The Shops at Jurupa Valley Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2020100167 Lead Agency City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 June 16, 2021 All files are available at the following links: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 (see folder labeled MA20035 Shops at Jurupa Valley) Governor's Office of Planning and Research, CEQAnet Web Portal at https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/ Enter "2020100167" in the search box and find under "MA20035 The Shops at Jurupa Valley." The Shops at Jurupa Valley Project Final Environmental Impact Report SCH#2020100167 Lead Agency City of Jurupa Valley 8930 Limonite Avenue Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Contact: Patty Anders, AICP, Senior Planning Consultant [email protected] Prepared By City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department Ernest Perea, CEQA Administrator [email protected] Applicant Panorama Properties, Inc. 2005 Winston Ct. Upland, CA 91784 June 16 July 2, 2021 The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR Table of Contents Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Format of the Final EIR ................................................................................................... 2 1.3 CEQA Requirements Regarding Comments and Responses ........................................... 2 2.0 RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ........................................................................................... 2 1.0 CLARIFICATGIONS AND REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR ................................................... 12 Page i The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 INTRODUCTION This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.) and CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations §§ 15000 et seq.). According to the CEQA Guidelines, §15132, the FEIR shall consist of: . The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) or a revision of the DEIR. Comments and recommendations received on the DEIR either verbatim or in summary. A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the DEIR. The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process. Any other information added by the Lead Agency. This document contains responses to comments received on the DEIR for the Shops at Jurupa Valley Project during the public review period, which began February 27, 2021, and closed April 2, 2021. This document has been prepared in accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines and represents the independent judgment of the Lead Agency (City of Jurupa Valley). This document and the circulated DEIR comprise the FEIR, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines, §15132. 1.2 FORMAT OF THE FINAL EIR This document is organized as follows: Section 1, Introduction. This section describes CEQA requirements and content of this FEIR. Section 2, Response to Comments. This section provides a list of agencies and interested persons commenting on the DEIR, copies of comment letters received during the public review period, and individual responses to written comments. Section 3. Revisions to the DEIR. This section contains revisions/clarifications to the DEIR text and figures as a result of the comments received as described in Section 2, and/or errors and omissions discovered subsequent to release of the DEIR for public review. Page 1 The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR The responses to comments contain material and revisions that will be added to the text of the FEIR. City of Jurupa Valley staff and technical expert consultants have reviewed this material and determined that none of this material constitutes the type of significant new information that requires recirculation of the DEIR for further public comment under CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. None of this new material indicates that the project will result in a significant new environmental impact not previously disclosed in the DEIR. Additionally, none of this material indicates that there would be a substantial increase in the severity of a previously identified environmental impact that will not be mitigated, or that there would be any of the other circumstances requiring recirculation described in Section 15088.5. 1.3 CEQA REQUIREMENTS REGARDING COMMENTS AND RESPONSES Guidelines Section 15204(a) outlines parameters for submitting comments and reminds persons and public agencies that the focus of review and comment of DEIRs should be: “. on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and analyzing possible impacts on the environment and ways in which significant effects of the project might be avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate the significant environmental effects. At the same time, reviewers should be aware that the adequacy of an EIR is determined in terms of what is reasonably feasible. …CEQA does not require a lead agency to conduct every test or perform all research, study, and experimentation recommended or demanded by commenters. When responding to comments, lead agencies need only respond to significant environmental issues and do not need to provide all information requested by reviewers, as long as a good faith effort at full disclosure is made in the EIR. CEQA Guidelines Section 15204(c) further advises, “Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments, and should submit data or references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts in support of the comments. Pursuant to Section 15064, an effect shall not be considered significant in the absence of substantial evidence.” 2.0 Response to Comments 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines requires the City of Jurupa Valley to evaluate comments on environmental issues received from public agencies and interested parties who reviewed the DEIR and prepare written responses. This section provides all written comments timely received on the DEIR and the City of Jurupa Valley’s responses to each comment. Comment letters and specific comments are given letters and numbers for reference purposes. Where sections of the DEIR are excerpted in this document, the sections are shown indented. Changes to the DEIR text are shown in bold text for additions Page 2 The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR and strikeout for deletions. The following is a list of agencies and persons that submitted comments on the DEIR during the public review period. A. Kim Jarrell Johnson, Jurupa Valley Resident and Historian, March 9, 2021. B. San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. <COMMENTS START ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE> Page 3 The Shops at Jurupa Valley Final EIR A. COMMENTS FROM KIM JARRELL JOHNSON City of Jurupa Valley Attn: Patty Anders, Senior Planning Consultant RE: Comments on Draft EIR for the Shops at Jurupa Valley Ms. Anders, Please see below my comments on the Cultural Resources Report (report) and Draft EIR (EIR) prepared for the Shops at Jurupa Valley. Corrections needed are in bold. 1. The generally agreed upon spelling is Louis Robidoux, not Rubidoux. While the mountain and community adopted the Rubidoux spelling, this is not the spelling given to the man. Please correct throughout the EIR and the cultural resources report. Response: The Cultural, Tribal, Historic, Paleontological Records Check and Survey of The Shops at Jurupa Valley, Riverside County, California, December 29, 2020” by SRS INC, (“Cultural Report “), was revised to correct the spelling of “Rubidoux” for Louis Robidoux throughout the report as suggested. The EIR did not use the incorrect spelling, so no changes are required. 2. The report states in more than one place that DE Anza crossed the Santa Ana River by the Union Bridge at Jurupa Heights. The bridge is today properly called the Union Pacific Bridge. Jurupa Heights is a long ago, no longer used name for a portion of the Pedley area. The proper name for where the De Anza party crossed the river is the Pedley Narrows, which is what that area of the Santa Ana River is called. De Anza crossed there twice because the river narrows in that area, making the crossing shorter and less problematic. Please correct the place names where they appear in report and EIR. Response: The Cultural Report was revised to change the name for the crossing of the Santa Ana River from De Anza to Pedley Narrows. The EIR did not use the incorrect spelling, so no changes are required. 3. The walking survey of the property found numerous sections of water canals, called in photos and a map “Lateral 3” on pages 29-34 of the report. These were the only in situ structures found on the property. Yet, the report is silent on the history of the canal system in Jurupa Valley and particularly the canal system on this property. Further confusion is added when on page 39 the report mentions that portions of the West Riverside Canal are often found in this area. This is the first mention of that name, yet the report goes on as if it is clear the canal features previously referred to almost exclusively as the unexplained “Lateral 3” are also the West Riverside Canal. Without background and history, the report does not have any basis by which to evaluate the significance of