered. Additionally, the Project Applicant will be required to comply with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 3.80.070, which requires payment of MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees. However, impacts to MSHCP covered species would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3-21)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 57
The Project site occurs almost completely within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl.

Suitable burrowing owl burrows potentially utilized for refugia and/or nesting were documented within the property including foraging habitat documented throughout the Project site. No burrowing owls were detected within the Project site during focused MSHCP surveys conducted in 2020. However, some potential, albeit low, does exist for BUOW presence due to potentially suitable habitat both onand off-site. Impacts to BUOW would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, p. 4.3- 21)
MM 4.3-1 To avoid Project-related impacts to burrowing owls potentially occurring on or in the vicinity of the Project site, a 30-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will be conducted immediately prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing construction, including vegetation clearing, grubbing, tree removal, or site watering, to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. The survey will be conducted in compliance with both MSHCP and CDFW guidelines (MSHCP 2006, CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley prior to any permit or approval for ground disturbing activities. In addition, a preconstruction survey for burrowing owl shall be conducted within 3 days prior to initiation of Project activities and reported to CDFW. Additionally, if ground-disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre-construction survey shall again be necessary to minimize the possibility burrowing owl have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed.

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

If active nests are identified on an implementing project site during the preconstruction survey, the Project applicant shall not commence activities until no sign is present that the burrows are being used by adult or juvenile owls or following CDFW approval of a Burrowing Owl Plan as described below. If owl presence is difficult to determine, a qualified biologist shall monitor the burrows with motion-activated trail cameras for at least 24 hours to evaluate burrow occupancy. The onsite qualified biologist will verify the nesting effort has finished according to methods identified in the Burrowing Owl Plan.

The qualified biologist and Project Applicant shall coordinate with the City, CDFW, and USFWS to develop a Burrowing Owl Plan to be submitted and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, CDFW and USFWS prior to commencing Project activities. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall describe proposed avoidance, relocation, monitoring, minimization, and/or mitigation actions. The Burrowing Owl Plan shall include the number and location of occupied burrow sites and details on proposed buffers if avoiding the burrowing owls or information on the

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 58
adjacent or nearby suitable habitat available to owls for relocation. If no suitable habitat is available nearby for relocation, details regarding the creation and funding of artificial burrows (numbers, location, and type of burrows) and management activities for relocated owls shall also be included in the Burrowing Owl Plan. The City will implement the Burrowing Owl Plan following CDFW and USFWS review and approval.

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

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

Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 would ensure the protection of burrowing owls through avoidance.

4.1.2 THRESHOLD D
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. ❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold d are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.3.6.

The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.3-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. Implementation of MM 4.3-2 would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project site does not represent a regional wildlife movement corridor and provides extremely limited cover, food, and no natural unrestricted water courses that would facilitate regional wildlife movement onsite. The Project site is not located within an MSHCP designated core, extension of existing core, non-contiguous habitat block, constrained linkage, or linkage area. As a result, impacts related to wildlife corridors would be less than significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-24)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 59
The Project site possess vegetation including trees and shrubs expected to potentially provide nesting habitat for raptors and migratory birds protected under the CDFG Codes. Measures for potential direct/indirect impacts to common and sensitive bird and raptor species will require compliance with the CDFG Code Section 3503 which prohibits the unlawful taking, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. Construction outside the nesting season (between September 1st and February 15th) does not require preconstruction nesting bird surveys. However, if construction is proposed between February 16th and August 31st, a qualified biologist will conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds or raptors within or directly adjacent (100 feet) to the Project site.

Loss of an active nest would be considered a potentially significant impact. (DEIR, pp. 4.3-24 – 4.3- 25)
MM 4.3-2 To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) for all implementing development and infrastructure projects shall be avoided, to the greatest extent possible, during the nesting season. If construction is proposed during the avian nesting season, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s), a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey(s) no more than three (3) days prior to initiation of grading to document the presence or absence of nesting birds survey(s) shall identify any raptors and/or bird nests that are directly or indirectly affected by construction activities. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:

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

2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures.

Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.

If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests are documented, speciesspecific measures shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience,

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 60
and implemented to prevent abandonment of the active nest. The buffers shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by account for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned.

Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-2 would ensure the protection of nesting birds through preconstruction surveys.

4.1.3 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.3.6.

The proposed Project would be required to implement PPPs 4.3-1 and 4.3-2 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to biological resources. Implementation of MM 4.3-1 (above) is necessary to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Reserve assembly requirements. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
❑ Substantial Evidence
The proposed Project would be consistent with the biological requirements of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements, Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species), and Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp), Section 6.1.1 (Delhi sands flowerloving fly) and Section 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface). However, implementation of PPP 4.3-1 and MM 4.3-1 would be required to ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures) of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl.

Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant. (DEIR, p. 4.3-29) Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.3-1 (above) would ensure that the Project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP Reserve Assembly Requirements for Burrowing Owl.

4.2 GEOLOGY AND SOILS

4.2.1 THRESHOLD F
Impact Statement: The Project has the potential to directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 61
❑ Findings
Potential impacts of the Project related to Threshold f are discussed in detail in DEIR Section 4.6.5.

The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 and MM 4.6-2, which would reduce impacts to less than significant. The City Council has determined that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The most recent geologic map of the Jurupa Valley area shows the Project area located on surface exposures of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan sediments. The granitic rocks in the nearby Jurupa Mountains and on-site granitic outcrops have low paleontological sensitivity.

Granitic rocks, by their nature, do not have any paleontological resource potential, and thus, this area of the Project sites is not expected to yield paleontological resources. Conversely, the older Pleistocene sediments underlying the majority of the Project site are accorded a “High (High A)” paleontological sensitivity. Riverside County defines a “High A” ranking as “Based on geologic formations or mappable rock units that are rocks that contain fossilized body elements, and trace fossils such as tracks, nests and eggs. These fossils occur on or below the surface.” The category “High A” indicates that fossils are likely to be encountered at the surface and may be impacted during excavation by construction activities. Therefore, impacts to paleontological resources are considered significant. (DEIR, pp. 4.6-15 – 4.6-16)
MM 4.6-1 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities, the Project Applicant shall retain a qualified paleontologist or paleontological monitor. The qualified paleontologist shall monitor mass grading and excavation activities in areas identified as likely to contain paleontological resources. Full-time monitoring of grading or excavation activities should be performed starting from the surface in undisturbed areas of older Quaternary (middle to late Pleistocene) alluvial fan deposits within the Project boundary, as mapped by Morton (2003; Qof1 on Figure 3).

Paleontological monitoring of onsite outcrops and exposures of Cretaceous granitic bedrock is not warranted. Paleontological monitors will be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed to avoid construction delays and to remove samples of sediments that are likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow for the removal of abundant or large specimens in a timely manner. Monitoring may be reduced if the potentially fossiliferous units are not present in the subsurface, or if present, are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontological personnel to have a low potential to contain or yield fossil resources.

MM 4.6-2 Prior to the issuance of any permits allowing ground-disturbing activities that may include, but are not limited to, pavement removal, pot-holing or auguring, grubbing, tree removals, boring, grading, excavation, drilling, and trenching, the Project Applicant/Developer shall submit a Paleontological Resources Impact Mitigation Program (PRIMP) for this project. The PRIMP shall include the methods that will be

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 62
used to protect paleontological resources that may exist within the Project site, procedures for monitoring, fossil preparation and identification, curation into a repository, and preparation of a final report at the conclusion of grading pursuant to the recommendations provided in Paleontological Assessment prepared by BFSA on February 4, 2020 (Technical Appendix I to the DEIR) and the criteria identified below.

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

The implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.6-1 and MM 4.6-2 would ensure that any previously undiscovered paleontological resources that may be encountered during Project construction would be identified and appropriately preserved. Accordingly, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 63

4.3 TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCE

4.3.1 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 Public Resources Code 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 4.14.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.14-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to tribal cultural resources. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 through 4.14-6, 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.
❑ Substantive Evidence
The records search results identified 76 cultural resources within one mile of the Project, none of which are located within the Project site. However, two resources, RIV-3499H (a historic water conveyance system with an associated trash scatter) and P-33-024777 (a historic isolated artifact), are mapped adjacent to the western boundary of the Project. These recorded resources were evaluated and are not considered historically significant. No prehistoric or historic cultural resources were identified within the Project site during the survey. (DEIR, p. 4.14-8)
The City of Jurupa Valley completed mandatory compliance with Public Resources Code § 21074 associated with the environmental review of the proposed Project. Implementation of the Project has the potential to 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 significant resources are discovered during the Project’s construction process. (DEIR, p. 4.14-9) A request for a Sacred Lands File search was sent to the NAHC. The search results were positive; however, no additional details were provided on the tribal cultural resource identified. The NAHC

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 64
requested that BFSA contact the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation for more information and provided a list of Native American tribes who may have knowledge of cultural resources in the Project area. BFSA specifically contacted the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation as directed by the NAHC, as well all Native American consultants listed in the NAHC response letter. BFSA received three responses. The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians indicated that the project is outside of their Traditional Use Area and deferred to tribes more local to the area.

The Morongo Band of Mission Indians stated that they had no additional comments to provide at this time, but may provide other information to the lead agency during the AB 52 consultation process. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians stated that, while they are generally concerned about the area in which the current project is located, the subject property has been disturbed in the past, although the exact depth of the disturbance is unknown; as such, they requested information to be included within the cultural report concerning the geomorphology and land use history of the subject property.

Although no specific information on tribal cultural resources was provided, there is a potential that resources could be encountered during ground-disturbing construction activities in native soils.

Accordingly, there is a potential for significant impacts to occur if significant resources are discovered during the Project’s construction process. (DEIR, pp. 4.14-9 – 4.14-10) MM 4.14-1 Retain Registered Professional Archaeologist: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall retain a Registered Professional Archaeologist (“Project Archaeologist”) subject to the approval of the City to be on-call during all mass grading and trenching activities. The Project Archaeologist’s responsibilities include, but are not limited to, performing the tasks that require the need for a qualified archaeologist pursuant to MM 4.14-2 through MM 4.14-6 below.

MM 4.14-2 Cultural Resources Management Plan: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Archaeologist, in consultation with the Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Applicant, and the City, shall develop a Cultural Resources Management Plan (CRMP) that includes performance standards identified in MM 4.14-3 through 4.14-5. A consulting tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52/SB 18 tribal consultation process for the Project, has completed AB 52/SB 18 consultation with the City as provided for in Cal Pub Res Code Section 21080.3.2(b)(1). The CRMP shall be prepared to address the implementation of the City’s Tribal Cultural Resource Mitigation Measures MM4.14-3 through 4.14-6, including but limited to, timing, procedures and considerations for Tribal Cultural Resources during the course of ground disturbing activities that will occur on the Project site. The CRMP shall be subject to final approval by the City of Jurupa Planning Department.

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

MM 4.14-4 Treatment and Disposition of Inadvertently Discovered Tribal Cultural Resources: In the event that buried archaeological resources/Tribal Cultural Resources are uncovered during the course of ground disturbing activity associated with the project, all work must be halted in the vicinity of the discovery and the Project Archaeologist shall visit the site of discovery and assess the significance and origin of

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 65
the archaeological resource in coordination with the consulting tribe(s). The following procedures will be carried out for treatment and disposition of the discoveries:
1) Temporary Curation and Storage: During the course of construction, all discovered resources shall be temporarily curated in a secure location onsite or at the offices of the project archaeologist. The removal of any artifacts from the Project site will need to be thoroughly inventoried with tribal monitor oversite of the process; and 2) Treatment and Final Disposition: The landowner(s) shall relinquish ownership of all cultural resources, including sacred items, burial goods, and all archaeological artifacts and non-human remains as part of the required mitigation for impacts to cultural resources. The applicant shall relinquish the artifacts through one or more of the following methods and provide the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department with evidence of same:
a) Preservation-In-Place of the cultural resources, if feasible. Preservation in place means avoiding the resources, leaving them in the place they were found with no development affecting the integrity of the resources. This will require revisions to the grading plan, denoting the location and avoidance of the resource.
b) Accommodate the process for onsite reburial of the discovered items with the consulting Native American tribes or bands. This shall include measures and provisions to protect the future reburial area from any future impacts. Reburial shall not occur until all cataloguing and basic recordation have been completed; location information regarding the reburial location shall be included into the final report required under MM 4.14-5. Copies of the report shall be provided to the City for their records, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the Eastern Information Center.
c) Curation. A curation agreement with an appropriate qualified repository within Riverside County that meets federal standards per 36 CFR Part 79 and therefore would be professionally curated and made available to other archaeologists/researchers for further study. The collections and associated records shall be transferred, including title, to an appropriate curation facility within Riverside County, to be accompanied by payment of the fees necessary for permanent curation.

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

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 66
University of California Riverside and one (1) copy has been submitted to the Consulting Tribe(s) Cultural Resources Department(s).

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

Implementation of Mitigation Measures MM 4.14-1 through 4.14-6, 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. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 67

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 Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 Public Resources Code 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 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

5.1.1 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 4.7.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.5-1 to reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through 4.7-6, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. No other feasible, enforceable mitigation is available to reduce impacts to less than significant. ❑ 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 use emissions, mobile source emissions, on-site cargo handling equipment emissions, solid waste, and water supply, treatment, and distribution, and refrigerants. As shown on Table 4.7-5 of the DEIR, the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 13,698.60 MTCO2e/yr. As such, the Project would exceed the South Coast AQMD’s recommended 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, p. 4.7-16) MM 4.7-1 Prior to tenant occupancy, the Project Applicant or successor in interest shall provide documentation to the City demonstrating that occupants/tenants of the Project site have been provided documentation on funding opportunities, such as the Carl Moyer Program, that provide incentives for using cleaner-than-required engines and equipment.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 68
MM 4.7-2 Conduits for the installation of electrical hookups to allow future electric vehicle (EV) trucks and trucks with auxiliary power units (APU) shall be installed at a ratio of one charging station for every 50 dock high doors.

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

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

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

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

The Project would incorporate Mitigation Measures 4.7-1 to 4.7-6 to reduce GHG emissions to the extent feasible. Additionally, the Project includes design features related to water and solid conservation that will further reduce Project GHG emissions. However, the mobile source emissions are controlled by the State and federal governments. 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. 4.7-17–4.7-18) In addition, the Project will be subject to the South Coast AQMD’s Warehouse Indirect Source Rule 2305 and Rule 316, which are programs focused on reducing emissions from vehicles that service large warehouses. Potential emission reductions from this program may further reduce the Project’s estimated emissions. (DEIR, p. 4.7-18)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 69

5.1.2 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 4.7.6 of the DEIR. The proposed Project would be required to implement PPP 4.5-1 to comply with the City’s Municipal Code to reduce impacts to greenhouse gas emissions. The Project is required to comply with Mitigation Measures MM 4.7-1 through 4.7-6, which would reduce impacts to the extent feasible. No other feasible, enforceable mitigation is available to reduce impacts to less than significant. ❑ Substantial Evidence
The Project would not impede the State’s progress towards carbon neutrality by 2045 under the 2022 Scoping Plan. The Project would be required to comply with applicable current and future regulatory requirements promulgated through the 2022 Scoping Plan. Some of the current transportation sector policies the Project will comply with (through vehicle manufacturer compliance) include: Advanced Clean Cars II, Advanced Clean Trucks, Advanced Clean Fleets, Zero Emission Forklifts, the Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, In-use OffRoad Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, Off-Road Zero-Emission Targeted Manufacturer rule, Clean Off-Road Fleet Recognition Program, Amendments to the In-use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets Regulation, carbon pricing through the Cap-and-Trade Program, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.

Further, the Project will implement MM 4.7-1 through MM 4.7-6 which will also reduce GHG emissions. Additionally, the Project includes design features related to water and solid conservation that will further reduce Project GHG emissions. The Project would be consistent with the 2017 and 2022 Scoping Plans; however, the Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact with respect to this threshold, as the Project exceeds the applicable numeric screening thresholds for GHG emissions and therefore has potential to impede the State’s ability to achieve the 40% below 1990 level reduction target. (DEIR, p. 4.7-25)
Incorporation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.7-1 through 4.7-6 (above) would reduce the Project’s greenhouse gas emission impacts to the extent feasible.

The Project exceeds the applicable numeric screening thresholds for GHG emissions and therefore has potential to impede the State’s ability to achieve the 40% below 1990 level reduction target, and no feasible mitigation measures exist to reduce the Project’s GHG emissions. (DEIR, p. 4.7-25)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 70

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 growth-inducing impacts is discussed in detail in Subsection 5.2 of the DEIR. Based on the entire record, the City finds that the Project the Project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes.
❑ Substantive 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. (DEIR, p. 5-2) 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 EIR Subsection 4.5, Energy. (DEIR, p. 5-2) Implementation of the Project would commit the Project site to industrial warehouse uses. As demonstrated in the analysis presented throughout EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, construction, and long-term 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 an unavoidable impact to the environment associated with greenhouse gas emissions, 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. (DEIR, p. 5-2) Because no significant natural resources occur within the Project site, the Project would not reduce the availability of any natural resources associated with long-term operational activities. Also, as discussed

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 71
under Subsection 4.5, 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. (DEIR, p. 5-2)
EIR Subsection 4.8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, provides an analysis of the Project’s potential to transport or handle hazardous materials which, if released into the environment, could result in irreversible damage to the environment. As concluded in the analysis, compliance with federal, State, and local regulations related to hazardous materials would be required of all contractors working on the property during the Project’s construction and of all users that occupy the Project’s buildings. As such, construction and long-term operation of the Project would not have the potential to cause significant irreversible damage to the environment, including damage that may result from upset or accident conditions. (DEIR, p. 5-2)
As demonstrated in the analysis presented throughout EIR Subsections 4.1 through 4.16, implementation of the Project would result in no significant and unavoidable environmental effects that cannot be feasibly reduced to below levels of significance, with the exception of a significant and unavoidable impact to greenhouse gas emissions. After the application of feasible mitigation measures with a proportional nexus to the Project’s impacts, the Project would cause or contribute less than significant impacts associated with all environmental issues analyzed, with the exception of a cumulatively-considerable impact associated with greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the foregoing, the Project would not result in significant irreversible environmental changes pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(c). (DEIR, pp. 5-2 – 5-3)

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.
❑ Substantive Evidence
The current Zoning Classification for the Project site is Manufacturing-Medium (M-M) to the north of the West Riverside Canal and Manufacturing-Service Commercial (M-SC) in the parcels to the south and is designated as Light Industrial (LI) by the City’s General Plan. Based on the County of Riverside General Plan, Appendix E-2, Table E-5, approximately 1 employee is needed for every 1,030 sf of industrial development. This would mean that approximately 1,149 employees (1,184,102 s.f. x [1 employee/1,030 sf] = ~1,149 employees) would be generated by the Project. The City of Jurupa

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 72
Valley’s 2017 General Plan Update EIR assumes approximately 1 employee per 1,200 square feet for industrial land uses, which would result in approximately 987 employees. The County of Riverside employment rate was used throughout the EIR to provide a conservative assumption of the Project’s employment generation. (DEIR, p. 5-3)
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. Economic growth would likely take place because of the Project’s operation as a warehouse/distribution/warehouse facility and all other legally permitted uses.

The Project’s construction-related and operational-related employees would purchase goods and services in the region, but any secondary increase in employment associated with meeting these goods and services needs is expected to be marginal, accommodated by existing goods and service providers, and highly unlikely to result in any new physical impacts to the environment based on the amount of available warehouse/distribution facilities available in areas near the Project site, including the cities of Eastvale, Ontario, Chino, Fontana, and Norco. In addition, the Project would create jobs that likely would serve the housing units either already built or planned for development within Riverside County and/or the City of Jurupa Valley. Accordingly, the on-site employment generation would not induce substantial growth in the area because it is anticipated that the Project’s future employees would already be living in the Jurupa Valley/Riverside County area. (DEIR, pp. 5-3 – 5.4) As previously stated, the General Plan land use designation for the site is Light Industrial (LI). Land north of the Project site, and within the City of Jurupa Valley, is designated as LI and is currently developed with industrial buildings; land east of the Project site, and within the City of Jurupa Valley, is designated as LI Open Space-Recreation, and Public Facilities, and is developed with industrial buildings and residences; land to the south of the Project site, and within the City Jurupa Valley, is designated as LI, Medium Density Residential, and Commercial Retail and is developed with residences and open space; and, land to the west of the Project site, and within the City of Jurupa Valley is designated as Open Space – Conservation and is currently undeveloped. As the Project vicinity is predominantly built-out, the development of the Project is unlikely to affect the existing uses within the surrounding properties. The Project is limited to the Project site’s boundaries and does not include any components that would indirectly affect existing or planned uses on neighboring properties.

Accordingly, the Project would not induce growth in the Project area. (DEIR, p. 5-4) Furthermore, the Project’s potential influence on other nearby properties to redevelop at greater intensities and/or different uses than the City’s General Plan and Zoning Code allow is speculative beyond the rule of reason; however, it should be noted that implementation of the Project would not result in the approval of industrial uses on any other property outside of the Project site. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (State CEQA Guidelines § 151454). If any other property owner were to propose redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, the redevelopment project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects. (DEIR, p. 5-4)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 73
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, the 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 pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 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 induced 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 is consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation for the Project site. Upon the approval of the Zone Change, the Project would be consistent with the existing Zoning classification for the Project site. Further, implementation of the Project would not require the expansion of water and sewer infrastructure, as the Project would connect to existing water and sewer lines within Rubidoux Boulevard and Primavera Avenue. (DEIR, p. 5-4) The Project site is located within a predominantly industrial portion of the City of Jurupa Valley and is bordered by industrial uses directly to the north and east. The operation and maintenance of the Project would generate approximately 1,149 jobs, but any potential growth-inducing impact of the employment of persons at the Project site was accounted for in the City’s General Plan, as the Project would develop the Project site in compliance with the City’s General Plan land use designation.

Accordingly, the Project would not directly promote growth either at the Project site or at the adjacent and surrounding properties that were not accounted for in the City’s General Plan. (DEIR, p. 5-5) In conclusion, it is unlikely, speculative, and not reasonably foreseeable that the Project would induce growth in the form of additional economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts on the off-site physical environment. (DEIR, p. 5-5)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 74

7.0 ALTERNATIVES

7.1 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 this Final 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. A summary of the alternatives that were considered but rejected are described below. (DEIR, pp. 6-3 – 6-5)

7.1.1 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 Project proposes to develop an approximately 80.8-acre site within the City with five industrial buildings totaling 1,184,102 s.f. Due to the size of the Project, significant and unavoidable GHG impacts would not be avoided or substantially reduced by placing the Project in another location.

Additionally, significant unavoidable impacts of the Project are related to its operational aspects and are not site specific, therefore, relocation of the Project would not substantially reduce these impacts. (DEIR, p. 6-4)
Regarding the feasibility of finding another potential vacant location for the Project, land located south of the Project site is currently vacant. However, because this land is located closer to sensitive land uses (the residences located east of the vacant land), this location could potentially have greater Project impacts. Similarly, there are no existing, sites for sale that are a similar size as the Project site within close proximity to the key freeway infrastructure (i.e. SR-60) and that could reasonably be controlled by the Project Applicant for the purpose of developing the Project. Furthermore, the Project Applicant

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 75
does not hold ownership control over any other parcels of land in or near the Project site that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed Project. Therefore, because an alternative location is not available that would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the Project, and because the Project Applicant does not have ownership control over, and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over, any other parcels of land in the jurisdiction of the City that could accommodate the Project, an alternative location alternative is not feasible. Accordingly, this alternative is not further considered in the Draft EIR. (DEIR, p. 6-4)

7.1.2 OFFICE USE ALTERNATIVE
The City considered an alternative that would develop general office uses at the Project site. The Office Use Alternative would consider the development of one or more professional office buildings at the Project site, which would contain individual office suites occupied by a range of professional tenants.

The remaining areas of the Project site would be developed with parking areas, drive aisles, driveway(s), lighting, utility connections, stormwater treatment and conveyance facilities, and landscaped areas. Under the Office Use Alternative, vehicular access to the site would be similar to that which is proposed by the Project. Offices are a permitted use within the M-M Zone pursuant to Section 9.150.020 of the City’s Municipal Code. (DEIR, p. 6-4) This alternative was rejected from further consideration since implementation would increase the Project’s environmental impacts (e.g., GHG emissions) due to increased generation of trips. A 1,184,102 s.f. office building would generate 11,533 trips, an increase of 5,809 daily trips over the Project-generated trips of 5,724. Therefore, this alternative would not substantially lessen or eliminate the Project’s significant and avoidable GHG emission impacts. (DEIR, pp. 6-4 – 6-5) Additionally, this alternative would fail to achieve the majority of the Project objectives. Specifically, the Office Use Alternative would not develop an industrial use (Objectives A, B, and D) within the City and within proximity to key freeway infrastructure (Objective E). Furthermore, no entity has been identified that could purchase the property for office uses. Accordingly, this alternative was considered but rejected. (DEIR, p. 6-5)

7.2 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR ANALYSIS IN THE EIR
The City has identified the following alternatives as a range of reasonable alternatives to the Project in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15126.6. These alternatives are described in more detail and evaluated for their level of environmental effects, compared to the Project’s environmental effects. (DEIR, p. 6-5)
The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative considered by the City with the impacts of the Project, as detailed in DEIR, Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis. Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(d) requires that the discussion of alternatives focus on alternatives which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening the significant effects of the Project. Therefore, the analysis provided herein focuses on a comparison of the Project’s significant impacts to the level of impact that would occur under each evaluated

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 76
alternative. The Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts fall under the topic of GHG emissions.

Although the Project’s less-than-significant impacts also are compared to the alternatives evaluated herein, the emphasis of the comparative discussion in this analysis relates to the significant impacts of the Project that require mitigation as required by CEQA. A conclusion is provided for each significant impact of the Project as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction or elimination of the Project’s impact, (2) a greater impact than would occur under the Project, (3) the same impact as the proposed Project, or (4) a new impact in addition to the Project’s impacts. (DEIR, p. 6-5)

7.2.1 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 described in EIR Section 3.0). As such, the approximately 80.8-acre Project Site would continue to consist of undeveloped land. Under this alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s internal parking, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This alternative was selected by the City to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site undeveloped in its general existing conditions. (DEIR, p. 6-6) The No Project/No Development Alternative would result in no physical environmental impacts to the Project site. Significant and unavoidable GHG 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 benefit from the stormwater drainage and water quality filtration features that would be constructed by the Project and would result in increased wildfire related impacts. Impacts related to land use and planning would be similar to the proposed 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. 6-10)
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.

7.2.2 REDUCED INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would consider the development of the Project site with a 20 percent reduction in building square footage, in order to reduce vehicle and truck trips and significant impacts associated with GHG. Under this alternative, a total of 947,282 s.f. of industrial uses would be constructed, resulting in a reduction of 236,820 s.f. from Buildings 1-5. Although the total building square footage would be reduced, the development impact area would generally remain the same as the Project. This alternative would generate approximately 920 employees using an employment generation rate of 1 employee per 1,030 square feet for Light Industrial uses. Access to the site would be similar to the Project with a proportional reduction in the number of parking spaces. (DEIR, p. 6- 10)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 77
The Reduced Intensity Alternative would result in reduced impacts related to air quality, energy, GHG emissions, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems due to the reduction in square footage and associated vehicular trips. However, significant and unavoidable impacts related to GHG emissions 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, mineral resources, and tribal cultural resources would be similar to the Project. (DEIR, p. 6-14) 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, to efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the substantial and unmet regional demands for goods movement facilities, due to a reduce building footprint. This alternative would also only partially meet Objectives B and G, to expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City by establishing new industrial development adjacent to or near already-established industrial uses and to attract new businesses to the City and thereby provide a more equal jobs-housing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment, due to the reduction of employees compared to the Project.

Additionally, this alternative would not meet Objective C, to make efficient use of a property in Jurupa Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses, because the reduction of square footage would not maximize the buildout potential of the Project site. (DEIR, pp. 6-14 – 6-15) Thus, the City Council finds that the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not fully meet the Project objectives and does not avoid significant environmental impacts in the area of greenhouse gas emissions. 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.

7.3 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. (DEIR, p. 6-15)
The No Project/No Development Alternative has the least impact to the environment because it would not involve any construction activities or warehouse operations. There would be no cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions. This impact is 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 or reduce wildfire related hazards. Additionally, none of the Project objectives would be met. (DEIR, p. 6-15)
The Reduced Intensity Alternative is environmentally superior to the Project. The Reduced Intensity Alternative would have less impacts under six of the environmental topical areas. The reduction in

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 78
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 GHG emissions. Additionally, the Reduced Intensity Alternative would not meet one of the Project objectives and would only partially meet most of the Project’s objectives. (DEIR, p. 6-15)

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 79

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

8.0, 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 regarding Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 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 related to Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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) The Project would efficiently develop a vacant and underutilized property with industrial uses to help meet the substantial and unmet regional demands for goods movement facilities consistent with Southern California Association of Governments’ Connect SoCal (2020–2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy).

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 80
b) The Project would expand economic development and facilitate job creation in the City of Jurupa Valley by establishing new industrial development adjacent to or near alreadyestablished industrial uses. c) The Project would make efficient use of a property in Jurupa Valley by maximizing its buildout potential for employment-generating uses.
d) The Project would develop Class A speculative industrial buildings in Jurupa Valley that are designed to meet contemporary industry standards, can accommodate a wide variety of users, and are economically competitive with similar industrial buildings in the local area and region. e) The Project would develop industrial buildings in close proximity to the SR-60, I-215, and I10 freeways that can be used as part of the southern California goods movement network. f) The Project would develop a vacant property that has access to available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
g) The Project would attract new businesses to the City of Jurupa Valley and thereby provide a more equal jobs-housing balance in the Inland Empire area that will reduce the need for members of the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment.

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 develop a vacant and under-utilized property with an industrial park, which would assist the City in achieving the “Light Industrial” land uses envisioned for the Project site by the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan.
c) The Project would develop the property with an employment-generating use. d) The Project would develop an industrial park that capitalizes on the transportation and locational strengths of Jurupa Valley.
e) The Project would attract new employment-generating business to Jurupa Valley, thereby reducing the needs for the local workforce to commute outside the area for employment. f) The Project would increase the amount of available warehouse space in the City of Jurupa Valley.
g) The new jobs provided by the Project will create direct and indirect economic benefits.

EXHIBIT A
Exhibit A SCH No. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 81
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.

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. 20200110449
Rubidoux Commerce Park – Facts and Findings Page 82

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 Jim Pechous, through the Planning Division.

This information is provided in compliance with Public Resources Code § 21081.6.

EXHIBIT B
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program
Rubidoux Commerce Park Project
State Clearinghouse No. 2020110449
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
November 2023

Lead Agency: City of Jurupa Valley SCH No. 2020110449

Page 1 ends
← All documents from this meeting