meeting agenda of the planning commission - City of Jurupa Valley

MEETING AGENDA
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Time: 7:00 p.m.
Jurupa Unified School District
Education Center Board Room
4850 Pedley Road, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
A. As a courtesy to those in attendance, we ask that cell phones be turned off or set to their
silent mode and that you keep talking to a minimum so that all persons can hear the
comments of the public and Planning Commission.
B. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Comments must fill out a
“Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Staff BEFORE the Chairman calls for Public
Comments on an agenda item. Each agenda item up will be open for public comments
before taking action. Public comments on subjects that are not on the agenda can be made
during the “Public Appearance/Comments” portion of the agenda.
C. If you wish to address the Planning Commission on a specific agenda item or during public
comment, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to the Clerk with your name and address
before the item is called so that we can call you to come to the podium for your comments.
While listing your name and address is not required, it helps us to provide follow-up
information to you if needed.
D. As a courtesy to others and to assure that each person wishing to be heard has an
opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
1. Call to Order and Roll Call for Open Session
• Don Porter
• George Ruiz
• John West
• Matthew Burris, Chair Pro Tem
• Kimberly Jarrell Johnson, Chair
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Public Appearance/Comments (30 minutes)
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Approval of Minutes
5.1 April 11, 2012 Regular Meeting

6. Public Hearings
6.1 CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE CERTAIN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
PERMITTED USES IN THE I-P, M-SC, M-M AND M-H ZONES AND
ESTABLISH A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE (M-O) TO
PERMIT THESE SAME INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012-05-
09-12-01 recommending to the City Council adoption of amendment ZCA
12-03, a code amendment that removes certain industrial uses as
permitted uses in the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones and requires the
adoption of an overlay zone (M-O) for the expansion or establishment of
these heavy industrial uses.
6.2 AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE 5-YEAR
LIMITATION FOR AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN WITHIN THE
FOUNDATION OVERLAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE INTRODUCTION,
CHAPTER 1, LAND USE ELEMENT CHAPTER 3 AND CHAPTER 8,
MULTIPURPOSE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT, CHAPTER 5, AND
GENERAL PLAN CONCEPTS.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012-05-
09-02 recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan
Amendment GPA 12-01 to the Jurupa Valley General Plan that eliminates
the 5-year limitation within the Foundational Overlay and Certainty System
and permits any part of the General Plan to be amended in accordance
with Government Code.
7. Public Appearance/Comments, (only if needed)
8. Planning Commissioner’s Reports and Comments
9. Planning Department Report
10. Adjournment to May 23, 2012 at the Jurupa Unified School District Board Room
5/9/12 Planning Commission -2- City of Jurupa Valley

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2,
if you need special assistance to participate in a meeting of the Jurupa Valley Planning
Commission, please call 951-332-6464. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or
time when services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be
made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Agendas of public meetings and any other writings distributed to all, or a majority of, the
Jurupa Valley Planning Commission in connection with a matter subject to discussion or
consideration at an open meeting of the Planning Commission are public records. If such
writing is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a public meeting, the writing will be made
available for public inspection at the City of Jurupa Valley, 8304 Limonite Ave., Suite M,
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of, the
Jurupa Valley Planning Commission. The Planning Commission may also post the writing
on its Internet website at www.jurupavalley.org.
5/9/12 Planning Commission -3- City of Jurupa Valley

DRAFT MINUTES
PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
REGULAR MEETING
April 11, 2012
1. Call to Order and Roll Call
The regular meeting of the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission was called to order at 7:02 p.m.,
on March 14, 2012, in the Jurupa Unified School District Education Center Board Room, 4850
Pedley Road, Jurupa Valley, California 92509.
Kimberly Jarrell Johnson presiding as Chair.
Members present:
• Matthew Burris, Chair Pro Tem
• Kimberly Jarrell Johnson, Chair
• Don Porter, Planning Commission Member
• George Ruiz, Planning Commission Member
• John West, Planning Commission Member
All members present.
2. Pledge of Allegiance: lead by Planning Commissioner Porter
3. Public Appearance/Comments: None
4. Approval of Agenda
Commissioner Burris moved and Commissioner West seconded the motion to approve the
agenda. The agenda was approved unanimously.
Ayes:
Noes:
Burris, Johnson, Porter, Ruiz, West
None
Abstained: None
Absent:
5. Approval of Minutes
None
5.1 Minutes of 3/28/12
Chair Johnson requested that the following corrections be made to the minutes of 3/28/12:
HUD Maximum to read “2 people plus one”; add question posed by Chair Johnson to read as
follows: “Is there any requirements that a specific percentage of units be occupied by
veterans?” and add final response by applicant to read as follows: “There is no requirement
that a specific percentage of units be occupied by veterans.”
Commissioner Burris moved and Commissioner West seconded the motion to approve minutes of
the Regular Meeting of 3/28/12 with corrections. The motion was approved unanimously.
Ayes:
Burris, Johnson, Porter, Ruiz, West

Noes:
None
Abstained: None
Absent:
6. Public Hearing
None
6.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE JURUPA VALLEY ZONING CODE TO CHANGE ALL
REFERENCES TO PLOT PLAN AS IT REFERS TO PERMITS, TO “SITE DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT”
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution 2012-04-11-01 recommending to the City
Council adoption of code amendment ZCA 12-01 to change all references to Plot Plan,
when used as a reference to the Plot Plan as a permit to “Site Development Permit.”
• Principal Project Manager, Maryann Marks gave an oral recap of the staff
recommendation.
• Planning Manager Thomas Merrell and Ms. Marks responded to question by the
Commission to clarify the reasons for and uses of this change.
• There were no public speakers on this agenda item.
Commissioner Burris moved and Commissioner West seconded a motion to approve adoption of
Resolution 2012-04-11.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Ayes:
Noes:
Burris, Johnson, Porter, Ruiz, West
None
Abstained: None
Absent:
None
6.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE JURUPA VALLEY ZONING CODE TO ELIMINATE
PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR RESIDENTIAL DETACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND
PROVIIDE FOR REFERRALS AND APPEALS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution NO. 2012-04-11-12-02 recommending to
the City Council adoption of code amendment ZCA 12-02 to eliminate the requirement for a
hearing for large accessory structures, and maintain the requirement for a plot plan (site
development permit) discretionary approval subject to notifying property owners within 300
feet of the date on which a decision will be made and encourage recipients to provide prior
input. The amendment authorizes the Planning Director to refer a project to the Planning
Commission for a full hearing in cases where staff determines the proposed structure will
have a major significant impact.
• Principal Project Manager, Maryann Marks gave an oral recap of the staff
recommendation.
• Planning Director Thomas Merrell and Ms. Marks responded to question by the
Commission to clarify the reasons for this change.
• Attorney Diaz noted that he had reviewed the draft language and provided Staff with his
recommendations. Those minor changes are included in the document now before the
Commission.
• Public Comments on this item:
o
Rachel Lopez – commented that she thought this was a great idea, community
friendly, and would result in projects being less expensive for residents.
Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2012
2

o
o
William Burton – asked if there were specifics regarding the size of structures
impacted by this change. Chair Johnson provided Mr. Burton with a copy of the
page that contains the size specifics.
Don Davis – Agrees with this process as long as accessory structures do not
become another residence and added that the Commission must stop high
density.
Commissioner Porter moved and Commissioner Ruiz seconded a motion to approve Resolution
2012-04-11-01.
The motion was unanimously approved.
Ayes:
Noes:
Burris, Johnson, Porter, Ruiz, West
None
Abstained: None
Absent:
7. Public Comments
None
• Rebecca Ludwig - The speaker commented on the following:
o
o
Mustang Lane 22 unit affordable housing complex project – asked Commission
about the EDA role in the project and also asked for clarification of the zoning for
this area. Chair Johnson responded that the Staff Report presented at the last
meeting clearly detailed the zoning. The staff report is available on the City of
Jurupa Valley website.
Lords Constructors/CRST project (approved on 3/24/12) – reported having
spoken to the developer following the last meeting
o Assembly Bill 1590 - Riverside Board of Supervisors Agenda dated 3/20/12
(item 3.6) – suggested the Commission review this bill to see if there would be a
negative impact to the City of Jurupa Valley.
8. Planning Commissioner’s Comments and Questions
Commissioner Burris:
• Is working with Mr. Merrell to schedule speakers for best practices training at future
Commission meetings.
• CALEMA Office of Planning and Research has released a draft document that is a
“How To Guide” on dealing with extreme weather related hazards. They are asking
public agencies to review the document and comment.
• On 5/5/12 at 8:00 a.m. the local APA is holding a “Plan to Hike” event at Mount
Rubidoux. Chair Johnson added that author Glenn Wenzel who has written a book
on Mount Rubioux will be presenting a history of Mount Rubidoux at that event.
Commissioner Johnson:
• Article in Press Enterprise this past weekend stated that the County of Riverside
plans to sue adjacent cities that adversely affect the County. She requested that
Deputy City Attorney Diaz and City Attorney Thorson review the article.
• Article in UCR Magazine on studies regarding the correlation between the sale of
alcohol and the crime rate in neighborhoods where it is sold.
• Question directed to Planning Manager Merrell and Attorney Diaz about the legalities
of Commissioners giving copies of such articles of interest to fellow Commissioners.
Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2012
3

Commissioner Porter:
• Reported his attendance last week at the City of Riverside public hearing regarding
the Riverside Reliability Project (City of Riverside & Edison High Tension Project). He
will be tracking this closely and encouraged more participation.
Commissioner Ruiz:
• Also reported his attendance at the City of Riverside hearing on the project EIR.
Although pleased at the attendance he was somewhat discouraged that not more
people were in attendance at a hearing of such importance considering that Jurupa
Valley is a city of 96,000. He encouraged everyone to spread the word and get more
people involved. He also encouraged everyone to stand together against having
more towers go up in Riverside. He has made suggestions to the Mayor Roughton on
how to get funding to fight this project.
Commissioner West:
Responses:
• Thanked Commissioners Porter and Ruiz for attending the hearing.
• Thanked Mr. Merrell and his staff for stream lining the planning process and helping
the Council and Commission in their efforts to create the city we want it to become.
By Thomas Merrell, Planning Director:
• It is appropriate for Commissioners to distribute articles of interest to fellow members
of the Commission as long as the material has no relevance to any item that is on the
Commission’s agenda.
By Chris Diaz, City Attorney:
• Concurred with Mr. Merrell adding that information which is in public distribution
would be acceptable for distribution among the Commissioners. However, anything
that would pre-judge an issue or cause the Commission to potentially be influenced
to pre-judge an issue prior to the public hearing would be out of order.
9. Planning Department Report
9.1 Status of heavy industrial land use study and pending joint City Council & Planning
Commission Workshop
Mr. Merrell presented a summary of the discussion at the 2/16/12 joint City Council and
Planning Commission meeting and explained what was planned for the joint work session on
April 19th. He described the overlay concept that will be presented and encouraged
Commissioners to express their views at the work session.
10. There being no further business before the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission, Chair Johnson
adjourned the meeting at 8:25 p.m.
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission will be held on April 19, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at
the Jurupa Valley Unified Education District Board Room, 4850 Pedley Road, Jurupa Valley, California
for a joint City Council & Planning Commission Workshop..
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Thomas G. Merrell, Planning Manager/Secretary
Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2012
4

STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 9, 2012
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CHAIR JOHNSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THOMAS G. MERRELL, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
MARYANN MARKS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 6.1
CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE CERTAIN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
PERMITTED USES IN THE I-P, M-SC, M-M AND M-H ZONES AND
ESTABLISH A HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE (M-O) TO
PERMIT THESE SAME INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012-05-09-12-01
recommending to the City Council adoption of amendment ZCA 12-03, a code
amendment that removes certain industrial uses as permitted uses in the I-P, M-SC, M-
M and M-H zones and requires the adoption of an overlay zone (M-O) for the expansion
or establishment of these heavy industrial uses.
BACKGROUND
On April 19, 2012, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint session for a
work session to discuss recommendations by the Planning Department that the City
Council be the decision making body on proposals to establish or significantly expand
certain heavy industrial land uses within the City. Staff believes this is especially
important prior to the City undertaking a visioning process and creating its general plan.
At the regular Council meeting following the work session, the City Council initiated a
code amendment to adopt a heavy industrial overlay zone as the only means of
establishing or expanding certain transportation industry and heavy industrial land uses
identified at the work session.
DISCUSSION
Specifically, the City Council initiated the code amendment to eliminate specific heavy
industrial uses as permitted uses from the existing industrial zones, and create an
overlay zone which will include these uses to assure that the City Council would be the
decision making body on proposals to establish or significantly expand these uses.
Such land use entitlement decisions require public hearings by the Planning
Page
|
1

Commission and City Council. Under the proposed overlay zone concept, a landowner
who proposes a use that is allowed only in the overlay zone must apply for a rezoning
(change in zone) to allow that development. If approved, the overlay zone would be
added to, or combined with, the landowner’s base zone.
ANALYSIS
The Planning Department advised the Planning Commission and City Council at the
April 19th joint work session that provisions of the JVZC, as adopted for the County of
Riverside prior to incorporation, do not further the land use and development interests of
the City in regard to industrial development. The code now permits large scale
transportation and other heavy industrial uses through staff review of a site
development permit. Such decisions create land use policy for development of the
limited amount of undeveloped industrial land and does not give the Planning
Commission and the City Council the the opportunity to consider the balance of
appropriate community serving land uses within the City. Issues that cannot be factored
into these policy decisions include job growth, tax base and other elements of the vision
for the future of Jurupa Valley. In particular, two issues were identified:
1. Diversification of industrial land uses on the remaining undeveloped industrial
zoned land in the City.
2. Shift of these land use policy decisions to the City Council by requiring
entitlements to be through a legislative action such as a rezoning.
The attached staff report for the April 19, 2012 joint work session, Exhibit A, gives
additional background information, lists these issues in detail and offers the staff‘s
recommendation on means of managing future industrial land use through an
amendment to the Zoning Code that requires the adoption of an overlay zone for the
expansion or establishment of the identified heavy industrial uses.
LAND DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES
The City of Jurupa Valley is essentially built out and needs to make the best land use
decisions possible on development of the few remaining key large parcels within the
City. At the April 19 th joint work session, staff identified 12 key areas of approximately
1,000 acres with parcels, or contiguous parcels, large enough to support major
industrail development. Under the current Zoning Code, any development that is an
allowed use or conditional use on these or other parcels can be decided by the Planning
Director or in the case of a CUP, the Planning Commission. After discussion and
community input, the Planning Commission and City Council agreed that the ultimate
responsibility for such policy decisions should rest with elected representatives and not
with the Planning Director or even the Planning Commission. The Overlay Zone was
identified as the best vehicle to allow the council to review all development that is
proposed and make the best land use decisions for the City. This will give the City
Council control and absolute discretion regarding the establishment or significant
expansion of these heavy industrial land uses. Since approval of major industrial
projects on the remaining land is, in effect, establishing land use policy, it is appropriate
that the Council determine the uses that benefit the City.
Page
|
2

The Zone change process provides for input by the public and the Planning
Commission, and gives the Council complete discretion under State law. The City
Council is not obligated to approve requests for rezoning or make findings to justify their
decision.
THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE
At the workshop, staff presented the four industrial zones within Jurupa Valley and
presented a matrix depicting those uses that were allowed in each zone. Approximately
10 industrial use categories (out of approximately 150 permitted uses) were identified as
requiring Council approval of land use entitlements. In order to achieve the objective of
ensuring City Council approval of industrial projects that use large acreages, yet return
little benefit to the community, the establishment of an overlay zone is proposed. It
involves two steps. First, the subject uses will be deleted from the existing industrial
zones. Second, those same uses will be listed as permitted, or permitted with a CUP, in
the new overlay zone.
The list of heavy industrial uses to be eliminated from each of the existing industrial
zones is attached as Exhibit B. These uses will then be allowed only by virtue of a zone
change to the Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone, which is Exhibit C. All lawfully preexisting
nonconforming uses of existing land uses are permitted to continue indefinitely
and will be considered legal nonconforming. They may remain legal nonconforming
unless substantial changes are made per the zoning code regulations specified in
Chapter 17.184 of the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance. The list of approximately
140 industrial uses to be unaffected by this proposal are listed in Exhibit D.
The Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone (M-O) will permit the following uses:
Uses engaged in:
Storage (Indoor and Outdoor)
Transportation
Outdoor Sales
Storage of Impounded or Inoperable
Vehicles
Permitted Uses Include:
Warehousing and distribution centers
Mini-warehouses
Cold storage facilities
Natural gas storage, above ground
Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground,
pursuant to County Ordinance No. 546.
Storage of modular buildings
Trailer, recreational vehicle, and boat storage,
including within an enclosed building
Building movers storage yard
Contractor storage yards
Draying, freighting and trucking operations Railroad
yards and stations
Truck and trailer sales and rental
Large Trucks Parking Lots
Mobilehome sales lots
Lumber Yards, unless associated with a retail
lumber sales company
Vehicle storage and impoundment, including within
an enclosed building
Page
|
3

Uses engaged in:
Outdoor Manufacturing (such as boats,
RVs & trailers, railroad equipment, etc.)
Recycling
Conditional Use Permit Required:
Uses with a potential for chemical
pollution or contamination
Permitted Uses Include:
Fabrication of manufactured housing, modular
buildings, recreational vehicles & mobilehomes
Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture
Railroad equipment
Travel trailer manufacture
Fabrication of metal buildings
Paper storage and recycling
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
Recycling processing facilities
Uses Include:
Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants,
Auto wrecking and junk yards
Automobile Salvage and Dismantling
Any mining operation that is subject to the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975 provided a valid surface mining permit has
been granted pursuant to County Ordinance No.
555.
Sewerage treatment plants
Dump sites
Disposal service operations
A hazardous waste facility provided a hazardous
waste facility siting permit has been granted
pursuant to Section 18.44 of this ordinance
In addition, the proposed overlay zone provides for each use and development to be
allowed under a Precise Development Plan (PDP). The PDP allows the use as
approved by the Council, but does not allow for any other use or development. In the
event an owner wishes to change the approved use to another as allowed by the
overlay zone, a new PDP must be approved by the City Council after receiving a
recommendation by the Planning Commission.
Standards for the quality and aesthetics of new developments under the overlay zone
are also proposed. These include landscape treatments to enhance the streetscape,
buffers from residential areas, etc.
The overlay zone code amendment, as proposed:
• Will not prohibit any use outright, but sets a prerequisite of a zone change In
order for the types of uses it regulates to be approved.
• Will not affect any existing business or land use. Any existing industrial land use
that is content with existing entitlements can continue; only those seeking new
land use entitlements would be required to seek a zone change to apply the
overlay zone to their property.
• Will not change the existing rights to establish all other industrial land uses. The
base zone of M-H (Heavy Industrial), or M-M (Medium Industrial), or M-SC
(Industrial Scenic Corridor) will remain on all parcels currently zoned as such.
Page
|
4

• Will not change the entitlement process for all other industrial land uses. Other
industrial land uses, such as manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and
processing, would continue to apply for a Site Development Permit or CUP in
accordance with the existing code requirements.
A more detailed description of how an overlay zone works is presented in Exhibit A.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Negative Declaration has been prepared for the adoption of the proposed Heavy
Industrial Overlay District Zoning Code amendment. The only change to the JVZC by
this proposed amendment is to remove certain heavy industrial uses from the existing
Industrial JVZC I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H and establish a heavy industrial overlay zone
to allow these same industrial land uses upon adoption of the overaly zone for any of
the above zoned properties in the City. The code amendment will not result in any
significant impacts.
.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the Zone Code Amendment and forward the modified amendment to City
Council with a recommendation of approval.
2. Recommend that the City Council not adopt an overlay zone for the expansion or
establishment of certain heavy industrial uses and give direction to staff.
3. Defer action and request additional information on the adoption of an overlay
zone for the expansion or establishment of certain heavy industrial uses.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
___________________________
Maryann Marks, AICP
Principal Project Manager
__________________________
Thomas G. Merrell
Planning Manager, AICP
Reviewed by:
//s// Christopher Diaz
___________________________
Christopher Diaz
City Attorney
Attachments:
1. Draft resolution recommending approval of Zone Code Amendment 12-03
2. Exhibit A, April 19, 2012 City Council & Planning Commission Staff Report
3. Exhibit B, List of heavy industrial uses to be moved to an overlay zone
4. Exhibit C, Draft Overlay Zone Code Amendment
5. Exhibit D, List of uses to remain in the base industrial zones
6. Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration
www.jurupavalley.org
Page
|
5

RESOLUTION NO. 2012-____
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY RECOMMENDING
THAT THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT ZONE CODE
AMENDMENT 12-03 TO ADD A NEW SECTION 9.10.030,
REMOVAL OF CERTAIN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES AS
PERMITTED USES, AND ADD A NEW CHAPTER 9.20, M-
O HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE, TO TITLE 9,
PLANNING AND ZONING, OF THE JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE
THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. City of Jurupa Valley Land Use Regulatory Authority. The Planning
Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The City of Jurupa Valley incorporated on July 1, 2011.
(b) On July 1, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2011-01. This
Ordinance provides that pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 57376, all
ordinances of the County of Riverside which have been applicable within the territory now
incorporated as the City of Jurupa Valley, to the extent that they applied before incorporation,
shall remain in full force and effect as ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley, including the
Riverside County General Plan. Additionally, Ordinance No. 2011-01 provides that the
resolutions, rules and regulations of the County of Riverside which have been applicable in the
implementation of the aforesaid ordinances and State laws (including, but not limited to, the
California Environmental Quality Act and regulations pertaining to traffic) to the extent that they
applied before incorporation shall remain in full force and effect as resolutions, rules and
regulations, respectively, of the City of Jurupa Valley. On September 15, 2011, the City Council
adopted Ordinance No. 2011-10, effective October 15, 2011, continuing in effect all ordinances
of the County of Riverside which have been applicable within the territory now incorporated as
the City of Jurupa Valley, to the extent that they applied before incorporation. These ordinances
and resolutions as well as the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code shall be known as “Jurupa Valley
Ordinances.”
(c) On September 15, 2011, the City Council also adopted Ordinance No.
2011-09, effective October 15, 2011, adopting Chapter 2.35 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal
Code establishing the Planning Commission for the City of Jurupa Valley. Chapter 2.35
provides that the Planning Commission shall perform the planning agency functions described in
Government Code Section 65100 et seq., and shall fulfill the functions delegated to the Planning
Commission for the County of Riverside under the relevant ordinances and resolutions, which
the City has adopted as required upon incorporation. Chapter 2.35 further provides that the
Planning Commission shall perform the functions of any and all planning, zoning or code
1

enforcement appeals board created by the relevant County of Riverside ordinances and
resolutions, which the City has adopted by reference as required by law.
Section 2. Proposed Amendment. The proposed zone code amendment will:
(a) add a new Section 9.10.030, Removal of Certain Heavy Industrial Uses as
Permitted Uses, to Chapter 9.10, Amendments to the County Zoning Ordinance, of Title 9,
Planning and Zoning, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to amend and supersede certain
provisions of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 by removing certain heavy industrial
uses as permitted uses; and
(b) add a new Chapter 9.20, M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone, to Title 9,
Planning and Zoning, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to amend and supersede certain
provisions of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 by requiring applicants seeking to
engage in certain heavy industrial uses to apply for an overlay zone change in order to establish
such uses.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. The Planning
Commission hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this
proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment as documented in the
Negative Declaration and is considered under CEQA Guideline 15074(a) which specifies that
any advisory body of a public agency making a recommendation to the decision-making body
need only consider the proposed negative declaration before making its recommendation.
Section 4. Recommendation. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission
hereby recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance to add a new Section 9.10.030,
Removal of Certain Heavy Industrial Uses as Permitted Uses, to Chapter 9.10, Amendments to
the County Zoning Ordinance, and add a new Chapter 9.20, M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay
Zone, to Title 9, Planning and Zoning, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to amend and
supersede certain provisions of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348, in substantial
compliance with Attachment “A” attached hereto.
Section 5.
Resolution.
Certification. The Planning Manager shall certify to the adoption of this
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Jurupa Valley on this ____ day of _____, 2012.
______________________________
Kimberly Jarrell Johnson
Chair of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission

ATTEST:
_______________________________
Thomas G. Merrell
Planning Manager and Secretary to the Planning Commission
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Thomas Merrell, Planning Manager of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 2012-___ was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the Planning
Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley on the _____ day of _______, 2012 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
NOES:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSION MEMBERS:
___________________________
THOMAS G. MERRELL
PLANNING MANAGER

City of Jurupa VaDey
STAFF REPORT
DATE: APRIL 19, 2012
TO:
FROM:
BY:
HONORABLE MAYOR ANO CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
MADAM CHAIR ANO MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
STEPHEN G. HARDING, CITY MANAGER
THOMAS G. MERRELL, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 3
WORK SESSION REGARDING OVERLAY ZONES FOR THE
REGULATION OF CERTAIN HEAVY INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council and Planning Commission hear public comments, discuss the
issues and reach a general consensus on the necessity of initiating, at the regular
Council meeting, acode amendment to establish a Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
for study and hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council.
BACKGROUND
On February 16, 2012, the City Council and Planning Commission met in joint session
for a work session to discuss recommendations by the Planning Department for various
amendments to the Zoning Code and General Plan. One of those recommendations
concerned the need to assure that the City Council would be the decision making body
on proposals to establish or significantly expand certain heavy industrial land uses.
Those uses were predominantly industries associated with the transportation industry.
8taff expressed the concern that many such uses can receive entitlements through a
Director's Hearing or through a Planning Commission hearing in which the entitlement is
adjudicatory and requires the City to make findings for approval or denial. The Planning
Department advised the joint session that these decisions in a new city constitute a form
of policy making, and that absolute control of such policy decisions should be by the
Council alone as a legislative action, which does not require the Council to justify its
decision.
The mechanism recommended was an urgency ordinance that would take effect
immediately and require a development agreement (which is a legislative action) in
page I 1
ww\V.jUl'llpavalley.org

order to establish or expand the specific uses under consideration. Subsequently, at
the regular meeting on the same date, the Council requested that the urgency
ordinance be drafted and presented to the Council for consideration.
On March 1, 2012, the Planning Department presented a proposed urgency ordinance
for adoption that would have taken effect immediately and require a development
agreement for the listed heavy industrial uses. After considerable public input and
Council discussion, the Council did not adopt the urgency ordinance and directed the
staff to bring the matter forward in a second workshop in order to continue discussion of
the issue and the prospect of using an overlay zone rather than a development
agreement. Implicit in the Council's direction, the overlay zone would be considered as
a regular zoning code amendment with Planning Commission and City Council hearing,
first and second reading, adoption and 30 day referendum period, rather than a
temporary urgency ordinance that would take effect immediately.
ANALYSIS
PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE ZONING CODE
The City Zoning Code is presently the same as the Riverside County Zoning Code as it
stood on July 1, 2011.
Upon being adopted by the City Council on that date, this
regulatory planning document beca me the City's regulation the same as though it had
been originally adopted by the Council.
Inasmuch as the Zoning Code is a regulatory document adopted by legislative action,
City staff and property owners must seek City Council authorization to initiate any
changes or amendments. The process for amending it entails setting land use criteria
that affects a large number of properties, environmental determinations, staff research
and reporting and public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. In
nearly all cases, the cost of this process will be charged to the general fund o Further, it
may suit the City Council to maintain the regulations and policies as they are.
Therefore, it is appropriate for the City Council to determine the priorities and initiate
any such processes they deem necessary.
This agenda item presents a change to the Zoning Code for discussion by the Planning
Commission and the City Council. While it is a workshop that affords a "round table"
type of format, it offers both bodies the opportunity to reach a general consensus on
whether the issue should be pursued at this time and whether the means of addressing
it is appropriate. Subsequently, at the Council regular meeting following the workshop,
the Planning Department has included an agenda item recommending that the overlay
zone amendment to the Zoning Code be initiated. Council action will occur on this item
with the benefit of input from the Planning Commission as well as the public during the
workshop.
page I 2
www.jllrllpavalley.org

ISSUES REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES
The issues regarding heavy related industry are essentially two-fold:
1. How should the remaining vacant or underdeveloped land be used
2. How should land use policy regarding heavy industrial uses be established
Land Use Issue. The City of Jurupa Valley is essentially urbanized. Although there
remain a number of sizeable acreages that could support significant development, these
areas represent a very small fraction of the total land area in the City. In the industrial
areas along the SR 60 corridor, a single industry predominates; generally the
transportation industry. The first question, or issue, is whether or not to accommodate a
perpetuation of that single industry on the community's remaining land resources.
Policy Decision Issue. Until the entire community is engaged in a visioning process
and develops a General Plan that addresses the needs of the City, this policy question
will be addressed by a series of individual land use development decisions. Under the
current Zoning Code, any development that is an allowed use or conditional use can be
decided by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission. The Planning
Department believes the ultimate responsibility for such policy decisions should rest
with our elected representatives and not with the Planning Director or even the Planning
Commission.
Focus is land use, not environmental. In the February work session, staff observed
that continuing the predominance of the transportation industry, together with certain
others, can result in developments on the remaining key parcels of land that generate
an extraordinary amount of truck traffic, pollution and other impacts, but pro vide little
tangible benefit to the community.
This observation was intended to focus on the
relative benefits of new industrial development, not on environmental impacts. To be
clear, the heavy industrial land use issue is not aimed at mitigating impacts, since that is
well addressed through CEQA and City development standards. It is focused solely on
creating a mechanism by which the City Council will have control and absolute
discretion regarding the establishment or significant expansion of certain heavy
industrialland uses.
The staff report provides more detail regarding these issues and recommends the
initiation of acode amendment to add a heavy industrial overlay zone to the Zoning
Codeo
ANALYSIS
Land Use Development Issues. Over the past decade, a major regional warehousing
and transportation industry has been established in the vicinity of the Ontario airport and
the 1-15/1-10 freeway interchange. This massive complex occupies large acreages of
land in the cities of Ontario and Fontana in addition to the Mira Loma and Agua Mansa
areas of what has now become the City of Jurupa Valley. Under County jurisdiction,
page I 3
www.jurupavalley.org

this and other heavy industrial uses have been extended along the SR 60 freeway
corridor in the City.
The patlern and scale of this narrow slice of industrial land uses has resulted in a local
economy that is dominated by the transportation industry. Such uses include trucking
and freighting companies, haulers, warehouses and regional distribution centers, truck
parking lots, truck sales, service and repair businesses and even auto oriented industry
such as salvage yards, used car lots, auto parts stores and auto repair shops. Even
though the area along the SR 60 corridor has zoning that allows a broad range of
industrial uses, most of the land has now been occupied by transportation and related
uses that consume a lot of land, but yield a low ratio of employment and tax base,
leaving litlle benefit to the Jurupa Valley community.
At the present time, there is approximately 1,000 acres of undeveloped land that is
zoned for industrial use. Much of it is fragmented small parcels. There remain about a
dozen large acreages ranging from 10 acres to about 100 acres that could support
significant development. Thus, about a dozen land use policy decisions can set the
future of the community's industrial base and economy.
The following chart describes the economic and land use characteristics of the existing
transportation and heavy industrial uses:
Heavy Industrial Land Uses
Economic and Land Use Characteristics
Warehouses, including regional Very low employment per square foot of development
distribution warehouses
area, very high generation of truek traffie, spillover of
large trueks in residential neighborhoods, trueks
eontribute to air quality eoneerns, tax base usually from
large tilt-up building s with minimal value of improvements
Trueking and Freighting Companies
Employment base with no value to the eommunity, as
few employees live or work in the vieinity (on the road),
high generation of truek traffie, spillover of large trueks
in residential neighborhoods, Irueks eontribute to air
quality eoneerns, tax base only from a few shop and
maintenanees buildings with minimal value of improvements
Outdoor Storage of Modular Almost no jobs, oeeupies land that has been approved
Buildings
or ean be approved for business parks or manufaeturing,
no tax base, negative appearanee of industrial
bliqht
Outdoor Storage of Heavy Almost no jobs, oeeupies land that has been approved
Equipment & Trueks; Contraetor or ean be approved for business parks or manufaetur-
Storage Yard
ing, no tax base, sometimes a negative appearanee of
industrial blight
Outdoor Manufaeturing (sueh as Almost no jobs, oeeupies land that has been approved
boats, RVs & trailers, railroad or ean be approved for business parks or
equipment, ete.)
manufaeturing, no tax base, oflen a negative appearanee
of industrial blight
Page I 4
www.jurupavalley.org

Heavy Industrial Land Uses
Automobile Salvage, Wrecking and
Dismantling, Storage of Impounded
or Inoperable VehicJes
Batch Plants
Mining and Quarrying
Refuse Transfer & Recycling
Economic and Land Use Characteristics
Very low employment per square foot of land area,
occupies land that can be approved for business parks
or manufacturing, potential for soil contamination, no
tax base, often a negative appearance of industrial
bliQht
Very low employment per square foot of development
area, very high generation of truck traffic, spillover of
large trucks in residential neighborhoods, trucks
contribute to air quality concerns, tax base only from
minimal value improvements, should not be located
near residential
Very low employment per square foot of developrnent
area, very high generation of truck traffic, spillover of
large trucks in residential neighborhoods, trucks
contribute lo air quality concerns, tax base only from
minimal value improvements, should not be located
near residential
Very low employment per square foot of land area,
occupies land that can be approved for business parks
or manufacturing, potential for soil contamination, no
tax base, often a negative appearance of industrial
bliQht
In contras!, thereare many other types of industrial uses that are allowed under the
industrial zoning and which offer an opportunity for diversity in the City's economy, yield
benefits to the community in local jobs and tax base and address underserved needs
within the City. The City Council should have the opportunity to consider whether the
remaining vacant or underdeveloped industrial land would betler serve the community if
developed with uses such as the following examples:
1. Manufacturing
2. Assembly
3. Fabrication
4. Processing
5. Science And Technology
6. Research And Development
7. Business hotels and conference facilities
Adding the aboye mix of uses to the existing transportation industry uses will serve to
diversify the City's economy, provide a betler tax base and broaden employment
opportunities. The opportunity for this diversification will initially require a mechanism
for case by case evaluation at the City Council level.
Land Use Decisions under the City Zoning Codeo There are two basic issues with
the way the Zoning Code addresses industrialland uses.
page I 5
ww w.jurupavalley.org

1. The code allows the Planning Director and Planning Commission to approve
major heavy industrial projects as adjudicatory decisions, which do not provide
the City the ability to regulate the land use for a particular application. Further,
these development entitlements require findings of fact and cannot regulate use.
2. The industrial zones differ very lillle in their lists of permilled uses, allowing such
uses to spring up almost anywhere in the community. The M-SC (Manufacturing
- Scenic Corridor) zone has been placed on land on Clay Street, Etiwanda, Van
Buren and other areas that are not appropriate for industrial development. Yet
this zone allows most of the same uses as the M-H Heavy Industrial Zone.
Decision making authority.
The City Zoning Code subjects all new land use
developments to a discretionary approval of one type or another.
The chart below
explains the typical discretionary approvals and identifies which body in the City can
approve the development.
Type of Discretionary Review Purpose & Limitation Approving Body
Plot Plan (to be changed to Review the project design Planning Director. Appeals go
Site Development Permit) only, no discretion over the to the Planning Commission
use, require findings of fact
and then to City Council
Conditional Use Permit Set reasonable conditions to Planning Commission.
ensure compatibility with
Appeals go lo Ihe City Council
nearby uses, require findings
of fact
Public Use Permit Set reasonable conditions to Planning Commission.
ensure compatibilily with
Appeals go to the City Council
nearby uses, require findings
of fact
Rezone Change the zone City Council with
classification in arder lo allow
recommendation from the
the use
Planning Commission; public
hearings are required by both
bodies
General Plan Amendmenl Change the General Plan land City Council with
use designation in arder to
recommendation from the
allow the use
Planning Commission; public
hearings are required by both
bodies
Development Agreements A negotialed agreement or City Council with
contract between the City and
recommendation from the
a land developer that ensures
Planning Commission; public
that Ihe City receives a
hearings are required by both
significant community benefit
bodies
in exchange for a vested right
in the entitlement.
page I 6
www.jurupavalley.org

From this chart it is easy to see that the City Council will be the decision making body,
apart from appeals, only in cases where an applicanf needs fo change fhe regulations
for developmenf in fhe form of a rezone or General Plan Amendmenf. Further, even if
the Council reviews a Site Development Permit or Conditional Use Permit on appeal,
there are constraints on its discretion, whereas with rezones and GPAs there are no
constraints.
A large number of key parcels in the City have zoning that would allow any of the high
impact land uses to be approved only under a Site Development Permit (currently
referred to in the code as a "Plot Plan"). The process entails the usual assessment of
circulation, parking, setbacks, CEQA requirements and project designo When all of the
staff work and environmental documentation is completed, the Site Development Permit
is scheduled for a hearing by the Planning Director. The Director's decision can be
appealed to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission's decision can be
appealed to the City Council. Any decision other than Council will beco me final if not
appealed within 10 days.
Zoning Code promotes incompatibility. A second problem with the existing code is the
extraordinary duplication of industrial uses in all the industrial zones (see Atlachment 1).
The intent of having multiple industrial zones is to restrict the types of uses differently in
each zone. Light industrial, or commercial-industrial, are zones that can be compatible
with commercial and some residential areas.
Medium and heavy industrial zones
should only allow high impact uses and the zoning map of the City should cluster such
zones away from residential, institutional or shopping districts.
In the Jurupa Valley
Zoning Code, the list of allowed uses is almost the same in every zone. This is partly
the reason for the somewhat indiscriminate pattern of heavy industrial uses near
residential and institutional areas.
Conclusion. Because the City is new and the Council has not yet established clear
policy direction in the matter of industrial development, it is the staff's position that
projects which will perpetuate the pattern of transportation industry and heavy industrial
developments should all come before the Council.
Moreover, such reviews by the
Council should provide for complete, unfetlered discretion of the land use.
This will
allow the Council to assess issues of compatibility and appropriateness of the proposed
uses.
In order to achieve these objectives, establishing an overlay zone as the means for
granting entitlements to these uses is an excellent tool.
OVERLAY ZONES
Overlay zones are used in many cities and counties throughout the State. These zones
are sometimes called "combining zones."
It is a zone that allows a limited list of
permitted land uses with corresponding special development and use standards. The
overlay zone can be added to, or combined, with the base zoning on a parcel, which
Page I 7
www.jurupavalley.org

has the effect of adding the overlay uses to the permitled uses already permitted in the
base zone.
A typical example of how overlay zones are used is in the regulation of oil drilling,
mining and quarrying. These land uses are typically conducted in rural or wilderness
areas that are zoned for agriculture or open space. The base zoning in these areas do
not allow the resource extraction uses, since that type of operation would be
inappropriate to permit indiscriminately throughout a farming or wilderness area.
A
Resource Extraction Overlay zone would allow only the oil drilling, mining and quarrying
uses. If a property owner with agricultural zoning wished to conduct oil drilling on a
portio n of the land, he would apply for a rezone to add, or combine, the Resource
Extraction Overlay Zone to his A-1 Agricultural zoning.
If adopted, the land would
continue to have all the privileges of use allowed in the A 1 plus those allowed in the
overlay zone.
THE OVERLAY ZONE IS ADDED TO THE BASE ZONE
/
OVERLAY ZONE
(HEAVY INDUSTRIAL)
t
BASEZONE
(MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL)
~
THE BASE ZONE GAINS ADDITIONAL ALLOWED USES
In creating an overlay zone to address management of industrial land use policy, a
Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone would be drafted.
That zone would only allow the
following uses:
• Warehouses, including regional distribution warehouses
• Trucking and Freighting Companies
• Outdoor Storage of Modular Buildings
• Outdoor Storage of Heavy Equipment & Trucks; Con tractor Storage Yards
• Outdoor Manufacturing
• Automobile Salvage, Wrecking and Dismantling
Page I 8
www.jlll'lIpavalley.org

• Storage of Impounded or Inoperable Vehicles
• Batch Plants
• Mining and Quarrying
• Refuse Transfer & Recycling
In addition, the code amendment would delete these same uses from all the existing
industrial zones. Thus, every parcel currently zoned for industrial use would no longer
be permitled to establish or expand these uses unless the new overlay zone is adopted
by the Council on a case by case basis.
The overlay zone code amendment, as proposed:
• Will not prohibit any use outright, but sets a prerequisite of a zone change In
order for the types of uses it regulates to be approved.
• Will not affect any existing business or land use. Any existing industrial land use
that is content with existing entitlements can continue; only those seeking new
land use entitlements would be required to seek a zone change to apply the
overlay zone to their property.
• Will not change the existing rights to establish all other industrial land uses. The
base zone of M-H (Heavy Industrial), or M-M (Medium Industrial), or M-SC
(Industrial Scenic Corridor) will remain on all parcels currently zoned as such.
• Will not change the entitlement process for all other industrial land uses. Other
industrial land
uses, such as manufacturing, assembly, fabrication and
processing, would continue to apply for a Site Development Permit or CUP in
accordance with the existing code requirements.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff time and any related costs for legal review.
AL TERNATIVES
1. Modify proposed discussion topics
2. Modify the recommended actions
Prepared by:
Submitled by:
~X;~
Thomas G. Merrell, AICP
Planning Manager
' ...... -
-- ,,;'~:::.= = www.jurupavalley.org __
page I 9

Reviewed by:
Susan Mahaney ~
Adminislralive Services Dir cIar
Reviewed by:
Gea e
enl
Assislanl Cily Manager
Atlachmenl:
1. Wark Sessian Repart ( (not
page I 10
www.j lu·upavalley.org

X
(1
l
al
b)
el
ATTACHMENT 1
INDUSTRIAL USES BY ZONE
ARTICLE X
INDUSTRIAL USES
I-P
SECTION 10.1 . USES PERMITTED.
a. The lollowing uses are permilted provided a Plol Plan has
been approved pursuanl lo Ihe provisions 01 Section 18.30 01
th is ordinance.
a. Agricultural uses 01 the soils lor crops, including the grazing
01 not more than two mature larm animals per acre and their
immature offspring.
The lollowing industrial and manufacturing uses:
Food, Lumber, Wood, and Paper products:
1. Grain and bakery producls. X
2. Sugar and conlectionary products. X
3. Nonalcoholic beverages. X
Beverages, including alcoholic beverages.
Beverages.
4. Ice. X
5. Manulacture 01 lurniture and lixtures including cabinets, X
partitions, and similar items.
6. Printing and publishing or newspapers, periodicals, books, X
lorms, cards, and similar items.
7. Binding 01 books and other publications. X
Paper and paperboard milis
Manulacture 01 containers and boxes
Paper shredding
Meal and poultry products, nol including meat packing or
slaughtering
Dairy products, not including dairies.
Canninq and preservinq Iruits and veqetables
Wineries, distilleries, and breweries.
Textile and Leather Products:
1. Wearing apparel and accessory products. X
2. Manulacture 01 handbags, luggage, lootwear, and other X
personalleather goods.
Tanning and linishing 01 leather
Colton, wood, and synthetic weaving and linishing milis
Knitting milis
Floor coverinq milis
Yarn and thread milis
Lumber and Wood Products:
Saw and planing milis
Manulacture 01 containers and erales
Fabrication 01 wood buildings and structures
Lumber yards
Fabrication 01 manulactured housinq and mobile home
Chemical and Glass Products: Stone, Clay, Glass, and
ZONE
M-SC M-M M-H
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X X X
X
X
Uses to be moved to overlay zone highlighted in yellow

ARTICLE X
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
Concrete Products
1. Pharmaceutical research and manufacture. X
Manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals X X X
2. Glassblowing, pressing, cutting, and other glassware X X X X
products.
Stone cutting and related activities. X X X
Pottery and similar items X X X
Glassware products X X X
Manufacture of concrete, gypsum, plaster and mineral X X X
products
Manufacture of organic and inorganic compounds, not X X X
including those of a hazardous nature.
Soaps, cleaners, and toiletries X X X
Manufacture of agricultural chemicals, not including pesticides X X X
and fertilizers
Paints and varnishes
X
x) Ru bber and Plastic and Synthetic Products
Manufacture of tires and tubes. X X
Fabrication of rubber, plastics, and synthetic products X X
d) Metal, Machinery, and Electrical Products:
1. Jewelry manufacture and repair. X
Jewelry X X X
Manufacture of cans and containers X X X
Cutlery, tableware, hand tools, and hardware. X X X
Plumbing and heating items X X X
Wrought iron fabrication X X X
Manufacture and assembly of fencinq X X X
Machine, welding, and blacksmith shops X X X
Metal stamps and forged metal products X X X
Fabrication of metal buildings X X X
Manufacture of ordnance and firearms, not including X X X
explosives
j) Primary Metal Industries:
Foundries.
X
Rollinq and drawinq meta ls
X
Casting metal s
X
Blast furnaces
X
Smelting of metals
X
2. Manufacture, assembly, testing and repair of components,
devices, equipment and systems of an electrical, electronic, or
electro -mechanical nature, such as, but not limited to:
a. Television and radio equipment and systems. X
Radio, television, and communications equipmenl. X X X
b. Phonographs and audio units. X
c. Metering instruments, equipment and systems. X
d. Radar, infrared and ultraviolet equipment and systems. X
e. Coils, tubes, semiconductors and similar components. X
Pag e 12 ATTACHMENT 1

ARTlCLE X
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
f. Scientific and mechanical instruments. X
Q. Data processinQ eQuipment and systems. X
h. Communication, navigation control, transmission and X
reception equipment, control transmission and reception
equipment, control equipment and systems, guidance
eQuipment and systems.
i. Musical and recordinQ eQuipment. X X X X
Electrical and electronic apparatus and components X X X
Refrigeration and heating equipment. X X X
3. Office and computing machine manufacture, repair, and X
sales.
Office and computing machines X X X
4. Control devices and gauges. X
5. EQuipment sales, rental and storage. X X X X
6. Appliance manufacture, and repair. X
Appliances X X X
7. Manufacture of lighting fixtures, and supplies. X
Lighting and wiring X X X
Machinery:
Engines, turbines, and parts X X X
Farm , Qard en construction, and industria l machinery. X X
el
Transportation and Related Industries:
1. Vehicle storage and impoundment within an enclosed X
buildinQ.
Vehicle storage and impoundment X X X
2. Trailer, recreational vehicle, and boat storage within an X
enclosed building.
Trailer and boat storage X X X
Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture X X X
Railroad eQuipment X X X
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts manufacture X X X
Travel trailers and recreational vehicles manufacture X X X
Draying, freighting, and trucking operations CUP X X
Railroad yards and stations X X X
f) Engineering and Scientific Instruments:
1. Manufacture and repair of engineering, scientific, and X
medical instrumentation including but not limited to:
a. Measuring devices, watches, clocks, and related items. X X X X
b. Optical goods. X X X X
c. Medical and dental instruments. X X
Optical goods, medical instruments, supplies, and equipment X X X
and photoQraphy eQuipment.
d. EnQineering, survey, and draftinQ instruments. X
e. Photographic equipment. X X
g) Industrial Uses:
1. Public utility substations and storage buildings. X X X X
2. Warehousing and distribution, including mini-warehouses. X X X X
Page 13 ATTACHMENT 1

ARTlCLE X
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
3. Communications and microwave installations. X X X X
4. Cold storage facilities. X X X X
5. Telephone exchanges and switching equipment. X
6. Post offices. X
7. Fire and police stations. X
8. Water and gas company service facilities. X
9. Parcel deliverv services. X
10. Recvcling collection facilities. X X X X
Cotton ginning. X X X
Heliports. X X X
Building movers storage yard X X X
Contractor storage yards. X X X
Laboratories and research centers X X
Sand blasting
X
Natural gas, aboye ground storage X X
Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
X
Airports
X
Animal training.
X
Breweries, distilleries, and wineries
X
(2 The following service and commercial uses:
)
a Banks and financial institutions. X X X X
b Blueprint and duplicating services. X X X X
c Laboratories, film, medical, research, or testing centers. X X X X
d) Office equipment sales and service. X X X X
e) Offices, professional sales and service, including business, X X X X
law, medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural and
engineering.
f) Parking lots and parking structures. X X X X
g) Restaurants and other eating establishments. X X X X
h) Barber and beautv shops. X X X X
i) Day care centers. X X X X
j) Health and exercise centers. X X X X
k) Mobile homes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed X
pursuant to state law, when used for construction offices and
caretaker's quarters on construction sites for the duration of a
valid building permit.
Mobile homes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed X X X
pursuant to State law, when used for: sales offices on mobile
home sales lots; construction offices and caretakers quarters
on construction sites for the duration of a valid building permit;
agricultural worker employment offices for a maximum of 90
days in any calendar year; caretaker's quarters and office, in
lieu of any other one-family dwelling located on the same
parcel as a permitted industrial use.
1) One-family dwellings on the same parcel as the industrial or X X X X
commercial use provided such dwellings are occupied
Page 14 ATTACHMENT 1

ARTICLEX
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
exclusively by the proprietor or caretaker of the use and their
immediate families.
m) Signs, on-site advertising. X X X X
n) Automobile service stations, not including the concurrent X
sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
Gasoline and diesel service stations, not including the X X X
concurrent sale of beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
o) Motels. X
p) Churches, temples, or other structures used primarily for X X X X
reliQious worship.
Vehicle and motorcycle repair shops X X X
Body and fender shops, and spray painting X X X
Building materials sales yard X X X
Hardware and home improvement center X X X
Nurseries and garden supply stores X X X
Car and truck washes X X
Feed and grain sales X X X
Truck and trailer sales and rental X X X
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
X
Mobile home sales lots X X X
X- The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use
b
permit has been granted pursuant to Section 18.28 of this
ordinance:
Meat packing plants, not including slaughtering or rendering of
X
animals
Cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums. X X
Paper storaQe and recycl inQ, not within a building X X
Brewerv, distillerv, or winery.
X
Acid and abrasives manufacturing X X X
Fertilizer production, organic or inorganic X X X
Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, aboye ground, pursuant to X X X
County Ordinance No. 546.
Paints and varnishes manufacturing and incidental storage. X X
Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants X X X
RecyclinQ processinQ facilities X X X
Airports. X X
Poultry and egg processing
X
Recycling of wood, metal, and construction wastes X X
Natural gas storage, aboye ground
X
Orive-in theaters X X X
Oisposal service operations, not including transfer stations
X
Oisposal service operations X X
OrayinQ, freiQhtinQ and truckinQ operations
X
Auto wrecking and junk yards X X
Abattoirs. X X
Petroleum refineries
X
Cotton ginning X X
Page 15 ATTACHMENT 1

ARTICLEX
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
Dump sites X X
Explosives manufacturing and testing
X
Gas, steam, and oil drilling operations X X
Sewerage treatment plants X X
Swap meets X X
Processinq and renderinq of fats and oils
X
Sand blasting
X
Smelting metal and foundries.
X
X Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface X X X
Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 provided a valid surface
mining permit has been granted pursuant to County Ordinance
No. 555
X Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are X X X
approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this
ordinance
Sex-oriented businesses, subject to the provisions of County X X X
Ordinance No. 743. The uses listed in Subsections a., b. and c.
do not include sex-oriented businesses.
X Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections b. and c. X X X
may be considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use
provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed use
is substantially the same in character and intensity as those
listed in the designated subsections. Such a use is subject to
the permit process which governs the category in which it falls.
X A hazardous waste facility provided a hazardous waste facility X
siting permit has been granted pursuant to Section 18.44 of
this ordinance
Page 16 ATTACHMENT 1

EXHIBIT B
USES TO BE PERMITTED ONLY IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
OVERLAY ZONE
Uses described in the worksession
Warehouses, including regional
distribution warehouses
Trucking and Freighting Companies
Railroad yards and stations
Outdoor Storage of Modular
Buildings
Outdoor Storage of Heavy
Equipment & Trucks;
Outdoor Manufacturing (such as
boats, RVs & trailers, railroad
equipment, etc.)
Storage of Impounded or
Inoperable Vehicles
Recycling
Uses as defined in the industrial zones
Warehousing and distribution, including miniwarehouses
Cold storage facilities
Natural gas storage, above ground
Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above
ground, pursuant to County Ordinance No.
546.
Draying, freighting and trucking operations
Not permitted in any zone; to be permitted
under the overlay zone
Trailer, recreational vehicle, and boat storage,
including within an enclosed building
Building movers storage yard
Contractor storage yards
Truck and trailer sales and rental
Mobilehome sales lots
Fabrication of manufactured housing and
mobilehomes
Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture
Railroad equipment
Travel trailers and recreational vehicles
manufacture
Fabrication of metal buildings
Vehicle storage and impoundment, including
within an enclosed building
Paper storage and recycling
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling of wood, metal and construction
wastes
Recycling processing facilities

Uses described in the worksession
Batch Plants
Automobile Salvage, Wrecking and
Dismantling,
Mining and Quarrying
.
Refuse Transfer & Recycling
Uses as defined in the industrial zones
Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants,
subject to approval of a CUP
Auto wrecking and junk yards subject to
approval of a CUP
Any mining operation that is subject to the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
of 1975 provided a valid surface mining permit
has been granted pursuant to County
Ordinance No. 555 subject to approval of a
CUP
Sewerage treatment plants subject to approval
of a CUP
Dump sites subject to approval of a CUP
Disposal service operations subject to approval
of a CUP
A hazardous waste facility provided a
hazardous waste facility siting permit has been
granted pursuant to Section 18.44 of this
ordinance subject to approval of a CUP
Industrial Overlay Zone Uses -2- Exhibit B

EXHIBIT C
ORDINANCE NO. _____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
ADDING A NEW SECTION 9.10.030, REMOVAL OF CERTAIN HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL USES AS PERMITTED USES, AND ADDING A NEW
CHAPTER 9.20, M-O HEAVY INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY ZONE, TO
TITLE 9, PLANNING AND ZONING, OF THE JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE, TO AMEND AND SUPERCEDE CERTAIN
PROVISIONS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 348
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.10.030, “Removal of Certain Heavy Industrial Uses as
Permitted Uses” is hereby added to Chapter 9.10 “Amendments to the County Zoning
Ordinance” of Title 9 “Planning and Zoning”, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to read as
follows:
“9.10.030 Removal of Certain Heavy Industrial Uses as Permitted Uses
A. The following uses are removed as permitted uses from Section 10.1, “Uses
Permitted” of Article X, “Industrial Park” (I-P Zone) of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No.
348:
1. Vehicle storage and impoundment within an enclosed building,
2. Trailer, recreational vehicle, and boat storage within an enclosed building;
3. Warehousing and distribution, including mini-warehouses,
4. Cold storage facilities,
5. Recycling collection facilities
6. Recycling processing facilities
B. The following uses are removed as permitted uses in Section 11.2, “Uses
Permitted” of Article XI, “Manufacturing- Service Commercial” (M-SC Zone) of Riverside
County Zoning Ordinance No. 348:
1. Fabrication of manufactured housing and mobilehome.
2. Fabrication of metal buildings.
3. Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture
4. Railroad equipment,
5. Travel trailers and recreational vehicles manufacture,
-1-
Error! Unknown document property name.

6. Vehicle storage and impoundment
7. Trailer and boat storage;
8. Railroad yards and stations,
9. Building movers storage yard
10. Mini warehouses,
11. Warehousing and distribution,
12. Cold storage plant,
13. Contractor storage yards.
14. Truck and trailer sales and rental.,
15. Mobilehome sales lots
16. Recycling collection facilities
17. Paper storage and recycling, not within a building
18. Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants.
19. Recycling processing facilities.
20. Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
21. Disposal service operations, not including transfer stations
22. Draying, freighting and trucking operations.
23. Natural gas storage, above ground
24. Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground, pursuant to County
Ordinance No. 546.
25. Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 provided a valid surface mining permit has been
granted pursuant to County Ordinance No. 555.
C. The following uses are removed as permitted uses in Section 11.26 “Uses
Permitted” of Article XIa, “Manufacturing-Medium” (M-M Zone) of Riverside County Zoning
Ordinance No. 348:
1. Fabrication of manufactured housing and mobilehome.
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -2- EXHIBIT C

2. Fabrication of metal buildings
3. Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture
4. Railroad equipment,
5. Travel trailers and recreational vehicles manufacture,
6. Draying, freighting and trucking operations
7. Railroad yards and stations,
8. Vehicle storage and impoundment
9. Trailer and boat storage;
10. Building movers storage yard
11. Mini warehouses,
12. Warehousing and distribution,
13. Cold storage plant,
14. Contractor storage yards.
15. Truck and trailer sales and rental.,
16. Mobilehome sales lots
17. Recycling collection facilities
18. Auto wrecking and junk yards
19. Paper storage and recycling, not within a building
20. Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants.
21. Recycling processing facilities.
22. Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
23. Disposal service operations;
24. Sewerage treatment plants
25. Dump sites
26. Natural gas, above ground storage
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -3- EXHIBIT C

27. Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground, pursuant to county
Ordinance No. 546;
28. Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 provided a valid surface mining permit has been
granted pursuant to County Ordinance No. 555.
D. The following uses are removed as permitted uses in Section 12.2, “Uses
Permitted” of Article XII, “Manufacturing Heavy” (M-H Zone) of Riverside County Zoning
Ordinance No. 348:
1. Fabrication of metal buildings
2. Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture,
3. Railroad equipment,
4. Travel trailers and recreational vehicles manufacture,
5. Draying, freighting, and trucking operations,
6. Railroad yards and stations,
7. Vehicle storage and impoundment
8. Trailer and boat storage;
9. Building movers storage yard
10. Mini warehouses,
11. Warehousing and distribution,
12. Cold storage plant,
13. Recycling collection facilities
14. Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
15. Contractor storage yards;
16. Trailer and truck sales and rentals,
17. Mobilehome sales lots
18. Auto wrecking and junk yards
19. Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants;
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -4- EXHIBIT C

20. Disposal service operations;
21. Dump sites
22. Sewerage treatment plants
23. Recycling processing facilities
24. Natural gas, above ground storage
25. Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground, pursuant to county
Ordinance No. 546;
26. Any mining operation that is subject to the California Surface Mining and
Reclamation Act of 1975 provided a valid surface mining permit has been
granted pursuant to County Ordinance No. 555
27. A hazardous waste facility is permitted, provided a hazardous waste
facility siting permit has been granted pursuant to Chapter 17.232
SECTION 2. Chapter 9.20, “M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone” is hereby
added to Title 9 “Planning and Zoning”, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
Sections:
“Chapter 9.20
9.20.010 Intent
9.20.020 Applicability
9.20.030 Definitions
9.20.040 Permitted Uses
9.20.050 Development Standards
9.20.060 Precise Development Plan
9.20.010 Intent.
M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
The M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone is intended to provide standards that address the
establishment or expansion of transportation industry and other heavy industrial land uses
that occupy large amounts of land and generate few tangible benefits to the City of Jurupa
Valley and to require future approvals of such uses to be approved by legislative action of the
City Council.
9.20.020 Applicability.
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -5- EXHIBIT C

a. The Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone will be adopted and may be amended by the
City Council, as necessary to include any issue that is not addressed in this
section, and adversely affects the public health, welfare and safety.
b. An applicant seeking to engage in a use covered by this Chapter but not otherwise
permitted by any zoning in effect on the property, shall apply to the City for a
zone change, which if approved, shall be identified as M-O Heavy Industrial
Overlay Zone on the City’s official zoning map. An applicant may only apply for
a zone change if the property for the proposed use is located in the IP, M-SC, M-
M or M-H zones. If the zone change is approved, all underlying regulations of
the base zone, and all additional regulations of the overlay zone, will be imposed
on the property. All lawfully pre-existing nonconforming uses of existing land
uses shall be considered legal nonconforming per the regulations specified in
Section 18.8 - NONCONFORMING STRUCTURES AND USES of the
Riverside County Zoning Ordinance as adopted in the City of Jurupa Valley by
Chapter 1.31 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
9.20.030 Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the
following meanings:
Overlay Zone. A set of zoning requirements that is superimposed upon an underlying base
zone. Overlay zones are generally used when a particular area requires special protection or
standards necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare. Development of land
subject to overlay zoning requires compliance with the regulations of both the underlying
zone and overlay zone.
9.20.040 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone provided a site development permit has been approved pursuant to
the provisions of Section 18.30 of the Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No. 348 as
adopted in the City of Jurupa Valley by Chapter 1.31 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code,
and a precise development plan pursuant to Section 9.20.060 of this chapter has been
approved or is approved concurrently. The uses listed below that are subject to a conditional
use permit are permitted in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone provided a conditional
use permit has been approved pursuant to Section 18.28 of the Riverside County Zoning
Ordinance No. 348 as adopted in the City of Jurupa Valley by Chapter 1.31 of the Jurupa
Valley Municipal Code.
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -6- EXHIBIT C

Uses engaged in:
Storage (Indoor and Outdoor)
Transportation
Outdoor Sales
Outdoor Manufacturing (such as boats,
RVs & trailers, railroad equipment, etc.)
Storage of Impounded or Inoperable
Vehicles
Recycling
Conditional Use Permit Required:
Uses with a potential for chemical
pollution or contamination
Permitted Uses Include:
Warehousing and distribution centers
Mini-warehouses
Cold storage facilities
Natural gas storage, above ground
Petroleum and bulk fuel storage, above ground,
pursuant to County Ordinance No. 546.
Storage of modular buildings
Trailer, recreational vehicle, and boat storage,
including within an enclosed building
Building movers storage yard
Contractor storage yards
Draying, freighting and trucking operations Railroad
yards and stations
Truck and trailer sales and rental
Large Trucks Parking Lots
Mobilehome sales lots
Lumber Yards, unless associated with a retail
lumber sales company
Fabrication of manufactured housing, modular
buildings, recreational vehicles & mobilehomes
Vehicles, aircraft, boats and parts manufacture
Railroad equipment
Travel trailer manufacture
Fabrication of metal buildings
Vehicle storage and impoundment, including within
an enclosed building
Paper storage and recycling
Recycling collection facilities
Recycling of wood, metal and construction wastes
Recycling processing facilities
Uses Include:
Concrete batch plants and asphalt plants,
Auto wrecking and junk yards
Automobile Salvage and Dismantling
Any mining operation that is subject to the
California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of
1975 provided a valid surface mining permit has
been granted pursuant to County Ordinance No.
555.18
Sewerage treatment plants
Dump sites
Disposal service operations
A hazardous waste facility provided a hazardous
waste facility siting permit has been granted
pursuant to Section 18.44 of Riverside County
Zoning Ordinance No. 348.
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -7- EXHIBIT C

Any use that is not specifically listed above may be considered a permitted or conditionally
permitted use provided that the Planning Director finds that the proposed use is substantially
the same in character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections. Such a use is
subject to the permit process which governs the category in which the Planning Director
determines it falls.
9.20.050 Development Standards. The following standards of development are
required in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone:
a. All properties within this overlay zone are subject to the requirements of the
underlying zoning. In cases where there is a conflict between the requirements of
this overlay zone and the underlying zone, the overlay zone standards apply.
b. The minimum lot size for any subdivision of land shall be ten (10) acres.
c. A minimum fifteen (15) percent of the site shall be landscaped and automatic
irrigation shall be installed.
d. Setbacks from street rights of way:
1. A minimum thirty (30) foot fully landscaped setback buffer from the right
of way line shall be required on any abutting street. Said landscaped
buffer shall be maintained by the abutting property owner, including
designated pedestrian and vehicular accessways.
2. Buildings and structures shall be a minimum of sixty (60) feet from any
street right of way.
3. The remainder of the setback may be used for off-street automobile
parking, driveways or landscaping.
e. A minimum two hundred (200) foot setback shall be required on any boundary
where the industrial land use abuts a residential zoned property. A minimum of
twenty (20) feet of the setback shall be landscaped adjacent to the property line.
f. Parking, loading, trash and service areas shall be screened with structures or
landscaping. They shall be located in such a manner as to minimize noise and / or
odor nuisance.
g. Outside storage shall be screened with structures or landscaping. Landscaping
shall be placed in a manner adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the outside
storage area so that materials stored are screened from view. If a nonscreened
exhibit of products is proposed, it shall be part of the industrial park plot plan, and
shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet from the street line.
h. All new utilities shall be underground.
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -8- EXHIBIT C

i. Notwithstanding the requirements of Section 17.196.030 to the contrary, any
variance from the development standards of this section shall be heard by the
Planning Commission. Notice of the time, date and place of the hearing shall be
given as provided in Section 18.26(c) of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance No.
348 as adopted in the City of Jurupa Valley by Chapter 1.31 of the Jurupa Valley
Municipal Code. Any appeal of the Commission decision shall be to the City
Council as provided in Section 18.30(e) of Riverside County Zoning Ordinance
No. 348 as adopted in the City of Jurupa Valley by Chapter 1.31 of the Jurupa
Valley Municipal Code.
9.20.060 Precise Development Plan.
The purpose and intent of requiring a Precise Development Plan (PDP) is to achieve a
reasonable level of quality and compatibility with the community's social, economic and
environmental objectives; to protect existing and potential developments and uses on
adjacent and surrounding property; and to ensure that only those uses permitted by the PDP
will be allowed unless a new PDP is approved by the City Council.
a. Precise Development Plan Required. No use permitted under this chapter may be
established unless a PDP is adopted by the City Council, either concurrently with
adoption of the overlay zone, a Site Development Plan or Conditional Use Permit
as required under Section 9.20.040 of this chapter, or subsequently with any
change or expansion of an existing permitted use. Any substantial change in an
adopted PDP, as determined by the Planning Director, shall be approved by the
City Council. Minor changes that are in substantial conformance to an adopted
PDP may be approved by the Planning Director.
b. Procedure for Adoption of Precise Development Plans. A PDP, whether adopted
for a new proposed land use or for a substantial change to a previously adopted
PDP, shall be subject to the following:
1. The Planning Commission shall conduct a public hearing and forward the
proposed PDP to the City Council with a recommendation for approval,
approval with conditions or denial.
2. The City Council shall conduct a public hearing and approve, approve
with conditions or deny the proposed PDP. In the event a proposed PDP
is denied that is considered concurrently with an overlay rezone
application, the subject property shall not be rezoned.
c. Content of Precise Development Plans. A PDP shall provide the following:
1. A complete detailed description of all uses proposed for the property
2. Project phasing plan
3. Site plan
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -9- EXHIBIT C

4. Conceptual grading plan
5. Conceptual architectural plans, including floor plans, elevations and roof
plans
6. Conceptual landscape plans
7. Lighting plans
8. Signs
9. Other plans or information related to the proposed development as
required by the Planning Director
d. Criteria for Approval of a Precise Development Plan: In considering the precise
development plan for any development, the following criteria for granting said
permit shall be considered:
1. Excellence in Architectural and Landscape design;
2. Noise, odor, dust and/or vibration that may be generated by the proposed
use;
3. Impact of the proposed use to the city's infrastructure, and/or services;
4. Adequacy of mitigation measures to minimize environmental impacts in
quantitative terms; and
5. Other considerations that in the judgment of the City Council, are
necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses, and the city
as a whole.”
SECTION 3. CEQA Finding. Pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (Public Resources Code Sections 21000, et seq. (“CEQA”)), and the State CEQA
Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Article 14, Sections 15000, et seq.), the City
Council finds that City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of
this Ordinance amending the City’s Municipal Code. Based upon the findings contained in that
Initial Study, staff determined that there was no substantial evidence that the proposed Ordinance
would have a significant effect on the environment and a Negative Declaration was prepared.
Thereafter, staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt
the Negative Declaration as required by law. The public comment period commenced on May 7,
2012 and expired on May 29, 2012. Copies of the documents have been available for public
review and inspection at City Hall located at 8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M Jurupa Valley, CA
92509. The City Council has independently reviewed the Initial Study, the Negative
Declaration, and all comments received regarding the Negative Declaration, and based on the
whole record before it, finds that the Negative Declaration was prepared in compliance with
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have
a significant effect on the environment, and the Negative Declaration reflects the independent
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -10- EXHIBIT C

judgment and analysis of the City Council. Based on the findings set forth in this Section, the
City Council hereby approves and adopts the Negative Declaration prepared for the proposed
Ordinance.Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance or
resolution of the County of Riverside in conflict with the terms of this ordinance.
SECTION 4. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall
certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or
posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa
Valley on this ___ day of _______ 2012.
______________________________
Laura Roughton
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance No. ___ was duly was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -11- EXHIBIT C

Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the ___ day of _______, 2012 by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
____________________________
VICTORIA WASKO, CMC
CITY CLERK
Draft Overlay Zone Amendment -12- EXHIBIT C

X
EXHIBIT D
PERMITTED USES TO REMAIN IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES
INDUSTRIAL USES
SECTION 10.1. USES PERMITTED.
a. The following uses are permitted provided a Plot Plan has been
approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.30 of this ordinance.
a. Agricultural uses of the soils for crops, including the grazing of not
more than two mature farm animals per acre and their immature
offspring.
ZONE
I-P M-SC M-M M-H
X X X
(1) The following industrial and manufacturing uses:
a) Food, Lumber, Wood, and Paper products:
1. Grain and bakery products. X X X X
2. Sugar and confectionary products. X X X X
3. Nonalcoholic beverages. X X X
Beverages, including alcoholic beverages.
X
Beverages.
X
4. Ice. X X X X
5. Manufacture of furniture and fixtures including cabinets, partitions, and X X X X
similar items.
6. Printing and publishing or newspapers, periodicals, books, forms, X X X X
cards, and similar items.
7. Binding of books and other publications. X X X X
Paper and paperboard mills X X X
Manufacture of containers and boxes X X X
Paper shredding X X X
Meat and poultry products, not including meat packing or slaughtering X X X
Dairy products, not including dairies. X X X
Canning and preserving fruits and vegetables X X X
Wineries, distilleries, and breweries. X X
b) Textile and Leather Products:
1. Wearing apparel and accessory products. X X X X
2. Manufacture of handbags, luggage, footwear, and other personal X X X X
leather goods.
Tanning and finishing of leather X X X
Cotton, wood, and synthetic weaving and finishing mills X X X
Knitting mills X X X
Floor covering mills X X X
Yarn and thread mills X X X
Lumber and Wood Products:
Saw and planing mills X X X
Manufacture of containers and crates X X X
Fabrication of wood buildings and structures X X X
Lumber yards X X X
c) Chemical and Glass Products: Stone, Clay, Glass, and Concrete
Products
1. Pharmaceutical research and manufacture. X
Manufacture of drugs and pharmaceuticals X X X
2. Glassblowing, pressing, cutting, and other glassware products. X X X X
Uses to Remain in the Industrial Zones 1 Exhibit D

EXHIBIT D
PERMITTED USES TO REMAIN IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
Stone cutting and related activities. X X X
Pottery and similar items X X X
Glassware products X X X
Manufacture of concrete, gypsum, plaster and mineral products X X X
Manufacture of organic and inorganic compounds, not including those of X X X
a hazardous nature.
Soaps, cleaners, and toiletries X X X
Manufacture of agricultural chemicals, not including pesticides and
X X X
fertilizers
Paints and varnishes
X
x) Rubber and Plastic and Synthetic Products
Manufacture of tires and tubes. X X
Fabrication of rubber, plastics, and synthetic products X X
d) Metal, Machinery, and Electrical Products:
1. Jewelry manufacture and repair. X
Jewelry X X X
Manufacture of cans and containers X X X
Cutlery, tableware, hand tools, and hardware. X X X
Plumbing and heating items X X X
Wrought iron fabrication X X X
Manufacture and assembly of fencing X X X
Machine, welding, and blacksmith shops X X X
Metal stamps and forged metal products X X X
Manufacture of ordnance and firearms, not including explosives X X X
j) Primary Metal Industries:
Foundries.
X
Rolling and drawing metals
X
Casting metals
X
Blast furnaces
X
Smelting of metals
X
2. Manufacture, assembly, testing and repair of components, devices,
equipment and systems of an electrical, electronic, or electro -
mechanical nature, such as, but not limited to:
a. Television and radio equipment and systems. X
Radio, television, and communications equipment. X X X
b. Phonographs and audio units. X
c. Metering instruments, equipment and systems. X
d. Radar, infrared and ultraviolet equipment and systems. X
e. Coils, tubes, semiconductors and similar components. X
f. Scientific and mechanical instruments. X
g. Data processing equipment and systems. X
h. Communication, navigation control, transmission and reception X
equipment, control transmission and reception equipment, control
equipment and systems, guidance equipment and systems.
i. Musical and recording equipment. X X X X
Electrical and electronic apparatus and components X X X
Refrigeration and heating equipment. X X X
Uses to Remain in the Industrial Zones 2 Exhibit D

EXHIBIT D
PERMITTED USES TO REMAIN IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
3. Office and computing machine manufacture, repair, and sales. X
Office and computing machines X X X
4. Control devices and gauges. X
5. Equipment sales, rental and storage. X X X X
6. Appliance manufacture, and repair. X
Appliances X X X
7. Manufacture of lighting fixtures, and supplies. X
Lighting and wiring X X X
Machinery:
Engines, turbines, and parts X X X
Farm, garden construction, and industrial machinery. X X
e) Transportation and Related Industries:
Motorcycles, bicycles, and parts manufacture X X X
f) Engineering and Scientific Instruments:
1. Manufacture and repair of engineering, scientific, and medical
X
instrumentation including but not limited to:
a. Measuring devices, watches, clocks, and related items. X X X X
b. Optical goods. X X X X
c. Medical and dental instruments. X X
Optical goods, medical instruments, supplies, and equipment and
X X X
photography equipment.
d. Engineering, survey, and drafting instruments. X
e. Photographic equipment. X X
g) Industrial Uses:
1. Public utility substations and storage buildings. X X X X
3. Communications and microwave installations. X X X X
5. Telephone exchanges and switching equipment. X
6. Post offices. X
7. Fire and police stations. X
8. Water and gas company service facilities. X
9. Parcel delivery services. X
Cotton ginning. X X X
Heliports. X X X
Laboratories and research centers X X
Sand blasting X X
Airports X X X X
Animal training.
X
Breweries, distilleries, and wineries X X X
(2) The following service and commercial uses:
a) Banks and financial institutions. X X X X
b) Blueprint and duplicating services. X X X X
c) Laboratories, film, medical, research, or testing centers. X X X X
d) Office equipment sales and service. X X X X
e) Offices, professional sales and service, including business, law, X X X X
medical, dental, chiropractic, architectural and engineering.
f) Parking lots and parking structures. X X X X
g) Restaurants and other eating establishments. X X X X
Uses to Remain in the Industrial Zones 3 Exhibit D

EXHIBIT D
X-
b
PERMITTED USES TO REMAIN IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
h) Barber and beauty shops. X X X X
i) Day care centers. X X X X
j) Health and exercise centers. X X X X
k) Mobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed pursuant to X
state law, when used for construction offices and caretaker's quarters on
construction sites for the duration of a valid building permit.
Mobilehomes, provided they are kept mobile and licensed pursuant to
X X X
State law, when used for: sales offices on mobilehome sales lots;
construction offices and caretakers quarters on construction sites for the
duration of a valid building permit; agricultural worker employment offices
for a maximum of 90 days in any calendar year; caretaker's quarters and
office, in lieu of any other one-family dwelling located on the same parcel
as a permitted industrial use.
l) One-family dwellings on the same parcel as the industrial or
X X X X
commercial use provided such dwellings are occupied exclusively by the
proprietor or caretaker of the use and their immediate families.
m) Signs, on-site advertising. X X X X
n) Automobile service stations, not including the concurrent sale of beer X
and wine for off-premises consumption.
Gasoline and diesel service stations, not including the concurrent sale of X X X
beer and wine for off-premises consumption.
o) Motels. X
p) Churches, temples, or other structures used primarily for religious X X X X
worship.
Vehicle and motorcycle repair shops X X X
Body and fender shops, and spray painting X X X
Building materials sales yard X X X
Hardware and home improvement center X X X
Nurseries and garden supply stores X X X
Car and truck washes X X
Feed and grain sales X X X
Fortune telling, spiritualism, or similar activity
X
The following uses are permitted provided a conditional use
permit has been granted pursuant to Section 18.28 of this ordinance:
Meat packing plants, not including slaughtering or rendering of animals
X
Cemeteries, crematories, and mausoleums. X X
Brewery, distillery, or winery.
X
Acid and abrasives manufacturing X X X
Fertilizer production, organic or inorganic X X X
Paints and varnishes manufacturing and incidental storage. X X
Airports. X X
Poultry and egg processing
X
Drive-in theaters X X X
Abattoirs. X X
Petroleum refineries
X
Cotton ginning X X
Uses to Remain in the Industrial Zones 4 Exhibit D

EXHIBIT D
PERMITTED USES TO REMAIN IN THE INDUSTRIAL ZONES
INDUSTRIAL USES
ZONE
Explosives manufacturing and testing
X
Gas, steam, and oil drilling operations X X
Swap meets X X
Processing and rendering of fats and oils
X
Sand blasting X X
Smelting metal and foundries. X X
X
X
Kennels and catteries are permitted provided they are approved
pursuant to the provisions of Section 18.45 of this ordinance
Sex-oriented businesses, subject to the provisions of County Ordinance
No. 743. The uses listed in Subsections a., b. and c. do not include sexoriented
businesses.
Any use that is not specifically listed in Subsections b. and c. may be
considered a permitted or conditionally permitted use provided that the
Planning Director finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in
character and intensity as those listed in the designated subsections.
Such a use is subject to the permit process which governs the category
in which it falls.
X X X
X X X
X X X
Uses to Remain in the Industrial Zones 5 Exhibit D

Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND
City of Jurupa Valley (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 12-03) page 1
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
From: Community Development Department
8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M
Jurupa Valley, California 92509
Subject: Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 12-03 Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
Location: City wide
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Jurupa Valley has prepared and intends to
adopt a Negative Declaration in connection with the subject project. The Negative
Declaration is supported by an Initial Study that evaluated potential effects with respect to
Aesthetics, Agriculture and Forest Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural
Resources, Geology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources,Noise,
Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, Utilities and
Service Systems. The Negative Declaration determines that the proposed project will not
result in any significant, adverse effects on the environment. The City's decision to prepare
a Negative Declaration should not be construed as a recommendation of either approval or
denial of this project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A code amendment that removes certain industrial uses as
permitted uses in the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones and requires the adoption of an
overlay zone (M-O) for the establishment or expansion of the subject heavy industrial uses
(see Exhibit A for a list of the industrial uses proposed to be subject to the proposed overlay
zone). The M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone is intended to provide standards that
address the establishment or expansion of transportation industry and other heavy industrial
land uses that occupy large amounts of land and generate few tangible benefits to the City
of Jurupa Valley and to require future approvals of such uses to be approved by legislative
action of the City Council. This project does not add any new uses or development potential
above and beyond what is allowed currently in the existing industrial zones. The net effect
of the project would be to require a rezone and adoption of a Precise Development Plan in
order to establish or enlarge these uses in I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones. Approximately
140 permitted uses will remain unchanged in the four existing industrial zones listed above.

Notice of Intent to Adopt an ND
City of Jurupa Valley (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 12-03) page 2
PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public review period is from May 7, 2012 through May 29,
2012.
PROJECT MANAGER: Thomas G. Merrell, AICP, Planning Manager; Telephone: (951)
332-6464; email: tmerrell@jurupavalley.org; Fax: (951) 332-6995; Mailing Address:
Planning Department, 8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that the City invites members of the general public to review
and comment on this environmental documentation. Written comments may be mailed,
emailed, or faxed to the project manager. Copies of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
supporting documents are available for public review and inspection at the Planning
Department located in City Hall at 8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M. The City's Planning
Commission and City Council will conduct public hearings at future dates to be determined.
You will receive a separate public notice for those hearings. If you challenge this project in
court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised during the
public review period on the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or at the future
public hearings.
__________________________
Thomas G. Merrell, AICP, Planning Manager
for the City of Jurupa Valley

~=- City of Jurupa v~ ey _____
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/INITIAL STUDY
1.0 BACKGROUND
1. Project Title: Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Jurupa Valley
8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
3. Contact Persons and Phone Numbers: Tom Merrell, Planning Manager
(951) 322-6464
4. Project Location: City-wide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of Jurupa Valley
8304 Limonite Avenue, Suite M
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
6. General Plan Designation: The proposed overlay zone and the existing industrial zones to be
amended are generally consistent with the L-I, L-H and BP Land Use Designations. There is no
known inconsistency with the General Plan for this project.
.
7. Zoning: M-O (Heavy Industrial
.
8. Description of the Project: A code amendment that removes certain industrial uses as permitted
uses in the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones and requires the adoption of an overlay zone (M-O) for
the establishment or expansion of the subject heavy industrial uses (see Exhibit A for a list of the
industrial uses proposed to be subject to the proposed overlay zone). The M-O Heavy Industrial
Overlay Zone is intended to provide standards that address the establishment or expansion of
transportation industry and other heavy industrial land uses that occupy large amounts of land and
generate few tangible benefits to the City of Jurupa Valley and to require future approvals of such
uses to be approved by legislative action of the City Council. This project does not add any new
uses or development potential above and beyond what is allowed currently in the existing industrial
zones. The net effect of the project would be to require a rezone and adoption of a Precise
Development Plan in order to establish or enlarge these uses in I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones.
Approximately 140 permitted uses will remain unchanged in the four existing industrial zones listed
above.

9. Surrounding Setting and Land Uses: N/A
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement): None
Initial Study 2 City of Jurupa Valley

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” or “Potentially Significant Impact With Mitigation
Incorporated,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology and Water Quality
Land Use and Planning
Mineral Resources
Noise
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service Systems
Mandatory Findings of Significance
3.0 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS
Section 4 (following) analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed Project.
The issue areas evaluated in this Initial Study include:
• Aesthetics • Land Use and Planning
• Agriculture and Forest Resources • Mineral Resources
• Air Quality • Noise
• Biological Resources • Population and Housing
• Cultural Resources • Public Services
• Greenhouse Gas Emissions • Recreation
• Geology and Soils • Transportation/Traffic
• Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Utilities and Service Systems
• Hydrology and Water Quality • Mandatory Findings of Significance
The environmental analysis in Section 4 is patterned after the Initial Study Checklist recommended by the
CEQA Guidelines, as amended, and used by the City of Jurupa Valley in its environmental review
process. For the preliminary environmental assessment undertaken as part of this Initial Study’s
preparation, a determination that there is a potential for significant effects indicates the need to more fully
analyze the development’s impacts and to identify mitigation.
For the evaluation of potential impacts, the questions in the Initial Study Checklist are stated and an
answer is provided according to the analysis undertaken as part of the Initial Study. The analysis
considers the long-term, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the development. To each question,
there are four possible responses:
Initial Study 3 City of Jurupa Valley

! No Impact. The development will not have any measurable environmental impact on the
environment.
! Less Than Significant Impact. The development will have the potential for impacting
the environment, although this impact will be below established thresholds that are
considered to be significant.
! Less Than Significant Impact With Mitigation Incorporated. The development will
have the potential to generate impacts, which may be considered as a significant effect
on the environment, although mitigation measures or changes to the development’s
physical or operational characteristics can reduce these impacts to levels that are less
than significant.
! Potentially Significant Impact. The development could have impacts, which may be
considered significant, and therefore additional analysis is required to identify mitigation
measures that could reduce potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.
Where potential impacts are anticipated to be significant, mitigation measures will be required, such that
impacts may be avoided or reduced to insignificant levels.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following is a discussion of potential project impacts as identified in the Initial Study. Explanations
are provided for each item.
4.1 AESTHETICS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? !
b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the
site and its surroundings?
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Impact Analysis
!
!
!
4.1(a)
4.1(b)
4.1(c)
4.1(d)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Initial Study 4 City of Jurupa Valley

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Although
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
views; however, such development was previously analyzed in the Riverside County
General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy and program changes,
which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain specific industrial land
uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than
through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such discretion would also
allow for greater protection of potential effects on aesthetic resources. In addition, all
new heavy industrial development projects that would be guided under the proposed
project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations pursuant to the
City's environmental review requirements and would be required to adhere to
policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation
of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay
Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any
structural modifications that could affect scenic vistas, scenic resources and/or result
in potentially significant light and glare impacts within the City. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to visual resources, including light and glare, would occur as a
result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are required.
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a. 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?
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson
Act contract?
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land
(as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
!
!
!
Initial Study 5 City of Jurupa Valley

In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment
Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of
Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to
forest resources, including timberland, are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information
compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement
methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest
use?
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to
non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.2(a)
4.2(b)
4.2(c)
4.2(d)
4.2(e)
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?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code section 51104(g))?
Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could result in
converting some dairy farms to urban uses; however, the economic viability of
maintaining agriculture in the region is no longer feasible and such development was
previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed
project includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by
the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A)
within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits
under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for greater protection of
potential effects on forest or agricultural resources. In addition, all new heavy
industrial development projects that would be guided under the proposed project
would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's
environmental review requirements and would be required to adhere to policies
outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the
Initial Study 6 City of Jurupa Valley

policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any
structural modifications that could affect forests, agricultural resources and/or result
in potentially significant loss or impairment of such resources within the City.
Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to agricultural or forest resources, including urbanization,
would occur as a result of project implementation; no mitigation measures are
required.
4.3 AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management or air pollution control district
may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would
the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
c. 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 (including
releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for
ozone precursors)?
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
!
!
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.3(a)
4.3(b)
4.3(c)
4.3(d)
4.3(e)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected
air quality violation?
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 (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds
for ozone precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect air
Initial Study 7 City of Jurupa Valley

quality; however, such development was previously analyzed in the Riverside County
General Plan EIR. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that
would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific
environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements
and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan
as indicated above. The proposed project includes only policy and program changes,
which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain specific industrial land
uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than
through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such discretion would also
allow for greater protection of potential effects on health and air quality.
Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect air quality, public
health and/or result in potentially significant air quality impacts within the City.
Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to air quality would occur as a result of project implementation
(adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be established under
the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b. 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d. 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?
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
!
!
!
!
!
!
Initial Study 8 City of Jurupa Valley

Impact Analysis
4.4(a)
4.4(b)
4.4(c)
4.4(d)
4.4(e)
4.4(f)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and
Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (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 Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could result in
affecting biological resources, such as burrowing owl and other sensitive biological
resources identified in the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP); however, such development was previously analyzed in the
Riverside County General Plan EIR and is subject to the requirements for protection
of biological resources through the Riverside County MSHC:. The proposed project
includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City
in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the
M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under
existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential
effects on biological resources. In addition, all new heavy industrial development
projects that would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to sitespecific
environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review
requirements and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa
Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the policies and programs
revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not
directly result in any physical alterations, including any structural modifications that
could affect flora, fauna and/or result in potentially significant impacts to biological
habitat and/or species, wildlife corridors within the City. Therefore, no potentially
significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to biological resources would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study 9 City of Jurupa Valley

4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or
site or unique geologic feature?
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
!
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.5(a)
4.5(b)
4.5(c)
4.5(d)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
cultural resources; however, such development was previously analyzed in the
Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy and
program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential effects on cultural
resources resulting from the greater oversight of future projects by the City of Jurupa
Valley. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be
guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental
evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be
required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated
above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O
Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect cultural resources
and/or result in potentially significant loss of historic or archaeological artifacts within
the City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study 10 City of Jurupa Valley

Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to cultural resources would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
!
1) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
!
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
2) Strong seismic ground shaking? !
3) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? !
4) Landslides? !
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? !
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would
become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in
on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
California Building Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Impact Analysis
No
Impact
!
!
!
4.6(a)(1)
4.6(a)(2)
4.6(a)(3)
4.6(a)(4)
4.6(b)
4.6(c)
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving 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
as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Initial Study 11 City of Jurupa Valley

4.6(d)
4.6(e)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the California Building
Code (2001), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative
waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
geology and soils, and potentially put the public at risk; however, such development
was previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed
project includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by
the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A)
within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits
under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for greater protection of
potential effects on seismic safety and other potential geologic and soils hazards. In
addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be guided under
the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations
pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be required to
adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above.
Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect geology and soils
and/or result in potentially significant impacts within the City. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant geologic or soils impacts would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.7(a)
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Initial Study 12 City of Jurupa Valley

4.7(b)
Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could result in
the emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). No development is proposed that would
result in potential GHG emissions. . The proposed project includes only policy and
program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential effects on greenhouse
gas emissions due to the oversight of such future projects pursuant to the M-O
Overlay Zoning. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that
would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific
environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements
and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan
as indicated above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed
in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in
any physical alterations, including any structural modifications that could greenhouse
gas emissions and/or result in potentially significant impacts within the City.
Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant greenhouse gas emissions impacts would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b. 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?
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile
of an existing or proposed school?
d. 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?
!
!
!
!
Initial Study 13 City of Jurupa Valley

Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
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 for
people residing or working in the project area?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
the project area?
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
!
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.8(a)
4.8(b)
4.8(c)
4.8(d)
4.8(e)
4.8(f)
4.8(g)
4.8(h)
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 reasonably
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?
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
involve the use or production of hazardous materials; however, such development
was previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed
project includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by
the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A)
within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits
under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for greater protection of
potential impacts of hazardous materials. In addition, all new heavy industrial
development projects that would be guided under the proposed project would be
Initial Study 14 City of Jurupa Valley

subject to site-specific environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's
environmental review requirements and would be required to adhere to policies
outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the
policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any
structural modifications that could expose the public to hazardous materials and/or
result in potentially significant impacts to public health or safety within the City.
Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts from hazardous materials would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
!
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be
a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
!
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, in
a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-
!
or off-site?
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,
or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a
!
manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e. Create or contribute runoff which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide
!
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? !
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard as mapped on a
Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
!
other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
!
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure
!
of a levee or dam?
j. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? !
No
Impact
Initial Study 15 City of Jurupa Valley

Impact Analysis
4.9(a)
4.9(b)
4.9(c)
4.9(d)
4.9(e)
4.9(f)
4.9(g)
4.9(h)
4.9(i)
4.9(j)
Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for
which permits have been granted)?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of stream or river, in a manner, which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
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?
Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
hydrology and water quality; however, such development was previously analyzed in
the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy
and program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential effects on hydrology
and water quality. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that
would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific
environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements
and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan
as indicated above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed
in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in
any physical alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect
hydrology and water quality and/or result in potentially significant water quality
impacts within the City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated
and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to hydrology and water quality would occur as a result of
project implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to
Initial Study 16 City of Jurupa Valley

e established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are
required.
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Physically divide an established community? !
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
Impact Analysis
!
!
4.10(a)
4.10(b)
4.10(c)
Physically divide an established community?
Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect?
Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. The M-O
Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone is intended to provide standards that address the
establishment or expansion of transportation industry and other heavy industrial land uses
that occupy large amounts of land and generate few tangible benefits to the City of Jurupa
Valley and to require future approvals of such uses to be approved by legislative action of the
City Council. This project does not add any new uses or development potential above and
beyond what is allowed currently in the existing industrial zones. The net effect of the project
would be to require a rezone and adoption of a Precise Development Plan in order to
establish or enlarge these uses in I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones. Approximately 140
permitted uses will remain unchanged in the four existing industrial zones listed above.
Any future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could
affect land use and planning; however, such development was previously analyzed
in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy
and program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater adherence to General Plan policies and
regulations. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be
guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental
Initial Study 17 City of Jurupa Valley

evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be
required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated
above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O
Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect land use policies
and/or result in potentially significant conflicts with existing General Plan framework
or provision within the City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are
anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to land use and planning policy would occur as a result of
project implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to
be established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are
required.
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. 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?
b. 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?
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.11(a)
4.11(b)
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?
Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
mineral resources; however, such development was previously analyzed in the
Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy and
program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential effects on mineral
resources. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be
guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental
evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be
required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated
above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O
Initial Study 18 City of Jurupa Valley

Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect mineral resources
and/or result in potentially significant loss of availability within the City. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to mineral resources would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.12 NOISE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,
or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
!
!
!
!
!
!
Initial Study 19 City of Jurupa Valley

Impact Analysis
4.12(a)
4.12(b)
4.12(c)
4.12(d)
4.12(e)
4.12(f)
Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project?
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project
vicinity above levels existing without the project?
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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could expose
to the public to noise sources; however, such development was previously analyzed
in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy
and program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater protection of potential noise impacts. Future
development would be required to comply with adopted noise standards. In addition,
all new heavy industrial development projects that would be guided under the
proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations
pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be required to
adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above.
Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could expose the public to a
noise source and/or result in potentially significant health or safety impacts within the
City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation
measures are required.
Initial Study 20 City of Jurupa Valley

Mitigation Measures
No significant noise impacts would occur as a result of project implementation
(adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be established under
the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Induce substantial 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)?
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.13(a)
4.13(b)
4.13(c)
Induce substantial 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)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project affects only industrial-zoned properties within the
City of Jurupa Valley and, therefore, would not affect residential properties, including
displacing either residents or dwelling units within the City. Implementation of the
project would not result in specific development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O
Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC,
M-M and M-H zones would provide a policy framework for the industrial growth
anticipated in the City. Any future development that would occur pursuant to the
proposed project could affect population and housing; however, such development
was previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed
project includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by
the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A)
within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits
under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for more effective planning
for potential effects on population and housing resources. In addition, all new heavy
industrial development projects that would be guided under the proposed project
would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's
environmental review requirements and would be required to adhere to policies
outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the
policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any
Initial Study 21 City of Jurupa Valley

structural modifications that could affect population and housing and/or result in
potentially significant increase in population or housing within the City. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts on population and housing would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with the provision of 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? !
No
Impact
Impact Analysis
4.14(a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of 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:
4.14(a)(1) Fire protection?
4.14(a)(2) Police protection?
4.14(a)(3) Schools?
4.14(a)(4) Parks?
4.14(a)(5) Other public facilities?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
public services; however, such development was previously analyzed in the
Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy and
Initial Study 22 City of Jurupa Valley

program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for more effective planning for public services. In
addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be guided under
the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations
pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be required to
adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above.
Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect public services,
including police and fire protection, parks and recreation, schools, or other public
facilities. Furthermore, project implementation would not result in potentially
significant degradation of services within the City. Therefore, no potentially significant
impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts public services would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.15 RECREATION
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.15(a)
4.15(b)
Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility
would occur or be accelerated?
Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion
of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
Initial Study 23 City of Jurupa Valley

the future demand for recreational facilities; however, such development was
previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed
project includes only policy and program changes, which allow greater discretion by
the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A)
within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site Development Permits
under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for more effective planning
for the recreation needs of the community. In addition, all new heavy industrial
development projects that would be guided under the proposed project would be
subject to site-specific environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's
environmental review requirements and would be required to adhere to policies
outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above. Implementation of the
policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone
project alone would not directly result in any physical alterations, including any
structural modifications that could affect recreational needs and/or result in
potentially significant loss of recreational facilities within the City. Therefore, no
potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are
required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to recreational needs would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing
measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes of transportation including
mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of
!
the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and
mass transit??
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
!
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
!
substantial safety risks?
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
!
farm equipment)?
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? !
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public
transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
No
Impact
!
Initial Study 24 City of Jurupa Valley

Impact Analysis
4.16(a)
4.16(b)
4.16(c)
4.16(d)
4.16(e)
4.16(f)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant
components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards
established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or
a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Result in inadequate emergency access?
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects and, therefore, any direct increase in traffic that would
adversely affect the circulation system within the City of Jurupa Valley. Rather, the
proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning and corresponding amendments to
the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would provide a policy framework for the
industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any future development that would occur
pursuant to the proposed project could affect transportation and traffic; however,
such development was previously analyzed in the Riverside County General Plan
EIR. The proposed project includes only policy and program changes, which allow
greater discretion by the City in approving certain specific industrial land uses (as
described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay Zone rather than through Site
Development Permits under existing zones. Such discretion would also allow for
greater protection of potential effects on traffic and transportation improvements. In
addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that would be guided under
the proposed project would be subject to site-specific environmental evaluations
pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements and would be required to
adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan as indicated above.
Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed in the M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in any physical
alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect transportation and
traffic and/or result in potentially significant traffic congestion or safety impacts within
the City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts are anticipated and no
mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant transportation and traffic impacts would occur as a result of project
implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to be
established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are required.
Initial Study 25 City of Jurupa Valley

4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental effects?
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e. 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?
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.17(a)
4.17(b)
4.17(c)
4.17(d)
4.17(e)
4.17(f)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
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?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in specific
development projects. Rather, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zoning
and corresponding amendments to the I-P, M-SC, M-M and M-H zones would
provide a policy framework for the industrial growth anticipated in the City. Any
future development that would occur pursuant to the proposed project could affect
utilities and service systems; however, such development was previously analyzed in
the Riverside County General Plan EIR. The proposed project includes only policy
and program changes, which allow greater discretion by the City in approving certain
Initial Study 26 City of Jurupa Valley

specific industrial land uses (as described in Exhibit A) within the M-O Heavy Overlay
Zone rather than through Site Development Permits under existing zones. Such
discretion would also allow for greater control of potential effects on utilities and
service systems. In addition, all new heavy industrial development projects that
would be guided under the proposed project would be subject to site-specific
environmental evaluations pursuant to the City's environmental review requirements
and would be required to adhere to policies outlined in the Jurupa Community Plan
as indicated above. Implementation of the policies and programs revisions proposed
in the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone project alone would not directly result in
any physical alterations, including any structural modifications that could affect
utilities and service systems and/or result in potentially significant degradation of
necessary infrastructure within the City. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts
are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
Mitigation Measures
No significant impacts to utilities and service systems would occur as a result of
project implementation (adoption of a code change that requires the subject uses to
be established under the proposed overlay zone); no mitigation measures are
required.
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c. Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
!
!
!
Impact Analysis
4.18(a)
Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
Initial Study 27 City of Jurupa Valley

animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
As concluded in Responses 4.4 and 4.5, respectively, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial
Overlay Zone would result in less than significant impacts on biological resources and cultural
resources (i.e. historic, archaeological, or paleontological) because the project addresses
only policy and administrative changes, which would not result in physical impacts to the
environment, including biological and/or cultural/scientific resources. Therefore, the
proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone would not result in any potentially significant
impacts that would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important
examples of the major period of California history or prehistory. No significant impacts are
anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.18(b)
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As all impacts discussed in this Initial Study have been previously addressed in the Riverside
County General Plan EIR. Because the proposed Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone includes
only policy and program revisions that would not result in any direct or indirect impacts on the
environment and, furthermore, will not result in changes to the land use designations and/or
floor area ratios permitted in the Jurupa Community Plan and zoning code, no potential
project-related impacts greater than those previously analyzed in the Riverside County
General Plan EIR would occur. Furthermore, implementation of the proposed M-O Heavy
Industrial Overlay Zone would not result in significant cumulative impacts. Future projects
proposed in the City pursuant to the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone would be subject to
additional environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. As
indicated previously in this analysis, the proposed M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone is
consistent with the Jurupa Community Plan and would not result in any additional impacts
identified and evaluated in the Riverside County General Plan EIR. Future heavy industrial
development permitted under the M-O Heavy Industrial Overlay Zone in accordance with the
Jurupa Community Plan was considered in the General Plan EIR analysis that evaluated
future buildout of the Riverside County General Plan, including the City of Jurupa Valley.
Based on that analysis, which included additional heavy industrial development, potential
cumulative impacts from such future development permitted by the M-O Heavy Industrial
Overlay Zone were anticipated and adequately analyzed in the Riverside County General
Plan (Jurupa Community Plan) and General Plan EIR, and mitigation measures were
identified to ensure that such impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
Consequently, project implementation would result in no greater cumulative impacts than
previously identified and no additional mitigation measures are required.
4.18(c)
Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Previous sections of this Initial Study reviewed the proposed project’s potential impacts
involving each of the issues included in the environmental checklist. As concluded in these
assessments, the proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to
these issues. The Riverside County General Plan EIR, which was certified by the Riverside
County Board of Supervisors, adequately analyzed each of the issues based on buildout of
the adopted General Plan, including the Heavy Industrial land uses affected by the proposed
M-O Overlay Zone. Because the proposed M-O does not include any changes to either the
industrial land use designations or development intensities that would allow for higher floor
Initial Study 28 City of Jurupa Valley

area ratios that that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not result
in environmental impacts that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated and no mitigation measures are required.
4.19 REFERENCES
Riverside County Integrated General Plan
Riverside County Integrated General Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report No.
441.
4.20 REPORT PREPARATION PERSONNEL
Thomas G. Merrell, Planning Manager
Keeton K. Kreitzer, Keeton Kreitzer Consulting
5.0 LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because
revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment,
but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed
by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on
attached sheets, if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tyhe
environment, because all potgentially significnat effect (a) have been
analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
pursuant to all applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures are are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
!
D
D
D
D
D
__________________________
Signature
City of Jurupa Valley
Agency
Thomas G. Merrell, Planning Manager May 7, 2012
Printed Name/Title
Date
Initial Study 29 City of Jurupa Valley

STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 9, 2012
TO:
FROM:
BY:
CHAIR JOHNSON AND MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
THOMAS G. MERRELL, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER
MARYANN MARKS, AICP, PRINCIPAL PROJECT MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 6.2
AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ELIMINATE THE 5-YEAR
LIMITATION FOR AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN WITHIN THE
FOUNDATION OVERLAY AS DESCRIBED IN THE INTRODUCTION
CHAPTER 1, LAND USE ELEMENT CHAPTER 3 AND CHAPTER 8,
MULTIPURPOSE OPEN SPACE ELEMENT CHAPTER 5 AND
GENERAL PLAN CONCEPTS.
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2012-05-09-02
recommending to the City Council adoption of General Plan Amendment GPA 12-01 to
the Jurupa Valley General Plan that eliminates the 5-year limitation within the
Foundational Overlay and Certainty System and permits any part of the General Plan to
be amended in accordance with Government Code. The resolution will be presented to
the Planning Commission for adoption at the following meeting.
DISCUSSION
BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2011, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2011-01. This Ordinance
provides that pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 57376, all
ordinances of the County of Riverside which have been applicable within the territory
now incorporated as the City of Jurupa Valley, to the extent that they applied before
incorporation, shall remain in full force and effect as ordinances of the City of Jurupa
Valley, including the Riverside County General Plan. On September 15, 2011, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 2011-10 continuing in effect all ordinances of the
Page | 1

County of Riverside which have been applicable within the territory now incorporated as
the City of Jurupa Valley, to the extent that they applied before incorporation. Upon
being adopted by the City Council on that date, these regulatory planning documents
became City regulations the same as though they had been originally adopted by the
Council.
PROCEDURES FOR AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN
Inasmuch as the General Plan is a City policy document adopted by legislative action,
City staff and property owners must seek City Council authorization to initiate any
changes or amendments. The process for amending this documents entails setting land
use criteria that affect a large number of properties, environmental determinations, staff
research and reporting and public hearings by the Planning Commission and City
Council. At the February 16, 2012 meeting following a joint work session with the
Planning Commission, the City Council determined that eliminating the 5-year limitation
within the Foundational Overlay and Certainty System of the General Plan was a priority
and initiated this General Plan Amendment for public hearings by the Planning
Commission and City Council.
ANALYSIS
Certain provisions of the Jurupa Valley General Plan as adopted for the County of
Riverside prior to incorporation do not further the land use and development interests of
the City and may affect the efficiency of the planning process. At the joint workshop
session on February 16, 2012, the city staff presented background information and a
recommendation for eliminating the 5-year restriction based on the following:
The General Plan limits amendments to the foundational overlay to one each five years
per the following language:
The RCIP Vision calls for the land uses in the County to be clearly mapped, and
areas suitable for development or agriculture to be easily distinguishable from
those to be permanently conserved, either for habitat or to accommodate natural
resources or open space. As a result, the land use designations used in this
General Plan fall under the umbrella of four Foundation Components, or major
categories of County land use: Community Development, Rural, Agriculture, and
Multipurpose Open Space. The countywide map of land use delineates only
those four Foundation Components (see Chapter 3, Land Use Element).
As detailed in the description of the General Plan Certainty System (see general
description below and Chapter 10, Administration), the significance of these
foundation components is that General Plan Amendments proposing a change of
land use designation from one Foundation Component to another will only be
entertained by the County at five-year intervals, except in specific extraordinary
circumstances and Agriculture Foundation Amendments which are considered at
2 ½ year intervals.
This restriction relates to a Countywide control of vast areas of undeveloped land that is
banked for a future land use determination. As such it is unnecessary for Jurupa’s
urbanized area and an inappropriate restriction on the City Council's ability to make land
Page | 2

use decisions.
In the event the City Council determined a foundational overlay amendment would be
necessary to the best interests of the City less than five years from the previous such
amendment, it could not act unless it concurrently eliminated the five year limitation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The adoption of the proposed General Plan amendment does not fall within the
definition of a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
because it does not have the potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical
change in the environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a)) and is an administrative
activity of the City that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the
environment (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(5)).
Additionally, the adoption of this proposed amendment to the General Plan is exempt
from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because there is no possibility
that the proposed amendment may have a significant impact on the environment
(CEQA Guidelines § 15061). The only change to the existing Foundational Overlay and
Certainty System in the City of Jurupa Valley by this proposed General Plan
amendment is to eliminate the 5-year limitation to updating the General Plan.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Modify the General Plan Amendment and forward to the modified amendment to
City Council with a recommendation of approval.
2. Recommend that the City Council should not adopt the General Plan
Amendment and give direction to the staff.
3. Defer action and request additional information on the General Plan Amendment.
Prepared by:
Submitted by:
___________________________
Maryann Marks, AICP
Principal Project Manager
__________________________
Thomas G. Merrell
Planning Manager, AICP
Reviewed by:
//s// Christopher Diaz
___________________________
Christopher Diaz
City Attorney
Page | 3