EXHIBIT A
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. PROJECT PERMITTED. MA21256 (GPA 21008, and TTM 38171) is for an approval to subdivide approximately 19.36 acres into thirty-one (31) single-family lots, street improvements individual lot and streetscape landscaping, retention basin, and walls and fencing collectively all on real property located at 6550 LIMONITE AVENUE (APN:
186-160-021).
2. INDEMNIFY CITY. The applicant, the property owner or other holder of the right to the development entitlement(s) or permit(s) approved by the City for the project, if different from the applicant (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitor”), shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley and its elected city council, its appointed boards, commissions, and committees, and its officials, employees, and agents (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either (i) the City’s approval of the project, including without limitation any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the project, any condition of approval imposed by City on such permit or approval, and any finding or determination made and any other action taken by any of the Indemnitees in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or (ii) the acts, omissions, or operations of the Indemnitor and the directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the Indemnitor with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the project and the property for which the project is being approved. The City shall notify the Indemnitor of any claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an “Action”) within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the Indemnitor defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the Indemnitor fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the obligation to do so and, if it does, the Indemnitor shall promptly pay the City’s full cost thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (ii) of the first sentence of this condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct or the sole active negligence of the City.
3. CONSENT TO CONDITIONS. Within thirty (30) days after project approval, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to the required conditions of approval to the Community Development Director or designee.
4. FEES. The approval of MA21256 (GPA 210008, and TTM 38151) shall not become effective until all planning fees have been paid in full.
5. INCORPORATE CONDITIONS. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the project’s final approval.
6. APPROVAL PERIOD -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171 shall expire 36 months after the final approval date, unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and filed with the County of Riverside Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder.
7. CONFORMANCE TO APPROVED EXHIBITS. The project shall be in conformance to the approved plans approved by Resolution No. 2023 -12-13-01 (listed below) with any changes in accordance to these conditions of approval:
i. Project Plans (dated: 9/16/2022)
8. MITIGATION MEASURES. This project shall be subject to, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council Resolution No. 2023 -XX in connection with the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.
9. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscaped areas shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in an orderly, attractive and healthy condition.
This shall include proper pruning, mowing of turf areas, weeding, removal of litter, fertilization, replacement of plants when necessary, and the regular application of appropriate quantities of water to all landscaped areas. Irrigation systems shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in proper operating condition.
Waterline breaks, head/emitter ruptures, overspray or runoff conditions and other irrigation system failures shall be repaired immediately. The canopy trees shall be maintained in a manner that they provide the required shade coverage and encourages the canopy to grow to prov ide shade. Avoid topping trees or pruning the trees in a manner that the trees do not achieve mature height and form.
10. GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY. The applicant shall maintain the property including the removal of debris, weeds, abandoned vehicles, code violations, and any other factor or condition that may contribute to potential blight or crime.
11. EV CHARGING STATIONS. Each home shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging station. EV charging station plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.
The charging stations shall be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the development project.
12. DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS . All driveways shall have design enhancements such as decorative paving. Said enhancements shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential units of the development project.
13. UNDERGROUNDING OF DRAINAGE. Driveway and parking areas shall not incorporate center swales, ribbon gutters, concrete valleys, etc. All drainage in common and private use areas shall be underground and shall not incorporate open gutters or swales.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
14. BACKFLOW DEVICES. The location of all backflow devices shall be approved by the City prior to installation. Backflow devices shall be located the greatest extent possible from the front property line.
15. STREET TREES. All street trees or internal drive aisle trees shall be a minimum of 36” box in size.
16. ALL - PLANNING REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the aesthetic impact of slopes and grade differences where the project adjoins streets or other properties shall be approved by the Community Development Director.
17. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to, or concurrently, the recordation of the final map, providing for maintenance of the property in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, include provisions such as the following items:
i. Formation of a Permanent Organization for the ownership and maintenance of all common areas including, but not limited to, landscaping, open space, common recreation, common parking areas, and circulation systems (areas) in perpetuity.
ii. The CC&Rs shall identify the common areas for ownership and maintenance.
The common areas shall include the following applicable items:
iii. Access and Circulation Areas
iv. Drainage Facilities
v. Landscaping and Irrigation
vi. On-site Lighting Fixtures
vii. Walls and Fences
viii. Community signage
ix. All on-site storm water and water quality management post-construction facilities and features (BMPs) shall require maintenance by the property owner(s).
Regulations for operations and maintenance shall be clearly stated in the CC&Rs.
x. A cross-lot drainage easement/agreement shall be required among parcel(s). xi. Other items the Community Development Director and City Engineer deem appropriate.
18. ON-SITE LANDSCAPING. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit of a residential unit of the development project, a “Professional Services” (PROS) application shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The PROS application shall include the following items:
i. Final (construction set) on-site landscape plans;
ii. Completed City Agreement for Landscape improvements SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
iii. City Faithful Performance Bond for Landscape improvements; performance bond shall be posted at 110% of the total cost approved estimate of landscaping, irrigation, labor, and one-year maintenance. The Community Development Director may consider a cash bond if appropriate.
Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for MA21256 (GPA21008, and TTM38151), the following events shall be satisfied in the order it is listed:
a. Substantial Conformance Letter: The Landscape Architect of Record shall conduct an inspection and submit a letter to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division after the landscape architect has deemed the installation is in conformance to the approved plans.
b. City Inspection: The City landscape architect shall conduct an inspection of the installation to confirm the landscape and irrigation plan was constructed in accordance to the approved plans. Applicant shall pay any fees associate with the City inspection(s).
19. TRASH COLLECTION.
i. Detailed plans for trash enclosure(s) shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project . Walls of the enclosure and any solid gates shall have graffiti protection coating.
ii. An approval or clearance letter from the waste collection agency shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.
20. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be maintained in good condition. Light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent any light to flood onto adjacent properties. A photometric plan and exhibits of lighting fixtures shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.
21. WALL AND FENCE PLAN. A Wall & Fence plan, including elevations, colors, materials, and methods, which may include increased wall heights, to reduce noise impacts from the adjoining Camino Real Elementary School to the south shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit.
22. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT . All rooftop equipment, including HVAC units, shall be screened from public view.
23. MAILBOXES. The design of all mailboxes shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.
24. UTILITY METERS. Utility meters affixed to the exterior walls of buildings shall not be visible from the internal private streets. Where possible, exceptions can be made, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
25. JURUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (JARPD). Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit proof of satisfying any fees, dedications, or requirements by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District to the Building Official.
26. JARPD CFD. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall annex into the existing Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD) District- Wide Community Facilities District (CFD) or form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) to contribute to the cost of park maintenance.
27. IMPACT FEES. The applicant shall the pay the following impact fees (unless exempt) in accordance to Title 3 of the Municipal Code:
i. Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. The applicant shall pay any owed DIFs by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. ii. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation (MSHCP) Fee. The applicant shall pay any owed MSHCP fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code.
iii. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. Prior to final occupancy.
The applicant shall show proof of payment of TUMF fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.70 of the Municipal Code.
28. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. The Project is subject to Ordinance No. 2022-14, Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. Within thirty (30) days after the project's approval, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director , in writing, the method by which the applicant proposes to satisfy the inclusionary housing unit requirement and/or the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee requirement.
29. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. Architectural features and fenestration shall be continuous on all sides of the dwelling units . The building elevations, colors, and materials shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit.
30. SALE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. No structure constructed on Project site may be sold until the subject Project on which the structure is located is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations such that the structure is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING)
1.1. The use hereby conditioned is for a Schedule “B” subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 (TTM38171); being a subdivision of:
Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 4091, recorded as Instrument No. 1999-304302 in Official Records of Riverside County, California; also identified as Assessor's Parcels Number 186-160-021. Exhibit titled Tentative Tract Map No. 38171, prepared by Robert Beers, dated July 10, 2023, are hereby referenced.
1.2. The Tract Map preparation shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Jurupa Valley Ordinance/Municipal Code and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460; as it pertains for Schedule “B” subdivision, unless otherwise modified by the conditions listed herein.
1.3. It is assumed that the tentative map is all inclusive of a parcel or parcels of land legally subdivided in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinance.
1.4. It is assumed that any easements shown on the referenced exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. The Applicant shall secure approval from all (if any) easement holders for all grading and improvements which are proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect. Should such approvals or alternate action regarding the easements not be provided, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise this entitlement and/or permit application.
1.5. A copy of the HOA Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. The CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to access, easements, private and/or public utility easements as may be relevant to the project. In addition, by laws and articles of incorporation shall be included as part of the maintenance agreement for the onsite water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). CC&Rs shall address the following:
1.5.1. A 5-ft Drainage Easement along the northerly and southerly boundary of the site as shown on the referenced exhibit(s).
1.5.2. Maintenance of Open Space areas.
1.5.3. Operation and maintenance of the EVA Secondary Access Road.
1.5.4. Operation and maintenance of onsite surface and subsurface drainage facilities. Language regarding maintenance of swale, drainage facilities, and of water quality management facilities and features (BMPs), by the owners of each individual lot shall be included in CC&Rs and/or agreement.
1.5.5. Residential lots within the Development shall be restricted to one driveway.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
1.6. Installation of trash full capture system per Riverside County Standard No. 313 or as approved by the City Engineer will be required at all new and existing catch basins within the project site and public right-of -way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
1.7. City Engineer is authorized to collect cash-in-lieu for pavement improvements on Limonite Frontage Road and Riverview Drive. The cash-in-lieu of construction fee shall be in form and amount approved by the City Engineer. A cost estimate shall be prepared by a licensed engineer, submitted for review to the E ngineering Department, and approved by the City Engineer.
1.8. An encroachment permit is required for all work within the public right-of-way.
1.9. All landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance systems shall comply with the “Comprehensive Landscaping Guidelines & Standards” and Riverside County Ordinance No. 859 as adopted by the City.
2. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)
2.1. In compliance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70, no grading permit shall be issued until the Tentative Map (TM) and all other pertinent Planning permits are approved and are in effect.
2.2. All grading shall conform to the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley, the City’s Municipal Code Title 8, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Jurupa Valley and State of California. Prior to issuance of grading permit, grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, a site-specific grading agreement shall be signed by the City, and Applicant shall provide financial securities for the grading work, if applicable.
2.3. The Applicant shall prepare a “rough” grading plan or a combined “rough and precise” grading plan for the project site.
2.3.1. The grading plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer licensed in the state of California (Project Civil Engineer) and he/she, including the Project geotechnical/soils engineer, must sign the plan. The printed name and contact information of the Project Civil Engineer shall be included on the face of the grading plan. The grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2.3.2. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all off- site drainage flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities of flow exceed the capacity of the conveyance facility, the Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.
2.3.3. The grading plan shall provide for protection of downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.
2.3.4. Erosion Control Plans showing the following measures shall be submitted along with the grading plan for approval by the City Engineer. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent transport and deposition of earthen materials onto downstream/downwind properties, public rights -of-way, or other drainage facilities.
2.3.5. Applicant shall provide written proof and authorization from easement holders (if any) for work proposed over easements.
2.4. Prior to the approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical report for review and approval of the City Engineer for the project site.
All recommendations of the final geotechnical report shall be incorporated on the grading plan.
2.4.1. A project related preliminary soils evaluation report was previously prepared report prepared by Soils Exploration Company, Inc., dated July 5, 2021. The final geotechnical report shall address comments provided by Ninyo & Moore on the Interoffice Memorandum dated August 15, 2023, pertaining to the above-mentioned technical document.
2.4.1.1. Geotechnical Report shall reference final/updated plans for the project.
2.4.1.2. Grading recommendations for the excavation/installation of the water quality basin including outflow structures and its location to adjacent retaining walls and Riverview Drive shall be included in the Geotechnical Report.
2.4.1.3. Grading recommendations for retaining walls shall consider surcharge loads from adjacent existing/ proposed structures. Slope stability analysis of the entire site shall be included in the Geotechnical Report.
2.4.1.4. Pavement design recommendations for Riverview Drive, Limonite Frontage Road, ‘A’ Street, and the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) Secondary Access Road shall be included in the
Geotechnical Report.
2.4.1.5. Infiltration and drainage recommendations; and additional liquefaction and subsidence studies for the site as suggested by Riverside County Map My County.
2.4.1.6. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the Final Geotechnical Report Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.
2.5. Prior to approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final hydraulics and hydrology report corresponding with the detailed plans for grading, site development, storm drain improvements, and street improvements for review and approval of the City Engineer. A project related preliminary Hydrology SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
Report was previously prepared by prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated July 2023.
2.5.1. Hydrology Report shall reference final/updated plans for the project.
2.5.2.Hydromodification and off-site hydrology impacts to Riverview Drive, along the project frontage and beyond shall be considered.
2.5.2.1. Mitigation measures for hydromodification will be required if analysis exceeds the threshold of 110% of the pre-development 2- year, 24-hour peak flow.
2.5.2.2. Include additional discussions and flowrate data for basin routing.
2.5.2.3.Offsite runoff from “A” Street, EVA Secondary Access Road, and the proposed Water Quality Basin shall be considered in the analysis and adequate provisions approved by the City Engineer.
2.5.3. Hydrology Report shall include the EVA Secondary Access Road and consider run-off from the access road; provide additional analysis and mitigation measures.
2.5.4. Hydrology Report shall be for the entire project site and consider any run-on and run-off to/from the site and include existing run-on from adjacent properties.
2.5.5. Analysis for the adequacy, design, and location(s) of the proposed PCC Interceptor Drain, Down Drain, Drop Inlet, Concrete Curb Drains, Catch Basins, V-Ditch adjacent to Lot 15; and the proposed 3-ft V -ditch along the project boundaries will be subject to the findings of the Hydrology Report and approval of the City Engineer.
2.5.6. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's (RCFCD) standards. The receiving drainage facilities shall be analyzed to determine the extent of any downstream control or restrictions that might affect this site or other properties. All drainage improvements shall be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows.
2.5.7. Drainage in streets shall comply with RCFCD standards which require that 10-year flows be contained within the tops of curbs and 100-year flows be contained within the right-of-way. A maximum velocity of 6-ft/s within the street shall be adhered to. Additi onal drainage facilities may be required in the streets as necessary to satisfy these requirements.
2.6. Prior to the approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP) in conformance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) for the Santa A na River Watershed for approval of the City Engineer. A project related preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was previously prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated July 17, 2023.
2.6.1. Include the addition of the EVA Secondary Access Road and provide additional analysis and mitigation measures.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
2.6.2. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the F-WQMP. Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.
2.6.3. The water quality basin (Lot “A”) shown on the referenced exhibit shall be operated and maintained by the City. The maintenance access road for the basins shall comply with Appendix C: Basin Guidelines of the Riverside County Santa Ana Water Shed Region Design Handbook for LID BMPs.
2.6.3.1. Proposed design of water quality basins shall be in compliance with Low Impact Development (LID) requirements (RCFC&WCD) and the City of Jurupa Valley.
2.6.3.2. Proposed basin shall demonstrate infiltration feasibility.
2.6.3.3.Proposed design of water quality basins shall provide for, but not limited to, maximum side slopes of 4:1, flat basin bottom, appropriate setback from retaining wall and foundations, and appropriate overflow outlet.
2.7. Post-construction water quality surface features and facilities such as basins and bio-swales shall be designed and installed per approved F- WQMP and approved by the Engineering Inspector.
2.8. For disturbance of one or more acres, the Applicant shall provide evidence that it has prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWRCB issued WDID number shall be included on the face of the grading plan.
2.9. If grading is required offsite, the Applicant shall obtain a written notarized letter of authorization from the property owner(s) to grade as necessary and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or authorizations necessary to perform the grading shown on the site plan and grading exhibits.
2.10. Lots which propose retaining walls and/or free standing walls will require separate permits.
2.11. A hauling permit shall be required for the import/export of material using City streets per City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.20; the import/export location and the haul route shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. If the import/export location is outside of City limits, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the jurisdictional agency has provided all necessary approvals for import/export to/from the site.
3. PRIOR TO TRACT MAP RECORDATION (ENGINEERING)
Final Tract Map
3.1. No Final Tract Map shall be recorded until all other related Planning cases are approved, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
3.2. After approval of the tentative map and prior to the expiration of said map, the Applicant shall cause the real property included within the tentative map exhibit, or any part thereof, to be surveyed and a Final tract Map thereof prepared in accordance the City Engineer’s current requirements, conditions of tentative map approval, and in accordance with provisions of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.20. All processing is through the City of Jurupa Valley.
3.3. Prior to Final Tract Map approval, Applicant shall prepare a fully executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement (on City approved format and forms) with accompanying security as required or complete all public improvements. Provide a monument bond (i.e., cas h deposit) in an amount determined by the City or as specified in writing by the Applicant’s Engineer or Surveyor of Record and approved by the City Engineer.
3.4. All residential lots, common areas, and open space areas shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designated as numbered lots including lots designated for water quality purposes. Lettered lots shall be reserved for public and private roads.
3.5. Riverview Drive along and beyond the project boundary is classified as a Local Road in the General Plan Mobility Element and is planned to be improved as a Modified Collector Roadway with an ultimate right-of-way of 88 -ft. Applicant shall verify and dedicate half-width right-of-way for public street and utility purposes on the final Tract Map to provide 44-ft of right-of-way northerly from the centerline.
Applicant shall provide half-width improvements from project site to centerline unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
3.6. Limonite Frontage Road along and beyond the project boundary is classified as a Local Road in the General Plan Mobility Element and shall be improved to join existing conditions northeast of the property as determined by the City Engineer.
3.7. Interior Street “A” shall be designed and improved to full width within the public right-of-way in accordance with Modified Riverside County Standard No. 105B as shown on Tentative Map exhibit. Applicant shall verify and dedicate full-width right- of-way for public street and utility purposes on the final Tract Map to provide 56-ft of right-of-way. Applicant shall provide full -width improvements unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.
3.8. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the Applicant is required to secure and record an irrevocable offer of dedication for emergency vehicle access easement to construct the EVA Secondary Access Road as shown on the referenced tentative map exhibit.
3.8.1. In the event that (1) The Applicant has made all reasonable efforts, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to contact all the property owner(s) involved and unable to secure said easement; or (2) final grading plans show that the EVA Secondary Access R oad is not feasible at the location depicted on the tentative map exhibit; Applicant will be required to relocate the EVA Secondary Access Road within the subdivision boundary and SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
comply with the following minimum design standards:
• 24-ft pavement section with a 2-ft bench on both sides. Bench shall be measured from the edge of pavement/curb to hinge point. • The driveway approach connecting to Limonite Frontage Road shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 207.
• Minimum offset from existing driveways shall be to the City Engineer’s discretion.
• Final design shall comply with all requirements set forth by Fire Department and shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. • Cross sections and centerline profiles for the EVA Secondary Access Road to further assess proposed alignment, grading, layout of road, and connection to Private Street ‘A’ and Limonite Frontage Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Changes to the EVA access road location may require the Applicant to amend or revise the proposed site configuration and will require clearance from the Planning Department.
Improvement Plans
3.9. The Applicant shall provide improvement plans for all onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, street improvements, storm drain/drainage improvements, signing, striping and pavement markings, streetlights, landscape and irrigation sys tem, water system, and sanitary sewer system. Rights-of-way for streets and public utilities purposes shall be dedicated and shown on the final Tract Map in accordance with these conditions of approval, City Municipal Code/Ordinance and Riverside County Ordinance 461 (“Road Improvement Standards and Specifications”) as adopted by the City. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Department “Improvement Plan Check Policies and Guidelines” as adopted by the City Engineer. All improvements plans shall be processed through the City for approval of the City Engineer.
It is understood that the tentative map exhibit correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q’s, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or revise the tentative map as may be necessary to all a finding that the Final Map is substantial conformance with the tentative map.
3.10. Riverview Drive along the project frontage is a City maintained road. Applicant is responsible for half-width street improvements, including but not limited to:
3.10.1. 30-ft pavement section (measured from street centerline to northerly flowline (FL) at the project frontage per the recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Report.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
3.10.1.1. Any substandard or damaged pavement utility cuts and/or trenching that do not satisfy current City standards shall be required to be repaired, for approval of the City Engineer.
3.10.2. 14-ft parkway to include an 8-ft Decomposed Granite (DG) trail, 6 -ft landscaping adjacent to curb, curb and gutter, and streetlights. A 2-ft bench shall be provided from back of sidewalk to toe of slope. Road cross - section, access point, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
3.10.3. Proposed improvements shall transition to existing improvements north of the project site.
3.10.4. Improvement plans shall provide all necessary lane reduction transitions southerly of the site. The lane transition taper length shall be designed per the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).
3.10.5. Applicant shall prepare a Line-of -Sight Exhibit, and any existing and proposed landscaping within the projects line- of-sight shall be removed and/or relocated per the discretion of the City Engineer.
3.10.5.1. Applicant shall coordinate with the City to determine the appropriate action (i.e., removal, relocation, protection, salvage, etc.) for the existing palm trees along Riverview Drive.
3.11. Limonite Frontage Road along the project frontage is a City maintained road.
Applicant is responsible for half-width street improvements.
3.11.1. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to:
3.11.1.1. Realignment of curb to match existing curb and gutter improvements northeast and curb improvements west of the site,
3.11.1.2. Pavement widening and any match up of asphalt concrete paving, reconstruction and/or resurfacing of existing pavement as determined by the City Engineer.
3.11.2. Per City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.50.101 undergrounding may exempt or waived. A power pole is located at the frontage of the site and shall be evaluated using the Municipal Code referenced above.
3.12. Internal Public Street “A” is internal to the subdivision and shall be designated on the Final Tract Map as lettered lots.
3.12.1. 36-ft pavement section (18-ft northerly and 18 -ft southerly of centerline measured from FL to FL).
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
3.12.2. 10-ft northerly and 10-ft southerly parkway shall include, but not limited to, 6-ft sidewalk adjacent to curb, 4-ft landscaping, curb and gutter, and streetlights. Applicant shall consider maximizing curb frontage and provide a strategic placement of fire hydrants, streetlights, and mailboxes, as applicable. Road cross -section, intersection design, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
3.12.3. Cul-de-sac shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 800 and provide a longitudinal slope less than 10%. Design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
3.12.4. Fire access turnaround located at the mid-point of Street “A” as shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designed and constructed per the approval of the City Engineer. Red curb shall be placed within the turnaround area.
3.12.5. Applicant shall provide additional cross sections and centerline profiles for “A” Street to further assess proposed alignment, layout of road, and connection to EVA Secondary Access Road and Riverview Drive.
3.13. EVA Secondary Access Road as shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designated on the Final Tract Map as an access easement for emergency vehicles.
3.13.1. The proposed gated EVA secondary access road shall be emergency vehicle access only. Access will be restricted for passenger vehicles within the subdivision.
3.13.2. Improved to be a 24-ft pavement section with a 2-ft bench shall be provided on both sides from the edge of pavement/curb to the hinge point.
3.13.2.1. The access point of the EVA Secondary Access Road shall be constructed per modified Riverside County Standard No.206 with a maximum width of 40-ft or as approved by the City Engineer.
3.13.2.2. The maximum road width shall be 24-ft and the ultimate design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Road cross- section, access point, road layout, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.
3.13.3. Applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Department for the gated EVA secondary access road connection from “A” Street to Limonite Frontage Road as shown on the referenced exhibit. Compliance with all requirements set forth by the Fire Department shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. Proof of acceptance from the Fire Department shall be provided to the Engineering Department.
3.13.3.1. Access will be restricted to emergency vehicles only, for the purpose of accessing the public right-of-way. Signage prohibiting all other traffic shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3.13.3.2. Applicant shall provide additional cross sections and centerline SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
profiles for the EVA Secondary Access Road to further assess proposed alignment, grading, layout of road, and connection to Public Street ‘A’ and Limonite Frontage Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3.13.3.3. Access road shall be gated with a Knox Box Lock.
3.13.4. Applicant shall provide a line-of-sight exhibit at the intersection of the EVA Secondary Access Road and Limonite Frontage Road for review and approval of the City Engineer.
3.14. Intersection of “A” Street (NS) and Riverview Drive
3.14.1. Property line corner cut-back and curb return radius shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
3.14.2. Construction of ADA compliant access ramps shall be required.
3.15. Improvements shall provide appropriate transition to adjacent existing and future infrastructure; design of transition shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
3.16. Residential driveway approaches connecting to the internal private streets/ private courts shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 207 and have a minimum driveway width of 12-ft. Driveway locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
3.17. Any damages caused by the construction of improvements shall be replaced or repaired in kind to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
L&LMD, CFD, and Special Districts
3.18. Should this project be within any assessment/benefit district, the Project Proponent shall make application for and pay any reapportionment of the assessment or pay the unit fees in the assessment/benefit district.
3.19. Prior to final map recordation, Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for operation and maintenance purposes of various improvements in the public right-of-way, as approved by the City Engineer. The formation or annexation to a CFD shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. CFD shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
3.19.1. Landscaping and irrigation as applicable;
3.19.1.1. All landscaping, irrigation and maintenance systems shall comply with the “Guide to California Friendly Landscaping” and Riverside County Ordinance No. 859.
3.19.2. Graffiti abatement;
3.19.3. Streetlights;
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
3.19.4. Water quality management features and facilities (BMPs) including the water quality basin on Lot “A”, as applicable;
3.20. Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for City Public Safety Services. The agreement to form or annex to a CFD for Public Safety Services shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Participation in a CFD is intended to fully mitigate the incremental impact of new development on City public safety costs and maintain such levels service at the standards established in the City’s General Plan.
3.21. Applicant shall pay all cost for formation of or annexation to CFDs.
3.22. If for any reason Applicant does not take the necessary steps to have the development included within a CFD(s) as required, Applicant shall, in a manner approved by the City Council and City Attorney, provide for alternative means of fiscal mitigation at a level equal to the special taxes established in the Rate and Method of Apportionment applicable to the CFD, as they may be adjusted from time to time.
Utilities
3.23. Separate sanitary sewer and domestic water system improvement plans shall be prepared for required improvements for approval of the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) and concurrence of the City Engineer. Water system improvement plans showing the locations of fire hydrants (see Riverside County Standard No. 400) offsite and onsite must also be approved by Riverside County Fire Department. Necessary easements for sewer and water systems onsite, as determined by RCSD, shall be shown on the final Tract Map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”.
3.24. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be designed to be placed underground in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Title 7. The Applicant is responsible for coordinating the work with the serving utility company. A disposition note describing the above shall be reflected on design improvement plans whenever those plans are required.
Written proof confirming initiation of the design and/or application or the relocation, issued by the utility company, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.
4. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)
4.1 The Applicant is responsible for the completion of all post-construction water quality BMP facilities and features. These facilities and features will require operation and maintenance in perpetuity by the Property Owner(s).
4.2 All improvement plans specified in these conditions of approval shall be approved by the City Engineer.
4.3 All utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by these conditions of approval.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
4.3.1 Utility extensions from the mainline or other points of connection within the public right-of-way require that the Applicant obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Department. The City shall make a final inspection of work to verify that any impacts that the work might have had to other City owned infrastructure is restored or repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION/ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (ENGINEERING)
5.1. The Applicant is responsible for the completion of all grading within the corresponding parcel for which occupancy is requested.
5.2. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans
5.3. Grading and construction of all infrastructure improvements within the public and private right-of-way in accordance with approved plans, with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.70, and with all other applicable requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
5.4. The Project geotechnical/soils engineer shall provide a Final Grading Certification and Building Pad Certification, certifying to the completion of the grading in conformance with the approved grading plans, the recommendation of the Geotechnical/Soils report approved for this project and the California Building Code.
5.5. The Project Civil Engineer shall provide Record ("As -built") Drawings of grading and all infrastructure improvements
5.6. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, all improvements within the public and private right-of-way shall be completed and accepted by the City.
5.7. Prior to completion and acceptance of improvements or prior to the final building inspection, whichever occurs first and as determined by the City Engineer, assurance of maintenance is required by the completion of annexation into the City’s CFD for all applicable improvements specified in these conditions of approval.
5.8. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall complete the annexation into the City’s CFD for public safety.
5.9. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within the public right of way, required from this project, are energized.
5.10. Prior to the occupancy of any building, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within a 100-ft of any building along “A” Street, required from this project, are energized.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
5.11. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall obtain acceptance of applicable improvements by RCSD. Written proof shall be provided to the Engineering Department.
5.12. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fees, DIF), as adopted by the City, or later ordinance adopted by the City, which requires the payment of the appropriate fee set forth in the Ordinance in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of the final inspection.
5.13. The Applicant is responsible to ensure all cash-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City.
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)
1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sW1flower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)
(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
(e) Children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and buildings with more than three abovegroW1d habitable floors.
(f) Highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses.
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2024-
(g) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.
3. The "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" provided by ALUC shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property, and be recorded as a deed notice.
4. Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip-rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC "LANDSCAPING "EAR AIRPORTS" brochure, and the "AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE Ai""lD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT' brochure available at RCALUC.ORG which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.
A notice sign, in a form provided by ALUC, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: "There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes". The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible for monitoring the stormwater basin.
5. Noise attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the design of the single family residences, to the extent such measures are necessary to ensure that interior noise levels from aircraft operations are at or below 45 CNEL.
6. If the project were to propose solar rooftop panels in the future, the applicant/developer shall prepare a solar glare study that analyzes glare impacts, and this study shall be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission.
7. An application to the Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Service shall be made to review the project's potential for height obstacle obstruction.
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 2861.2 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 2861 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 677 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 31 SQ. FT.
OPTIONAL HOBBY +153 SQ. FT.
GARAGE @ HOBBY OPT: 523 SQ. FT.
SHELVES
COATS
SHELVES
PANTRY
PANTRY
PANTRY
90°
26 68
90°
2668
90°
30 80
45°
2668
SC
90°
28 68
90°
26 68
45°
2468
90°
24 68
90°
24 68
90°
24 68
90°
28 68
90°
26 68
90°
2468
OGD16070
2- OPT
90°
90°
24 68
90°
28 68
6068BP
6068BP
WD
90°
3080
90°
2468
BATH
GARAGE
10'-10" 20'-3" X
TANDEM
OPTIONAL DEN/HOBBY
FRP
DW
REF
CW
36" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
M BEDROOM
17'-6" 16'-6" X
GREAT ROOM
26'-8" 22'-0" X
GARAGE
21'-5" 20'-5" X
2-CAR
PORCH
ENTRY
7'-0" 8'-11" X
KITCHEN
21'-9" 12'-8" X
6'-1" 6'-2" X
ZONE
DROP
BATH 3
WIC
WIC
WIC
M BATH
BATH 2
LAU
8'-10" 6'-0" X
LAKEWOODK-1670
BEDROOM 4
10'-9" 11'-9" X
BEDROOM 3
13'-11" 10'-9" X
BEDROOM 2
10'-2" 10'-10" X
OPTIONAL DEN
PLAN 1:
2,861 SQFT
4 BEDROOM
2 BATH
3 CAR TANDEM GARAGE
80'
159'-6"
25'-0" 63'-6" 71'-0"
6'-0" 14'-0"60'-0"
45°
2468
90°
26 68
OPT CABINETS
DINING
12'-1" 22'-0" X
OPT CABINETS
K-821 MAYFLOWERBATH CAST IRON
90°
24 68
TWH
3050 SH3050 XO
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH3050 SH
6050 XO 6050 XO
5050 XO
SGD6080
6050 XO
6080SGD
MICRO /
OVEN
OPT CABINETS
OPT LINEN
OPT CABINETS
OPT
76" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
OPT EXTENDED
ISLAND
OPT EXTENDED
ISLAND
6050 XO
ATTIC
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH3050 SH
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
January 31, 22
PLAN 1
JURUPA VALLEY, CA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
A01
PANTRY
PANTRY
SC
90°
28 68
24 68
REF
CW
10'-10" 12'-10" X
DEN/HOBBY
FROPT
90°
26 68
FROPT
180°
26 68FROPT
180°
26 68
10'-10" 6'-5" X
STORAGE
5050 XO
TWH
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 2861.2 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 2861 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 677 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 31 SQ. FT.
OPTIONAL HOBBY +153 SQ. FT.
GARAGE @ HOBBY OPT: 523 SQ. FT.
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
January 27, 22
PLAN 1
JURUPA VALLEY, CA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
OPTIONAL DEN/HOBBY
A02
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY 4:124:12
4:12
4:124:12
4:12
4:124:12
5'-0"
3'-0"
1'-0"
EAVE
TYP
1'-0"
BARGE
TYP
3'-0"5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0" 3'-0"
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
January 31, 22
PLAN 1
JURUPA VALLEY, CA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1A - MISSION
A06
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
VALLEY
7:127:12
7:12
7:127:12
7:12
5:125:12
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0" 3'-0"
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
January 27, 22
PLAN 1
JURUPA VALLEY, CA
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1B - FARMHOUSE
A09
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 3238.5 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 3239 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 747 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 128 SQ. FT.
LINEN
LINEN
LINEN
PANTRY
PANTRY
REF
CW
SC
90°
28 68
90°
26 68
WD
90°
30 80
90°
26 68
90°
2668
90°
24 68
90°
26 68
90°
24 68
90°
2468
90°
2468
6068BP
90°
28 68
90°
3080
90°
28 68
OGD16070
36" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
90°
26 68
PLAN 2:
3,239 SQFT
4 BEDROOM + DEN
3 BATH
3 CAR TANDEM GARAGE
80'
159'-6"
25'-0" 41'-0" 59'-6"
6'-0" 14'-0"60'-0"
34'-0"
K-1670 LAKEWOODBATH FRP
M BEDROOM
19'-1" 19'-3" X
GREAT ROOM
26'-1" 22'-2" X
KITCHEN
10'-8" 20'-5" X
GARAGE
23'-11" 20'-8" X
2-CAR
BEDROOM 4
12'-3" 11'-9" X
BEDROOM 3
10'-11" 12'-10" X
BEDROOM 2
10'-3" 11'-10" X
WIC WIC
BATH 2
LAU
5'-9" 8'-1" X
WIC
WIC
M BATH
BATH 3
6'-0" 10'-3" X
ZONE
DROP
PORCH
ENTRY
5'-4" 11'-7" X
GARAGE
11'-4" 20'-0" X
TANDEM
SGD
90°
2668
90°
26 68
100" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
90°
24 68 OPT
90°
2468
OPT CABINETSOPT CABINETS
DW
K-1670 LAKEWOODBATH FRP
15'-4" 14'-7" X
OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5
TEEN ROOM
BUTLERS
PANTRY
REF
DINING
13'-1" 17'-7" X
K-821 MAYFLOWERBATH CAST IRON
90°
24 68
TWH
ATTIC
90°
2468
OPT CABINETS
OPT CABINETS
OPT CABINETS
8080 OPT 8080SGD
3050 SH5050 XO
3050 SH
3050 SH
6050 XO6050 XO
3050 SH
5040 XO
5050 XO
3050 SH
8050 XOX
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
MICRO /
OVEN
3050 SH
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 2
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
A10
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 3238.5 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 3239 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 747 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 128 SQ. FT.
90°
26 68
90°
30 80
90°
26 68
90°
24 68
90°
28 68
90°
26 68
3050 SH
3050 SH
WD
OPT CABINETS
PORCH
BATH 2
LAU
5'-9" 8'-1" X
BEDROOM 4
12'-3" 11'-9" X
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
LINEN
90°
26 68
WIC
BEDROOM 5
11'-7" 12'-3" X
90°
26 68
5068BP
WIC
5050 XO
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 2
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2B ELEVATION
OPTIONAL BEDROOM 5
A11
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
4:124:12
4:124:12
4:12
4:124:12
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"3'-0"
3'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
1'-0"
EAVE
TYP
1'-0"
BARGE
TYP
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 2
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2A - MISSSION
A15
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
ATTIC
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
1'-0"
EAVE
TYP
1'-0"
BARGE
TYP
7:127:12
7:12
7:127:12
5:125:12
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 2
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2B - FARMHOUSE
A18
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 3492.4 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 3492 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 799 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 128 SQ. FT.
LINEN
PANTRY
PANTRY
PANTRY
LINEN
REF
CW
SC
90°
28 68
FR
90°
3080
90°
28 68
90°
30 80
90°
24 68
90°
2468
90°
28 68
OGD16070
36" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
76" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
DW
KITCHEN
10'-8" 20'-5" X
GARAGE
23'-11" 20'-8" X
2-CAR
10'-0" 11'-5" X
MG-BEDROOM
BATH 3
6'-0" 10'-3" X
ZONE
DROP
PORCH
DINING
13'-1" 17'-7" X
90°
24 68
90°
26 68
REF
12'-3" 12'-6" X
MG-LIVING
PLAN 3:
3,492 SQFT
4 BEDROOM + MULTI-GEN
3 CAR TANDEM GARAGE
80'
25'-0" 45'-6" 47'-0"42'-0"
6'-0" 14'-0"60'-0"
WIC
6'-0" 8'-0" X
STAGING
WD
90°
30 80
90°
26 68
90°
26 68
90°
24 68
90°
26 68
90°
28 68
BEDROOM 3
10'-11" 12'-10" X
BEDROOM 4
10'-3" 11'-10" X
WIC WIC
BATH 2
LAU
5'-9" 8'-1" X
ENTRY
5'-4" 11'-7" X
100" 36"
CONC PAD
X MIN
8080SGD
90°
2668
90°
26 68
GARAGE
11'-4" 24'-6" X
TANDEM
GREAT ROOM
26'-1" 22'-2" X
OPT CABINETS
OPT KITCHENETTE / MEDIA AREA
BUTLERS
PANTRY
REF
90°
26 68
5068BP
90°
24 68
90°
3068
90°
26 68
K-1670 LAKEWOODBATH FRP
M BEDROOM
19'-1" 19'-3" X
WIC
M BATH
K-821 MAYFLOWERBATH CAST IRON
90°
2468
OPT 3668BARN
6080SGD
OPT CABINETS
45°
20 68
LINEN
3050 SH
3050 SH
5040 XO6050 SH
3050 SH
5050 XO
3050 SH
3050 SH
3050 SH
5050 XO
3050 SH3050 SH5050 XO2040 SH
6050 SH
3050 SH
OPT
SINK
MICRO /
OVENTWH
90°
2468
90°
2468
WIC
ATTIC
OPT CABINETSOPT CABINETS
BEDROOM 2
15'-4" 14'-7" X
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
A19
Floor Area
LIVING AREA:
FIRST FLOOR LIVING: 3492.4 SQ. FT.
TOTAL LIVING AREA: 3492 SQ. FT.
OTHER AREAS:
GARAGE: 799 SQ. FT.
COVERED PORCH: 128 SQ. FT.
90°
26 68
90°
30 80
90°
26 68
90°
24 68
90°
28 68
90°
26 68
124
3050 SH
WD
OPT CABINETS
PORCH
BATH 2
LAU
BEDROOM 4
3050 SH
3050 SH 3050 SH
3050 SH
121
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0"
3B ELEVATION
A20
9'-0 3/4"
PL
TOS
9'-0 3/4"
PL
TOS
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
(MISSION)3A - LEFT
(MISSION)3A - RIGHT
COURTYARD
COURTYARD
A24
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
4:124:12
4:124:12
4:124:12
VALLEY
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
1'-0"
EAVE
TYP
1'-0"
BARGE
TYP
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3A - MISSION
A25
9'-0 3/4"
PL
TOS
9'-0 3/4"
PL
TOS
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ELEVATIONS
SCALE: 1/4"=1'-0"
(FARMHOUSE)3B - RIGHT
COURTYARD
(FARMHOUSE)3B - LEFT
COURTYARD
A28
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
RIDGE
VALLEY
VALLEY VALLEY
VALLEY
5'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
3'-0"
5'-0"
3'-0"3'-0" 3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"3'-0"
1'-0"
EAVE
TYP
1'-0"
BARGE
TYP
7:127:12
7:127:12
5:125:12
17848 SKY PARK CIRCLE, SUITE D
IRVINE, CA 92614
949.336.6056
SADDLEHORN RANCH
JURUPA VALLEY, CA January 27, 22
PLAN 3
DESIGN DEVELOPMENT ROOF PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
3B - FARMHOUSE
A29
FRONTAGE ROAD
ROBERT BEERS
SITE
2023-07-11
CL
RIVERVIEW DRIVE
ROBERT BEERS
2023-07-11
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTICATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTICATTIC
ATTICATTIC
FRONTAGE ROAD
ATTICATTIC
ROBERT BEERS
SITE
2023-07-11
CL
RIVERVIEW DRIVE
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTIC
ATTICATTICATTIC
ATTIC
ATTICATTIC
ATTICATTIC
ROBERT BEERS
SITE
2023-07-11
ROBERT BEERS
2023-07-10
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 1
SCH No.2022060680
Saddlehorn Residential Project
Draft Environmental Impact Report
SCH No. 2022060680
City of Jurupa Valley Master Application MA 21256
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Applicant:
RC Hobbs Company
1428 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
(714-) 914-2500
September 28, 2023
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 2
SCH No.2022060680
1.0 Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 4
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 Summary Description of the Project ..................................................................................................... 4
1.3 Project Location ..................................................................................................................................... 4
1.4 Project Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 4
1.5 Scope of the EIR ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.6 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved ................................................................................... 5
1.7 Summary of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 6
1.8 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 7
2.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 18
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report .................................................................................... 18
2.2 Document Format ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.3 Project Overview ................................................................................................................................. 20
2.4 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 20
2.5 Requested Entitlements and Permits .................................................................................................. 20
2.6 Notice of Preparation ......................................................................................................................... 21
2.7 Initial Study .......................................................................................................................................... 21
2.8 Environmental Resources Analyzed in the EIR .................................................................................... 26
2.9 Incorporated Documents .................................................................................................................... 27
2.10 Public Review of the EIR ...................................................................................................................... 27
3.0 Project Description / Environmental Setting ................................ ................................ ....................... 28
3.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................... 28
3.2 Environmental Setting ......................................................................................................................... 28
3.3 Project Description Summary .............................................................................................................. 29
3.4 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................................... 29
3.5 Proposed Improvements ..................................................................................................................... 29
3.6 Construction and Operational Characteristics .................................................................................... 30
4.0 Environmental Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 34
4.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 38
4.2 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 49
5.0 Alternatives ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 72
5.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 72
5.2 Summary Description of the Proposed Project ................................................................................... 72
5.3 Project Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 73
5.4 Summary of the Proposed Projects Significant Impacts ..................................................................... 73
5.5 Alternates Considered But Not Analyzed Further ............................................................................... 74
5.6 Alternatives Under Consideration ....................................................................................................... 75
5.7 Analysis of Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 77
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 81
6.1 Significant Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented ........................ 81
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes .................................................................................. 82
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts .................................................................................................................... 83
6.4 Impacts Considered Not Significant .................................................................................................... 85
7.0 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 86
7.1 References Cited in the EIR (by order as appears in the document) .................................................. 86
7.2 Persons Contributing to EIR Preparation ............................................................................................ 86 Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 3
SCH No.2022060680
7.3 Documents Appended to This EIR ....................................................................................................... 86
List of Tables
Table 1.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................... 0 Table 2.1 Requested Entitlements ........................................................................................................ 20 Table 2.2 Summary of Notice of Preparation Comments ..................................................................... 21 Table 2.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR ................................................... 26 Table 3.1 Land Uses/General Plan Land Use Designations/Zoning Classifications ............................... 28 Table 3.2 Construction Equipment Assumptions .................................................................................. 30 Table 4.1 Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR ........................................................................ 34 Table 4.2 Cumulative Project List .......................................................................................................... 36 Table 4.3 Basic Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Zones C & D.............................................. 44 Table 4.4 General Plan Consistency Analysis (Hazards) ....................................................................... 46 Table 4.5 Land Uses / General Plan Land Use Designations / Zoning Classifications ............................ 50 Table 4.6 General Plan Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................ 58 Table 4.7 SCAG Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis .................................................................... 68 Table 5.1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts .................................................................... 73 Table 6.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided ............................................... 81
List of Figures
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map .......................................................................................................... 31 Figure 3-2 Vicinity Location Map/Aerial Photo ....................................................................................... 32 Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plan .............................................................................................................. 33 Figure 4-1 Location of Cumulative Projects ............................................................................................ 37 Exhibit 4.3.1 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones (and Project Site) .......................................... 39 Exhibit 4.3.2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Amendment Land ....................................................... 51 Exhibit 4.3.3 Project Site Zoning ................................................................................................................ 52
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 4
SCH No.2022060680
1.0 Executive Summary
1.1 Introduction
This summary is provided in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines §15123. As stated in §15123(a), “an EIR [environmental impact report] shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the Guidelines, this chapter includes 1) a summary description of the Project, 2) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measure 3) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative, and 4) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the Project.
1.2 Summary Description of the Project
The Project is proposing to construct a 19.36 -acre subdivision consisting of 31 single -family lots or 1.6 dwelling units per acre. The Project includes landscaping; internal paving and walkways; bioretention basin.
To implement the Project, the following discretionary entitlements are required. A more detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 3.0 – Project Description/Environmental Setting.
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008
The project is proposing to amend Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Plan from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborhood (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171
Subdivide 19.36 acres into 31 single-family lots.
1.3 Project Location
The City of Jurupa Valley covers approximately 43.5 square miles within the County of Riverside. The City is bordered by the City of Fontana and County of San Bernardino to the north, the City of Riverside and the City of Norco to the south, the City of Eastvale to the west, and the City of Riverside and County of San Bernardino to the east.
The Project consists of approximately 19.36 gross acres (18.56 net acres) and is located south of Limonite Frontage Road and R iverview Drive to the south. (Refer to Exhibit 3 -2, Project Site Location Map/Aerial Photo). The Project site includes the following Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 186 -160-021 (Refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map on page 3-2 and Figure 3.2, Vicinity Map/Aerial Photo on page 3-3.
1.4 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a vacant, undeveloped, and under-utilized site in an area of the City with predominantly residential uses with a residential development. The following is a list of specific objectives that the Project is intended to achieve:
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 5
SCH No.2022060680
• Assist the City in meeting its housing goals and reflect anticipated market needs and public demand, by providing a diverse range of home types with the intent to blend into the City of Jurupa Valley’s rural character.
• Develop a vacant residential property with close proximity to SR -60 that is readily accessible to existing and available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
1.5 Scope of the EIR
Based upon the Initial Study analysis (Appendix A-1), comments received pursuant to circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), (Appendix A-2 NOP and Appendix A -3 Comment Letters), and other public/agency input, the analysis of the EIR addresses the following topics as described in Table 1.1 - Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR.
Table 1.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR Environmental Topic Section Threshold Description of Impact
4.1 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the Project area?
The Project site is located within two
airport compatibility Zones C (17.95
acres) and D (0.6 acres).1 Zone C
requires a land use density less than
or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre
and 20% open space requirement
with a minimum width of 75 feet and
length of 300 feet at a general or
specific plan level or when a project is
10 acres or more. The Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) found the
Project INCONSISTENT with the 2005
Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan.
4.2 Land Use and Planning Conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect.
Inconsistency with Land Use Element
Policies LUE-5.55, 5.57, 5.58, and 5.61
with respect to consistency with the
Flabob Airport ALUP.
1.6 Areas of Controversy and Issues to be Resolved
Regarding issues to be resolved, this EIR addresses the environmental issues associated with the Project that are known by the City, that are identified in the comment letters that the City received on this EIR’s Notice of Preparation (NOP) which was circulated for a 30-day public review period from June 29, 2022, to July 28, 2022 (refer to Appendix A-2).
The City received one comment regarding the NOP issued for this EIR from the Native American Heritage Commission recommending consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries
1 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2004. Available at:
https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 6
SCH No.2022060680
of Native American human remains and protection of tribal cultural resources. This comment is addressed in Section 4.18-Tribal Cultural Resources of the Initial Study in Appendix A-1.
1.7 Summary of Alternatives
No Development Alternative
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e) requires that an alternative be included that describes what would reasonably be expected to occur on the property in the foreseeable future if the Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services. This Alternative considers no development/disturbance on the Project site beyond that which occurs under existing conditions. As such, the approximately 19.36-acre Project site would continue to consist of primarily vacant land. Under this Alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the Project’s roadway, drainage, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This Alternative was selected by the City to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition and is required by CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(1).) General Plan Development Alternative
The No Project/General Plan Development Alternative proposes land uses consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Map - the site is designated for Ranch uses (EDR – 0.5 units/acre max.). This designation means the site could be developed with up to 10 residential units.
This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment. The project site is located within two Compatibility Zones, Compatibility Zone C (17.95 acres) and Compatibility Zone D (0.6 acres). At this development density, the project would still not meet the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) maximum allowable density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone C or the maximum allowable density of either below 0.2 units per acre or above 5.0 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone D. The result of the No Project/General Plan Development Alternative would result in 3 units allowed in Zone C under the 0.2 du/acre, and 3 units in Zone D under the 5 du/acre allowable density. No units would be allowed in Zone D under the ALUC 0.2 du/acre density requirement. This alternative would be required to provide for the open space requirements of the ALUP.
Commercial Alternative
The Commercial Retail Alternative would develop the Project site into commercial uses. If the entire site were to support com mercial retail uses, a maximum of 295,163 square feet of commercial space could be built on the 19.36 -acre site based on an FAR of 0.35. This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to eliminate the Estate (EDR) land use designation to Commercial Retail (CR).
Due to the number of vehicular trips generated by retail uses, this alternative may result in increased traffic and air quality impacts. General Plan Table 2.3 Non-Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections, indicates retail uses generate 1 employee per 600 square feet which would result in 492 employees for the site. The Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUC) maximum densities/intensities for non -residential land uses would allow for 2,700 people in the Zone C and another 180 in Zone D for a total of 2,880 person which would include employees and customers. With the estimated 492 employees on -site, that allows for only 2,388 customers, the exact number of anticipated customers cannot be estimated without knowing the future types of retail businesses that could be present.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 7
SCH No.2022060680
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center > 150,000 square feet) 3.81 trips per unit per 1,000 square feet of retail space t he commercial retail alternative would result in approximately 1,125 trips per day. Under the proposed Project the daily trips would be 293, the commercial retail would create a 284 percent increase in traffic.
It is unknown if this Alternative would elimi nate significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials (i.e., consistency with the Flabob ALUP) as the number of customers on -site at any given time cannot be forecast without details on types of business that may be present. This Alternative would continue to impact relative Land Use and Planning since it would not be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning or potentially the policies regarding the Flabob ALUP. Additionally, this Alternative would have a significant direct and cumulative traffic impacts as it would generate almost 284 percent more traffic compared to the proposed Project, which would additionally create potential environmental impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Traffic . This alternative would remain i nconsistent with the open space requirements of the ALUP.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Because the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in lower impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project to less than significant levels, it is the environmentally superior alternative. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives evaluated.
Based on the analysis in Section 6.0, Alternatives, the General Plan Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project. Under this Alternative, impacts related to NOx emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT will be less when compared to the Project, but may remain significant and unavoidable for Flabob Airport Compatibility.
1.8 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Table 1 .2, Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures , summarizes potential impacts resulting from implementation and operations of the Project; lists the mandatory regulatory requirements [Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP)] and Mitigation Measures (MM) proposed to mitigate potentially significant environmental impacts of the Project; and indicates the level of significance after application of the PPP’s and MM’s. The table also includes the environmental topics from the Initial Study that require the implementation of PPPs and/or MMs to reduce significant impact to less than significant levels. For those topics not listed, impacts were determined by the Initial Study to either have “no impact” or “less than significant impact” and did not require the implementation of PPPs or MMs.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 0
SCH No. 2022060680
Table 1.2 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Aesthetics
If located in an
Urbanized Area,
conflict with
applicable zoning and
other regulations
governing scenic
quality?
IS 4.1 PPP 4.1 -1 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section 9.175.030, A-1 Zone (Light Agriculture) development standards include, but not limited to, development
standards for structures, lot sizes, yard requirements, and structure heights.
PPP 4.1 -2 As required by Jurupa Vall ey Municipal Code section 7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this section.
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Stan dard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Less Than
Significant
Air Quality
Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of
the applicable air
quality plan?
IS 4.3 (a) PPP 4.3-1. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.”
PPP 4.3-2. The Project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality District Rule 431.2, “Sulphur Content and Liquid Fuels.”
PPP 4.3-3. The Project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings. “
PPP 4.3-4. The Project is required to comply with the
provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads
and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less‐Polluting Street Sweepers.”
There are no feasible mitigation measures.
Less Than
Significant
Result in a
cumulatively
considerable net
increase of any
criteria pollutant for
which the project
region is non-
attainment under an
applicable federal or
state ambient air
IS 4.3 (b) PPP 4.3.1 through PPP 4.3-4 Less Than
Significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 1
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
quality standard.
Expose sensitive
receptors to
substantial pollutant
concentrations.
IS 4.3 (c) PPP 4.3.1 through PPP 4.3-4 Less than
significant
Result in other
emissions (such as
those leading to
odors) adversely
affecting a substantial
number of people?
IS 4.3 (d) None required Less than
significant
Biological Resources
Have a substantial
adverse effect, either
directly or through
habitat modifications,
on any species
identified as a
candidate, sensitive,
or special status
species in local or
regional plans,
policies, or
regulations, or by the
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
IS 4.4 (a) PPP 4.4 -1 The Project is required to pay mitigation fees pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) as required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.80.
MM-BIO-1: Migratory / Nesting Bird Protection. To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities ( such as ground disturbance,
construction activities, and/or removal of trees and
vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation
grubbing, and grading.
The survey area will include the project impact footprint and a 500 -foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
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 Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 2
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate
weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the
initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site;
density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be
sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.
If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and
approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions,
species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other
active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
Have a substantial
adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural
community identified
IS 4.4 (b) PPP 4.4-1 and MM-BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Less than significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 3
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
in local or regional
plans, policies,
regulations or by the
California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or
US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
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?
IS 4.4 (c) None required No Impact
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?
IS 4.4 (d) MM-BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Less Than
Significant
Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances
protecting biological
resources, such as a
tree preservation
policy or ordinance?
IS 4.4 (e) None Required No Impact
Conflict with the
provisions of an
adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan,
Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or
other approved local,
regional, or state
habitat conservation
plan?
IS 4.4 (f) PPP 4.4-1 and MM-BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection Less Than Significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 4
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Cultural Resources
Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a
historical resource
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
IS 4.5 (a) None required No Impact
Cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of an
archaeological
resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
IS 4.5 (b) MM CR -1: Archaeological Monitoring . Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development
Department that a qualified professional archaeologist
(Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource Consultant List main tained by the County of
Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to
implement Archaeological Monitoring for the area of impact for the Project. Monitoring shall be conducted in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s), defined as a Tribe that in itiated the tribal consultation process for the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b) (“AB52”) and has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has
completed AB 52 consultation with the City. Monitoring shall address th e details of all ground -disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts on cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.
A fully executed copy of t he Archaeological Monitoring Agreement shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this
measure. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR‐2 shall apply.
MM CR-2: Archeological Treatment Plan. The Project
Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a treatment plan to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan shall be per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for unique
archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e.,
avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If
preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementing archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource and subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be
coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Less than
significant.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 5
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21256.
MM-CR-3: Final Report : A final report containing the
significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as
described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21256.
Disturb any human
remains, including
those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
IS 4.5 (c) PPP 4.5 -1 The project is requir ed to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq.
Less Than
Significant
Energy
Result in potentially
significant
environmental impact
due to wasteful,
inefficient, or
unnecessary
consumption of
energy resources,
during project
construction or
operation?
IS 4.6 (a) None required Less Than
Significant
Conflict with or
obstruct a state or
local plan for
renewable energy or
energy efficiency?
IS 4.6 (b) None required Less Than
Significant
Geology and Soils
Would the Project
directly or indirectly
cause potential
substantial adverse
effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or
death involving:
Strong seismic ground
shaking?
IS 4.7 (a1) PPP 4.7 -1 As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010, the Project shall comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code which requires the Project to comply with the approved recommended seismic design
requirements contained in the Geotechnical Evaluation , EEI Engineering Solutions and be incorporated in the
construction of each structure , to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
Less Than
Significant
Seismic-related
ground failure,
including
liquefaction?
IS 4.7 (a2) PPP 4.7-1 Less Than
Significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 6
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Landslides? IS 4.7 (a3) PPP 4.7-1 Less Than
Significant
Result in substantial
soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil?
IS 4.7 (b) None Required Less Than
Significant
Be located on a
geologic unit or soil
that is unstable, or
that would become
unstable because of
the Project, and
potentially result in
on-site or offsite
landslide, lateral
spreading,
subsidence,
liquefaction, or
collapse?
IS 4.7 (c) PPP 4.7-1 Less Than
Significant
Be located on
expansive soil, as
defined in the
Uniform Building
Code, creating
substantial risks to life
or property?
IS 4.7 (d) PPP 4.7-1 Less Than
Significant
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?
IS 4.7 (e) None Required No Impact
Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique
paleontological
resource or site or
unique geologic
feature?
IS 4.7 (f) MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to conduct monitoring as necessary during ground - disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference and shall establish a schedule for paleontological resource surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Paleontologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency,
procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and Less Than
Significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 7
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the Paleontologist/Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon
approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe ground -disturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium. The Paleontologist wi ll attend the pre -grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for paleontological
monitoring and to temporarily halt ground -disturbing
activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the u ppermost layers (more than 3 feet below surface) should be monitored.
Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the
small-fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Generate greenhouse
gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly,
that may have a
significant impact on
the environment?
IS 4.8 (a) PPP 4.8-1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with the most recently adopted edition of the applicable California Energy Code, (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
PPP 4.8-2. As required by Municipal Code Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements , prior to the approval of landscaping plans, the Project proponent shall prepare and submit landscape plans that demonstrate
compliance with this section.
Less Than
Significant
Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy
or regulation adopted
for the purpose of
reducing the
emissions of
greenhouse gases?
IS 4.8 (b) None Required Less Than
Significant
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Create a significant IS 4.9 (a) None Required Less than Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 8
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
hazard to the public
or the environment
through the routine
transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous
materials?
significant
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?
IS 4.9 (b) None Required Less than
significant
Emit hazardous
emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste
within one-quarter
mile of an existing or
proposed school?
IS 4.9 (c) None Required No Impact
Be located on a site,
which is included on a
list of hazardous
materials sites
compiled pursuant to
Government Code
Section 65962.5, and,
as a result, would it
create a significant
hazard to the public
or the environment?
IS 4.9 (d) None Required Less than
significant
For a project located
within an airport land
use plan or, where
such a plan has not
been adopted, within
two miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
Project result in a
safety hazard or
excessive noise for
people residing or
IS 4.9 (e)
EIR 4.1
Significant and
unavoidable
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 9
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
working in the Project
area?
Impair
implementation of or
physically interfere
with an adopted
emergency response
plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
IS 4.9 (f) None Required Less than
significant
Hydrology And Water Quality
Violate any water
quality standards or
waste discharge
requirements or
otherwise
substantially degrade
surface or ground
water quality?
IS 4.10 (a) PPP 4.10-1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the MS4 sh all be required when requested by the City Engineer.
PPP 4.10-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water
Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and
consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources
Control Board Order Number 2009 -0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non -compliant construction site per the General Permit.
PPP 4.10-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge
Controls, Section C , n ew development, or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water.
Less than
significant
Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies
or interfere
substantially with
groundwater recharge
such that the project
IS 4.10 (b) None Required Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 10
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
may impede
sustainable
groundwater
management of the
basin?
(i) Result in
substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-
site?
(ii) Substantially
increase the rate or
amount of surface
runoff in a manner
which would result in
flooding on- or
offsite?
(iii) 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?
(iv) Impede or redirect
flood flows?
IS 4.10 (c) (i –
iv)
PPP 4.10-1, PPP 4.10-2, PPP 4.10-3 Less than
significant
In flood hazard,
tsunami, or seiche
zones, risk release of
pollutants due to
project inundation
IS 4.10 (d) None Required No impact
Conflict with or
obstruct
implementation of a
water quality control
plan or sustainable
groundwater
management plan?
IS 4.10 (e) None Required Less than
significant
Land Use And Planning
Physically divide a
community?
IS 4.11 (a) None Required No Impact
Cause a significant
environmental impact
due to a conflict with
any land use plan,
IS 4.11 (b)
EIR 4.2
Significant and
unavoidable
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 11
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
policy, or regulation
adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an
environmental effect?
Mineral Resources
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?
IS 4.12 (a) None Required No Impact
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?
IS 4.12 (b) None Required No Impact
Noise
Result in the
generation of a
substantial
temporary or
permanent increase
in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity
of the project more
than standards
established in the
local general plan or
noise ordinance, or
applicable standards
of other agencies?
IS 4.13 (a) MM-NOI-1-Construction Noise Mitigation . Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes shall be included on grading plans and building plans. Project
contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construc tion site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid
documents issued to prospective construction contractors.
“a) Haul truck deliveries shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm during the months of June through
September and 7:00am to 6:00pm during the months of
October through May.
b) Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’
standards.
c) All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site.
d) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located the greatest distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receptors.”
Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 12
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Result in the
generation of
excessive ground-
borne vibration or
ground-borne noise
levels?
IS 4.13 (b) None Required Less than
significant
For a project located
within the vicinity of
a private airstrip or
an airport land use
plan or, where such a
plan has not been
adopted, within two
miles of a public
airport or public use
airport, would the
project expose
people residing or
working in the project
area to excessive
noise levels
IS 4.13 (c) None Required Less than
significant
Population and Housing
Induce substantial
unplanned
population growth in
an area, either
directly (for example,
by proposing new
homes and
businesses) or
indirectly (for
example, through
extension of roads or
other infrastructure)?
IS 4.14 (a) None Required Less than
significant
Displace substantial
numbers of existing
people or housing,
necessitating the
construction of
replacement housing
elsewhere?
IS 4.14 (b) None Required No impact
Public Services
Result in substantial
adverse physical
impacts associated
with the provision of
IS 4.15 (a) PPP 4.15 -1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes,
ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire
prevention and suppression measures relating to water
Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 13
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, need for
new or physically
altered governmental
facilities, the
construction of which
could cause
significant
environmental
impacts, in order to
maintain acceptable
service ratios,
response times or
other performance
objectives for any of
the public services:
1 – Fire Protection?
2 – Police Protection?
3 – Schools?
4 – Parks?
5 - Other public
facilities?
improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire
extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to im prove public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
PPP 4.15 -4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
Recreation
Increase the use of
existing
neighborhood and
regional parks or
other recreational
facilities such that
substantial physical
deterioration of the
facility would occur
or be accelerated?
IS 4.16 (a) PPP 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Ar ea Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008
Less than
significant
Include recreational
facilities or require
the construction or
expansion of
recreational facilities,
which might have an
adverse physical
effect on the
environment?
IS 4.16 (b) None required Less than
significant
Transportation
Conflict with a
program, plan,
ordinance, or policy
IS 4.17 (a) None required Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 14
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
addressing the
circulation system,
including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities?
Conflict or be
inconsistent with
CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)
IS 4.17 (b) None required Less than
significant
Substantially increase
hazards due to a
geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses
(e.g., farm
equipment)?
IS 4.17 (c) None required Less than
significant
Result in inadequate
emergency access?
IS 4.17 (d) None required Less than
significant
Tribal Cultural Resources
Listed or eligible for
listing in the California
Register of Historical
Resources, or in a
local register of
historical resources as
defined in Public
Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)?
IS 4.18 (a) None required No impact
A resource
determined by the
lead agency, in its
discretion and
supported by
substantial evidence,
to be significant
pursuant to criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In
applying the criteria
set forth in
subdivision (c) of
Public Resource Code
IS 4.18 (b) MM- TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting
Tribe(s) for Native American Monitor(s) to be onsite during ground disturbing activities allowed by the grading permit. A Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b). Ground disturbing activities include excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching.
The Monitoring Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
a) Provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the
Less than
significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 15
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Section 5024.1, the
lead agency shall
consider the
significance of the
resource to a
California Native
American tribe?
Consulting Tribe(s) of all ground disturbing activities. b) Conduct a Pre-Grade Meeting with the Project
archeologist, Consulting Tribe(s), and grading
contractor(s).
c) In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s)
required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1 under
Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21256,
the Native American Monitor(s) shall have the
authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the
ground disturbance activities to allow identification,
evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural
resources.
d) The onsite monitoring shall end when all ground-
disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Native American Tribal Monitor(s) have
indicated that all upcoming ground disturbing
activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Project Proponent shall submit a fully executed copy of the Monitoring Agreement to the City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Department to ensure compliance with this
mitigation measure. If there are multiple Consulting Tribes involved, a separate Monitoring Agreement is required for each. The Monitoring Agreement shall not modify any
condition of approval or mitigation measure.
MM-TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery: The Permit Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of the grading permit. If, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) Ground disturbing activities shall cease in the
immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the
surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed.
Ground disturbing activities are allowed on the
remainder of the Project Site.
b) In the event the unanticipated discovery includes
human remains and/or cremations no photographs
are to be taken except by the coroner, with written
approval by the Consulting Tribes(s).
c) The Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Archaeologist
(retained by the Permit Applicant under Mitigation
Measure MM-CR-1, Retain Professional
Archaeologist), of this Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration document for MA21256, and the
City of Jurupa Valley Community Development
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 16
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
Department shall meet and confer, and discuss the
find with respect to the following:
1. Determine if the resource is a Tribal Cultural
Resource as defined by Public Resources
Code §21074, if so:
2. Determine if the resource is listed or eligible
for listing in the California Register on a
“Local register of historical or resources”
pursuant to Public Resources Code §5020.1
(k); or
3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5024.1
(c) as it pertains to the Consulting Tribe(s):
(1) Is associated with events that have made
a significant contribution to the broad
patterns of California’s history and cultural
heritage, (2) Is associated with the lives of
persons important in our past, (3) Embodies
the distinctive characteristics of a type,
period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative
individual, or possesses high artistic values,
or (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or
history.
d) If the resource(s) are Native American in origin [and not a historical resource as defined by Public
Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or §5024.1 (c)], the
Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Consulting Tribe(s) deems appropriate,
for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If
multiple Consulting Tribes (s) are involved, and a
mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the form
and manner of disposition of the resource(s), the City
shall request input from the Native American Heritage
Commission and render a final decision.
e) If the resource(s) is both a tribal cultural resource and a historic resource, the Project Archaeologist, the
Consulting Tribe(s), and the City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Department shall meet and confer and
discuss the appropriate treatment (documentation,
recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural and historic resource. Treatment, at a minimum, shall be
consistent with Public Resources Code § 21084.3 (b).
The appropriate treatment shall be prepared in
conjunction with the Archaeological Treatment plan
required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 17
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
MA20219. Further ground disturbance shall not
resume within the area of the discovery until the
appropriate treatment has been accomplished.
MM-TCR-3: Final Report: If a Tribal cultural resource is also a historic resource defined above, the resource shall be
included in the Final Report required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21256.
Utilities and Service Systems
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?
IS 4.19 (a) None required Less than
significant
Have sufficient water
supplies available to
serve the project and
reasonably
foreseeable future
development during
normal, dry, and
multiple years?
IS 4.19 (b) None required Less than
significant
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?
IS 4.19 (c) None required Less than
significant
Generate solid waste IS 4.19 (d) PPP 4.19-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Less than Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 18
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Document/
Section
Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) and/or
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact
Level of
Significance
more than State or
local standards, or
more than the
capacity of local
infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the
attainment of solid
waste reduction
goals?
Project applicant shall submit a construction waste
management plan in compliance with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards.
significant
Comply with federal,
state, and local
management and
reduction statutes
and regulations
related to solid
waste?
IS 4.19 (e) PPP 4.19-1 Less than
significant
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all state and local governmental agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before taking action on those projects. This draft envi ronmental impact report (EIR) has been prepared to satisfy CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The EIR is the public document designed to provide decision makers and the public with an analysis of the environmental effects of the Project, to indicate possible wa ys to reduce or avoid environmental damage and to identify alternatives to the Project. The EIR must also disclose significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided; growth inducing impacts; effects not found to be significant; and significant cumulative impacts of all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
The lead agency means “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment” (Guidelines § 21067). The City of Jurupa Valley has the principal responsibility for approval of the Project and related land use entitlements. For this reason, the City of Jurupa Valley is the CEQA lead agency for this Project.
The overall purpose of this EIR is to inform the lead agency, responsible agencies, decision makers, and the general public about the environmental effects of the development and operation of the Project. This EIR addresses effects that may be significant and adverse; evaluates alternatives to the project; and identifies mitigation measures to reduce or avoid adverse effects.
This EIR has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the:
• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended (Public Resources Code, §§21000 et seq.)
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 19
SCH No. 2022060680
• State Guidelines for the Implementation of the CEQA of 1970 (CEQA Guidelines), as amended (California Code of Regulations, §§ 15000 et seq.)
• City of Jurupa Valley Environmental Guidelines and Significance Thresholds, adopted June 4, 2020 by City Council Resolution No. 2020-40.
2.2 Document Format
This EIR contains all the information required to be included in an EIR as specified by the CEQA Statutes and Guidelines (California Public Resources Code, §21000 et. seq. and California Code of Regu lations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3). CEQA requires that an EIR contain, at a minimum, certain specified content. In summary, the content and format of this EIR is as follows:
Section 1.0, Executive Summary, includes a Project introduction, a brief description of the Project, a summary of areas of controversy/issues to be resolved, a description of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) comments received, as well as a description of the Project alternatives and a summary of impacts, mitigation measures, and level of impacts following mitigation.
Section 2.0, Introduction and Purpose, provides introductory information about the CEQA process and the responsibilities of the City of Jurupa Valley, serving as the Lead Agency of this EIR. This section also include s a description of the document format as well as the purpose of CEQA and this EIR.
Section 3.0, Project Description , serves as the EIR’s Project Description and contains a level of specificity commensurate with the level of detail proposed by the Project, including the summary requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15123.
Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, provides an analysis of potential direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts that may occur with implementation of the Project. A conclusion concerning significance is reached for each discussion; mitigation measures are presented as warranted.
Section 5.0, Project Alternatives , describes and evaluates alternatives to the Project that could reduce or avoid the Project’s adverse environmental effects.
Section 6.0, Additional Topics Required by CEQA , includes specific topics that are required by CEQA. These include a summary of the Project’s significant and unavoidable environmental effects, a discussion of the significant environmental effects which c annot be avoided if the Project is implemented, significant environmental changes, potential growth-inducing impacts of the proposed Project.
Section 7.0, References lists the references cited in the DEIR.
Section 8.0, List of Preparers , lists the persons who authored or participated in preparing this Draft EIR, including agencies and persons consulted.
Technical Appendices. CEQA Guidelines §15147 states that the “information contained in an EIR shall include summarized information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public,” and that the “[p]placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR shall be avoided.” Therefore, the detailed technical studies, reports, and supporting documentation that were used in preparing this Draft EIR are provided separately as Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 20
SCH No. 2022060680
Technical Appendices. The Technical Appendices are available for review at the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509, during the City’s regular business hours or can be accessed at the following link:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68
2.3 Project Overview
The Project is proposing a 19.36 -acre subdivision to construct 31 single family lots or 1.6 dwelling units per acre. To implement the Project, the following discretionary entitlements are required. A more detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 3.0- Project Description/Environmental Setting.
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008
The project is proposing to amend Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Plan from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborhood (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171
Subdivide 19.36 acres into 31 single-family lots.
2.4 Project Location
The Project site consists of approximately 19.36 acres in the City of Jurupa Valley, Riverside County. California.
From a regional perspective, the Project site is located in the southeastern portion of the City of Jurupa Valley, with State Route 60 (SR-60) approximately 1.70 miles north and Interstate 15 (I-15) approximately 2.75 miles to the west. At the local scale, the Project site is located on Limonite Frontage Road immediately adjacent to the west of the Project site and Riverview Drive immediately adjacent to the east of the Project site. The site is also identified by Riverside County Assess or’s Parcel Numbers 171 -020-001, 171-020-002, 171 020 025. (Refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map on page 3-2 and Figure 3.2, Vicinity Map/Aerial Photo on page 3-
3. 2.5 Requested Entitlements and Permits
The anticipated approvals required for this Project are listed in Table 2.1, Requested Entitlements.
Table 2.1 Requested Entitlements
Agency Entitlement/Permit
City of Jurupa Valley Certification of the EIR
Approval of General Plan Amendment
Approval of Tentative Tract Map
Santa Ana Regional Water
Quality Control Board
Issuance of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit Issuance of Construction General Permit Coverage
Issuance of Commercial General Permit Coverage
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 21
SCH No. 2022060680
2.6 Notice of Preparation
To determine the scope of this EIR, the City prepared and distributed a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project on June 29, 2022 to the State Office of Planning and Research, each responsible and trustee agency, and submitted to the Riverside County Clerk. Table 2.2, Summary of Notice of Preparation Comments on the following page summarizes t he comments received regarding the NOP issued for this EIR and identifies the location in this EIR document where the comments are addressed.
Table 2.2 Summary of Notice of Preparation Comments
Agency/ Organization/
Individual Date Comments
Location in this EIR
where Comment is
Addressed
Native American
Heritage Commission
7/1/22 Recommends consultation with California Native American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project in order to avoid inadvertent discoveries of native American human remains and protection of tribal cultural resources.
Initial Study Section
4.18-Tribal Cultural
Resources
All NOP comment letters are included in Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist (Appendix A) of this Draft EIR.
2.7 Initial Study
The City determined that an EIR would be required for the Project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (c) (3), although an Initial Study was not required to make this determination, the preparation of an Initial Study was prepared to assist in the preparation of this EIR by:
• Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant. • Identifying the effects determined not to be significant. • Explaining the reasons for determining that potentially significant effects would not be significant.
Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study, which is attached to this EIR as Appendix A-1, Initial Study Checklist, the following environmental impacts have been screened out and are not discussed in this EIR:
Aesthetics. Potential to:
• Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista.
• Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rocks, outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.
• In a non-urbanized area, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings.
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect the day or nighttime views in the area.
Agriculture and Forestry Resources. Potential to:
• Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 22
SCH No. 2022060680
• Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned “Timberland Production.”
• Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, coul d result in conversion of Farmland, to non -agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non - forest use.
Air Quality. Potential to:
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan. • Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. • Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. • Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people.
Biological Resources. Potential to:
• Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.
• 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.
• 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.
• Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
• Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Co nservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Cultural Resources. Potential to:
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5.
• Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5.
• Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Energy. Potential to:
• Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 23
SCH No. 2022060680
• Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
Geology and Soils. Potential to:
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault. • Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, seismic -related ground failure (including liquefaction, or landslides).
• Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. • Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the Project, and potentially result in on -site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse.
• Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the Unifor m Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property.
• Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides.
• 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. • Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Potential to:
• Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.
• Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Potential to:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonab ly foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. • Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
• Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
• Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 24
SCH No. 2022060680
Hydrology and Water Quality. Potential to:
• Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality.
• Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. • 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 that 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. • Impede or redirect flood flows.
• In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation.
• Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Land Use and Planning. Potential to:
• Physically divide an established community.
Mineral Resources. Potential to:
• Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and to the residents of the state.
• 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.
Noise. Potential to:
• Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. • For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
Population and Housing. Potential to:
• Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, eith er directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 25
SCH No. 2022060680
• Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
Public Services. Potential to:
• Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts for fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other public facilities.
Recreation. Potential to:
• Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. • Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of re creational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment.
Transportation. Potential to:
• Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities.
• Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b). • Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment). • Result in inadequate emergency access.
Tribal Cultural Resources. Potential to:
• Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). • A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Utilities and Service Systems. Potential to:
• 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. • Have sufficient water supplies availa ble to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple years.
• 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.
• Generate solid waste more than State or local standards, or more than the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 26
SCH No. 2022060680
• Conflict with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Wildfire. The Project is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones as such, an analysis of wildfire impacts was not required.
2.8 Environmental Resources Analyzed in the EIR
Based upon the Initial Study analysis (Appendix A-1), comments received pursuant to circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A-2 NOP and Appendix A-3 Comment Letters), and other public/agency input, the analysis of the EIR addresses the following topics as described in Table 2.3, Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR.
Table 2.3 Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR Environmental Topic Section Threshold Description of Impact
4.1 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the Project area?
The Project site is located within two
airport compatibility Zones C (17.95
acres) and D (0.6 acres).2 Zone C
requires a land use density less than
or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre
and 20% open space requirement
with a minimum width of 75 feet and
length of 300 feet at a general or
specific plan level or when a project is
10 acres or more. The Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) found the
Project INCONSISTENT with the 2005
Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan
4.2 Land Use and Planning 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?
Inconsistency with Land Use
Element Policies LUE-5.55, 5.57,
5.58, and 5.61 with respect to
consistency with the Flabob
Airport ALUP.
As noted above, based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study (Appendix A -1), this section of the EIR analyzes and describes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the Project. The environmental impact analysis has been organized into a series of sections, each addressing a separate environmental resource. Environmental resources addressed in this EIR are presented in the following sections:
• 4.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
• 4.2 Land Use and Planning
2 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2004. Available at:
https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 27
SCH No. 2022060680
2.9 Incorporated Documents
CEQA Guidelines §15150 permits the incorporation by reference of all or p ortions of other documents that are generally available to the public. Any document incorporated by reference shall be made available to the public for inspection at a public place or public building and requires that the EIR state where the incorporated documents will be made available for public inspection.
The following documents have been incorporated by reference and cited as appropriate:
• City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2017, and as currently amended.
• City of Jurupa Valley General Final Environmental Impact Report, certified by the City Council on September 7, 2017.
• City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (various chapters), approved through February 16, 2023.
The above-described documents are on file with the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 and online at: https://www.jurupavalley.org/ and are hereby incorporated by reference.
2.10 Public Review of the EIR
This EIR is being distributed to responsible and trustee agencies, other affected agencies, and interested parties. Additionally, in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21092(b) (3), the EIR is being provided to all parties who previously requested copies. The Notice of Completion (NOC) and Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIR are being distributed as required by CEQA.
The Draft EIR and technical appendices were made available for a minimum 45-day public review period from September 29, 2023, to November 13, 2023.
All files are available at the following links:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 (see folder labeled MA21256 Saddlehorn Ranch)
Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQAnet Web Portal at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ Enter "2022060680" in the search box and find under "MA21256 Saddlehorn Ranch." Written comments regarding this EIR should be addressed to:
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley CA 92509
Phone: 951-322-6464
Fax: 951-332-6995
Email: [email protected]
After the public review period, the City will issue the Final EIR (which includes the Draft EIR, the public comments and responses to the Draft EIR, and any revisions to the Draft EIR). The Final EIR will be available Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 28
SCH No. 2022060680
for public review for a minimum of 10 days prior to the City Council taking any action on the Project. The City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission has the authority to recommend, conditionally recommend, or not recommend the Project for approval. The City of Jurupa Valley City Council has exclusive authority to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the Project.
If the Project is approved, the City Council may impose mitigation measures specified in the Final EIR as conditions of Project approval. Alternatively, the City Council could require other mitigation measures deemed to be effective mitigations for the identified impacts, or it could find that the mitigation measures cannot be feasibly implemented. For any identified significant impacts for which no mitigation measure is feasible, or where mitigation would not reduce the impact to a less than significant level, the City Council will be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations finding that the impacts are considered acceptable because specific overriding considerations from the Project’s benefits outweigh the impacts in question.
3.0 Project Description / Environmental Setting
3.1 Project Location
The Project consists of approximately 19.36 gross acres (18.56 net acres) and is located south of Limonite Frontage Road and Riverview Drive to the south. (Refer to Exhibit 3-2, Project Site Location Map/Aerial Photo). The Project site includes the following Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 186 -160-021 (Refer to Figure 3-1, Regional Location Map on page 3-5 and Figure 3.2, Vicinity Map/Aerial Photo on page 3-6.
3.2 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “…the physical environmental conditions in the v icinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced…” Thus, the environmental setting for the Project is the date that th e Project’s Notice of Preparation was published, which is June 29, 2022 . On-site and adjacent land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning classifications are shown in Table 3.1 - Land Uses/General Plan Land Use Designations/Zoning Classifications.
Table 3.1 Land Uses/General Plan Land Use Designations/Zoning Classifications Location Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Site Single-Family Residential
and vacant land.
EDR (Ranch) A-1 (Light Agriculture)
North Single-Family Residential EDR (Ranch)
MDR (Medium Density Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
R-1-80 (One Family Dwelling)
South Single-Family Residential
and Horse Ranches.
EDR (Ranch)
LDR (Country Neighborhood)
A-1(Light Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
East Riverview Drive and Single-
Family Residential.
EDR (Ranch) A-1(Light Residential)
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 29
SCH No. 2022060680
Location Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning West Limonite Frontage Road,
Single Family Residential,
Limonite Avenue.
LDR (Country Neighborhood)
MDR (Medium Density Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
R-1-80 (One Family Dwelling)
Source: City of Jurupa Valley-General Plan Land Use Map August 2020, Google Earth Pro.
3.3 Project Description Summary
The Project is proposing a 19.36 -acre subdivision to construct 31 single family lots or 1.6 dwelling units per acre. To implement the Project, the following discretionary entitlements are required. A more detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 3.0- Project Description/Environmental Setting.
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008
The project is proposing to amend Figure 2-5: 2022 General Plan Land Use Plan from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborhood (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171
Subdivide 19.36 acres into 31 single-family lots.
3.4 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a vacant, undeveloped, and under-utilized site in an area of the City with predominantly residential uses. The following is a list of specific objectives that the Project is intended to achieve:
• Assist the City in meeting its housing goals and reflect anticipated market needs and public demand, by providing a diverse range of home types with the intent to blend into the City of Jurupa Valley’s rural character.
• Develop a vacant residential property with close proximity to SR -60 that is readily accessible to existing and available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
3.5 Proposed Improvements
Street Improvements and Access
Proposed internal streets will be private roads . Dedication at entrance to accommodate public improvements will be required (i.e., curb ramps).
Lighting
The Project includes the installation of outdoor nighttime lighting throughout the Project s ite. All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standards Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standards Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 30
SCH No. 2022060680
Water and Sewer Improvements
Water: The Project will connect to the existing 8-inch diameter waterline in Riverview Drive.
Sewer: The Project will connect to the existing 8 -inch diameter sewer line at the intersection of Riverview Drive and Rio Road.
Drainage Improvements
Drainage for the Project will preserve the existing drainage path from the west to the east and consists of curbs, gutters, a slotted grate drain inlet, and a bioretention basin. High flows will be conveyed through a new storm drain located to Riverview Drive.
3.6 Construction and Operational Characteristics
Construction
Construction of the Project is expected to take approximately 19 months and be open in 2024. Demolition of the existing 1,50 square foot residential structure will take approximately 2 weeks, s ite preparation and grading will take approximately 2 months and building construction, paving, and application of architectural coatings taking approximately 16 months. The natural topography of the Project site is relatively flat so no unusual grading conditions are present and substantial import or export of earth materials is not expected.
During all phases of construction, all construction equipment and mate rials storage would occur within the Project site. No off-site staging area for trucks or equipment would be required during construction activities.
To avoid or minimize temporary construction -related traffic impacts throughout site preparation and construction activities, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a City -approved construction traffic management plan. Table 3 .2, Construction Equipment Assumptions , shows the heavy construction equipment that is expected to be used for grading the Project site.
Table 3.2 Construction Equipment Assumptions
Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8
Excavators 3 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8
Grading Graders 1 8
Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8
Scrapers 2 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8
Excavators 2 8
Building Construction Cranes 1 7
Forklifts 3 8
Generator Sets 1 8
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 31
SCH No. 2022060680
Activity Equipment Number Hours Per Day
Welders 1 8
Paving Pavers 2 8
Paving Equipment 2 8
Rollers 2 8
Architectural Coatings Air Compressors 1 6
Source: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Appendix A-1 Impact Study Checklist (Appendix A).
Operational Characteristics
The Project consists of a residential development with typical operational activities including vehicle trips from residents, visitors, service and delivery vehicles and the operation of air conditioning equipment, lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and maintenance equipment associated with single -family residential neighborhoods.
Figure 3-1 Regional Location Map
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 32
SCH No. 2022060680
Figure 3-2 Vicinity Location Map/Aerial Photo
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 33
SCH No. 2022060680
Figure 3-3 Conceptual Site Plan
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 34
SCH No. 2022060680
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Scope of the EIR
As noted in Section 2.7, an Initial Study was prepared to assist in the preparation of this EIR by:
• Focusing the EIR on the effects determined to be significant. • Identifying the effects determined not to be significant. • Explaining the reasons for determin ing that potentially significant effects would not be significant.
Based on the analysis contained in the Initial Study, which is attached to this EIR as Appendix A -1, certain environmental impacts have been screened out and are not discussed in this EIR as described on pages 2-4 through 2-7 and are not repeated here.
Based upon the Initial Study analysis (Appendix A-1), comments received pursuant to circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), (Appendix A-2 NOP and Appendix A -3 Comment Letters), and ot her public/agency input, the analysis of the EIR addresses the following topics as described in Table 4.1- Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR.
Table 4.1 Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR
Environmental Topic Section Threshold Description of Impact
4.1 Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
For a project located within an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people
residing or working in the Project area?
The Project site is located within two
airport compatibility Zones C (17.95
acres) and D (0.6 acres).3 Zone C
requires a land use density less than
or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre
and 20% open space requirement
with a minimum width of 75 feet and
length of 300 feet at a general or
specific plan level or when a project is
10 acres or more. The Airport Land
Use Commission (ALUC) found the
Project INCONSISTENT with the 2005
Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan
4.7 Land Use and Planning 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?
Inconsistency with Land Use Element
Policies LUE-5.55, 5.57, 5.58, and 5.61
with respect to consistency with the
Flabob Airport ALUP.
3 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2004. Available at:
https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 35
SCH No. 2022060680
Each of the environmental resources described above is analyzed by responding to a series of questions pertaining to the impact of the Project on the particular resource. Based on the results of the Impact Analysis, the effects of the Project are then placed in one of the following four categories, which are followed by a summary to substantiate the factual reasons why the impact was placed in a certain category.
Significant and
Unavoidable Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
Impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated that
cannot be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
Potentially significant
impact(s) have been identified
or anticipated, but mitigation
is possible to reduce impact(s)
to a less than significant
category. Mitigation measures
must then be identified.
No “significant” impact(s)
identified or anticipated.
Therefore, no mitigation is
necessary.
No impact(s) identified
or anticipated.
Therefore, no
mitigation is necessary.
Throughout the impact analysis in this EIR, reference is made to the following:
• Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) − These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on federal, state, or local law currently in place that effectively reduce environmental impacts. If applicable, they will be identified in the Analysis section for each topic.
• Mitigation Measures (MM) − These measures include feasible requirements that are proposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts. Mitigation me asures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
If applicable to the analysis for a certain environmental resource, Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each resource. Mitigation Measures were formulated only for those resources where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts, if applicable and feasible. Both types of measures described above will be required to be implemented as part of the Project if indicated in the analysis.
Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines states that cumulative impacts shall be discussed where they are significant. It further states that this di scussion shall reflect the level and severity of the impact and the likelihood of occurrence, but not in as great a level of detail as that necessary for the project alone. Section 15355 of the Guidelines defines cumulative impacts as “... two or more indiv idual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” Cumulative impacts represent the change caused by the incremental impact of a project when added to other proposed or committed projects in the vicinity.
The CEQA Guidelines §15130(b)(1) states that the information utilized in an analysis of cumulative impacts should come from one of two sources:
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 36
SCH No. 2022060680
A. A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related cumulative impa cts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency.
B. A summary of projections contained in an adopted General Plan or related planning document designed to evaluate regional or area-wide conditions.
The cumulative impact analy sis in this EIR uses both methods as described more specifically in each cumulative impact section. The geographic area in which cumulative impacts are considered varies between the type of resources that is evaluated. For instance, for utilities and service systems, the area considered is the service area of each utility provider. The geographic scope of air quality is the South Coast Air Basin, which is the air basin where the project site is located.
Table 4.2 shows the cumulative projects within an approximately 2.5-mile radius of the Project site. The table specifies dwelling units and the nonresidential area associated with the projects. Figure 4-1 gives a graphical representation of the project locations.
Table 4.2 Cumulative Project List
Project
ID No. Project Land Uses Dwelling Units
Non-Residential
(sf)
1 Appaloosa Springs Single-Family Detached
Housing
253 ---
2 MA17280 Neighborhood Commercial --- 12,180
3 Mondragon Auto Repair Coffee/Donut Shop w/
Drive-thru
--- 2,400
4 Madone Collection Single-Family Detached
Housing
35 ---
5 Mission Village Shopping Center Commercial 50,000
6 KY Spices Manufacturing Facility --- 91,852
7 Action Plumbing Plumbing Supply Store --- 9,736
8 Serrano Oaks Multi-Family Housing
(Townhomes)
66 ---
9 The District Specific Plan (Multi-family
residential, commercial,
industrial)
1,192 3,000,000
10 Platinum Storage Mini-Storage --- 88,898
11 Highland Park Master Planned Community
Single Family Homes
398 ---
12 Mission Plaza Commercial (Shopping
Center)
--- 118,683
13 TTM 36702 Single Family Homes 17 ---
14 Avalon Court Single-Family Detached
Housing
24 ---
15 Pedley Station Commercial (Dental offices,
retail, drive-thru coffee or
fast food)
--- 7,990
16 TTM37211 Single Family Homes 48 ---
17 MA17042 Multi-Family Housing 121 ---
18 MA17156 Senior Housing 44 ---
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 37
SCH No. 2022060680
19 Mission Gateway Plaza & Villas Mixed Use (Multifamily and Commercial)
68 31,375
20 General Dr and Clay St Industrial
Park
5 Industrial Buildings --- 328,056
21 Las Palmas Single-Family Detached
Housing
35 Sources: City of Jurupa Valley Cumulative Project List
Figure 4-1 Location of Cumulative Projects
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 38
SCH No. 2022060680
4.1 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.1.1 Introduction
The Initial Study2 that was prepared as part of the Notice of Preparation (NOP) determined that the proposed Project “…may result in or cause potentially significant impacts related to:
Hazards (for a project located within an airport land use plan, result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area).” (Initial Study, Appendix A-1).
This section examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project relative to airport-related hazards. The remaining environmental questions or issues in the Initial Study related to other hazards or hazardous materials were screened out or removed from more detailed analysis in this EIR (i.e., they were determined to have “no impact”, a “less than significant impact”, or be “less than significant with mitigation incorporated” in the Initial Study).
4.1.2 Existing Conditions
The Project site is primarily vacant and is bounded by Riverview Drive to the east, Limonite Frontage Road to the west, and residential uses to the north and south. At its closest point the Project site is located approximately 3,320 feet northeast of the Flabob Airport runway, a general aviation airport which began operations in 1925. The airport has an approved Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP) from 2004 which establishes safety or compatibility zones around the airpor t to facilitate safe and efficient air operations at the airport.
4.1.3 Airport Hazards
The Project site is located within two airport compatibility Zones C (17.95 acres) and D (0.6 acres). 4 Zone C requires a land use density less than or equal to 0.2 dwelling units per acre and 20% open space requirement with a minimum width of 75 feet and length of 300 feet at a general or specific plan level or when a project is 10 acres or more. Zone D limits residential density to 0.2 to 0.4 du/ac with a 10% open space requirement.
The Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the Project INCONSISTENT with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The location of the Project site in relation to the Airport’s Compatibility Zones is shown in Exhibit 4.3.1.
4 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2004. Available at:
https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 39
SCH No. 2022060680
Exhibit 4.3.1 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Zones (and Project Site)
4.1.4 NOP Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released for public review on June 29, 2022, no comments were made that pertain to hazards and hazardous materials.
4.1.5 Regulatory Framework
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations related to hazards and hazardous materials pertaining to airport use and safety.
Federal Regulations
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the agency of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within the U.S., and its primary mission is to ensure safety of civil aviation. Airports that serve scheduled passenger air service are governed by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14 Part 139 and related regulations. According to the FAA website, “Civilian airports that do not serve scheduled passenger service are typically known as general aviation airports. These airports usually serve private aircraft and small aircraft charter operations. Part 139 typically does not apply to general aviation airports because they do not serve defined air carrier operations, as such the Flabob Airport is not governed by Part 139. However, the airport it is governed by Part 77 regulations regarding navigable airspace.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 40
SCH No. 2022060680
The FAA utilizes the criteria co ntained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 to determine reporting requirements, the impact of a proposed structure on imaginary surfaces that could affect navigable airspace, and whether the structure, if constructed, will require lighting and/or marking. FAR Part 77 defines the criteria for determining if a structure will require reporting to the FAA, if the structure exceeds the stated criteria and whether the structure has an impact on navigable airspace. If the FAA determines that there is an impact to navigable airspace, a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) will be issued, and an aeronautical study is conducted. If the FAA determines that the proposed structure has a substantial adverse impact, they will issue a Determination of Hazard. In some c ases, the FAA will offer a project proponent options to mitigate the adverse impact, e.g., lower the structure, redesign etc.
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5
The State of California adopted the Airport Land Use Law, California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5.
The Airport Land Use Law provides for the creation of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC or Commission) and the adoption of airport land use compatibility plans by the Commission to assist the County and affected cities in land use planning in the vicinity of airports. The Commission has adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Western Riverside County (ALUP), which applies to all cities in Western Riverside County and includes polices and compatibility criteria for Flabob Airport.
Local Regulations
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The Project site is subject to the following policies of the City General Plan that address the Flabob Airport:
Land Use Element
LUE 5.55 ALUP Compliance. Provide for the orderly operation and development of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports and the surrounding area by complying with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as set forth in Appendix 4.0, as well as any applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elements of the 2017 General Plan, unless the City Council overrides the Plan as provided for in state law.
LUE 5.56 Development Review. Refer all major land use actions to the Airport Land Use Commission for review, pursuant to Policy 1.5.3 of the ALUP until: 1) the Commission finds the City’s General Plan to be consistent with the ALUP, or 2) the City Council has overruled the Commission’s determination of inconsistency, or 3) the Commission elects not to review a particular action.
LUE 5.57 Continued Airport Operation. Support the continued operation of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports to help meet airport services needs within the land -use compatibility criteria with respect to potential noise and safety impacts.
LUE 5.58 Consistency Requirement. Review all proposed projects and require consistency with any applicable provisions of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan as set forth in Appendix A-4.0 and require General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments to achieve compliance, as appropriate.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 41
SCH No. 2022060680
LUE 5.61 Cluster Development. Allow the use of development clustering and/or density transfers to meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth in the appli cable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
LUE 5.62 Bird -attracting Uses. In accordance with FAA criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that attract birds within 10,000 feet of any runway used by turbine-powered aircraft and with in 5,000 feet of other runways. Also, avoid locating attractors of other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in locations adjacent to airports.
LUE 5.63 Encroachment. Ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
LUE 5.65 Airport Referrals. Submit all development proposals located within an Airport Influence Area to the affected airport for review.
4.1.6 Methodology
The development aspects of the proposed Project will be compared to applicable requirements of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP) of Flabob Airport, including airport operational safety as well as land use compatibility. If necessary, the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook will be used as an additional reference against which to evaluate the proposed development. An Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study was also prepared by Allen Aviation Consulting Services, LLC ., (Appendix B-1) for the Project and appropriate information from that report w ill be used to evaluate safety -related issues of the Project on airport operations. Finally, the Project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan policies will be evaluated.
4.1.7 Thresholds of Significance
Section IX of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects due to hazards and hazardous materials and includes the following threshold question to evaluate the Project’s impacts as it pertains to safety hazards to or from an airport .
4.1.8 Impact Analysis
Threshold 4.1 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
✓
4.1.8.1 Applicable Regulations
Federal Regulations
• Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 as discussed in 4.1.4 above.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 42
SCH No. 2022060680
State Regulations
• State of California adopted the Airport Land Use Law, California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5 as discussed in 4.1.4 above.
General Plan Policies
• LUE 5.55 ALUP Compliance. Provide for the orderly operation and development of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports and the surrounding area by complying with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as set forth in Appendix 4.0, as well as any applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elements of the 2017 General Plan, unless the City Council overrides the Plan as provided for in state law.
LUE 5.56 Development Review. Refer all major land use actions to the Airport Land Use Commission for review, pursuant to Policy 1.5.3 of the ALUP until: 1) the Commission finds the City’s General Plan to be consistent with the ALUP, or 2) the City Council has overruled the Commission’s determination of inconsistency, or 3) the Commission elects not to review a particular action.
LUE 5.57 Continued Airport Operation. Support the continued operation of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports to help meet airport services needs within the land -use compatibility criteria with respect to potential noise and safety impacts.
LUE 5.58 Consistency Requirement. Review all proposed projects and require consistency with any applicable provisions of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan as set forth in Appendix A-4.0 and require General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments to achieve compliance, as appropriate.
LUE 5.61 Cluster Development. Allow the use of development clustering and/or density transfers to meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
LUE 5.62 Bird-attracting Uses. In accordance with FAA criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that attract birds within 10,000 feet of any runway used by turbine - powered aircraft and within 5,000 feet of other runways. Also , avoid locating attractors of other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in locations adjacent to airports.
LUE 5.63 Encroachment. Ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
LUE 5.65 Airport Referrals. Submit all development proposals located within an Airport Influence Area to the affected airport for review.
Plans, Policies, and Programs
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Project Design Features
There are no Project Design Features (PDFs) applicable to the Project pertaining to Threshold e.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 43
SCH No. 2022060680
Conditions of Approval
There are no Conditions of Approval (COAs) applicable to the Project pertaining to Threshold e.
4.1.8.2 Discussion
Level of Significance Before Mitigation
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011, “…the land use compatibility concerns of airport land use commissions (ALUCs) fall under two broad headings identified in state law: noise and safety. However, for purposes of formulating compati bility policies and criteria, further dividing these basic concerns into four functional categories is more practical. These categories are:
• Noise: As defined by the exposure to noise attributable to aircraft operations. • Overflight: As defined by the annoyance and other general concerns arising from routine aircraft flight over a community.
• Safety: As defined by the protection of people on the ground and in the air from accidents.
Airspace Protection: As defined by the protection of airspace from hazards to flight.” (page 3- 1, Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2011).
Of the above-described categories, noise and overflight were screened out as an issue by the Initial Study as the Project’s Noise Impact Study found that the expected noise levels from the Flabob Airport at the project site fall within the normally acceptable limit (less than 60 dBA). Therefore, the exterior noise impact from the airport would be within the allowable limits for residential land uses and the project is considered compatible with the surrounding land use and noise environment. Additionally, standard building design and construction methods would provide adequate noise attenuation to comply with the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL and thereby not expose residents of the Proj ect to excessive noise levels. The primary compatibility concern with the Project involves safety for people on the ground in the event of an aircraft accident.
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011, “From the standpoint of land use planning, two variables determine the degree of risk posed by potential aircraft accidents:
• Accident Frequency: Where and when aircraft accidents occur in the vicinity of an airport; and
• Accident Consequences: Land uses and land use characteristics that affect the severity of an accident when one occurs. (page 3-11, Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, 2011).
Table 4.3 describes the basic compatibility criteria applicable to Zones C and D.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 44
SCH No. 2022060680
Table 4.3 Basic Airport Land Use Compatibility Criteria for Zones C & D Zone Maximum Densities/Intensities Prohibited
Uses
Other
Development
Conditions
Residential
d.u/ac
Other Uses (people/ac) (1)
Average Single
Acre
With
Bonus
Req’d
Open
Land
C. Extended
Approach/Departure
Zone
0.2 (average
parcel size
> 5.0 ac.)
75 150 195 20% Children’s
schools, day
care centers,
libraries;
Hospitals,
nursing
homes;
Buildings with
>3
aboveground
Habitable
floors;
Hazards to
flight.1
Airspace review
required for
objects >70 feet
tall.
Deed notice
required.
Minimum NLR of
20dB in
residences
(including mobile
homes) and office
buildings.
D. Primary Traffic
Patterns and Runway
Buffer Area.
0.2 (average
parcel size
greater than
or equal to 5.0
ac.) or
> 5.0 (average
parcel size
0.2 ac.)
100 300 390 10% Highly noise-
sensitive
outdoor
nonresidential
uses; Hazards
to flight.1
Airspace review
required for
objects >70 feet
tall.
Deed notice
required.
Children’s
schools,
hospitals, nursing
homes
discouraged.
Source: Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, 04-Vol. 1 Countywide Policies. 1 – Hazards to flight include physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraf t operations.
1. ALUP Consistency. On October 14, 2021, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review and staff report for case number ZAP1036FL21 (Appendix B-2), was issued that determined the following requested entitlements of the proposed Project were inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan:
1) General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008, a proposal to amend Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Plan from EDR (Ranch) maximum 0.5 du/acre to LDR (Country Neighborhood) maximum 2.0 du/ac for the proposed 19.36 -acre residential parcel because of the Project site’s location within Compatibility Zones C and D, whereas Zone C limits residential density to 0.2 du/ac and Zone D limits residential density to 0.2 to 0.4 du/ac. 2) Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No.38171, a proposal to subdivide the approximately 19.36 - acre parcel into 31 for single-family lots with a proposed density of 1.6 du/ac.
The ALUC determined the Proje ct was not consistent with the Flabob ALUP due to the residential density restrictions for Zone C limit of residential density to 0.2 du/ac and Zone D limit of residential density to 0.2 to 0.4 du/ac. Additionally, the ALUC reviewed the Project under Count y Wide Policy
3.3.1 Infill which allows for greater densities than would otherwise be permitted in Zones C and D, Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 45
SCH No. 2022060680
but caps the densities at double the allowable density for the zone. As the maximum density in Zone C is 0.2 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density in Zone D is either below 0.2 dwelling units per acre or above 5.0 dwelling units per acre, doubling the density increases the limit from 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre for Zone C, and from 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre (on the low end), and from 5.0 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre (on the high end) for Zone D. The project's density of 1.60 dwelling units per acre would still be inconsistent with the doubled density provision for both zones.
The ALUC also found that the project fails to provide the required open space areas for emergency landings. Compatibility Zone C requires 20% and Zone D requires 10% of open area for projects 10 acres or larger be set aside as open area that could potentially serve as emergency landing areas.
The ALUC staff report indicated that approximately 17.95 acres was located within Zone C requiring
3.59 acres of open space and approximately 0.6 acres located withing Zone D requiring 0.06 acres of open space for a total of 3.65 acres of open space requirements.
Finally, the ALUC found that the project had not accepted or confirmed provisions for water quality basin(s) to reduce Hazards to Flight concerning wildlife populations on or near airports that could significantly increase the potential for Bird Aircr aft Strike Hazards (BASH). To reduce the potential Hazards to Flight impacts from BASH to Less than significant Mitigation Measure (MM) Haz -1 is required.
Therefore, the Project exceeds or is not consistent with the Zone C and D restrictions for residential density or open space requirements. However, it should also be noted the Project proposes no uses that are specifically prohibited within Zone s C and D (e.g., day care centers, building with 3 aboveground habitable floors, etc.).
2. Airport Operations and Public Safety. While the ALUC determined the Project is not consistent with the Flabob Airport ALUP, the City’s CEQA significance threshold is based on whether the Project would “result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area” and not strictly whether it is consistent with the ALUP. To that end, the applicant submitted a safety evaluation of the proposed Project prepared by Allen Aviation Consultant Services, LLC., (Appendix B-1).
The Allen Aviation Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study report prepared a Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 evaluation of the Project for objects affecting navigable airspace.
According to the FAA the federal regulation establishes requirements to notify the FAA of certain construction or alterations and obstruction standards for proposed construction or alteration of existing structures. Any object that exceeds Part 77 Obstruction Standards is considered an obstruction and presumed to be a haza rd to air navigation unless further aeronautical study concludes the obstruction would not affect the safe and efficient use of navigable airspace and the operation of planned or existing air navigation and communication facilities. Part 77 applies to both existing and proposed objects as well as existing and planned runways. While this federal regulation mandates notice requirements and establishes obstruction standards, the FAA has no legal authority to prohibit construction of structures regardless of proximity to public use airports. State governments and/or local municipalities with zoning, permitting, and land (property) use authority can deny construction applications that would encroach on public use airports.
The Allen Aviation Report concluded the buildings of the Project, as proposed, would not infringe on the imaginary surfaces of the navigable airspace or other safety criteria established for the Flabob Airport (page 12, Allen Aviation, 2023).
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 46
SCH No. 2022060680
Additionally, the FAA issued “No Hazard to Air Navig ation” Determination Letters attached as Appendix B-3. This analysis determined the Project would also not have significant impacts on these airport safety and flight operations.
3. General Plan Consistency. Table 4.4 below evaluates the Project relative to the policies of the City’s General Plan that relate to Flabob Airport.
Table 4.4 General Plan Consistency Analysis (Hazards)
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
LAND USE ELEMENT
LUE 5.55 ALUP Compliance. Provide for the orderly
operation and development of Flabob and Riverside
Municipal Airports and the surrounding area by
complying with the Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan as set forth in Appendix 4.0 , as well as any
applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elements of the 2017
General Plan, unless the City Council overrides the
Plan as provided for in state law.
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the Project, including the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, is not consistent
with the Flabob ALUP.
LUE 5.56 Development Review. Refer all major land
use actions to the Airport Land Use Commission for
review, pursuant to Policy 1.5.3 of the ALUP until: 1)
the Commission finds the City’s General Plan to be
consistent with the ALUP, or 2) the City Council has
overruled the Commission’s determination of
inconsistency, or 3) the Commission elects not to
review a particular action.
Consistent. The Project was submitted to the ALUC for
review.
LUE 5.57 Continued Airport Operation. Support the
continued operation of Flabob and Riverside
Municipal Airports to help meet airport services needs
within the land-use compatibility criteria with respect to potential noise and safety impacts
Not Fully Consistent. The Initial Study determined the
proposed Project would not experience significant noise impacts from the airport and the Allen Aviation
Consulting Services Report determined the Project
would not create significant safety impacts on airport
operations. However, the evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the Project was not consistent with the
Flabob ALUP.
LUE 5.58 Consistency Requirement. Review all
proposed projects and require consistency with any
applicable provisions of the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Plan as set forth in Appendix A - 4.0 and
require General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
amendments to achieve compliance, as appropriate.
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the Project was not consistent with the
Flabob ALUP.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 47
SCH No. 2022060680
General Plan Policy Consistency Analysis
LUE 5.61 Cluster Development. Allow the use of
development clustering and/or density transfers to
meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth
in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the project was not consistent with the
Flabob ALUP. The site plan does not cluster uses in a
way that would achieve compatibility with the ALUP.
Therefore, the proposed General Plan Amendment
would not be consistent with the Flabob ALUP
LUE 5.62 Bird-attracting Uses. In accordance with FAA
criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that attract birds within 10,000 feet of any
runway used by turbine - powered aircraft a nd within
5,000 feet of other runways. Also, avoid locating
attractors of other wildlife that can be hazardous to
aircraft operations in locations adjacent to airports.
Consistent. Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 Airport
Wildlife Attractant Mitigation implementation will
reduce the potential that the proposed Project would
not attract birds or other wildlife that would be
detrimental to airport operations.
LUE 5.63 Encroachment. Ensure that no structures or
activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
Consistent. The Project would not introduce any
structures that would encroach into or adversely affect navigable airspace.
LUE 5.65 Airport Referrals. Submit all development
proposals located within an Airport Influence Area to
the affected airport for review.
Consistent. The proposed Project was submitted to
ALUC for review and comment.
Source: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, Land Use Element, adopted September 17, 2017.
Level of Significance
The proposed Project is not consistent with the land use intensity limits or open space requirements of the Flabob ALUP. However, the Allen Aviation Report and FAA Determination Letters demonstrated the Project would not result in significant risks to airp ort operations or safety, or a significant risk to public health or safety. The evaluation in Table 4.3-2 demonstrates the proposed Project is not fully consistent with all of the policies of the City General Plan relative to the Flabob Airport. It is important to note the General Plan policy inconsistencies all result from the Project exceeding the land use intensity limits of the Flabob ALUP for both residential uses. Based on the available information and erring on the side of caution, it is concluded th e Project may result in a significant environmental impact in terms of airport hazards (i.e., Flabob ALUP inconsistency). Because there is no feasible mitigation for this impact, approval of the Project will require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the City Council if the Project is approved due to this inconsistency with the Flabob ALUP.
4.3.8.3 Mitigation Measures
Any measures that would effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project regarding consistency with the Flabob ALUP density and open space requirements would require a reduction of residential units on the site. The current General Plan Land Use on the site would provide for development of 10 residential units, however under the ALUP only 3 units would be allowed in Zone C under the 0.2 du/acre, and 3 units in Zone D under the 5 du/acre allowable density. No units would be allowed in Zone D under the ALUC 0.2 du/acre density requirement. The maximum number of units under the ALUP would only permit up to 6 units, therefore project would remain inconsistent if developed within the current land use provisions and ALUP density requirements.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 48
SCH No. 2022060680
MM-Haz-1 Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Mitigation:
• The water quality basin (WQB) shall be designed to provide a 48‐hour drawdown time during a 24‐hour rainfall event.
• Regular maintenance shall be provided to eliminate seeding, shelter, and unsuitable vegetation. • Establish a planting, maintenance, and management plan for the WQB and the surrounding areas to ensure compliance with the ALUC requirements. The plan should specifically address measures to minimize attractiveness of the proposed basin for hazardous bird species. • Proposed plantings for the project used to landscape the WQB shall comply with the ALUC’s landscaping brochure recommendations to avoid landscaping or provide appropriate landscaping that will not attract hazardous wildlife.
• Per the ALUC’s Landscaping Near Airports brochure recommendations, trees planted around the proposed WQB should be spaced to prevent overlapping crown structures. In addition, planting trees with verifiable canopy heights, as noted in the ALUC brochure is recommended. • The WQB shall be designed to include slopes greater than 2:1 or 3:1 in the “hydromod” p ortions of the facility in order to minimize shelter and nesting opportunities for hazardous wildlife. • Per the ALUC a notice sign, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes” . The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the WQB basin.
4.1.8.4 Level of Significance After Mitigation
No feasible mitigation is available to eliminate the identified inconsistency of the Project with the Flabob ALUP, related to density or open space, therefore potential impact s related to airport safety are significant and unavoidable. A Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact will be required if the Project is approved.
4.1.8.5 Cumulative Impacts
The area of potential cumulative effects relative to airport hazards is the influence area of the Flabob Airport as outlined in the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The 2004 ALUP identified a number of vacant properties with General Plan land use designations and/or zoning classifications that, if developed, would be in conflict with the land use intensity limits of the Flabob ALUP for Compatibility Zones C and Zone D, as shown in Figure 4.3.1.
There were no feasible mitigation measures identified to reduce Project-level impacts, in this regard to less than significant levels. Since the Flabob ALUP also identifies a number of potential land use conflicts for future development within Zones C and D of the ALUP, development of the proposed Project, due to the inconsistency with the Flabob ALUP, could make a significant contribution to a cumulatively considerable impact related to airport safety and land use compatibility. This impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Approval of the proposed Project would require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the City Council if the Project is approved since the ALUC determined the Project was not consistent with the land use intensity limits of Zone C and D of the Flabob ALUP.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 49
SCH No. 2022060680
4.2 Land Use and Planning
4.2.1 Introduction
The Initial Study that was prepared as part of the Project Review determined that the proposed Project “…may result in or cause potentially significant impacts related to:
• 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? This section examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project relative to consistency with land use designations on the site as well as those of surroun ding properties. The remaining environmental questions or issues in the Initial Study related to other land use and planning impacts were screened out or removed from more detailed analysis in this EIR (i.e., they were determined to be less than significant as outlined in the Initial Study). The following analysis is based on information obtained from: the Jurupa Valley General Plan (City of Jurupa Valley 2017a); the Jurupa Valley Zoning Map (City of Jurupa Valley 2017b), the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (City of Jurupa Valley 2017c); Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Final 2008 Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) (SCAG, 2008); SCAG’s 2016 -2040 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS)(SCAG, 2016); and Google Earth (Google Earth Pro, 2023). Refer to Section 7.0, References, for a complete list for referenced sources.
4.2.2 Existing Conditions
Project Site
The Project site consists of primarily vacant land with an existing single -family residence on the northwest portion of the site. Riverview Drive is a paved 2-lane roadway adjacent to the eastern boundary of the site.
Project site elevations on the site range from approximately 780 feet above mean sea level (MSL) to 897 feet above MSL sloping from the northeastern portion of the site to the southwest. This represents an elevational change across the site of 114± feet. The primary vegetation communities within the project area that will be impacted include California Annual Grassland Alliance which consists of non-native annual grasslands with a variety of alien annual species present. Previous and current anthropogenic activities and invasion of nonnative plant species have contributed to the disturbed condition of many vegetation communities within the site.5
Onsite and adjacent land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning classifications are shown in Table 4.5
At its closest point the Projec t site is located approximately 3,320 feet northeast of the Flabob Airport runway, a general aviation airport which began operations in 1925. The airport has an approved Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP) from 2004 which establishes safety or compatibility zones around the airport to facilitate safe and efficient air operations at the airport. The project site is located within two Compatibility Zones, Compatibility Zone C (17.95 acres) and Compatibility Zone D (0.6 acres). The Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) maximum allowable density is 0.2 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone C and the
5 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist (Appendix B).
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 50
SCH No. 2022060680
maximum allowable density of either below 0.2 units per acre or above 5.0 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone D.
Surrounding Land Uses
Table 4.5 Land Uses / General Plan Land Use Designations / Zoning Classifications Location Current Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning Site Single-Family Residential
and vacant land.
EDR (Ranch) A-1 (Light Agriculture)
North Single-Family Residential EDR (Ranch)
MDR (Medium Density Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
R-1-80 (One Family Dwelling)
South Single-Family Residential
and Horse Ranches.
EDR (Ranch)
LDR (Country Neighborhood)
A-1(Light Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
East Riverview Drive and Single-
Family Residential.
EDR (Ranch) A-1(Light Residential)
West Limonite Frontage Road,
Single Family Residential,
Limonite Avenue.
LDR (Country Neighborhood)
MDR (Medium Density Residential)
R-A (Residential Agriculture)
R-1-80 (One Family Dwelling)
General Plan Land Use Designations
The Project site General Plan Land Use Designation is Ranch (EDR). The Ranch land use designation allows development of detached single-family residential dwellings and ancillary structures on parcels of at least 2 acres. In this designation, animal keeping is allowed, but regulated to ensure compatibility between the EDR designation and other, more intense residential uses in the vicinity. Limited agriculture is permitted in this designation. The density range is from 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres up to 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres.
Zoning Designation
The Project site Zoning is A-1 (Light Agriculture). The A -1 zone requires a minimum lot area no less than 20,000 square feet (net), with minimum lot width of 100 feet and minimum depth of 150 feet. The A-1 zone allows single-family detached housing in addition to nurseries, greenhouses, orchards, aviaries, apiaries, field crops, tree crops, berry and bush crops, vegetable, flower herb gardening on a commercial scale, and the grazing of cattle, horses, sheep, goats or other farm stock or animals. Uses permitted in the A-1 zone with a Site Development Permit (SDP) include but are not limited to fraternal lodge halls, structures used primarily for religious worship, private schools, libraries, and public utility facilities.6
6 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.175 Section 9.175.020 Uses Permitted .
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 51
SCH No. 2022060680
Exhibit 4.3.2 Existing and Proposed General Plan Amendment Land
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 52
SCH No. 2022060680
Exhibit 4.3.3 Project Site Zoning
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 53
SCH No. 2022060680
4.2.3 NOP/Scoping Comments
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) for the Project was released for public review on June 29, 2022. No comments were made that pertain to Land Use and Planning.
4.2.4 Regulatory Framework
The following is a brief description of the federal, state, and local environmental laws and related regulations related to land use and planning.
Federal Regulations
Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is the agency of the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) responsible for the regulation and oversight of civil aviation within the U.S., and its primary mission is to ensure safety of civil aviation. Airports that serve scheduled passenger air service are governed by Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 14 Part 139 and related regulations. According to the FAA website3, “Civilian airports that do not serve scheduled passenger service are typically known as general aviation airports. These airports usually serve private aircraft and small aircraft charter operations. Part 139 typically does not apply to general aviation airports because they do not serve defined air carrier operations, as such the Flabob Airport is not governed by Part 139. However, the airport it is governed by Part 77 regulations regarding navigable airspace.
The FAA utilizes the criteria contained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77 to determine reporting requirements, the impact of a proposed structure on imaginary surfaces that could affect navigable airspace, and whether the structure, if constructed, will require lighting and/or marking. FAR Part 77 defines the criteria for determining if a structure will require reporting to the FAA, if the structure exceeds the stated criteria and whether the structure has an impact on navigable airspace. If the FAA determines that there is an impact to navigable airspace, a Notice of Presumed Hazard (NPH) will be issued, and an aeronautical study is conducted. If the FAA determines that the proposed structure has a substantial adverse impact, they will issue a Determination of Hazard. In some cases, the FAA will offer a project proponent options to mitigate the adverse impact, e.g., lower the structure, redesign etc.
State Regulations
California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5
The State of California adopted the Airport Land Use Law, California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5.
The Airport Land Use Law provides for the creation of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC or Commission) and the adoption of airport land use compatibility plans by the Commission to assist the County and affected citie s in land use planning in the vicinity of airports. The Commission has adopted an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Western Riverside County (ALUP), which applies to all cities in Western Riverside County and includes polices and compatibility criteria for Flabob Airport.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 54
SCH No. 2022060680
Regional Regulations
Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan
The basic function of airport land use compatibility plans is to promote compatibility between airports and the land uses that surround them. Compatibility plans serve as a tool for use by airport land use commissions in fulfilling their duty to review proposed development plans for airports and surrounding land uses.
Additionally, compatibility plans set compatibility criteria applicable to local agencies in their preparation or amendment of land use plans and ordinances and to landowners (including special district and other local government entities as well as private parties) in their design of new development.
As adopted by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC), this Riverside County Air- port Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document establishes policies applicable to land use compatibility planning in the vicinity of airports throughout Riverside County. Included are compatibility criteria and maps f or the influence areas of individual airports. Also spelled out in the plan are the procedural requirements associated with the compatibility review of development proposals.
Southern California Association of Governments
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) under California State law, established as an association of local government and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under federal law, SCAG is designated as a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and under State law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG region encompasses six counties: Riverside, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Ventura, and Imperial; and 19 1 cities in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. SCAG develops long -range regional transportation plans including sustainable communities strategy and growth forecast components, regional transportation improvement programs, regional housing nee ds allocations and other plans for the region.
As an MPO and public agency, SCAG develops transportation and housing strategies that transcend jurisdictional boundaries that affect the quality of life for southern California as a whole. On September 3, 2020, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2020 -2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, known as “Connect SoCal.” Connect SoCal includes long-range regional transportation plans, regional transportation improvement programs, regio nal housing needs allocations, and other plans for the region. Connect SoCal is a long -range visioning plan that builds upon and expands land use and transportation strategies to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.
Connect SoCal identifies a path toward a more mobile, sustainable, and prosperous region by making connections between transportation networks, between planning strategies and between the people whose collaboration can improve the quality of life for Southern Californians (SCAG, 2020a). Connect SoCal also provides objectives for meeting emissions reduction targets set forth by CARB; these objectives were provided in a direct response to Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) which was enacted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks through integrated transportation, land use, housing, and environmental planning (SCAG, 2020a).
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 55
SCH No. 2022060680
Local Regulations
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
State law requires that general plans address seven topics (referred to as “Elements”) of land use, circulation (mobility), housing, open space, safety, and noise (California Government Code §65302). A General Plan may also include other topics of local interest, as chosen by the local jurisdiction (California government Cod e §65303). The City of Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan, adopted in 2017, sets an up-to-date framework to help guide the City’s future. The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in 2011 and encompasses six formerly unincorporated communities: from west to east, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Jurupa Valley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope, and Crestmore Heights. The 2017 General Plan addresses only key issues that are critical to the transition from county to cityhood and has been referred to as an “Interim General Plan” due to budget constraints.
The 2017 General Plan provides comprehensive, mid - to long-term goals and policies for maintaining and enhancing Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. It guides land use, circulation, open space preservation, housing, and many other facets of the City’s growth and development (City of Jurupa Valley, 2017, p. 1-1). The City’s General Plan is organized into 12 chapters including the following:
• Introduction
• Land Use Element
• Mobility Element
• Conservation and Open Space Element
• Housing Element
• Air Quality Element
• Noise Element
• Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element
• Environmental Justice Element
• Healthy Communities Element
• Economic Sustainability Element
• Glossary
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code ordinances governing land use and development are set forth in Titles 7, Subdivisions; 8, Building and Construction; and 9, Planning and Zoning; and 12, Vehicles and Traffic (City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, 2022).
City of Jurupa Valley General Plan
The Project site is subject to the following policies of the City General Plan that address the Flabob Airport:
Land Use Element
LUE 5.55 ALUP Compliance. Provide for the orderly operation and development of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports and the surrounding area by complying with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan as set forth in Appendix 4.0, as well as any applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elemen ts of the 2017 General Plan, unless the City Council overrides the Plan as provided for in state law.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 56
SCH No. 2022060680
LUE 5.56 Development Review. Refer all major land use actions to the Airport Land Use Commission for review, pursuant to Policy 1.5.3 of the ALUP until: 1) the Commission finds the City’s General Plan to be consistent with the ALUP, or 2) the City Council has overruled the Commission’s determination of inconsistency, or 3) the Commission elects not to review a particular action.
LUE 5.57 Continued Airport Operation. Support the continued operation of Flabob and Riverside Municipal Airports to help meet airport services needs within the land -use compatibility criteria with respect to potential noise and safety impacts.
LUE 5.58 Consistency Requirement. Review all proposed projects and require consistency with any applicable provisions of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Plan as set forth in Appendix A-4.0 and require General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance amendments to achieve compliance, as appropriate.
LUE 5.61 Cluster Development. Allow the use of development clustering and/or density transfers to meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
LUE 5.62 Bird -attracting Uses. In accordance with FAA criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that attract birds within 10,000 feet of any runway used by turbine-powered aircraft and within 5,000 feet of other runways. Also, avoid locating attractors of other wildli fe that can be hazardous to aircraft operations in locations adjacent to airports.
LUE 5.63 Encroachment. Ensure that no structures or activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
LUE 5.65 Airport Referrals. Submit all development proposals located within an Airport Influence Area to the affected airport for review.
4.2.5 Methodology
The Project site and surrounding areas were reviewed relative to the Project’s proposed land use designations and zoning classifications. T he City’s General Plan, Municipal Code, and SCAG documents are referenced as appropriate to determine potential impacts of the proposed Project regarding land use and planning. This analysis includes consistency with existing land use and zoning designatio ns as well as consistency with surrounding land uses since the Project is requesting a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to create a residential development of 31 single family lots or 1.6 dwelling units per acre, as shown in Section 3.0 Project Description/Environmental Setting, Figure 3.3. The GPA and TTM are summarized below:
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008
The project is proposing to amend Figure 2-5: 2022 General Plan Land Use Plan from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborhood (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 57
SCH No. 2022060680
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171
Subdivide 19.36 acres into 31 single-family lots.
4.2.6 Thresholds of Significance
Section XI of Appendix G to the CEQA Guidelines addresses typical adverse effects to land use and planning, and includes the following threshold question to evaluate the Project’s impacts on land use and planning.
Thresholds 4.2 – Land Use and Planning
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) 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?
✓
1. Applicable Regulations
This EIR analyzes the physical environmental effects associated with all components of the Project, including Project construction and operation. The following discretionary entitlements are required including a General Plan Amendment (GPA 21008) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 38171).
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 SCAG’s 2020-2045 RTP/SCS (Connect SoCal). The Project’s compatibility with each of these plans, policies, and regulations is discussed below.
General Plan Policies
The applicable policies that relate to environmental topics addressed in this EIR are included in the City’s General Plan, and specific General Plan policies that are related to the Project, along with a determination of consistency, are identified in Table 4.2-1, General Plan Consistency Analysis. 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 exception of the Land Use policies related to the ALUP and Flabob Airport.
Table 4. 6 provides an analysis of the Project’s consistency with applicable General Plan policies directly related to determining if the Project would 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.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 58
SCH No. 2022060680
Table 4.6 General Plan Consistency Analysis
Policy Consistency Analysis
Land Use Element
LUE 5.55. ALUP Compliance. Provide for the orderly
operation and development of Flabob and Riverside
Municipal Airports and the surrounding area by
complying with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
as set forth in Appendix 4.0 , as well as any applicable policies related to airports in the Land Use, Circulation, Safety, and Noise Elements of the 2017 General Plan,
unless the City Council overrides the Plan as provided
for in state law.
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the project, including the GPA and TTM, is
not consistent with the Flabob ALUP.
LUE 5.56. Development Review. Refer all major land
use actions to the Airport Land Use Commission for
review, pursuant to Policy 1.5.3 of the ALUP until: 1) the Commission finds the City’s General Plan to be
consistent with the ALUP, or 2) the City Council has
overruled the Commission’s determination of
inconsistency, or
3) the Commission elects not to review a particular
action.
Consistent. The proposed Project was submitted to ALUC
for review and comment.
LUE 5.57. Continued Airport Operation. Support the
continued operation of Flabob and Riverside Municipal
Airports to help meet airport services needs within the land-use compatibility criteria with respect to potential noise and safety impacts.
Not Fully Consistent. The Initial Study determined the
proposed Project would not experience significant noise impacts from the airport and the Williams Aviation
Consultants Report determined the Project would not
create significant safety impacts on airport operati ons.
However, the evaluation letter from ALUC determined
the Project was not consistent with the Flabob Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan.
LUE 5.58. Consistency Requirement. Review all
proposed projects and require consistency with any
applicable provis ions of the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Plan as set forth in Appendix A - 4.0, and
require General Plan and/or Zoning Ordinance
amendments to achieve compliance, as
appropriate.
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the project wa s not consistent with the
Flabob ALUP.
LUE 5.61. Cluster Development. Allow the use of
development clustering and/or density transfers to
meet airport compatibility requirements as set forth in the applicable Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Not Consistent. The evaluation letter from ALUC
determined the project was not consistent with the
Flabob ALUP. The site plan does not cluster uses in a way that would achieve compatibility with the ALUP.
Therefore, the proposed Project would not be consistent with the ALUP.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 59
SCH No. 2022060680
LUE 5.62 Bird -attracting Uses. In accordance with FAA
criteria, avoid locating sanitary landfills and other land uses that attract birds within 10,000 feet of any runway used by turbine- powered aircraft and within 5,000 feet of other ru nways. Also, avoid locating attractors of
other wildlife that can be hazardous to aircraft
operations in locations adjacent to airports.
Consistent. Mitigation Measure (MM) HAZ-1 Airport
Wildlife Attractant Mitigation implementation will
reduce the potential that the proposed Project would
not attract birds or other wildlife that would be
detrimental to airport operations.
LUE 5.63. Encroachment. Ensure that no structures or
activities encroach upon or adversely affect the use of navigable airspace.
Consistent. The project would not introduce any
structures that would encroach into or adversely affect navigable airspace.
LUE 5.65. Airport Referrals. Submit all development
proposals located within an Airport Influence Area to the affected airport for review.
Consistent. The proposed Project was submitted to
ALUC for review and comment.
LUE 7.4. Multimodal Orientation. Provide for a broad
range of land uses, intensities, and densities, including a range of residential, commercial, business, industry,
open space, recreation, and public facilities uses and
locate them to capitalize on multimodal transportation
opportunities and to promote compatible land use
patterns that reduce reliance on the automobile.
Consistent. The proposed Project requests a Gene ral
Plan Amendment GPA) to modify the land use
designation for the Project site, however, the requested GPA is compatible with adjacent residential uses to the site’s northeast boundary and residential uses located
north and northwest across Limonite Avenue and south
of Avenue Juan Bautista.
LUE 7.5. Residential Growth Areas. Locate residential
growth in areas near major transportation or where
well served by rail or public transit and within easy
walking or biking distance from schools, parks and
neighborhood- serving uses, to the greatest extent
possible.
Consistent. The proposed Project requests a General
Plan Amendment (GPA) to modify the land use
designation for the Project site, however, the requested GPA is compatible with adjacent residential uses to the site’s northeast boundary and residential uses located
north and northwest across Limonite Avenue and south
of Avenue Juan Bautista.
LUE 10.2. Infill Development. Assist in and promote the development of infill and underutilized parcels, which
are located in Opportunity and specific plan areas, as
identified on the General Plan Land Use Map.
Consistent. According to the General Plan Land Use
Map, the Project site is not located in or in proximity to any Opportunity areas. The proposed Project would
result in the implementation of a residential
development on the underutilized Project site and
would not in terfere with the development of infill and underutilized parcels within Opportunity areas
identified in the General Plan. The proposed uses would be consistent with residential uses adjacent to the site’s northeast boundary and residential uses located nor th
and northwest across Limonite Avenue and south of
Avenue Juan Bautista.
LUE 10.4. Street and Trail Connectivity.
Create street and trail networks that directly connect
local destinations and that promote use by pedestrians, equestrians, and bicyclists.
Consistent. The proposed Project is located in a
developed area. Bikeways and pedestrian facilities are
located in the immediate vicinity of the Project site and within surrounding roadways. In addition, the (regional) Santa Ana River Trail is located south of the site.
LUE 11.6 Energy Efficiency. Require development
projects to use energy efficient design features in their site planning, building design and orientation, and
landscape design that meet or exceed state energy
standards.
Consistent. The proposed Project is required to submit
building plans and a Title 24 Compliance Report to the
City of Jurupa Valley for review to ensure the Project
meets CALGreen Codes, CA Title 24 Energy Efficiency
Standards, and City water efficient landscape
requirements for both commercial and residential uses.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 60
SCH No. 2022060680
LUE 12.1. Service Capacity. Ensure that development
does not exceed the City’s or the community service
districts’ ability to adequately provide supporting
infrastructure and services, such as water, wastewater
treatment, energy, solid waste, and public services such as police/fire/emergency medical services, recreational facilities, and transportation systems.
Consistent. The City of Jurupa Valley and Rubidoux
Community Services District has reviewed the proposed
Project to ensure that it would not have an adverse
impact on infrastructure and services. Through the
payment of mandatory development impact fees, the
Project would have a less than significant impact in this regard.
LUE 13.1. Fair Share Infrastructure Funding. Require
that new development contribute its fair share to fund
infrastructure and public facilities, such as police and fire facilities, parks, streets,
and trail improvements.
Consistent. The Project would be required by the City
to contribute its fair share to fund infrastructure and public facilities via City of Jurupa Municipal Code
Chapter 3.75, Development Impact Fee.
Mobility Element
ME 2.4. Transportation Options.
Support development of a variety of transportation
options for major employment and activity centers,
including direct access to transit routes, primary
highways, bikeways, park-n-ride facilities, and
pedestrian facilities.
Consistent. The proposed Project would generate a
small amount of new employment and additiona l
housing in the City, however, it is not anticipated that the Project would be a major employment center.
Bikeways and pedestrian facilities occur in the
immediate vicinity within surrounding roadways,
including Mission Boulevard and the regional trail along the Santa Ana River just east of the site.
ME 2.9. Project Integration.
Encourage development of projects that facilitate and
enhance the use of alternative modes of transportation, including public transit, light rail, pedestrian-oriented retail and activity centers, equestrian trials and related facilities and bicycle facilities.
Consistent. The proposed Project area is served by
existing alternative modes of transportation including
bus service along Mission Boulevard as well as bikeways and pedestrian facilities. The Project would not
discourage or otherwise impede the development of
other projects within portions of the City where such alternative modes of transportation are available.
ME 2.14. Traffic Study Guidelines. Apply level of service and/or VMT standards to new development, consistent
with state law, based on new Traffic Study Guidelines, to be developed by City to evaluate traffic impacts and
identify appropriate mitigation measure for new
development.
Consistent. As part of th e Initial Study a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening and Traffic Generation
Memos were completed by Kunzman Associates and
included in Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist
(Appendix K).
ME 2.15. Traffic Impact Evaluation. New developments
shall be reviewed to identify project-related impacts to circulation facilities and shall provide site improvements necessary to mitigate such impacts. The Engineering
Department may require developers and/or subdividers
to provide traffic impact studies prepared by qualified professionals to identify the impacts of a development
Consistent. Street improvements with the Project as
well as access to the Project are required to meet City standards.
Riverview Drive improvements
• Designed and improved to a modified ultimate
half right-of-way width of 44 -ft, from property
line to the centerline.
• Additional right -of-way dedication to
accommodate public improvements within
public right-of-way may be required.
• Road pavement treatment /repairs, to be
determined as approved by the City Engineer
may be required.
• Parkway shall be 14 -ft. Parkway improvements
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 61
SCH No. 2022060680
will be required; including, but are not limited
to, curb & gutter, 6 -ft sidewalk, and landscape
adjacent curb.
• Secondary Equestrian Trail per the City’s
General Plan.
• Class III Bicycle Lane per the City’s Circulation
Master Plan for Bicyclists & Pedestrians.
ME 2.16. Traffic Impacts. Traffic studies prepared for development entitlements (e.g. tracts, plot plans, public use permits, conditional use permits) shall identify
project-related traffic impacts and determine the
“significance” of such impacts in compliance with CEQA.
Consistent. As part of the Initial Study a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening and Traffic Generation
Memos were completed by Kunzman Associates and
included in Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist
(Appendix K).
ME 3.11. Pedestrian Connectivity. Require development
projects and site plans to be designed to encourage
pedestrian connectivity among buildings within a site,
while linking buildings to the public bicycle and
pedestrian network.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes pedestrian
walkways, secondary equest rian trail, and bicycle lane that connect to existing pedestrian , equestrian, and
bicycle facilities in the surrounding roadways.
ME 3.17. Public Transit Connections. Ensure safe
pedestrian access through developments to existing and
future transit routes and terminal facilities through
project design.
Consistent. The proposed Project has been designed to
include onsite pedestrian walkways that connect to
existing pedestrian facilities within the surrounding
roadways which would allow for access to existing and
future transit facilities.
ME 3.21. ADA Compliance. Require safe pedestrian
walkways that comply with the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements within commercial,
office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.
Consistent. The proposed Project has been designed to
include ADA -compliant walkways throughout the
Project site.
ME 8.17. Sight Distance. Provide adequate sight
distances for safe vehicular movement at a road’s design speed and at all intersections.
Consistent. City staff has reviewed the proposed
Project’s access driveways to ensure that they provide
adequate site distances for safe vehicular movement.
Housing Element
HE 4.3 Neighborhood Integration. New neighborhoods
should be an integral part of an existing neighborhood or should establish pedestrian, bicycle, and, where
appropriate, equestrian linkages that provide direct,
convenient, and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods,
schools, parks, and shopping.
Consistent: The project circulation plan specifies
improving streets with curb, gutter sidewalk, and
landscaping. The project proposes community serving
pedestrian pathways and on-street bicycle lane.
HE 5.1 New Construction . Encourage the development
of dwellings with energy -efficient designs, utilizing
passive and active solar features and energy -saving
features that exceed minimum requirements in state
law.
Consistent: The project is required to submit building
plans and is required to me et CALGreen Codes, CA Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards included in the Initial
Study and MMRP under PPP4.8-1
HE 5.2 Sustainable Design . Residential developments
should promote sustainability in their design, placement, and use. Sustainability can be p romoted through a
variety of housing strategies, including the following:
1. Maximize use of renewable, recycled -content and
recycled materials, and minimize use of building
materials that require high levels of energy to produce or that cause significant, adverse environmental impacts.
Consistent: The proposed project includes design
standards to promote energy efficiency in new dwelling
units.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 62
SCH No. 2022060680
2. Incorporate renewable energy features into new
homes, including passive solar design, solar hot
water, solar power, and natural ventilation and cooling.
3. Minimize thermal island effects through reduction of heat-absorbing pavement and increased tree shading.
4. Avoid building materials that may contribute to health problems through the release of gases or glass fibers into indoor air.
5. Design dwellings for quiet, indoors and out, including appropriate noise mitigation for residential uses near
noise sources such as highways, major streets, railroad tracks, and industrial uses.
6. Design dwellings to be economical to live in due to
reduced energy or resource use, ease of
maintenance, floor area, or durability of materials.
Conservation and Open Space Element
COS 2.3 Biological Reports. Require the preparation of
biological reports to assess the impacts of development and provide mitigation for impacts to biological
resources when reviewing discretionary development
projects with the potential to affect adversely wildlife habitat.
Consistent. A Project -specific Biological Resources
Technical Resource Report has been prepared for the
Project as part of the Initial Study and is included in Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist (Appendix B).
COS 3.3 Water Quality. Employ the best available
practices for pollution avoidance and control and
encourage others to do the same. “Best available
practices” means actions and equipment that result in
the highest water quality, considering available
equipment, life‐cycle costs, social and environmental
side effects, and the regulations of other agencies
Consistent. Included in the Initial Study The following PPPs apply to the Project and would reduce impacts
relating to water quality and waste discharge
requirements. These measures will be included in the
Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.10 -1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter
6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and
Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the
provisions of this chapter, and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely
affecting human health or the environment. The City
Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be
implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall
identify the manner of implementati on. Documentation
on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the
discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.
PPP 4.10 -3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter
6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Managemen t and
Discharge Controls , Section C , n ew development, or
redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water.
COS 3.9 Pollution Discharge. Minimize pollutant
discharge into storm drainage systems and natural
drainage and aquifers.
Consistent. The Project would comply with the Clean
Water Act (CWA) Section 402. The CWA Section 402
authorizes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 63
SCH No. 2022060680
System (NPDES) permit program that covers point
sources of pollution discharging to a water body. The
NPDES program requires operators of construction sites
one acre or larger to prepare a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and obtain authorization to
discharge stormwater under an NPDES construction
stormwater permit. The SWPPP would identify site -
specific best management practices that minimize
pollutant discharge from the Project site
COS 7.1 Preservation of Significant Cultural Resources.
Identify, protect, and, where necessary, archive
significant paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources.
Consistent. A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation was performed by McKenna et al., additionally the Initial Study includes Mitigation Measures CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring, CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan, and
CR-3: Final Report.
COS 7.3 Development Review. Evaluate project sites for
archaeological sensitivity and for a project’s potential to uncover or disturb cultural resources as part of
development review
Consistent. A Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation was performed by McKenna et al., additionally the Initial Study includes Mitigation Measures CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring, CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan, and
CR-3: Final Report which are part of the MMRP.
COS 7.7 Qualified archaeologist present. Cease
construction or grading activities in and around sites
where archaeological resources are discovered until a
qualified archaeologist knowledgeable in Native
American cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation
measures
Consistent. The Initial Study and MMRP includes
Mitigation Measure CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring.
Additionally, MMs TCR-1 Native American Monitoring
Agreement, TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery, and TCR-3
Final Report are included in the Initial Study and MMRP.
COS 7.8 Native American Monitoring. Include Native
American participation in the City’s guidelines for
resource assessment and impact mitigation. Native
American representatives should be present during
archaeological excavation and during construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native
American community shall be consulted as knowledge of
cultural resources expands and as t he City considers
updates or significant changes to its General Plan.
Consistent. The Initial Study and MMRP includes
Mitigation Measures MMs TCR-1 Native American
Monitoring Agreement, TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery,
and TCR-3 Final Report.
COS 7.9 Archaeological Resources Mitigation. Require a
mitigation plan to protect resources when a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources
before permitting construction. Possible mitigation
measures include presence of a qualified profession al
during initial grading or trenching; project redesign;
covering with a layer of fill; and excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional
Consistent. The Initial Study and MMRP includes
Mitigation Measure CR-2: Archaeological Treatment
Plan.
COS 8.6 Provision of Recreation Facilities. Require that parkland or open space dedication and improvement
occur prior to, or concurrent with, construction, as a
condition of approval of new residential subdivisions.
Consistent. The following applies to the Project and
would reduce impacts relating to recreational
facilities/parks. This measure will be included in the
Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.16-1. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 64
SCH No. 2022060680
Project Applicant shall pay required park development
impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park
District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01 -2007 and 02-2008.
COS 9.1 Protect scenic resources , e specially skylines, undeveloped ridgelines, rocky hillsides, river view
corridors, and outstanding scenic vistas not designated for urban uses from development and maintain those
resources in their current patterns of use.
Consistent. From the Project site , the Santa Ana River is located approximately 0.5 miles south, the Jurupa
Mountains are located approximately 2.5 miles north,
and the Pedley Hills are located approximately 0.9 miles north. Views of the Santa Ana River are not available
because of intervening development, and topography.
PPP 4.1-1 and 4.2-2 included in the Initial Study, which will be included in the MMRP will limit building height and provide building setbacks between structures that
would serve to limit blocking the existing views.
PPP 4.1-1 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section
9.175.030, A -1 Zone (Light Agriculture) development
standards include, but not limited to, development
standards for structures, lot sizes, yard requirements, and structure heights.
PPP 4.1-2 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section
7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this
section.
COS 9.4 View Protection in New Development. The City
will include in all environmental review and carefully
consider effects of new development, streets and road
construction, grading and earthwork, and utilities on
views and visual quality.
Consistent. As discussed above the project is required
to implement PPP 4.2-1 and 4.2-2.
COS 10.1 Outdoor Lighting. Require outdoor lighting to
be shielded and prohibit outdoor lighting that:
1. Operates at unnecessary locations, levels, and times
2. Spills onto areas off ‐site or to areas not needing or warranting illumination
3. Includes lighting frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing
4. Produces glare (intense line‐of‐site contrast)
Consistent. The Project would increase the amount of
light in the area above what is being generated by the
vacant site by directly adding new sources of illumination including security and decorative lighting for the
proposed structures. With implementation of PPP 4.1 -3, impacts relating to light and glare are less than
significant.
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code
Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code
Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Noise Element
NE 1.5. Noise-Sensitive Uses. Consider the following
uses noise-sensitive and discourage the uses in areas in excess of 65 CNEL: schools, hospitals, assisted living
facilities, mental care facilities, residential uses,
libraries, passive recreational uses, and places of
worship.
Consistent. The proposed Project includes residential
uses which are identified as noise -sensitive uses in
General Plan Policy NE 1.5. Moreover, as discussed in
Section 4.13 - Noise, of the Initial Study (pages 61 - 66), the propose d Project would not result in significant
impacts to existing sensitive receptors within the
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 65
SCH No. 2022060680
Project vicinity with implementation of Mitigation
Measure NOI-1 Construction Noise Mitigation.
NE 1.6. Protection of Noise -Sensitive Uses. Protect
noise-sensitive land uses from high levels of noise by
restricting noise-producing land uses from these areas.
If the noise -producing land uses cannot be relocated,
then the measures such as building techniques,
setbacks, landscaping, and noise walls should be
considered.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4.13 - Noise, of the Initial Study (pages 61 - 66), the Project would have less than significant impacts on noise sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the Project site with implementation of Mitigation Measure NOI -1 (Construction Noise
Mitigation Plan).
NE 1.7. Noise -Tolerant Uses. Guide new or relocated
noise-tolerant land uses into areas irrevocably
committed to land uses that are noise producing, such as along major transportation corridors or within the
projected noise contours of area airports.
Consistent. The proposed residential uses would be
located in an area that is designated for similar residential development.
NE 3.1. Noise Analysis. Require that a noise analysis be conducted by an acoustical specialist for all proposed
development project that have the potential to generate significant noise near a noise -sensitive land use or on or near land designated for noise -sensitive land uses and ensure that recommended mitigation measures are
implemented.
Consistent. A Project -specific Noise and Vibration
Impact Assessment was performed for th e proposed
Project and reviewed by the City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Department. A discussion of the study was
included in Section 4-13 - Noise, of the Initial Study
(pages 61-66), which concluded that the proposed
Project would result in less than significant noise
impacts on adjacent land uses with implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI -1 Construction Noise
Mitigation.
NE 3.4. Construction Equipment. Require that all
construction equipment utilize noise reduction features (i.e., mufflers and eng ine shrouds) that are at least as effective as those originally installed by the equipment’s manufacturer.
Consistent. As discussed in Section 4-13 - Noise, of the Initial Study (pages 61 - 66), the Project’s short - term construction noise impacts would be less than
significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure
NOI-1 Construction Noise Mitigation.
NE 3.5. Construction Noise . Limit commercial
construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet or residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. an d
6:00 p.m. and limit high -noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m.
Consistent. The Project abuts residential land uses and all construction activities associated with the Project are required to comply with the requirements of Chapter
11.05 (Noise Regulations) of the City of Jurupa Valley
Municipal Code, which limits the hours during which
construction activity can occur on the site.
Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element
CSSF 1.1 Fault Rupture Hazards. When reviewing new
development, minimize fault rupture hazards through
the enforcement of Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Act provisions and the following requirements:
• Require geologic studies or analyses for new, critical structures, such as schools, medical facilities, senior or disabled housing, or other high risk occupancies located within 0.5 mile of all active or potentially active faults. • Require geologic tre nching studies for new
developments within all designated Earthquake Fault
Studies Zones, unless adequate evidence is presented
and accepted by the City Engineer or a Building Official.
The City may also require geologic trenching for new
development located outside designated fault zones for
Consistent: Active faults are not known to exist within the project and a review of Special Publication 42
indicates the site is not within a California State
designated Earthquake Fault Zone. The nearest known
active fault to the project site is the San Jacinto Fault Zone approximately 7.3 miles to the northeast. There
are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones located in Jurupa Valley.
As part of the Initial Study a Soil Investigation,
Infiltration, and Liquefaction Evaluation Report was
completed by Soil Exploration Company and is included
in Appendix A-1 Initial Study Checklist (Appendix D).
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 66
SCH No. 2022060680
especially critical or vulnerable structures or lifelines. • Require that critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges, and utilities be designated to resist, without failure, their crossing of a fault, if fault rupture occurs. • Encourage and support efforts by the geologic
research community to better define the locations and
risks of County faults. Such efforts could include data sharing and database development within regional
entities, State and local governme nts, private
organizations, utility agencies, or universities
CSSF 1.2 Geologic Investigations. Require geological and geotechnical investigations as part of the environmental development and review process. This requirement shall
apply to the development of any structure proposed for
human occupancy or to unoccupied structures whose
damage could cause secondary hazards in areas with
potential for earthquake -induced liquefaction,
landslides, or settlement.
Consistent: As part of the Soil Investigation, Infiltration, and Liquefaction Evaluation Report for the Project
liquefaction analysis for the subject property was
performed. Results from the evaluation indicate that
the property has a safety factor of 5.0 against
liquefaction, indicating the potential for liquefaction would be low
CSSF 1.4 Structural Damage. Utilize the latest
approaches to minimize damage to structures located in
areas determined to have high l iquefaction potential
during seismic events
Consistent: Implementation of the Geotechnical
Investigation recommendations. as required by
Municipal Code § 8.05.010, the project to comply with
the approved recommended seismic design
requirements contained in the project’s Geotechnical
Evaluation, approved by the City, and be incorporated
in the construction of each structure, to preclude
significant adverse effects associated with seismic
hazards. Therefore, project development would not
cause substantial ris ks to people or structures arising from liquefaction after implementation of the
recommendations in the Soil Investigation, Infiltration, and Liquefaction Evaluation Report for the Project, and impacts would be less than significant
CSSF 1.15 Regional Sto rm Drain System. All proposed
development projects shall address and mitigate any
adverse impacts on the carrying capacity of local and
regional storm drain systems.
Consistent: As discussed in the Initial Study Section
4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality , the Project would
not create or contribute runoff that would exceed the
capacity of any existing stormwater drainage system
CSSF 1.23 Fire Prevention . Develop and enforce
construction and design standards that ensure that
proposed development incorporate s fire prevention
features through the following:
1. All proposed construction shall meet minimum
standards for fire safety as defined in the City Building or Fire Codes, or by City zoning, or as dictated by the
Building Official or the Transportation Land Management Agency based on building type, design, occupancy, and
use.
2. In addition to the fire safety provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the Uniform Fire Codes, apply
additional standards for high risk, high occupancy
hospital and health care facilities, dependent care,
Consistent: As discussed in the Initial Study Section
4.17, Transportation, the Project would provide
adequate emergency access along abutting roadways
during temporary construction activities within the
public right -of-way. Additionally, the Project would
comply with the City of Jurupa Valley Fire Department
codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding
fire prevention and suppression measure
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 67
SCH No. 2022060680
emergency operation centers, and other essen tial or
“lifeline” facilities, per county or state standards. These shall include assurance that structural and nonstructural architectural elements of the building will not impede
emergency egress for fire safety staffing/personnel,
equipment, and apparat us; nor hinder evacuation from
fire, including potential blockage of stairways or fire doors.
3. Proposed development in Hazardous Fire areas shall
provide secondary public access, unless determined
unnecessary by CAL FIRE or City Building Official.
CSSF 1.24 Adjacent Natural Vegetation. Development
that adjoins large areas of native vegetation will require drought tolerant landscaping that blends with the
natural vegetation to the greatest extent possible
Consistent: The Project is required to comply with
Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design
Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal
Code. Compliance with these provisions would result
in the installation of drought -tolerant landscaping at the Project site.
CSSF 2.44. Drought -Tolerant Landscaping. Require the
use of drought -tolerant landscaping in all new
development.
Consistent. The Project is required to comply with
Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design
Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal
Code. Compliance with these provisions would result in
the installation of drought -tolerant landscaping at the Project site.
CSSF 2.60 Waste Reduction. Encourage the diversion of
waste from landfills through reduction, reuse, and
recycling efforts.
Consistent: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy
CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, mandates at least the
minimum construction and demolition waste diversion
requirement of 75 percent. Project construction would
involve recycling and/or salvaging construction and
demolition waste in accordance with the policy. Based
on the analysis above, project impacts regarding solid
waste disposal would be less than significant
CSSF 2.61 Waste Management. Encourage new
development to employ construction waste
management techniques t o divert construction
materials and debris away from the landfills
Consistent: As required under AB 939, at least 50% of
the facilities waste will be diverted from landfills.
Compliance with AB 939 is measured in part by
comparing solid waste disposal rate s for a jurisdiction with target disposal rates; actual rates at or below target rates are consistent with AB 939. AB 939 also requires
California counties to show 15 years disposal capacity
for all jurisdictions within the county, or show a plan to transform or divert their waste.
CSSF 2.66 Waste Diversion. Achieve at least the
minimum construction and demolition waste diversion
requirement of 75%.
Consistent: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Policy
CSSF 2.67, Waste Diversion, mandates at least the
minimum construction and demolition waste diversion
requirement of 75percent. Project construction would
involve recycling and/or salvaging construction and
demolition waste in accordance with the policy. Based
on the analysis above, project impacts regarding solid
waste disposal would be less than significant
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 68
SCH No. 2022060680
Plans, Policies, and Programs
City of Jurupa Valley Zoning and Municipal Code
The City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Map applies the “ A-1 (Light Agriculture)” zoning to the entire Project site.
According to the City’s Municipal Code, the primary purpose of the “A-1” zoning is to provide space in suitable for one (1) family dwellings, and agriculture uses such as nurseries, greenhouses, orchards, crop growing, grazing, limited farming activities. (§ 9.175.020). The Project is consistent with the permitted uses allowed in the corresponding A-1 zone. Additionally, the Project’s application materials were reviewed by the City for conformance with the A-1 zone development s tandards in the municipal code , (§ 9.175.030). Accordingly, the Project would not conflict with the City’s Zoning and Municipal Code and would have a less than significant impact.
SCAG Connect SoCal
SCAG’s Connect SoCal is the applicable SCAG planning doc uments 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 Table 4.7, SCAG Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis, implementation of the Project would not result in an inconsistency with the adopted Connect SoCal. Accordingly, the Project would have a less than significant impact with respect to a conflict with the SCAG’s Connect SoCal.
Table 4.7 SCAG Connect SoCal Goal Consistency Analysis
RTP/SCS Goals Project Consistency Discussion
1. Encourage regional economic prosperity
and global competitiveness
Not applicable. This Goal is directed towards actions taken by SCAG. Project development would have no effect on global economic competitiveness of the southern California region. The economic impact of the project would be too small to affect regional economic prosperity
2. Improve mobility, accessibility, reliability,
and travel safety for people and goods
Consistent The Project would have less than significant impacts on the City’s transportation system and VMT generation. Therefore, development of the proposed project would not affect mobility or the reliability or safety of the transportation system.
3. Enhance the preservation, security, and
resilience of the regional transportation
system
Not applicable. Development of the proposed project would not affect the regional transportation system.
4. Increase person and goods movement and
travel choices within the transportation
system
Not applicable. Development of the proposed project would not affect the regional transportation system.
5. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
improve air quality
Consistent This policy is directed towards SCAG actions to support integrated regional development patterns. However, the Project air quality and greenhouse gas emissions impacts were determined to be less than significant.
6. Support healthy and equitable
communities
Consistent. The project proposes healthy communities’
components including pedestrian paths, equestrian, and bicycle trails/lanes.
7. Adapt to a changing climate and support Consistent Project greenhouse gas emissions impacts were Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 69
SCH No. 2022060680
RTP/SCS Goals Project Consistency Discussion
an integrated regional development pattern
and transportation network
determined to be less than significant.
8. Leverage new transportation technologies
and data-driven solutions that result in more
efficient travel
Not applicable. The project does not propose new transportation technologies.
9. Encourage development of diverse housing
types in areas that are supported by multiple
transportation options
Consistent. The project proposes development of single-family housing units. The project site is in an area supported by multiple transportation options including roadways; Riverside
Transportation Agency Bus Route 29, with access to Pedley Metrolink Station.
10. Promote conservation of natural and
agricultural lands and restoration of habitats
Not applicable. Project development would involve development of mostly vacant land previously occupied by a single-family residence and not currently used for agricultural purposes. The project site is not native habitat or natural landscape.
Sources: SCAG, 2020a
RTP/SCS Goals are set forth in Chapter 1, About the Plan.
Project Design Features
There are no Project Design Features applicable to the Project related to the topic of land use and planning.
Conditions of Approval
There are no Conditions of Approval applicable to the Project related to the topic of land use and planning.
Discussion
The proposed Project requires a General Plan Amendment (GPA) from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborho od (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The current designation of EDR provides for a maximum development of 0.5 units per acre maximum.
On October 14, 2021 the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review and staff report for case number ZAP1036FL21 (Appendix B-2), was issued that determined the following requested entitlements for the GPA and TTM of the proposed Project were inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.
The ALUC determin ed the Project was not consistent with the Flabob ALUP due to the residential density restrictions for Zone C limit of residential density to 0.2 du/ac and Zone D limit of residential density to 0.2 to 0.4 du/ac. Additionally, the ALUC determined that under County Wide Policy 3.3.1 Infill which allows for greater densities thank would otherwise be permitted in Zones C and D, but cap the densities at double the allowable density for the zone. As the maximum density in Zone C is 0.2 dwelling units per acre, and the maximum density in Zone D is either below 0.2 dwelling units per acre or above 5.0 dwelling units per acre, doubling the density increases the limit from 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre for Zone C, and from 0.2 to
0.4 dwelling units per acre (on the low end), and from 5.0 to 10.0 dwelling units per acre (on the high end) for Zone D. The project's density of 1.60 dwelling units per acre would still be inconsistent with the doubled density provision for both zones.
The ALUC also found that the project fails to provide the required open space areas for emergency landings.
Compatibility Zone C requires 20% and Zone D requires 10% of open area for projects 10 acres or larger be Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 70
SCH No. 2022060680
set aside as open area that could potentia lly serve as emergency landing areas. The ALUC staff report indicated that approximately 17.95 acres was located within Zone C requiring 3.59 acres of open space and approximately 0.6 acres located within Zone D requiring 0.06 acres of open space for a total of 3.65 acres of open space requirements.
The proposed Project is not consistent with the land use intensity limits or open space requirements of the Flabob ALUP. However, the Allen Aviation Report and FAA Determination Letters demonstrated the Project would not result in significant risks to airport operations or safety, or a significant risk to public health or safety. The evaluation in Table 4.2-1 demonstrates the proposed Project is consistent with the policies of the City General Plan with the excep tion of those relative to the Flabob Airport. It is important to note the General Plan policy inconsistencies all result from the Project exceeding the land use intensity limits of the Flabob ALUP for residential uses. Additionally, the current land use de signation of EDR would also be inconsistent with the Flabob ALUP. Because there is no feasible mitigation for this impact, approval of the Project will require adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations from the City Council if the Project is approved due to this inconsistency with the Flabob ALUP.
Level of Significance
Significant and unavoidable land use and planning impacts will result from the following:
Inconsistency with Land Use Element Policies LUE -5.55, 5.57, 5.58, and 5.61 with respect to consistency with the Flabob Airport ALUP.
Mitigation Measures
Any measures that would effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project regarding consistency with the Flabob ALUP density and open space requirements would require a reduction of residential units on the site. The current General Plan Land Use on the site would provide for development of 10 residential units, however under the ALUP only 3 units would be allowed in Zone C under the 0.2 du/acre, and 3 units in Zone D under the 5 du/acre allowable density. No units would be allowed in Zone D under the ALUC 0.2 du/acre density requirement. The maximum number of units under the ALUP would only permit up to 6 units, therefore project would remain inconsistent if developed within the current land use provisions and ALUP density requirements.
Level of Significance After Mitigation
There is no feasible mitigation available related to the Project’s inconsistencies with various General Plan policies regarding land use (inconsistent with Flabob ALUP). Therefore, potential impacts of the Project related to consistency with City General Plan policies are significant and unavoidable, and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this impact will be required if the Project is approved.
4.2.7 Cumulative Impact Analysis
This cumulative impact analysis considers development of the Project in conjunction with other development projects and planned development in the vicinity of the Project site that are located in the City of Jurupa Valley. As discuss ed under Threshold a, the Project would not physically divide an established community because the Project site is surrounded by roadways and existing residential development. Therefore, the
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 4.0 Environmental Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 71
SCH No. 2022060680
Project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact w ith respect to a physical division of an established community.
As discussed under Threshold b, the Project would be inconsistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 5.55, 5.57, 5.58, and 5.61 regarding consistency with the Flabob ALUP the Project would not conflict with any other aspects of the City’s General Plan or any other applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects. Cumulative development would also be subject to site-specific environmental and planning reviews that would address consistency with adopted land use plan, policy, or regulation. As part of environmental review, projects would be required to provide mitigation for any inconsistencies with the Genera l Plan and environmental policies that would result in adverse physical environmental effects.
For these reasons, a Statement of Overriding Considerations for this cumulative impact will be required if the City Council chooses to approve the Project. It s hould be noted that the Project would result in a less than significant direct and cumulative impact with respect to a conflict with all other aspects of the General Plan as well as other applicable land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating adverse environmental effects.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 72
SCH No. 2022060680
5.0 Alternatives
5.1 Introduction
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(a) describes the scope of analysis that is required when evaluating alternatives to proposed projects, as follows:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the lo cation of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not co nsider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation.
An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, the proposed Project would result in significant adverse environmental effects that cannot be mitigated to below levels of significance afte r the implementation of Plans, Policies, and Programs (PPPs), Project Design Features (PDFs) and feasible mitigation measures (MMs). The Project’s significant and unavoidable impacts are summarized below in Subsection 5.4
5.2 Summary Description of the Proposed Project
The Project is proposing to construct a 19.36 -acre subdivision with construction of 31 single-family lots or
1.6 dwelling units per acre. The Project includes landscaping; internal paving and walkways; bioretention basin.
To implement the Project, the following discretionary entitlements are required. A more detailed description of the Project is provided in Section 3.0 – Project Description/Environmental Setting.
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008
The project is proposing to amend Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Plan from the current land use designation of Ranch (EDR) to Country Neighborhood (LDR) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171
Subdivide 19.36 acres into 31 single-family lots.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 73
SCH No. 2022060680
5.3 Project Objectives
The underlying purpose of the Project is to develop a vacant, undeveloped, and under-utilized site in an area of the City with predominantly residential uses with a residential development. The following is a list of specific objectives that the Project is intended to achieve:
• Assist the City in meeting its housing goals and reflect anticipated market needs and public demand, by providing a diverse range of home types with the intent to blend into the City of Jurupa Valley’s rural character.
• Develop a vacant residential property with close proximity to SR -60 that is readily accessible to existing and available infrastructure, including roads and utilities.
5.4 Summary of the Proposed Projects Significant Impacts Based upon the Initial Study analysis (Appendix A-1), comments received pursuant to circulation of the Notice of Preparation (NOP), (Appendix A-2 NOP and Appendix A -3 Comment Letters), and other public/agency input, the analysis of the EIR addresses the following topics as de scribed in Table 5.1 , Summary of Environmental Impacts Addressed in the EIR.
Table 5.1 Summary of Significant Environmental Impacts Environmental Topic Section Type of Impact Description of Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(Section 4.1)
Direct Impact The Project is inconsistent with the
2005 Riverside Municipal Airport Land
Use Compatibility Plan requirements
of Compatibility Zones C (17.95 acres)
and D (0.6 acres).
Cumulatively Considerable Impacts The Project, in concert with other land use proposals that would
increase unit count/density within
the Flabob ALUP would contribute
to cumulatively considerable
impacts related to airport land use
consistency. However, the
proposed Project does not appear
to represent a significant risk to
public safety as a result of its
proposed land uses in relation to
the Flabob Airport operations.
Land Use and Planning
(Section 4.2)
Direct Impact The Project would not be consistent
with the City’s General Plan Land Use
Element Policies LUE-5.55, 5.57, 5.58,
and 5.61 with respect to consistency
with the Flabob Airport ALUP.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 74
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental Topic Section Type of Impact Description of Impact Cumulatively Considerable Impacts The Project, in concert with other land use proposals that would
increase unit count/density within
the Flabob ALUP, would contribute
to cumulatively con siderable
impacts related to airport land
use consistency.
5.5 Alternates Considered But Not Analyzed Further
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 Draft 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 object ives 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.
Several “less intense” alternatives were initially discussed that would reduce the number of residential units of the proposed Project. Due to the limits of the Flabob ALUP, which would only allow 0.2 dwelling units per acre or 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres , essentially 3 units on the site, there were no viable alternatives that allowed the maximum residential units on the property under the current General Plan Land Use at 0.5 dwelling units per acre (10 units total) or Proposed Land Use Designation at 2 dwelling units per acre (37 units total). However , several alternatives involving non-residential uses were considered for the Project site including Commercial Retail and Commercial Neighborhood.
For the purposes of this EIR, one “all retail” alternative (FAR = 0.35) was selected for additional study (see below). This alternative was selected for further analysis to determine what environmental impacts would result from full use of the site by the non-residential land use, but it is possible that commercial office use or some combination of commercial and office uses would also be a feasible land use alternative. CEQA requires an analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives, and not every possible permutation of land use combinations.
The City of Jurupa Valley considered but rejected two alternatives: an alternative that would develo p the proposed Project as Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and developing the Project on an alternative site. The Commercial Neighborhood alternative was not included as the it would still require both a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change and only be viable on up to 5 acres of the project site due to the CN land use Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 75
SCH No. 2022060680
in the General Plan being applied to smaller commercial centers generally limited to less than 5-acres. CEQA does not require that an analysis of alternative sites always be included in an EIR. However, if the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site, then this alternative should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. 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)).
The Project proposes to develop 19.36 acres of primarily vacant land into a subdivision and construction of 31 single-family lots (1.6 dwelling units p er acre). In the immediate surrounding area, there a several small vacant or under-utilized parcels to the south, each of these are located in the EDR Land Use however the lots are significantly smaller ranging from 1 to 5 acres. In the larger surrounding area, there are is limited vacant land. The majority of the land in the area consists of rural residential, estate residential, and single -family residential uses.
The Project Applicant does not hold ownership control over any other parcels of land in or n ear the Project site that could be used as an alternative location for the proposed Project. Each of the sites noted in the area surrounding the Proposed project would not move the Project to another site that was not within the land use restrictions of the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan and the smaller lot sizes would further limit the number of dwelling units that could be developed.
Since the Project Applicant does not have ownership control over, and cannot reasonably obtain ownership control over, any other parcels of land in the nearby area under the jurisdiction of the City of Jurupa Valley that could accommodate the Project, an alternative location alternative is not feasible. Therefore, the City of Jurupa Valley is not obligated under CEQA to perform a detailed analysis of alternative sites in this Draft EIR
5.6 Alternatives Under Consideration
CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e) requires that an alternative be included that describes what would reasonably be expected to occur on the property in the foreseeabl e future if the proposed Project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services (i.e., “no project” alternative). For development projects that include a revision to an existing land use plan, the “no project” alternative is considered to be the continuation of the existing land use plan into the future. For projects other than a land use plan (for example, a development project on an identifiable property such as the proposed Project evaluated herein), the “no project” alternative is considered to be a circumstance under which the proposed Project does not proceed (CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e) (3) (A-B)). For the alternatives analysis in this Draft EIR, the potential scenario where the Project d oes not proceed is considered to be the “No Project Alternative/No Development Alternative.”
The following scenarios were identified by the City of Jurupa Valley as potentially feasible alternatives to the proposed Project that would be evaluated in detail in the EIR: (1) No Project/No Development; (2) General Plan Development; (3) Higher Residential Land Use; and (4) Commercial Retail.
5.6.1 No Project / No Development Alternative
The no project /no development alternative considers no development/disturbance on the Project site beyond that which occurs under existing conditions. As such, the approximately 19.36-acre Project site would Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 76
SCH No. 2022060680
continue to consist of primarily vacant land. Under this Alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site a nd none of the Project’s roadway, drainage, utility, and other infrastructure improvements would occur. This Alternative was selected by the City to compare the environmental effects of the Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition.
5.6.2 General Plan Development Alternative
The General Plan Development Alternative proposes land uses consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Map - the site is designated for Ranch uses (EDR – 0.5 units/acre max.). This designation means the site could be developed with up to 10 residential units.
This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment. The project site is located within two Compatibility Zones, Compatibility Zone C (17.95 acres) and Compatibility Zone D (0.6 acres). At this development density, the project would stil l not meet the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) maximum allowable density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone C or the maximum allowable density of either below 0.2 units per acre or above 5.0 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone D. The result of the General Plan Development Alternative would result in 3 units allowed in Zone C under the 0.2 du/acre, and 3 units in Zone D under the 5 du/acre allowable density. No units would be allowed in Zone D under the ALUC 0.2 du/acre density requirement.
5.6.3 Commercial Alternative
The Commercial Retail Alternative would develop the Project site into commercial uses. If the entire site were to support commercial retail uses, a maximum of 295,163 square feet of commercial space could be built on the 19.36 -acre site based on an FAR of 0.35. This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment and Zone Change to eliminate the Estate (EDR) land use designation to Commercial Retail (CR).
Due to the number of vehicular trips generated by retail uses, this alternative may result in increased traffic and air quality impacts. General Plan Table 2.3 Non-Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections, indicates retail uses generate 1 employee per 600 square feet which would result in 492 employees for the site. The Riverside Airport Land Use Plan (ALUC) maximum densities/intensities for non-residential land uses would allow for 2,700 people in the Zone C and another 180 in Zone D for a total of 2,880 person which would include employees and customers. With the estimated 492 employees on-site, that allows for only 2,388 customers, the exact number of anticipated customers cannot be estimated without knowing the future types of retail businesses that could be present.
Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center > 150,000 square feet) 3.81 trips per unit per 1,000 square feet of retail space the commercial retail alternative would result in approximately 1,125 trips per day. Under the proposed Project the daily trips would be 293, the commercial retail would create a 284 percent increase in traffic.
It is unknown if this Alternative would eliminate significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials (i.e., consistency with the Flabob ALUP) as the number of cu stomers on-site at any given time cannot forecast without details on types of business that may be present. This Alternative would continue to impact relative Land Use and Planning since it would not be consistent with the General Plan, Zoning or potentially the policies regarding the Flabob ALUP. Additionally, this Alternative would have a significant direct and cumulative traffic impacts as it would generate almost 284 percent more traffic compared to the Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 77
SCH No. 2022060680
proposed Project, which would additionally create potential environmental impacts to Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Noise, and Traffic.
5.7 Analysis of Alternatives
The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative considered by the City of Jurupa Valley with the impacts of the proposed Project, as detailed in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Draft EIR.
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 Gu idelines §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 alternative. The Project’s significant impacts that require mitigation fall under the topics of Hazards and Hazardous Materials (i.e. inconsistency with Flabob Airpo rt ALUP), and Land Use and Planning (i.e. inconsistency with Flabob Airport land use compatibility policies. Although the Project’s less -than-significant impacts also are mentioned and compared to the alternatives evaluated herein, the emphasis is on 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 proposed Project’s impact, (2) a greater impact than would occur under the proposed Project, (3) the same impact as the proposed Project, or (4) a new impact in addition to the proposed Project’s impact
5.7-1 No Project / No Development Alternative
The No Project/No Development Alternative assumes no development or disturbance on the Project site beyond that which now occurs (i.e., existing conditions). As such, the approximately 19.36 -acre Project site would continue to consist of a single-family residence and disturbed vacant land. Under this Alternative, no improvements would be made to the Project site and none of the proposed Project’s land use, roadway, utility, or other infrastructure improvements would occur. This Alternative was selected by the City of Jurupa Valley to compare the environmental effects of the proposed Project with an alternative that would leave the Project site in its existing condition subject to the continuation of the existing conditions, and is required by CEQA. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(1).).
1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the site with a single-family residency and primarily vacant and unused condition which would not conflict with and land use restrictions in the Flabob Airport Land use Plan (ALUP). This alternative would therefore eliminate the significant impact of the proposed Project in this regard.
2. Land Use and Planning
The No Project/No Development Alternative would leave the site in its general existing condition.
This alternative would not require any land use entitlements from the City ( no General Plan Amendment or Tentative Tract Map). The proposed Project is not consistent with a number of City General Plan policies and these impacts are considered significant. By comparison, there would be no impacts related to Land Use and Planning from this alternative ( vacant land will have no impact to Flabob ALUP). However, leaving the property in its existing condition would conflict with other Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 78
SCH No. 2022060680
General Plan policies rela ted to economic growth and not fulfill the City’s vision for long -term buildout of the City related to the ultimate use of this property.
3. Conclusion
The No Project/No Development Alternative would avoid all of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed Project. While it is acknowledged that this Alternative would not achieve the City’s General Plan vision in terms of developing the site with residential land uses, no significant adverse environmental impacts would result from leaving the property in its existing. The No Project/No Development Alternative would not fulfill the underlying purpose of the Project or meet any of the Project’s objectives because the site would remain undeveloped and utilized in its current condition.
5.7-2 General Plan Development Alternative
The General Plan Development Alternative proposes land uses consistent with the City’s General Plan Land Use Map - the site is designated for Ranch uses (EDR – 0.5 units/acre max.). This designation means the site could be developed with up to 10 residential units . This alternative would not require a General Plan Amendment.
1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
At the development density proposed in the General Plan Development Alternative the residential use would not meet the ALUP maximum allowable density of 0.2 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone C or the maximum allowable density of either below 0.2 units per acre or above
5.0 dwelling units per acre for Compatibility Zone D. The result of the General Plan Development Alternative would result in 3 units allowed in Zone C under the 0.2 du/acre, and 3 units in Zone D under the 5 du/acre allowable density. No units would be allowed in Zone D under the ALUC 0.2 du/acre density requirement ; therefore, it is still inconsistent wi th the General Plan Land Use Element Policies 5.56, 5.57, 5.58, 5.61 regarding consistency with the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, this Alternative still has significant impacts relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, similar to the proposed Project.
2. Land Use and Planning
As identified in Draft EIR Subsection 4. 2, Land Use and Planning , the proposed Project would not conflict with the policies from the General Plan with the exception of Land Use Element Policies
5.56, 5.57, 5.58, 5.61 regarding consistency with the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Even though this Alternative is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan for this site, it is still inconsistent with the General Plan policies cited above and thus would have significant impacts relative to Land Use and Planning, similar to the proposed Project.
3. Conclusion
Similar to the proposed Proj ect, the General Plan Development Alternative would still have significant impacts related to Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Land Use and Planning in that it is inconsistent with Land Use Element Policies 5.56, 5.57, 5.58, 5.61. This alternative would meet Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 79
SCH No. 2022060680
the Project objectives to a similar degree as the proposed Project as it would provide residential use but would not provide the density requested by the proposed Project.
5.7-3 Commercial Retail Alternative
The Commercial Retail Alternative would develop the Project site into all commercial uses. The Flabob Airport ALUP recommends only one residential unit on the site which essentially precludes any viable residential development on the site. If the entire si te were to support commercial retail uses, a maximum of 295,163 square feet of commercial space could be built on the 19.36-acre site based on an FAR of 0.35. This alternative would require a General Plan Amendment to eliminate the Estate (EDR) land use designation to Commercial Retail (CR). This alternative would also require a Zone Change as the A-1 (Light Agriculture) zone would not allow retail uses. Due to the number of vehicular trips generated by retail uses, this alternative may result in increased traffic and air quality impacts. General Plan Table 2.3, Non -Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections, indicates retail uses generate 1 employee per 600 square feet which would result in 492 employees for the site. Using the Institute of Tr ansportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual ITE Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center > 150,000 square feet) 3.81 trips per unit per 1,000 square feet of retail space the commercial retail alternative would result in approximately 1,125 trips per day if it was built out with all commercial uses.
1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUC) maximum densities/intensities for non -residential land uses would allow for 2,700 people in the Zone C and another 180 in Zone D for a tot al of 2,880 person which would include employees and customers. With the estimated 492 employees on-site, that allows for only 2,388 customers, the exact number of anticipated customers cannot be estimated without knowing the future types of retail busines ses that could be present. If this alternative provided for a density of less than 2,880 persons on -site the Commercial Retail Alternative would be consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Policies 5.56, 5.57, 5.58, 5.61, and Noise Element Policy NE 1 .8 regarding consistency with the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, this Alternative could have less than significant impacts relative to Hazards and Hazardous Materials, while the proposed Project had significant impacts in this regard.
2. Land Use and Planning
This Alternative could eliminate the land use and planning impacts related to consistency with the Flabob ALUP. As identified in Draft EIR Subsection 4.2, Land Use and Planning, the proposed Project would not conflict with the other policies from the General Plan. The Commercial Retail Alternative would generate considerably more traffic than the proposed Project ( eg., a 293 percent increase with 1,125 daily trips compared to 293 trips for the Project). Due to higher traffic generation, this Alternative may have substantially increased VMT, Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Emissions, as well as Noise impacts compared to the proposed Project. Therefore, impacts of this Alternative would still be significant and potential higher relative to Land Use and Planning.
3. Conclusion
Compared to the proposed Project, the Commercial Retail Alternative could eliminate significant impacts related to Hazards (i.e., ALUP Consistency) would have redu ced impacts relative to Land Use and Planning as this alternative could be consistent with the General Plan policies regarding Saddlehorn Ranch Project 5.0 Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 80
SCH No. 2022060680
the Flabob ALUP. However, this Alternative could have significant traffic impacts and would generate considerably more traffic th an the proposed Project ( eg., 1,125 daily trips compared to 293 trips for the Project). This alternative would provide a substantial amount of commercial use in a residential area and would not provide for any residential use. T his Alternative may have substantially increased VMT, Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality Emissions, as well as Noise impacts compared to the proposed Project and does not meet the Project objectives.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Because the No Project/No Development Alternative would result in lower impacts resulting from construction and operation of the Project to less than significant levels, it is the environmentally superior alternative. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126[d][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other alternatives evaluated.
Based on the analysis in Section 6.0, Alternatives, the General Plan Development Alternative would be environmentally superior to the Project. Under this Alternative, impacts related to NOx emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and VMT will be less when compared to the Project but may remain significant and unavoidable for Flabob Airport Compatibility.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 81
SCH No. 2022060680
6.0 Other CEQA Considerations
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR disclose the significant environmental effects of a project that cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented (CEQA Guidelines §15126[b]). As thoroughly described in Subsections 4.3 through 4.4 of this Draft EIR, the proposed Project would result in significant and unavoidable direct and/or cumulatively considerable impacts related to the topics of Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Land Use and Planning. Table 6-1: Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided, describes the significant unavoidable impacts that would occur should the proposed Project be implemented and after the application of regulatory requirements from applicable Pla ns, Policies, and Programs (PPPs), Project Design Features (PDFs), or the application of feasible mitigation measures (MMs). Refer to the list of PPPs and MMs applied to the proposed Project in Sections 4.3 through 4.4 of this Draft EIR.
6.1 Significant Effects That Cannot Be Avoided if the Proposed Project is Implemented
Significant effects which cannot be avoided are the significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur if the Project was implemented and after applying regulatory requirements and mitig ation measures. The Project does not result in any significant and unavoidable impacts, as discussed in subsections 4.1 through
4.14. Table 6.1 Significant Environmental Effects Which Cannot be Avoided Environmental Topic Section Type of Impact Description of Impact Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(Subsection 4.3)
Direct Impacts The Project is INCONSISTENT with the
2005 Flabob Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for Zones C and D.
Mitigation or changes to the Project to
achieve consistency would require a no
Project Alternative so mitigation is
infeasible.
Cumulatively Considerable Impacts This Project, in concert with other land use proposal that would increase unit
count/density within the Flabob ALUP
would contribute to cumulatively
considerable impacts related to airport
land use consistency . However, the
proposed Project does not appear to
represent a significant risk to public
safety as a result of its pro posed land
uses in relation to the Flabob Airport
operations.
Land Use and Planning
(Subsection 4.4)
Direct Impacts The Project would not be consistent
with the following General Plan
policies: Land Use Element Policies
LUE-5.55, 5.57, 5.58, and 5.61 with
respect to consistency with the Flabob
Airport ALUP.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 82
SCH No. 2022060680
Environmental Topic Section Type of Impact Description of Impact Cumulatively Considerable Impacts This Project, in concert with other land use proposal that would increase unit
count/density within the Flabob ALUP
would contribute to cumulatively
considerable impacts related to airport
land use consistency.
6.2 Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes
The CEQA Guidelines require EIRs to address any significant irreversible environmental changes that would be involved with the proposed action should it be implemented (2023 CEQA Guidelines §15126.2[d]). An environmental change would fall into this category if: a) the project would involve a large commitment of non-renewable resources; b) the primar y 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).
Implementation of the Project would commit future generations to the residential uses proposed by the Project on the Project site. As demonstrated in the analysis presented throu ghout Draft EIR Section 4.0, construction and long‐term operation of the proposed Project would be compatible with existing and planned future land uses that surround the Project site and would not result in significant and unavoidable physical environmental effects to nearby properties. Although the Project would cause significant and unavoidable impacts to the environment associated with airport ‐related hazards and land use and planning as summarized above in Table 6‐1, these effects would not commit surrounding properties to a particular land use other than those that are present under existing conditions or planned by the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. The placement of new land uses under the proposed Project would have irreversible effects on the Flabob Airport Land Use Plan in terms of allowing development at intensities higher than allowed under that plan. However, the Project would not result in a significant irreversible change to nearby off ‐site properties.
Because no significant agricultural, biological, mineral, geological, or other sensitive or unique natural resources occur within the Project site as demonstrated in the Project’s Initial Study (refer to Appendix A‐1), the Project is not expected to reduce the availability of any natural res ources associated with long ‐term operational activities associated with the proposed Project. Also, residential operations of the proposed Project would utilize natural gas and electricity, some of which comes from renewable resources. However, the Project is required by law to comply with the California Building Standards Code which would minimize the Project’s demand for non -renewable resources. A more detailed discussion of the energy usage during construction and operations is provided in the Initial St udy Section 4.6, Energy (Appendix A-1). Accordingly, the Project would not result in a wasteful consumption of energy and the Project would not result in a significant, irreversible change to the environment related to energy use.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 83
SCH No. 2022060680
6.3 Growth-Inducing Impacts
CEQA requires a discussion of the ways in which the 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 (2023 CEQA Guidelines §15126.2[e]). A project is defined as growth inducing when it directly or indirectly does any of the following:
• Fosters population growth
• Fosters economic growth
• Includes the construction of additional housing in the surrounding environment • Removes obstacles to population growth
• Taxes existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities that could cause significant environmental effects
• Encourages or facilitates other activities that could significantly affect the environments, either individually or cumulatively
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15126.2(e), it must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
A project can have direct and/or indirect growth -inducement potential. Direct gro wth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. A project can have indirect growth -inducement potential if it would establish substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental e nterprises) or if it would involve a substantial construction effort with substantial short-term employment opportunities and indirectly stimulate the need for additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, under CEQA, a p roject would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. An example of this indirect effect would be the expansion of a wastewater treatment plant, which might allow for more development in service areas.
Environmental effects resulting from induced growth (i.e., growth-induced effects) fit the CEQA definition of “indirect” effects in §15358(a)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. These indirect or secondary effects of growth may result in significant environmental impacts. CEQA does not require that the EIR speculate unduly about the precise location and site-specific characteristics of significant, indirect effects caused by induced growth, but a good-faith effort is required to disclose what is feasible to assess. Potential secondary effects of growth could include consequences – such as conversion of open space to developed uses, increased demand on community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air and water quality, or degradation or loss of plant and wildlife habitat – that are the result of growth fostered by the project. The decision to allow those projects that result from induced growth is the subject of separate discretionary processes by the lead agency responsible for considering such projects. Because the decision to allow growth is subject to separate discretionary decision making, and such decision making is itself subject to CEQA, the analysis of g rowth-inducing effects is not intended to determine site -specific environmental impacts and specific mitigation for the potentially induced growth. Rather, the discussion is intended to disclose the potential for environmental effects to occur more generally, such that decision makers are aware that additional environmental effects are a possibility if growth-inducing projects are approved. The decision of whether impacts do occur, their extent, and the ability to mitigate them is appropriately left to consideration by the agency responsible for approving such projects at such times as complete applications for development are submitted.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 84
SCH No. 2022060680
The Project is a residential development that will generate new residents on the site. The Initial Study Section
4.14 – Population and Housing estimates the proposed. Based on the State of California Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021‐2023 with 2020 Census Benchmark, the City of Jurupa Valley current ly has 3. 66 persons per household. Under the existing General Plan Land Use Plan the Project would result in a population of 37 persons (10 dwelling units x 3.66 persons per household = 37). The Project proposes 31 dwelling units so the actual estimated population would be 113 persons (31 dwelling units x 3. 66 persons per household = 113). This assumes that all new residents would come from outside the City limits of Jurupa Valley. The Project could increase the population of the City above what is planned by the General Plan Land Use Plan by 76 persons. The current population of Jurupa Valley is approximately 104,983 (State of California Department of Finance, E ‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Countie s, and the State, January 2021‐2023 with 20 20 Census Benchmark).
According to General Plan Table 2.2: Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections, the “buildout” population of the City is estimated to be 148,117 persons. Thus, the Project’s increase of population resulting in 76 persons would be minimal as compared to the buildout population of 148,117 persons.
Typically, population growth would be considered a significant impact, or a significant concern regarding growth inducement, if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services and requires the expansion or new construction of public facilities and utilities. Water and sewer service to the Project site will be provided by the Rubidoux Community Services District from existing facilities in Riverview Drive and Rio Road. No additional water or sewer infrastructure will be needed to serve the Project other than connection to the existing water and sewer lines. Water and sewer infrastructure will not have to be extended in the area to serve the Project. In addition, the analysis in Section
4.19, Utilities and Service Systems , of the Initial Study Checklist (see Appendix A-1) demonstrates that the impacts on public services are less than significant so the public service provider’s ability to provide services will not be reduced. Therefore, the amount of growth represented by the proposed Project is not expected to induce additional or substantial unanticipated growth into the su rrounding area in the foreseeable future.
The proposed Project also would create short -term construction -related jobs. It is expected that the majority of the construction-related employees would be drawn from the existing labor force that would be available in the local area and region.
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. The Project’s construction-related and operational- related residents 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 commercial and retail services available in areas near the Project site, including the Cities of Riverside, Ontario, Fontana, and Norco. Accordingly, the onsite housing and employment generation would not induce substantial growth in the area because it is anticipated that the Project’s future residents and employees would already be living in and around the general area of Jurupa Valley.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 6.0 Other CEQA Considerations Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 85
SCH No. 2022060680
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. CEQA does not require the analysis of speculative effects (CEQA Guidelines §151454). If any other property owner were to propose development or redevelopment of a property in the Project vicinity or in any part of the City, the project would require evaluation under CEQA based on its own merits, including an analysis of direct and cumulatively considerable effects.
Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as 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.
For the reasons outlined above, it is unlikely, speculative, and not reasonably foreseeable that the Project would induce substantial growth in the form of additional housing or non ‐residential economic activity or employment that would result in measurable impacts on the off ‐site physical environment. In addition, the development of the proposed Project would not reasonably or foreseeably cause the redevelopment of other properties or cause development on other properties.
6.4 Impacts Considered Not Significant
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guide lines states that “an EIR shall contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR.”
An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed Project, which is included as Appendix A -1 to this Draft EIR.
Through the Initial Study process, the City of Jurupa Valley determined that the proposed Project could potentially cause adverse environmental effects, and an EIR is required. The Initial Study concluded that the Project would result in either no impacts, less-than-significant impacts, or less than significant impacts with mitigation incorporated involving fifteen (15) categories of potential impacts: Aesthetics, Agricultu re and Forest Resources; Air Quality, Biological Resources; Cultural Resources; Energy; Geology and Soils; Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hydrology and Water Quality; Mineral Resources; Noise, Population and Housing; Public Services; Recreation; Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilities and Service Systems; and Wildfire.
A thorough discussion of the environmental issues that were determined to be less than significant are provided in the Initial Study Checklist provided in Appendix A-1 of this document.
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 7.0 References
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 86
SCH No. 2022060680
7.0 References
7.1 References Cited in the EIR (by order as appears in the document) Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, October 2004. Available at: https://www.rcaluc.org/Plans/New-Compatibility-Plan City of Jurupa Valley-General Plan Land Use Map August 2020 Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77
California Public Utilities Code §§21670- 21679.5
California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, October 2011 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 9.175 Section 9.175.020 Uses Permitted CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e) (3) (A-B).
CEQA Guidelines § 15126.6(e)(1)
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual.
CEQA Guidelines §15126[b]
CEQA Guidelines §15126.2[e]
CEQA Guidelines §15358(a)(2)
State of California Department of Finance, E‐5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, January 2021‐2023
CEQA Guidelines §151454
7.2 Persons Contributing to EIR Preparation
7.2.1 City of Jurupa Valley
Preparers:
Ernest Perea, CEQA Administrator, City of Jurupa Valley Kevin Carr, MS, Senior Environmental Planner, EPC Environmental
Persons Consulted:
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner, City of Jurupa Valley
7.3 Documents Appended to This EIR
A-1: Initial Study Checklist, Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project. With Appendicies A-2: Notice of Preparation (NOP), Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project.
A-3: Comments Received
Saddlehorn Ranch Project 7.0 References
Draft Environmental Impact Report
City of Jurupa Valley page 87
SCH No. 2022060680
B-1: Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study TTM38171 Project, Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC, (No date)
B-2: Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Staff Report, File No. ZAP1100RI20; October 14, 2021 B-3: Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation, Federal Aviation Administration Letters, January 20, 2023.
Saddlehorn Ranch Final Environmental Impact Report SCH No. 2022060680 City of Jurupa Valley Master Application MA 21256 Lead Agency City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Contact: Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner (951) 332-6464 ext. 215 [email protected] Applicant: RC Hobbs Company. 1428 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 (714) 914-2500 November 29, 2023
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final EIR
i
Table of Contents 1.0-INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………1 2.0-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS .............................................................................................................................. 2 3.0-ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, & CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR ............................................................. 3 4.0-NO RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR REQUIRED .............................................................................. 4 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM ............................................................................... 5 Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 1 1.0-INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, California Code of Regulations, §15000 et seq.) and represents the independent judgment of the CEQA Lead Agency (City of Jurupa Valley). According to CEQA Guidelines §15132, the FEIR shall consist of: a. The Draft EIR (DEIR) or a revision of the draft; b. Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary; c. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR; d. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process; and e. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. In accordance with the above-listed requirements, this FEIR for the proposed Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project (hereafter, the “Project”) and associated discretionary and administrative actions consists of the following: 1. Comment letters and responses to comments (none, as discussed below); and 2. The circulated Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Draft EIR and Technical Appendices, SCH No. 2022060680 with additions shown as underline text and deletions shown as stricken text in Table F-2, Errata Table of Additions, Corrections, and Revisions. 3. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP).
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 2 2.0-RESPONSE TO COMMENTS CEQA REQUIREMENTS CEQA Guidelines §15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments, and notes that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be: …on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or suggested by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines §15204(c) further advises that, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section §15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” CEQA Guidelines §15204(d) also notes that “Each responsible agency and trustee agency shall focus its comments on environmental information germane to that agency’s statutory responsibility.” CEQA Guidelines §15204(e) states that “This section shall not be used to restrict the ability of reviewers to comment on the general adequacy of a document or of the lead agency to reject comments not focused as recommended by this section.” Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15088(b), copies of the written responses shall be provided to commenting public agencies at least ten (10) days prior to certifying the FEIR. The responses shall be provided along with an electronic copy of this FEIR, as permitted by CEQA, and shall conform to the legal standards established for response to comments on DEIRs. The lead agency is obligated to respond to timely comments with “good faith, reasoned analysis.” (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c).) These responses “shall describe the disposition of significant environmental issues raised … [and] give[e] reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted. (CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c).) To the extent that specific comments and suggestions are not made, a specific response cannot be provided and, indeed, are not required. (Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 3 Cal.App.3d 852, 862 [where a general comment is made, a general response is sufficient].) NO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DEIR CEQA Guidelines §15088 requires the Lead Agency to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and to provide written responses to any substantive comments received. No comment letters were received during the DEIR public review period which began on September 29, 2023, and closed on November 13, 2023. No comment letters were received at all by the City of Jurupa Valley regarding the DEIR for the proposed Project. Therefore, as no comments were submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley, there are no comments requiring a response and no substantial new information that would require recirculation or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines §15088.5. 3.0-ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, & CHANGES TO THE DRAFT EIR As there were no comments received on the DEIR, no corrections or additions are needed and no revisions to the DEIR have been made.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 4 4.0-NO RECIRCULATION OF THE DRAFT EIR REQUIRED CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 describes the conditions under which a DEIR that was circulated for public review is required to be re-circulated for additional public review and comment. CEQA Guidelines §15088.5 states that new information added to a DEIR is not significant unless the DEIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the project’s proponents have declined to implement. “Significant new information” requiring recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: a. A new significant environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented. b. A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. c. A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from the others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it. d. The DEIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded. As there were no public comments received on the DEIR, no changes to the text or analysis contained in the DEIR were necessary or have been made. There are no new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of environmental effects that were disclosed in the DEIR. Based on the fact that no comments were received on the DEIR, no revisions to the Project’s mitigation measures were necessary. Additionally, all conclusions within the DEIR were supported by evidence provided within the DEIR or the administrative record for the proposed Project. Based on the foregoing, recirculation of the DEIR is not warranted according to the guidance set forth in §15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 5 5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM PROJECT NAME: MA 21256 Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project (Tentative Tract Map No. 38171) DATE: November 29, 2023 PROJECT MANAGER: Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from EDR (Ranch) to LDR (County Neighborhood) to accommodate up to 2 dwelling units per acre. The Project is proposed to be constructed on an approximately 19.36-acre subdivision and consists of 31 single family lots or 1.6 dwelling units per acre. The principal discretionary actions required of the City of Jurupa Valley to implement the Project include approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21008 and Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 (referred to by the City of Jurupa Valley as Master Application [MA] No. 21256). PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site is located on approximately 19.36 acres on the southeast of Limonite Avenue and northwest of Riverview Drive at 6550 Limonite Avenue. The Project site is identified by the following Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 186-160-021 Throughout this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, reference is made to the following: • Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) - These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. • Mitigation Measures (MM) - These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts; mitigation measures are proposed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA. Any applicable Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each issue area. Mitigation Measures were formulated only for those issue areas where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts. All three types of measures described above will be required to be implemented as part of the Project.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 6 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: AESTHETICS PPP 4.1-1 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section 9.175.030, A-1 Zone (Light Agriculture) development standards include, but not limited to, development standards for structures, lot sizes, yard requirements, and structure heights. Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of building permits PPP 4.1-2 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section 7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this section. Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of building permits AIR QUALITY PPP 4.3-1 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.
Public Works and Engineering Department During grading
PPP 4.3-2. The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality District Rule 431.2, “Sulphur Content and Liquid Fuels.” The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
Building & Safety Department During construction
PPP 4.3-3 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings”. Rule 1113 limits the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere during painting and application of other surface coatings.
Building & Safety Department Engineering Department Community Development Department During construction and on-going.
PPP 4.3-4 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers. Community Development Department On-going Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 7 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: Adherence to Rules 1186 and 1186.1 reduces the release of criteria pollutant emissions specifically PM10 and PM2.5 into the atmosphere due to trackout from vehicles leaving the construction site. PPP 4.3-5 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 402 “Nuisance.” Adherence to Rule 402 reduces the release of odorous emissions into the atmosphere.
Building & Safety Department, Engineering Department, Community Development Department During construction and on-going.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to pay mitigation fees pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) as required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.80. Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit MM- BIO-1: Nesting Bird Survey and Protection. To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading. The survey area will include the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following: 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 Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 8 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: 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 or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 9 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: other active nests are found. Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. CULTURAL RESOURCES PPP 4.5-1 The project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. Public Works and Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during construction MM- CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to implement Archaeological Monitoring for the area of impact for the Project. Monitoring shall be conducted in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s), defined as a Tribe that initiated the tribal consultation process for the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b) (“AB52”) and has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City. Monitoring shall address the details of all ground-disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts on cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of the Archaeological Monitoring Agreement shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this measure. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall apply.
Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM CR-1 shall be placed on the grading plan.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 10 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: MM- CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan. The Project Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a treatment plan to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan shall be per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementing archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource and subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Initial Study for MA21256.
Public Works and Engineering Department Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM CR-2 shall be placed on the grading plan.
MM- CR-3: Final Report. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through 3 of the Initial Study for MA21256.
Public Works and Engineering Department Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM CR-3 shall be placed on the grading plan.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS PPP 4.7-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010, the Project is required to comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards. Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits PPP’s 4.10-1 through PPP 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality shall apply. Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit and during operation MM- GEO-1: Archaeological Inadvertent Discovery. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Archaeologist shall be retained to conduct monitoring as necessary during ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Archaeologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish a schedule for archaeological resource Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM GEO-1 shall be placed on the grading plan.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 11 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Archaeologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate. If the archaeological resources are found to be significant, the Archaeological Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
MM- GEO-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe ground disturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium. The Paleontologist will attend the pre-grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for paleontological monitoring and to temporarily halt ground disturbing activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the uppermost layers (below 3 feet below surface) should be monitored. Sediment samples should also be recovered to determine the small-fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Public Works and Engineering Department Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM GEO-2 shall be placed on the grading plan.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS PPP 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with the most recently adopted edition of the applicable California Energy Code, (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits PPP 4.8-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements, prior to the approval of landscaping plans, the Project proponent shall prepare and submit landscape plans that demonstrate compliance with this section. Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 12 MITIGATION MEASURE (MM) PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP) RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION TIME FRAME/MILESTONE VERIFIED BY: HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MM-Haz-1 Airport Hazardous Wildlife Attractant Mitigation: a. The water quality basin (WQB) shall be designed to provide a 48-hour drawdown time during a 24-hour rainfall event. b. Regular maintenance shall be provided to eliminate seeding, shelter, and unsuitable vegetation. c. Establish a planting, maintenance, and management plan for the WQB and the surrounding areas to ensure compliance with the ALUC requirements. The plan should specifically address measures to minimize attractiveness of the proposed basin for hazardous bird species. d. Proposed plantings for the project used to landscape the WQB shall comply with the ALUC’s landscaping brochure recommendations to avoid landscaping or provide appropriate landscaping that will not attract hazardous wildlife. e. Per the ALUC’s Landscaping Near Airports brochure recommendations, trees planted around the proposed WQB should be spaced to prevent overlapping crown structures. In addition, planting trees with verifiable canopy heights, as noted in the ALUC brochure is recommended. f. The WQB shall be designed to include slopes greater than 2:1 or 3:1 in the “hydromod” portions of the facility in order to minimize shelter and nesting opportunities for hazardous wildlife. g. Per the ALUC a notice sign, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes”. The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the WQB basin.
Public Works and Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits During operation.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 13 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY PPP 4.10-1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.
Public Works and Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits PPP 4.10-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.
Public Works and Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during construction PPP 4.10-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section C, new development, or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following and may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopments to do any of the following: (1) Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous soil and low-lying area undisturbed by: (a) Incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open space into the project design; Public Works and Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of grading permits and during operation Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 14 (b) Using porous materials for or near driveways, drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads and walkways; and (c) Incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design. (2) Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement or other approved green infrastructure and French drains by: (a) Installing rain-gutters oriented towards permeable areas; (b) Modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of storm water runoff leaving the property; and (c) Designing curbs, berms, or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas. (3) Maximize storm water storage for reuse by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store storm water runoff for reuse or slow release. (4) Rain gardens may be proposed in-lieu of a water quality basin when applicable and approved by the City Engineer. NOISE NOI-1-Construction Noise Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes shall be included on grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. “a) Haul truck deliveries shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm during the months of June through September and 7:00am to 6:00pm during the months of October through May. b) Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 15 c) All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. d) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located the greatest distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receptors.” PUBLIC SERVICES PPP 4.15-1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.
Fire Department Prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit as determined by the Fire Department PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
Building & Safety Department Per Municipal Code Chapter 3.75 PPP45.15-3 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required development impact fees to the Jurupa Unified School District following protocol for impact fee collection.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits PPP 4.15-4 & 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits RECREATION PPP 4.15-4 & 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008 Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 16 Consulting Tribe(s) for Native American Monitor(s) to be onsite during ground disturbing activities allowed by the grading permit. A Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b). Ground disturbing activities include excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading, and trenching. The Monitoring Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions: a) Provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the Consulting Tribe(s) of all ground disturbing activities. b) In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s) required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1 under Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study for MA21256, the Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources. c) The onsite monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Native American Tribal Monitor(s) have indicated that all upcoming ground disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources. The Project Proponent shall submit a fully executed copy of the Monitoring Agreement to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. If there are multiple Consulting Tribes involved, a separate Monitoring Agreement is required for each. The Monitoring Agreement shall not modify any condition of approval or mitigation measure. complete text of MM TCR-1 shall be placed on the grading plan.
TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery: The Permit Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of the grading permit. If, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed: a) Ground disturbing activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. Ground disturbing activities are allowed on the remainder of the Project Site.
Community Development Department Engineering Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM TCR-2 shall be placed on the grading plan.
Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 17 b) In the event the unanticipated discovery includes human remains and/or cremations no photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval by the Consulting Tribes(s). c) The Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Archaeologist (retained by the Permit Applicant under Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, Retain Professional Archaeologist), of this Initial Study document for MA21256, and the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department shall meet and confer, and discuss the find with respect to the following: 1. Determine if the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined by Public Resources Code §21074, if so: 2. Determine if the resource is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register on a “Local register of historical or resources” pursuant to Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k); or 3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c) as it pertains to the Consulting Tribe(s): (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past, (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. d) If the resource(s) are Native American in origin [and not a historical resource as defined by Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or §5024.1 (c)], the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Consulting Tribe(s) deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If multiple Consulting Tribes(s) are involved, and a mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the form and manner of disposition of the resource(s), the City shall request input from the Native American Heritage Commission and render a final decision. e) If the resource(s) is both a tribal cultural resource and a historic resource, the Project Archaeologist, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department shall meet and confer and discuss the appropriate treatment (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural and historic resource. Treatment, at a minimum, shall be consistent with Public Saddlehorn Ranch Residential Project Final Environmental Impact Report 18 Resources Code § 21084.3 (b). The appropriate treatment shall be prepared in conjunction with the Archaeological Treatment plan required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study for MA21256. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished. TCR-5: Final Reporting: If a Tribal cultural resource is also a historic resource defined above, the resource shall be included in the Final Report required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study for MA21256. Community Development Department Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the complete text of MM TCR-3 shall be placed on the grading plan.
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS PPP 4.19-1 The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of building permits