Page - 1 -
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, February 17, 2022
Regular Session: 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
1. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. As a courtesy to those in attendance, we ask that cell phones be turned off or set to their silent mode and that you keep talking to a minimum so that all persons can hear the comments of the public and City Council.
B. A member of the public who wishes to sp eak under Public Comments must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. Each agenda item up will be open for public comments before taking action. Public comments on subjects that are not on the agenda can be made during the “Public Appearance/Comments” portion of the agenda.
C. If the Meeting is conducted via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), the public may submit comments to the City Council via email or via telephone prior to the Mayor calling the item. Email comment shall be sent to:
[email protected]. Telephone comments may be made by calling (951) 332- 6464, Ext 140. Email and telephone comments are subject to the same rules as in-person comments.
D. Members of the public who wish to comment on the CONSENT CALENDAR may do so during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda prior to the adoption of the Consent Calendar.
E. As a courtesy to others and to assure that each person wishing to be heard has an opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
Page - 2 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. COUNCIL REDISTRICTING - PUBLIC HEARING
A. 7:05 PM - PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES; REVIEW OF MAPS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY’S
DEMOGRAPHER AND THE PUBLIC AND RECEIPT OF PUBLIC INPUT
ON COMMUNTIES OF INTEREST AND PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR
NEW MAP OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
1. That the City Council open the public hearing and receive any public testimony; and
2. That the City Council provide direction to staff regarding which map should be considered for inclusion in the Ordinance to adopt new district boundaries for the Jurupa Valley City Council that will be introduced at the City Council Meeting of March 17, 2022.
6. PRESENTATIONS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN T DEPARTMENT – INTRODUCTON OF
CITY STAFF
B. PRESENTATION - HOMESERVE SOLUTIONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES, UTILITIES AND HOMEOWNERS – PRESENTED BY BILL COFFEY,
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Requested Action: That the City Council discuss the merits of implementing a marketing agreement with Utility Service Partners, Inc. and provide direction to Staff.
7. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
8. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects other than those listed on the Agenda are requested to do so at this time. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Appearance/Comments OR the Consent Calendar must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. When addressing the City Council, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. While listing your name and address is not required, it helps us to provide follow -up information to you if needed. In order to conduct a timely meeting, we ask that you keep your comments to 3 minutes. Government Code Section 54954.2 prohibits the City Council from taking action on a specific item until it appears on an agenda.
Page - 3 -
9. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. UPDATE ON THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE CO UNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS – ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2022
B. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2022
2. UPDATE ON THE NORTHWE ST TRANSPORTATION NO W
COALITION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2022
3. UPDATE ON THE METROLINK / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY – AUDIT AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 11, 2022
4. UPDATE ON THE MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTIO N
REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FE BRUARY
17, 2022
C. COUNCIL MEMBER GUILLERMO SILVA
1. UPDATE ON THE NORTHW EST MOSQUITO AND VEC TOR
CONTROL DISTRICT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 17, 2022
10. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
11. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT UPDATE
Requested Action: That the City Council receive and file the report.
12. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. FEBRUARY 3, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
B. FEBRUARY 3, 2022 SPECIAL MEETING
Page - 4 -
13. CONSENT CALENDAR (COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA TAKEN HERE) (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Councilmember requests a separate action on a specific item on the Consent Calendar. If an item is removed from the Consent Calendar, it will be discussed individually and acted upon separately.)
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED IN
THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
B. REAFFIRM FINDINGS AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL TO MEET IN
WHOLE OR IN PART BY TELECONFERENCING UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e) DURING THE COVID -19
STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -13, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD WITH A TELECONFERENCE OPTION
FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC DUE TO
THE GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY AND THE CITY
COUNCIL’S DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e), AND MAKING FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE SAME
14. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
15. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM
URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY ENACTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS
RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9, DECLARING THE URGENCY
THEREOF AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION
UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
GUIDELINES SECTIONS 65852.21(J) AND 15061(B) (3)
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt, by a four -fifths vote, Ordinance No. 2022-03, extending Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 entitled:
Page - 5 -
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02, ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858
ON URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9, AND MAKING A
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA
16. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. INTRODUCTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE, ADDING CHAPTER 11.95
TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOCIAL
HOST LIABILITY, PROHIBITION AGAINST UNDERAGE DRINKING,
RECOVERY OF RESPONSE COSTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER
11.95 AND MAKING EXMPTION FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA; AND
ADOPTING A CITY RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.20 OF THE
JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
1. Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-04, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 11.95 TO
THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO
SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY, PROHIBITION AGAINST
UNDERAGE DRINKING, RECOVERY OF RESPONSE COSTS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 11.95 AND MAKING
EXMPTION FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
2. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-14, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE
OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.20 OF
THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
B. DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS TO C ONSIDER FOR THE THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED 2019 -2020 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
ALLOCATING CDBG-CV3 (COVID-19) FUNDS
Requested Action: That the City Council discuss the options available for CDBG- CV3 funding and provide direction to Staff.
Page - 6 -
17. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
18. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
19. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of March 17, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council or other services, please contact Jurupa Valley City Hall at (951) 332 -6464. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Agendas of public meetings and any other w ritings distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the City Council are public records. If such writing is distributed less than 72 hour s prior to a public meeting, the writing will be made available for public inspection at the City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members. The City Council may also post the writing on its Internet website at www.jurupavalley.org.
Agendas and Minutes are posted on the City’s website at www.jurupavalley.org.
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT
BOUNDARIES; REVIEW OF MAPS SUBMITTED BY THE CITY’S
DEMOGRAPHER AND THE PUBLIC AND RECEIPT OF PUBLIC INPUT
ON COMMUNTIES OF INTEREST AND PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR NEW
MAP OF CITY COUNCIL DISTRICT BOUNDARIES
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council open the public hearing and receive any public testimony; and
2) That the City Council provide direction to staff regarding which map should be considered for inclusion in the Ordinance to adopt new district boundaries for the Jurupa Valley City Council that will be introduced at the City Council Meeting of March 17, 2022.
BACKGROUND:
Every ten years, cities with by -district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed.
This process, called redistricting, ensures that all districts have nearly equal population.
The City adopted its current district boundaries on August 3, 2017, by Ordinance No. 2017-12. The districts must now be redrawn using the 2020 census data and in compliance with the F air Maps Act , which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849, which took effect January 1, 2020.
The proposed ordinance, which will adopt the new district boundaries, is scheduled for introduction at the March 17, 2022 Council meeting.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
ANALYSIS:
The redistricting process for the City of Jurupa Valley must be completed by April 17, 2022. The City Council must conduct at least four public hearings (two hearing before any maps are drawn, and at least two hearings after the maps are drawn) to receive public input on redistricting and the drawing of final district maps, including which district maps should be selected.
This is the third of four required public hearings. The first two public hearings were held on October 21, 2021 and December 2, 2021.
Throughout the public engagement process, members of the public were encouraged to submit examples of communities of interest and to propose draft maps via an online mapping tool provided by the City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation.
The Council shall adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
1. Council districts shall be geographically contiguous.
2. The geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates.
3. Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city.
4. Council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
The City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation, has prepare d three (3 ) draft Council District Maps for the Council’s consideration. The maps have been posted on the City’s Redistricting Webpage at: https://redistrictjurupavalley.org/
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no cost with res pect to this public hearing. However, the contract cos ts associated with the redistricting project was approved through the FY 2021-22 Budget.
-1-
12774-0001\2620039v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ADJUSTING THE BOUNDARIES OF THE FOUR CITY
COUNCIL DISTRICTS AND ADOPTING A NEW
OFFICIAL COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP FOR THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY BASED ON THE RESULTS OF
THE 2020 DECENNIAL CENSUS AND AMENDING
SECTION 2.05.070
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does find determine and declare as follows:
(a) On August 3, 2017 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2017 -12 pursuant to Government Code Sections 34871 to add Chapter 2.05 to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to provide for the by -district election of members of the City Council , adopt the official Council District Map for the City of Jurupa Valley, e stablish the boundaries and identification number of each electoral district, and establish a sequencing of elections for each Council District. (b) Pursuant to Elections Code Section 21601 and Section 2.05.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, the City Council is required to adjust the boundaries of any or all of the Council Districts following each decennial federal census. Using the census as a basis, the City Council must adjust the boundaries so that the Council Districts are as nearly equal in population as practicable and in compliance with all applicable provisions of law, including the United States and Federal Constitutions and the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 (52 U.S.C.
Section 10301 et seq.).
(c) In accordance with Elections Code Section 21607 a nd 21607.1, the City Council held public hearings on the drawing of district boundaries on: October 21, 2021 ; December 2, 2021; February 17, 2022; and Mar ch 17, 2022 . The proposed maps of the district boundaries were published on the City’s redistricting webpage on February 10, 2022. At each of the foregoing hearings, the public was invited to provide input on the composition of the new Council District boundaries. Additionally, the City held a public outreach workshop on January 6, 2022.
(d) After closing the public hearing held on March 17 , 2022, the City Council selected the map depicted in Exhibit “A” of this Ordinance as the official Council District Map for the City of Jurupa Valley and introduced this Ordinance for first reading. Demographic data supporting the map based on the 2020 Census is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” of this Ordinance and incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2. Adoption of New Council District Map. The map attached hereto as Exhibit “A” to this Ordinance, and incorporated herein by this reference , is hereby approved and adopted as -2-
12774-0001\2620039v1.doc
the Official Council District Map for the City of Jurupa Valley and shall be used in the 2022 general municipal election and all such elections for City Council thereafter, until further amended.
Section 3. Amendment of Section 2.05.070. Section 2.050.070 of Chapter 2.05 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
“2.05.070. - City Council districts established.
Five (5) City Council districts are hereby established in the city.
The boundaries and identifying number of each district shall be as described on the official "Council District Map" as adopted by Ordinance No. 2022-__ on file in the Office of the City Clerk. ” Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall nonetheless remain in full force and effect. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions of this Ordinance be declared invalid or unenforceable
Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. This Ordinance shall be effective upon its adoption pursuant to Elections Code Section 21600, et seq, and applicable law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 7th day of April, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Draft: 2-7-22
-3-
12774-0001\2620039v1.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-__, was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 17th day of March, 2022, and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 7th day of April, 2022, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 7th day of April, 2022. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Draft: 2-7-22
-4-
12774-0001\2620039v1.doc
EXHIBIT A
COUNCIL DISTRICT MAP
Draft: 2-7-22
-5-
12774-0001\2620039v1.doc
EXHIBIT B
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.B
DISCUSSION OF THE MERITS OF A MARKETING AGREEMENT
WITH UTILITY SERVICE PARTNERS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO
CITY STAFF
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council discuss the merits of implementing a marketing agreement with Utility Service P artners, Inc . (USP) and provide direction to Staff
BACKGROUND
Formed in 2003, Service Line Warranties of America Inc., a subsidiary of Utility Service Partners (USP), Inc., offers an insurance policy to residential property owners that covers the cost to repair or replace their utility service lines, primarily single -family houses and some multi -family dwellings (the “Program”). The company has over 1,000 utility, municipality and association partnerships in North America and over 4.8 million customers.
ANALYSIS
The Program was endorsed by the National League of Cities (NLC) in 2010 and began serving California in 2012 and currently has 29 California partners. Cities have the ability to sign a partnership agreement with USP, to offer a low -cost warranty program to residents. California cities that are partners in the Program include: Chula Vista, Claremont, Culver City, Duarte, Fillmore, Gustine, La Habra, Lemon Grove, Los Angeles, Oceanside, Port Hueneme, Rialto, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Paula, Vallejo, West Covina, Yuba City and Yountville.
In summary, the warranties covered under the Program fall into three (3) categories: (1) Exterior Water Line Warranty, (2) Exterior Sewer Line Warranty, and (3) In -Home Plumbing Warranty.
RETURN TO AGENDA
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.A
-1-
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
February 3, 2022
The meeting was held at the Jurupa Valley City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA
1. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
2. INVOCATION was given by Pastor Jeremy Williams, Grace Fellowship Church.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Paul Toor.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Council Member Guillermo Silva, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano, to approve the Agenda.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES -
INTRODUCTION OF “PET OF THE MONTH”
Josh Sisler, Commander of Field Services, County of Riverside Department of Animal Services , introduced himself to the Council and offered to answer any questions.
The City’s Pet of the Month for February, “Murphy”, an 11-month old terrier, was introduced to the Council. Anyone interested in giving “Murphy” a home is invited to contact the City’s Animal Control Services Department at https://www.rcdas.org.
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
B. CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE - STAFF INTRODUCTIONS
City Manager Rod Butler introduced the following employees from the City Manager’s Office : Terri Rollings, Assistant to the City Manager/PIO; Grizelda Reed, Executive Assistant, Linda Hinojos, Management Analyst; Devyn Fisher, Management Analyst , Amy Sells, Principal Management Analyst ; and Michael Flad, Assistant City Manager.
6. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
Kimberly Wheeler stated that the recent City moratorium on truck intensive uses will negatively impact her and other Jurupa Valley business owners. She requested a meeting to discuss the new restrictions.
Mike Kob old echoed Ms. Wheeler’s comments and explained how the moratorium is negatively affecting his plans to start a business in Jurupa Valley.
7. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOW LEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Council comments.
8. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Interagency Coordinating Council meeting held January 28, 2022.
B. COUNCIL MEMBER LORENA BARAJAS BISBEE
1. Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee gave an update on th e Western Riverside County - Regional Conservation Authority meeting of January 10, 2022.
C. COUNCIL MEMBER GUILLERMO SILVA
1. Council Member Guillermo Silva gave an update on the Riverside Transit Agency Board of Directors meeting of January 27, 2022.
D. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside County Transportation Commission – Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting of January 24, 2022.
-3-
2. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Metrolink / Southern California Regional Rail Authority meeting of January 28, 2022.
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Rod Butler reported that three members of the Council have confirmed their attendance at the California Contract Cities Association Legislative Action Days in Sacramento, which conflicts with the March 3, 2022 Council meeting. Followi ng discussion, the Council unanimously approved canceling the March 3, 2022 Council meeting.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JANUARY 20, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Council Member Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee, to approve the Minutes of the January 20, 2022 regular meeting.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
11. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED IN
THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
B. CONSIDERATION OF CHECK REGISTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$951,094.50
Requested Action: That the City Council ratify the check registers dated January 13 and 19, 2022 as well as the payroll registers dated January 7 and 21, 2022.
-4-
C. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-01
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-01, entitled:
Mayor Chris Barajas commented that he had some concerns about the additional setbacks and open space. He believes that everyone did a fine job with the ordinance; however, he would like staff to come back within five months to determine if the ordinance needs some minor tweaks.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLE Y, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING
TRADITIONAL NEIGHBOR HOOD DESIGN STANDARD S, AND
FINDING AN EXEMPTION FROM CEQA UNDER SEC TION 15061(B)(3)
OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
D. A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY TO ESTABLISH CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N O. PS 2021 -002 (PUBLIC
SAFETY, MONTECITO) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A
SPECIAL TAX WITHIN CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT N O. PS 2021 -002 (PUBLIC SAFETY,
MONTECITO); GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND AGATE STREET, TR37893.
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-10, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY TO ESTABLISH CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N O. PS 2021 -002 (PUBLIC
SAFETY, MONTECITO) AND TO AUTHORIZE THE LEVY OF A
SPECIAL TAX WITHIN CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT N O. PS 2021 -002 (PUBLIC SAFETY,
MONTECITO)
E. APPROVAL OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF UNDERGROUNDING FOR UTILITY
LINES AND POLES WITH IN, SERVING, AND ALO NG THE HUDSON STREET FRONTAGE OF T RACT 37052 LOCATED W EST OF HUDSON BETWEEN 60TH AND 59TH STREETS (APN: 165-100-027)
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the cash-in-lieu of undergrounding for utility lines and poles within, serving, and along the Hudson Street frontage of Tract 37052 in the amount of $41,580.
-5-
F. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PURSUIT OF GRANT FUNDING
UNDER VARIOUS CALRECYCLE GRANT PROGRAMS AND
SUBMITTAL OF AP PLICATIONS FOR ALL CALRECYCLE GRANTS
FOR WHICH THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY IS ELIGIBLE
That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-11, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF
APPLICATIONS FOR ALL CALRECYCLE GRANTS FOR WHICH CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY IS ELIGIBLE
G. AGREEMENT FOR URGENT ROAD REPAIR ON SIERRA AVENUE
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the award of the Agreement for Urgent Road Repair on Sierra Avenue between the City of Jurupa Valley and Hardy and Harper, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
A motion was made by Mayor Chris Barajas , seconded by Council Member Brian Berkson, to approve the Consent Calendar , with the exception of Item
11.E, which was removed for further discussion.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
12. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
11.E APPROVAL OF CASH-IN-LIEU OF UNDERGROUNDING FOR UTILITY
LINES AND POLES WITH IN, SERVING, AND ALO NG THE HUDSON STREET FRONTAGE OF T RACT 37052 LOCATED W EST OF HUDSON BETWEEN 60TH AND 59TH STREETS (APN: 165-100-027)
Council Member Brian Berkson requested that Item 11.E be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
Paul Toor, Public Works Director, provided additional information and responded to Council’s questions.
A motion was made by Council Member Brian Berkson, seconded by Council Member Guillermo Silva , to approve the cash -in-lieu of undergrounding for utility lines and poles within, serving, and along the Hudson Street frontage of Tract 37052 in the amount of $41,580.
-6-
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED 2019 -2020 CDBG ANNUAL ACTION PLAN ALLOCATING
CDBG-CV3 FUNDS
Staff report presented by Amy Sells, Principal Management Analyst.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing.
Kimberly Wheeler stated that she was unaware that this relief funding was available. She suggested that the City use a variety of communication tools to ensure that residents are aware of these types of programs.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed
Michael Flad, Assistant City Manager, commented that City staff will be reaching out to Ms. Wheeler. He noted that there is an ongoing process to improve the City’s communication efforts and to connect individuals with the resources available.
Following discussion, City staff were asked to bring back additional funding options for the Council to consider.
A motion was made by Council Member Brian Berkson, seconded by Council Member Guillermo Silva , to receive and file the third amendment to the amended 2019-2020 Annual Action Plan ; and adopt Resolution No. 2022 -12, as amended:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, ADOPTING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED
2019-2020 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR THE CITY’S COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
-7-
14. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. AGREEMENT TO CONDUCT A STUDY OF HYBRID PUBLIC SAFETY
MODELS WITH CITYGATE ASSOCIATES, LLC
Staff report presented by Michael Flad, Assistant City Manager.
Further discussion followed.
A motion was made by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano, to approve the Agreement by and between the City of Jurupa Valley and Citygate Associates, LLC for a study of hybrid public safety models for an amount not to exceed $67,722.00 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
B. APPOINTMENT OF CITY DELEGATE FOR THE 2022 SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS (SCAG)
REGIONAL CONFERENCE AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY
Staff report presented by City Clerk Victoria Wasko.
A motion was made by Council Member Brian Berkson, seconded by Mayor Chris Barajas , to appoint Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee as the Delegate and Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano as the Alternate for the SCAG General Assembly meeting on Thursday, May 5, 2022 at the JW Marriott Desert Springs Resort, 74-885 County Club Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92260.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
15. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Peter Thorson had no report.
-8-
16. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
There were no additional Council comments.
17. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held February 17, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.B
-1-
MINUTES
OF THE SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
February 3, 2022
The meeting was held at the Jurupa Valley City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA
7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR SPECIAL MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the special meeting to order at 7:01 p.m.
11. CONSENT CALENDAR (COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA TAKEN HERE) (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Councilmember requests a separate action on a specific item on the Consent Calendar. If an item is removed from the Consent Calendar, it will be discussed individually and acted upon separately.) H. ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC REPORT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858(D) REGARDING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE
NO. 2022 -02, ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN
LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SENATE BILL 9
Requested Action: That the City Council issue the report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d).
A motion was made by Mayor Chris Barajas , seconded by Council Member Brian Berkson, to approve the Consent Calendar , with the exception of Item
11.E, which was removed for further discussion.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
12. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held February 17, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.B
REAFFIRM FINDINGS AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL TO MEET
IN WHOLE OR IN PART BY TELECONFERENCING UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e) DURING THE COVID-
19 STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-13, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL TO BE HELD WITH A TELECONFERENCE OPTION FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC DUE TO THE
GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY AND THE CITY
COUNCIL’S DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e), AND MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE SAME
BACKGROUND
At the beginning of the COVID -19 Pandemic, the Governor issued an Executive Order allowing the City Council and other City legislative bodies to conduct their meetings, in whole or in part, by telephone or other electronic means. This Executive Order expired but the Legislature adopted Chapter 165 of 2021 (AB 361) th at allows meetings of a legislative body such as the City Council or commissions to be conducted by telephone or other electronic means if certain findings are made concerning an emergency and certain procedures providing for public comment are followed.
A legislative body that meets remotely pursuant to AB 361 must allow members of the public to access the meeting via a call-in option or an internet-based service option, and the agenda for the remote meeting must provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the body in real time. Although the agency may still ask for public
RETURN TO AGENDA
-1-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-13
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE
HELD WITH A T ELECONFERENCE OPTION FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC
DUE TO THE GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF
EMERGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL’S
DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e ), AND MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE
SAME
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(A) City Council is committed to public access and participation in its meetings and the meetings of all City legislative bodies while balancing the need to conduct public meetings in a ma nner that reduces the likelihood of exposure to COVID -19 and to support physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
(B) All meetings of the City Council and other City legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council and other City legislative bodies conduct their business.
(C) Pursuant to Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021 ( Assembly Bill 361 ) legislative bodies of local agencies may hold public meetings via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), without complying with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), if the legislative body complies with certain enumerated requirements in any of the following circumstances:
1) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
2) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. -2-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
(d) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention continue to advis e that COVID-19 spreads more easily indoors than outdoors and that people are more likely to be exposed to COVID-19 when they are closer than six feet apart from others for longer periods of time;
(e) Due to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic and the need to promot e social distancing to reduce the likelihood of exposure to COVID -19, the City Council intend s to hold public meetings with an option for members of those bodies and the public to attend by teleconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) based on the following findings:
1) The declared emergency is still in effect. On March 4, 2020, the Governor declared a State of Emergency in California related to the COVID -19 pandemic (the “Emergency”) and this State of Emergency has not been repealed . On March 20, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-10 declaring a Local Emergency related to the COVID -19 Pandemic, which Local Emergency has been reaffirmed since that time, including the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-07 on January 20, 2022.
2) California State Department of Public Health and Riverside County have each recommended measures to promote social distancing. Thus, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health still requires that employers provide for physical and social distancing in the workplace. Additionally, the Riverside County Department of Public Health still encourages people at risk for severe illness or death from COVID -19 to take protective measures such as social distancing and, for those not yet fully vaccinated, to physically distance from others whose vaccination status is unknown. The County Health Department also continues to recommend that employers take steps to support physical distancing. 3) The City Council reaffirms the findings made in Resolution No. 2022-08 adopted on January 20, 2022. Staff will also present these findings on a monthly basis in the manner provided by Government Code Section 54953(e) thereafter should the above - mentioned conditions continue.
Section 2. The City Council will continue to hold in person public meetings during the Emergency with required social distancing to the extent practicable. The City Council shall have the option to conduct their meetings in whole or in part via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e).
Section 3. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
Section 4. The City Council will reconsider the above findings within thirty days of adoption of this Resolution.
-3-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held on this 17th day of February, 2022.
________________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-4-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-13 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 17th day of February, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 17th day of February, 2022.
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.A
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER EXTENSION OF AN INTERIM
URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY ENACTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT
CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND
HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL
9, DECLARING THE URGENCY THER EOF AND MAKING A
DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
SECTIONS 65852.21(J) AND 15061(B) (3)
____________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council adopt, by a four -fifths vote, Ordinance No. 2022 -04, extending Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-03 entitled:
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM
URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2022 -02, ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ON
URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE
WITH SENATE BILL 9, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION
UNDER CEQA
BACKGROUND
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021 and became effective January 1, 2022 . It requires that a local jurisdiction allow ministerial approval (no discretionary review) of two (2) units on parcels zoned for single-family dwellings per lot and/or the subdivision of a single-family zoned parcel into two equal sized parcels ( a 40 to 60 percent split of lot size is allowed). This type of subdivision
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
(“urban lot split”) may result in each lot containing a duplex or two detached residential units.
Interim Urgency Ordinance
SB 9 allows cities to adopt objective development standards that regulate such projects provided they do not conflict with the Senate Bill. Since the law became effective (January 1, 2022 ) and up until January 20, 2022, the City was operating under the State ’s ordinance. On January 20, 2022, the City Council adopted an Interim Urgency Ordinance (see Attachments 2 & 3) for the Ordinance and staff report ) that include s objective standards imposed under SB 9 . In addition to these minimum State requirements, the Interim Urgency Ordinance (IUO) also included City-specific objective standards, which are intended to limit the potential negative impacts resulting from density increases and incompatible land use patterns in single-family zones. The initial IUO is effective for a 45- day period and is scheduled to expire on March 6, 2022.
In addition to those standards required by SB 9, the IUO included supplemental development standards that regulate scre ening of non -public utility electrical elements and other items, maximum unit size, maximum height of unit, separation distance between units, and affordability.
Extension of Interim Urgency Ordinance
If the City wishes to extend the IUO beyond its initial 45 – day period, State law requires the City Council to issue a report at least ten (10) days prior to its extension of an I UO that identifies the steps taken to alleviate the conditions leading to the adoption of the IUO and what it intends to study during any additional extension period. On February 3, 2022, the City Council issued such a report and identified the need to further review, analyze and assess the consequential development allowed with the passage of Senate Bill 9 (see Attachment 4).
The City Council may consider up to two extensions of time of the IUO. This first extension will ensure that the added protections developed by the City will continue to be in place and apply to any applications the City may receive for SB 9 projects for an additional 10 months and 15 days. The first extension will expire January 20, 2023. A second extension would be for an additional one year to develop a permanent SB 9 ordinance.
ANALYSIS
As explained in the January 20, 2022 City Council Staff Report, the only zone in the City where SB 9 development is permitted is in the R-1 zone (One-Family Dwellings), as the City’s other residential zones are not exclusively for single-family units.
Subject to certain exceptions, properties that are identified in the General Plan as being in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” and/or are located within a federally designated 100-year floodplain are excluded from SB 9 projects. The City has these areas scattered throughout the community. In addition, SB 9 projects are also not allowed in the following areas: a) earthquake study zones; b) prime agricultural lands; c) hazardous waste sites, d) coastal zones; e ) historic districts and/or properties with historic resources. The City has identified two such protected areas on General Plan maps. A map illustrat ing the Page | 3
location of R-1 zoning in relation to “very high fi re hazard severity zones” and the City’s federally designated 100-year floodplain areas is again included as an attachment to this report for City Council reference.
In addition to the map illustrating the location where SB 9 development may and may not be allowed , exhibits demonstrating various SB 9 development scenarios are provided below:
1. Example of typical SFD lot 2. Existing typical SFD lot with ADUs
3. Example of Urban Lot Split 4. Example of SB 9 Development
Year: 1965
Home size: 2,000 sq.
ft.
Lot size: 7,200 sq. ft.
Side yards: 5 and 15 ft.
Current ADU Law
allows:
- A Jr. ADU (650 sq. ft.
max)
- A freestanding ADU
(1,200 sq. ft. max)
A total of 3 Units
SB 9 allows:
A Lot Split with
both parcels to
be approximately
similar size.
Existing home
does not need to
meet current
setbacks.
SB 9 allows:
- A Lot Split
- A New Home (4
ft. side and rear
yard setbacks)
Page | 4
6. Example of SB 9 Development 7. Example of SB 9 Development
It is important to note that other configurations of development may occur such as a duplex on each newly created lot resulting in 4 units.
7. Example of SB 9 Development with duplexes.
As a result of the potential impacts to existing neighborhoods stemming from the passage of SB 9, it is recommended that the City extend the attached ordinance to allow additional time for analyzing the various aspects of the housing devel opment and urban lot split development.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
An advertisement for this public hearing was published in the Press Enterprise on February 7, 2022.
SB 9 allows:
- A Lot Split
- A New
Home with 4
ft. side and
rear yard
setbacks
- A new ADU
SB 9 allows:
- A Lot Split
- A New Home
with 4 ft. side
and rear yard
setbacks
- A new ADU
- A new ADU
or Jr. ADU in
the original
home
A Total of 4 Units
SB 9 allows:
- A duplex (or
two detached
units) on each
lot if
demolition of
existing
structure is not
a unit that had
been occupied
by the owner
for 3 years
A Total of 4 Units
New
Duplex
New
Duplex
Page | 6
ATTACHMENTS
1. Ordinance 2022-03
2. Adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance 2022-02
3. January 20, 2022 City Council Staff Report
4. 10-day Report Issued by the City Council on February 3, 2022
5. Map Illustrating Applicability of SB 9
ATTACHMENT 1 (Proposed Ordinance)
DRAFT: For February 17, 2022 City Council Meeting
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-__ AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA V ALLEY, CALIFORNIA, EXTENDING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02, ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ON URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9, AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA V ALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Prior Ordinance. On January 20, 2022, the City Council adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 establishing emergency regulations pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 on urban lot splits and housing units built in accordance with Senate Bill 9. That ordinance has a term of forty-five (45) days and is scheduled to expire on March 6, 2022. SECTION 2. Legislative Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does find, determine, and declare that: A. California state law allows a City to adopt an interim ordinance that imposes temporary restrictions on the approval of land use entitlements that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan or zoning proposal that the legislative body or planning commission intends to study within a reasonable time. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, an interim urgency zoning ordinance must be adopted by not less than a four-fifths vote of the City Council and is effective for forty-five (45) days from the date of its adoption. B. The City Council may consider up to two (2) extensions of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 pursuant to the legal requirements provided in Government Code Section 65858. The City Council may initially extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 by up to ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days. Then, City Council may extend Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 for one (1) subsequent year. Both extensions require a four-fifths vote of the City Council. C. On September 16, 2021 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 9, entitled the “California Home Act”, into law, which establishes a series of new regulations to allow for ministerial approval of two units on parcels located in single-family residential zones as outlined in Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. SB 9 took effect on January 1, 2022. D. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split and/or a proposed housing development containing a maximum of two residential units within a single-family residential zone, if the two-unit or subdivision project meets certain statutory criteria. SB 9 specifies that proposed projects and subdivisions cannot be proposed in prohibited locations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K), such as in an earthquake fault zone, lands under conservation easement, a federally designated flood plain, and high fire hazard severity zones as defined under state law.
DRAFT: February 17, 2022
-2-
E. SB 9 further restricts the standards and regulations that local agencies may impose on qualifying two-unit or subdivision projects. In addition, SB 9 permits a local agency to deny a proposed two-unit or subdivision project only if the agency makes a written finding based on preponderance of the evidence that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, which is a very high standard for municipalities to meet under the statute. F. The City of Jurupa Valley’s natural beauty, equestrian lifestyle, and semi-rural residential communities are uniquely valuable public resources. Some parcels within the City are also within high fire hazard severity zones, or other locations where increased density may cause safety concerns. The City has substantial interests in protecting the community against these hazards. Unregulated or disorderly development represents an ever-increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community. G. SB 9 specifically authorizes local agencies to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards consistent with the bill’s provisions, and to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions. The default standards contained in the new state law lack sufficient objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards to preserve the health, welfare and safety of the community. The City of Jurupa Valley desires to clarify the objective zoning and design standards that will apply to the ministerial review of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments in the City’s single-family residential zones. H. The City Council is concerned that under the City’s current zoning standards and current general plan policies, the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 might cause a disproportionate public health, safety and welfare impact to the City of Jurupa Valley community and to its residents ‒ including potential detrimental impacts on vehicular and pedestrian safety, emergency response, and housing affordability ‒ without compensating benefits to the community. I. The City Council finds that studies need to be conducted to determine the proper location, concentration, regulations, and other land use regulatory controls that need to be in place in order to ensure that the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 does not burden the City and its residents and that the procedures for allowing such uses need to be studied to enable the City to address and mitigate potential burdens on the communities affected by these developments. J. The City Council finds that in order to best protect the immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary for the City to immediately study and analyze the implications of approving qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 in the City. To accomplish this, the City Council imposed, on an urgency basis, emergency regulations related to urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9. K. The City Council now finds that it is necessary to extend the emergency regulations. L. These emergency regulations will allow City staff, the City Council, property owners, and the people of the City of Jurupa Valley sufficient time to analyze the burdens DRAFT: February 17, 2022
-3-
that urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9 will have on the City so that the appropriate land use regulatory controls and zone changes can be adopted if needed. During this period, the City will be able to analyze their potential impacts on the public health. The City Council finds that these studies will help the City Council and the City’s Planning Department determine how best to prevent impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council further finds that these emergency regulations will allow time to evaluate the City’s General Plan designations and policies, zoning measures or development standards and develop appropriate regulations for qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments in the City to achieve a reasonable level of assurance that there will not be serious negative impacts to the overall community and ensure positive outcomes for the City’s residents, business community, property owners, and developers. M. The City Council finds that it is necessary that this interim Ordinance take effect immediately as there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare. Without this interim Ordinance, urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9 may be established in the City that may be in conflict with regulations ultimately adopted. Without this interim Ordinance, such urban lot splits and residential developments may be allowed to develop within the City that are incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods. Therefore, a current and immediate threat to the public safety, health and welfare exists. N. For the reasons specified above and all the evidence in the record, the City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare caused by the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 in the City, and that the approval of any entitlement to allow such type of use would constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City. SECTION 3. Compliance with Government Code Section 65858(d). Government Code Section 65858(d) requires that ten days prior to the expiration or extension of any interim zoning ordinance, the City Council must issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. On February 3, 2022, the City Council issued this report. SECTION 4. Adoption as an Interim Urgency Zoning Ordinance. This Ordinance is adopted as an interim urgency zoning ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65858(a), and shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 2 of this Interim Urgency Ordinance, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this Interim Ordinance as an urgency ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety, and welfare pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Sections 65858(a) and 36937(b). SECTION 5. Emergency Regulations Extended. The emergency regulations enacted by the City of Jurupa Valley pursuant to Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 are hereby extended pursuant to Government Code Section 65858 for ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days so as to extend these regulations until January 20, 2023. The urgency ordinance hereby extends emergency regulations of urban lot splits and housing units built in accordance with Senate Bill 9.
DRAFT: February 17, 2022
-4-
SECTION 6. Term. This Interim Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption, and this Interim Ordinance shall expire, and the emergency regulations established hereby shall terminate, ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days after the 45-day expiration date of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02, unless extended by the City Council at a regularly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858. The City Council shall retain the authority to terminate or to limit the scope of the emergency regulations at any time. SECTION 7. CEQA Finding. The City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that this Interim Ordinance has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and accordingly both the City Council’s action of adopting this interim Ordinance and the effects derivative from that adoption are exempt from the application of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). This Interim Ordinance will provide temporary emergency regulations related to SB 9 Development Projects and Urban Lot Splits in the City in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and will thereby serve to avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts during the term of the emergency regulations. There is no possibility that adopting this Interim Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations and no environmental analysis is required. Furthermore, this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j). The Community Development Director shall prepare and file a Notice of Exemption for this Interim Ordinance. SECTION 8. Planning Studies. City staff shall continue the studies commenced pursuant to Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02 that they deem necessary and appropriate to make a recommendation to this City Council regarding the structuring of the General Plan, zoning and other necessary regulatory controls over SB 9 Development Projects within the City of Jurupa Valley. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d), City staff shall prepare and submit for City Council adoption, at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this Interim Ordinance, or any extension hereof, a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. SECTION 9. Extension of Time. The Community Development Director and the City Clerk’s office shall undertake all actions legally necessary to extend this Interim Ordinance in the event the studies desired by this City Council will not be concluded on or before the termination of the Urgency ordinance. SECTION 10. Effect of Ordinance. This Interim Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance or resolution of the City of Jurupa Valley in conflict with the terms of this Interim Ordinance; provided, however, that nothing contained in this Interim Ordinance is intended to nor shall be construed to impair the prosecution or other enforcement action for violations of such ordinances. SECTION 11. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Interim Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not DRAFT: February 17, 2022
-5-
affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Interim Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Interim Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 12. Effective Date. This Interim Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage. It shall be of no further force or effect ten (10) months and fifteen (15) days from the 45-day expiration date of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02, unless extended pursuant to the legal requirements contained in Government Code Section 65858. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 17th day of February, 2022. ______________________________ Chris Barajas Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Victoria Wasko, CMC City Clerk DRAFT: For February 17, 2022 City Council Meeting
-6-
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF JURUPA V ALLEY ) I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-___ was duly was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 17th day of February, 2022, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ____________________________ VICTORIA WASKO, CMC CITY CLERK ATTACHMENT 2 (Adopted Interim Urgency Ordinance 2022-02)
ATTACHMENT 3 (January 20, 2022 City Council Staff Report) Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 20, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.B
CONSIDERATION OF AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ENACTED PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS RELATED
TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9, DECLARING THE
URGENCY THEREOF AND M AKING A DETERMINATION OF
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTIONS 65852.21(J)
AND 15061(B)(3)
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council adopt, by a four-fifths vote, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02, entitled:
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY ENA CTED PURSUANT TO GOV ERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY REGULATIONS RELATED
TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BU ILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9, DECLARING THE URGENC Y THEREOF AND
MAKING A DETERMINATION OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT Y ACT (CEQA ) GUIDELINES SECTIONS 65852.21(J) AND 15061(B)(3)
BACKGROUND
Current zoning regulations permit up to three units on a parcel zoned for a single -family dwelling: one pr imary dwelling; one Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU); and one Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU).
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) was signed by Governor Newsom on September 16, 2021 and became effective January 1, 2022 (see Attachment 1). It requires that a local jurisdiction allow ministerial approval (no discretionary review) of two units on parcels zoned for single-family dwellings per lot and/or the subdivision of a single -family zoned parcel into two equal sized parcels (a 40 to 60 percent split of lot size is allowed). This type of subdivision (“urban lot split”) may result in each lot containing a duplex or two detached residential units.
SB 9 allows cities to adopt objective development standards that regulate such projects provided they do not conflict with the Senate Bill. Since the law became effective on January 1, 2022, the City is currently operating under the State’s ordinance. The Interim Urgency Ordinance (Attachment 2) includes the objective standards imposed under SB
9. In addition to these minimum State requirements, the Interim Urgency Ordinance also includes City -specific objective standards, which are intended to limit the potential negative impacts resulting from density increases and incompatible land use patterns i n single-family zones.
ANALYSIS
If the City Council adopts the proposed Interim Urgency Ordinance at the January 20, 2022 meeting and the City Council wishes to proceed with the first extension , such an extension can be scheduled for a Public Hearing at the February 17, 202 2 City Council meeting. The second extension would be scheduled in January, 2023.
The only zone in the City where SB 9 development is permitted is in the R -1 zone (One- Family Dwellings), as the City’s other residential zones are not exclusively for singl e- family units.
Subject to certain exceptions, properties that are identified in the General Plan as being in a “very high fire hazard severity zone” and/or are located within a federally designated 100-year floodplain are excluded from SB 9 projects. Such areas are scattered throughout the City. In addition, per SB 9, SB 9 projects are also not allowed in the following areas: a) earthquake study zones; b) prime agricultural lands; c) hazardous waste sites, d) coastal zones; e) historic districts and/or properties with historic resources.
The City identifies two such protected areas on General Plan maps. A map illustrating the location of R -1 zoning in relation to “very high fire hazard severity zones” and the City’s federally designated 100-year floodplain areas is included as Attachment 3.
Objective Development Standards – SB 9 Housing Development
Certain standards, regulations and provisions are established in SB 9 that the City must enforce. These features of the Senate Bill are listed below:
Housing. The City must allow ministerial approval of two units in single-family zones per lot and/or the subdivision of an existing single -family zoned parcel into two approximately equal sized parcels (a 40 to 60 percent split of lot size is allowed).
Page | 3
Preservation of certain types of housing. The SB 9 project cannot require the demolition or alteration of any of the following: (1) rent controlled units, (2) affordable units, (3) units occupied by tenants within the last three years; or (4) units removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act within the last 15 years.
Setbacks. The City must allow setbacks of up to 4 ft. from side and rear lot lines. The City is allowed to impose front yard setbacks, provided that the front yard setback does not preclude the deve lopment of up to two units of at least 800 square feet of floor area each. The City cannot establish a setback to/for existing structures or structures constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
Parking. The City can only require 1 off-street parking space per lot unless the parcel is located within ½ mile of a high -quality transit corridor or major transit stop or there is a car share within one block of the parcel.
Existing Unit Protections. The City must not allow the demolition of more than 25 percent of an existing unit’s exterior structural walls, unless permitted by local ordinance or the site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last 3 years. The City will include a provision that prohib its demolishing more than 25 percent of an existing unit as a means of preserving existing housing stock and maintaining current neighborhood appearances as much as possible.
Use Restrictions. The City must prohibit any non-residential uses, short-term rentals (less than 30-day tenancy), and subsequent urban lot splits. The City must require an applicant for Urban Lot Split to sign an affidavit stating that the owner intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for at least three years from the date of the approval of the Urban Lot Split .
The City must also mandate continual access to public rights-of-way.
Housing Element Report. The City must report the number of units developed pursuant to SB 9 in its Annual Housing Element report.
As discussed previously, the City may adopt objective development standards as long as they do not preclude the development of up to two units of at least 800 square feet of floor area each. Since the City has some authority to adopt objective development standards, it is considered prudent to apply any provisions that could increase community aesthetics as well as promote vehicular and pedestrian safety, emergency response, housing affordability, and compatibility with existing neighborhoods.
The following are recommended development standards that have been included in the attached Interim Urgency ordinance as supplemental to those standards established in SB 9:
1. Non-public utility electrical elements such as wires, conduits, junction boxes, transformers, ballasts, and switch and panel boxes shall be concealed from view from adjacent public rights-of-way.
Page | 4
2. All flashing, sheet metal vents, and pipe stacks shall be painted to match the adjacent roof or wall material.
3. Pedestrian access to a public street or alley shall be provided with an exterior pedestrian pathway from the primary entrances of each unit to the adjoining sidewalk, street, or alley.
4. The maximum unit size for any proposed development proposed under Senate Bill 9 is 1,200 square feet. Establishing a maximum unit size will promote the intent and purpose of the law (to increase the number of affordable housing units) since smaller homes are considered more affordable. The 1,200 square- foot maximum is considered appropriate since it is also the maximum size of the City’s current ADU regulation.
5. Dwellings proposed in accordance with Senate Bill 9 shall be limited to 16 feet of height and consist of no more than one -story. It is presumed that a single - story will have less potential impacts to existing views and have less construction costs resulting in a more affordable housing cost.
6. Any duplex or other dwelling unit built per the provisions of SB 9 shall provide a 10-foot separation between other dwelling units on the same lot. (Note: this will promote usable open space areas, a rural atmosphere and reduce architectural mass and bulk).
7. If pursuant to SB 9, more than one unit is developed on a lot, one such unit shall be rented or leased at an affordable rent for moderate-income households (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053) if it is rented. Upon request from the City, the property owner shall furnish a copy of the rental or lease agreement of any units in an SB 9 Development Project that is rented or leased. This requirement is being recommended to ensure that the new units meet the intention of State law to increase the supply of affordable housing.
Subdivision/Urban Lot Split Provisions of SB 9
The following list identifies the major parameters pertaining to “urban lot splits” found in SB 9:
Parcel Map. The City is required to ministerially approve an “Urban Lot Split” through a parcel map for property that is located in a single-family zone. Cities can also require a tentative map but it also has to be approved ministerially.
Parcel size. No more than two parcels can be created. The new parcels must be approximately equal in size, with one parcel being no smaller than 40 percent of the original parcel’s size and each new parcel containing at least 1,200 square feet.
Page | 5
Further subdivisions. A City can deny further subdivision of the new parcels or if the owner or someone is acting in concert with the owner has subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split.
Objective standards. The urban lot split must conform to all objective requirements of the subdivision map act unless exempted by SB 9. A City is not allowed to apply findings to an SB 9 tentative map or the parcel map.
Public improvements. The City cannot require dedications of right -of-way or offsite public improvements but can r equire utility easements and right-of-way access.
Use restrictions. The City must restrict the newly created parcels to residential uses and require the owner to sign an affidavit committing to occupy one of the units as a principal residence for at least 3 years. These restrictions may be implemented through an ordinance applicable to urban lot splits or a requirement to record a restrictive covenant.
Preservation of certain types of housing. The SB 9 urban lot split is not allowed if it would require the demolition or alteration of any of the following: (1) rent controlled units, (2) affordable units, (3) units occupied by tenants within the last three years; or (4) units removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act within the last 15 years.
Correction of non-conforming zoning. The City cannot require the correction of non-conforming zoning conditions as a condition of parcel map approval.
Housing Element Report. The City must report the number of applications for urban lot splits in its annual Housing Element report.
In addition to the above mandates of SB 9 , it is recommended that the City adopt the following objective development standards (included in att ached Interim Urgency Ordinance) for urban lot splits to promote logical land development:
1. No flag lots shall be created as a result of an Urban Lo t Split if the subject property is adjacent to an alley, located on a corner, or on a through lot.
2. The width of any lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split shall not be less than 20 feet wide.
3. Proposed parcel map shall demonstrate ability to access the public right-of-way in perpetuity.
4. No lot resulting from an urban lot split shall have more than two residential units inclusive of any Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
Page | 6
It is important to note that SB 9 allows local Building Officials to deny a two -unit development project or urban lot split only by making a written finding, based on a preponderance of evidence, that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety or the physical environment, and that there is no feasible method to mit igate or avoid such an impact. A “specific adverse impact” must be significant, quantifiable, and direct, based on an objective written public health or safety standard that existed at the time of the project application was deemed complete. Inconsistenc y with a City’s General Plan or zoning ordinance does constitute a specific adverse impact.
Staff will be reviewing these projects on a case -by-case basis to determine whether or not a specific adverse impact finding can be made.
URGENCY ORDINANCE
Adoption of the attached Interim Urgency Ordinance means that the added protections developed by the City will be in place immediately and apply to any applications the City may receive for SB 9 projects for 45 days. State Urgency Ordinance provisions are structured so that during the 45 -day period, further studies may be conducted to determine if additional standards or regulations are warranted. After 45 days, the City Council can extend the ordinance for another 320 days and another one -year extension of the ordinance is allowed after the 320-day extension. In summary, the City will have a total of up to two years to develop a permanent SB 9 ordinance.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Interim Urgency Ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that it has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and accordingly both the City Council’s action of adopting this interim Ordinance and the effects derivative from that adoption are exempt from the application of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). Furthermore, this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j).
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Costs associated with this code amendment are covered by the General Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt, by a four -fifths vote, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022 -02, establishing emergency regulations for SB 9 development projects.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
3. Council may elect not to adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02.
Senate Bill No. 9
CHAPTER 162
An act to amend Section 66452.6 of, and to add Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to, the Government Code, relating to land use.
[Approved by Governor September 16, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 16, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 9, Atkins. Housing development: approvals.
The Planning and Zoning La w provides for the creation of accessory dwelling units by local ordinance, or, if a local agency has not adopted an ordinance, by ministerial approval, in accordance with specified standards and conditions.
This bill, among other things, w ould require a proposed housing development containing no more than 2 residential units within a single-family residential zone to be considered ministerially , without discretionary review or hearing, if the proposed housing development meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and f amilies of moderate, lo w, or very low income, that the proposed housing de velopment does not allo w for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except as provided, and that the de velopment is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources In ventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agenc y can and cannot require in approving the construction of 2 residential units, including, but not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objecti ve design standards, as defined, unless those standards w ould ha ve the ef fect of ph ysically precluding the construction of up to 2 units or ph ysically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances.
The Subdivision Map Act vests the authority to regulate and control the design and improvement of subdivisions in the le gislative body of a local agency and sets forth procedures governing the local agency’s processing, approval, conditional approval or disapproval, and filing of tentative, final, and parcel maps, and the modification of those maps. Under the Subdivision Map Act, an approved or conditionally approved tentative map expires 24
94 months after its appro val or conditional appro val or after an y additional period of time as prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 12 months, except as provided.
This bill, among other things, would require a local agency to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split that meets certain requirements, including, but not limited to, that the urban lot split w ould not require the demolition or alteration of housing that is subject to a recorded co venant, ordinance, or la w that restricts rents to le vels affordable to persons and families of moderate, lo w, or v ery low income, that the parcel is located within a single-f amily residential zone, and that the parcel is not located within a historic district, is not included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, or is not within a site that is legally designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district.
The bill would set forth what a local agenc y can and cannot require in approving an urban lot split, including, b ut not limited to, authorizing a local agency to impose objecti ve zoning standards, objecti ve subdivision standards, and objective design standards, as defined, unless those standards would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of 2 units, as defined, on either of the resulting parcels or physically precluding either of the 2 units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area, prohibiting the imposition of setback requirements under certain circumstances, and setting maximum setback requirements under all other circumstances. The bill would require an applicant to sign an affida vit stating that they intend to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of 3 years from the date of the appro val of the urban lot split, unless the applicant is a community land trust or a qualified nonprofit corporation, as specified. The bill w ould prohibit a local agenc y from imposing an y additional owner occupancy standards on applicants. By requiring applicants to sign affida vits, thereby e xpanding the crime of perjury , the bill w ould impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would also extend the limit on the additional period that may be provided by ordinance, as described abo ve, from 12 months to 24 months and would make other conforming or nonsubstantive changes.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a lead agency, as defined, to prepare, or cause to be prepared, and certify the completion of, an environmental impact report on a project that it proposes to carry out or approve that may ha ve a significant ef fect on the en vironment. CEQA does not apply to the approval of ministerial projects.
This bill, by establishing the ministerial review processes described above, would thereby exempt the approval of projects subject to those processes from CEQA.
The California Coastal Act of 1976 pro vides for the planning and regulation of de velopment, under a coastal de velopment permit process, within the coastal zone, as defined, that shall be based on v arious coastal resources planning and management policies set forth in the act. 94 — 2 — Ch. 162
This bill would exempt a local agency from being required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment permit applications for housing developments and urban lot splits pursuant to the above provisions.
By increasing the duties of local agencies with respect to land use regulations, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 65852.21 is added to the Government Code, to read:
65852.21. (a) A proposed housing de velopment containing no more than two residential units within a single-f amily residential zone shall be considered ministerially, without discretionary re view or a hearing, if the proposed housing development meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The parcel subject to the proposed housing de velopment is located within a city , the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or , for unincorporated areas, a le gal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(2) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (3) Notwithstanding any provision of this section or an y local law, the proposed housing development would not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(A) Housing that is subject to a recorded co venant, ordinance, or la w that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(B) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(C) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (4) The parcel subject to the proposed housing de velopment is not a parcel on which an o wner of residential real property has e xercised the owner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the de velopment proponent submits an application.
94 Ch. 162 — 3 —
(5) The proposed housing de velopment does not allo w the demolition of more than 25 percent of the existing exterior structural walls, unless the housing development meets at least one of the following conditions:
(A) If a local ordinance so allows.
(B) The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (6) The development is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources In ventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
(b) (1) Notwithstanding an y local la w and e xcept as pro vided in paragraph (2), a local agenc y may impose objecti ve zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design review standards that do not conflict with this section.
(2) (A) The local agency shall not impose objecti ve zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that would have the effect of physically precluding the construction of up to two units or that would physically preclude either of the two units from being at least 800 square feet in floor area.
(B) (i) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(ii) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), in all other circumstances not described in clause (i), a local agenc y may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(c) In addition to an y conditions established in accordance with subdivision (b), a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for two residential units as provided for in this section:
(1) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, e xcept that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the follo wing instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop, as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (2) For residential units connected to an onsite w astewater treatment system, a percolation test completed within the last 5 years, or , if the percolation test has been recertified, within the last 10 years. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny a proposed housing development project if the building official makes a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the e vidence, that the proposed housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdi vision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the physical environment and for which there is 94 — 4 — Ch. 162
no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
(e) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(f) Notwithstanding Section 65852.2 or 65852.22, a local agenc y shall not be required to permit an accessory dwelling unit or a junior accessory dwelling unit on parcels that use both the authority contained within this section and the authority contained in Section 66411.7. (g) Notwithstanding subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) of subdi vision (b), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures pro vided that the structures meet b uilding code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance. (h) Local agencies shall include units constructed pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(i) For purposes of this section, all of the following apply:
(1) A housing de velopment contains tw o residential units if the development proposes no more than two new units or if it proposes to add one new unit to one existing unit.
(2) The terms “objecti ve zoning standards, ” “objecti ve subdi vision standards,” and “objecti ve design re view standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjecti ve judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion a vailable and kno wable by both the de velopment applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternati ve objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances. (3) “Local agency” means a city , county, or city and county , whether general law or chartered.
(j) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(k) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agenc y shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment permit applications for a housing development pursuant to this section.
SEC. 2. Section 66411.7 is added to the Government Code, to read:
66411.7. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this division and any local law, a local agency shall ministerially approve, as set forth in this section, a parcel map for an urban lot split only if the local agency determines that the parcel map for the urban lot split meets all the follo wing requirements:
94 Ch. 162 — 5 —
(1) The parcel map subdivides an existing parcel to create no more than two new parcels of approximately equal lot area pro vided that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40 percent of the lot area of the original parcel proposed for subdivision.
(2) (A) Except as pro vided in subparagraph (B), both ne wly created parcels are no smaller than 1,200 square feet.
(B) A local agency may by ordinance adopt a smaller minimum lot size subject to ministerial approval under this subdivision. (3) The parcel being subdivided meets all the following requirements:
(A) The parcel is located within a single-family residential zone. (B) The parcel subject to the proposed urban lot split is located within a city, the boundaries of which include some portion of either an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, or, for unincorporated areas, a legal parcel wholly within the boundaries of an urbanized area or urban cluster, as designated by the United States Census Bureau.
(C) The parcel satisfies the requirements specified in subparagraphs (B) to (K), inclusive, of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (D) The proposed urban lot split w ould not require demolition or alteration of any of the following types of housing:
(i) Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
(ii) Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
(iii) A parcel or parcels on which an o wner of residential real property has exercised the o wner’s rights under Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 to withdraw accommodations from rent or lease within 15 years before the date that the development proponent submits an application.
(iv) Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. (E) The parcel is not located within a historic district or property included on the State Historic Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or within a site that is designated or listed as a city or county landmark or historic property or district pursuant to a city or county ordinance.
(F) The parcel has not been established through prior exercise of an urban lot split as provided for in this section.
(G) Neither the o wner of the parcel being subdi vided nor an y person acting in concert with the o wner has pre viously subdivided an adjacent parcel using an urban lot split as provided for in this section. (b) An application for a parcel map for an urban lot split shall be approved in accordance with the following requirements:
(1) A local agency shall approve or deny an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split ministerially without discretionary review. (2) A local agency shall approve an urban lot split only if it conforms to all applicable objective requirements of the Subdivision Map Act (Division 94 — 6 — Ch. 162
2 (commencing with Section 66410)), except as otherwise expressly provided in this section.
(3) Notwithstanding Section 66411.1, a local agenc y shall not impose regulations that require dedications of rights-of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map for an urban lot split pursuant to this section. (c) (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), notwithstanding an y local law, a local agenc y may impose objecti ve zoning standards, objecti ve subdivision standards, and objective design review standards applicable to a parcel created by an urban lot split that do not conflict with this section. (2) A local agency shall not impose objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objecti ve design re view standards that w ould have the ef fect of ph ysically precluding the construction of tw o units on either of the resulting parcels or that would result in a unit size of less than 800 square feet.
(3) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), no setback shall be required for an existing structure or a structure constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing structure.
(B) Notwithstanding paragraph (2), in all other circumstances not described in subparagraph (A), a local agency may require a setback of up to four feet from the side and rear lot lines.
(d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), a local agency may deny an urban lot split if the b uilding official mak es a written finding, based upon a preponderance of the e vidence, that the proposed housing de velopment project would have a specific, adv erse impact, as defined and determined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon public health and safety or the ph ysical environment and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact. (e) In addition to an y conditions established in accordance with this section, a local agency may require any of the following conditions when considering an application for a parcel map for an urban lot split:
(1) Easements required for the provision of public services and facilities. (2) A requirement that the parcels ha ve access to, provide access to, or adjoin the public right-of-way.
(3) Off-street parking of up to one space per unit, e xcept that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the follo wing instances:
(A) The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, or a major transit stop as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) There is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel. (f) A local agency shall require that the uses allowed on a lot created by this section be limited to residential uses.
(g) (1) A local agency shall require an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affida vit stating that the applicant intends to occup y one of the 94 Ch. 162 — 7 —
housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
(2) This subdivision shall not apply to an applicant that is a “community land trust,” as defined in clause (ii) of subparagraph (C) of paragraph (11) of subdivision (a) of Section 402.1 of the Re venue and Taxation Code, or is a “qualified nonprofit corporation” as described in Section 214.15 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
(3) A local agenc y shall not impose additional o wner occupanc y standards, other than provided for in this subdivision, on an urban lot split pursuant to this section.
(h) A local agency shall require that a rental of any unit created pursuant to this section be for a term longer than 30 days.
(i) A local agency shall not require, as a condition for ministerial approval of a parcel map application for the creation of an urban lot split, the correction of nonconforming zoning conditions.
(j) (1) Notwithstanding an y pro vision of Section 65852.2, 65852.21, 65852.22, 65915, or this section, a local agenc y shall not be required to permit more than two units on a parcel created through the e xercise of the authority contained within this section.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “unit” means an y dwelling unit, including, but not limited to, a unit or units created pursuant to Section 65852.21, a primary dwelling, an accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.2, or a junior accessory dwelling unit as defined in Section 65852.22.
(k) Notwithstanding paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), an application shall not be rejected solely because it proposes adjacent or connected structures provided that the structures meet b uilding code safety standards and are sufficient to allow separate conveyance.
(l) Local agencies shall include the number of applications for parcel maps for urban lot splits pursuant to this section in the annual housing element report as required by subparagraph (I) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400.
(m) For purposes of this section, both of the following shall apply:
(1) “Objective zoning standards,” “objective subdivision standards,” and “objective design review standards” mean standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the de velopment applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. These standards may be embodied in alternative objective land use specifications adopted by a local agency, and may include, but are not limited to, housing o verlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
(2) “Local agency” means a city , county, or city and county , whether general law or chartered.
(n) A local agency may adopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of this section. An ordinance adopted to implement this section shall not be 94 — 8 — Ch. 162
considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(o) Nothing in this section shall be construed to supersede or in any way alter or lessen the effect or application of the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code), except that the local agenc y shall not be required to hold public hearings for coastal de velopment permit applications for urban lot splits pursuant to this section.
SEC. 3. Section 66452.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:
66452.6. (a) (1) An approved or conditionally approved tentative map shall expire 24 months after its appro val or conditional appro val, or after any additional period of time as may be prescribed by local ordinance, not to exceed an additional 24 months. Ho wever, if the subdivider is required to expend two hundred thirty-six thousand se ven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) or more to construct, impro ve, or finance the construction or improvement of public impro vements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, excluding improvements of public rights-of-way that abut the boundary of the property to be subdivided and that are reasonably related to the development of that property, each filing of a final map authorized by Section 66456.1 shall e xtend the e xpiration of the appro ved or conditionally approved tentative map by 48 months from the date of its expiration, as pro vided in this section, or the date of the pre viously filed final map, whichever is later. The extensions shall not extend the tentative map more than 10 years from its approval or conditional approval. However, a tentative map on property subject to a development agreement authorized by Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 65864) of Chapter 4 of Division 1 may be extended for the period of time provided for in the agreement, but not beyond the duration of the agreement. The number of phased final maps that may be filed shall be determined by the advisory agency at the time of the approval or conditional approval of the tentative map. (2) Commencing January 1, 2012, and each calendar year thereafter, the amount of tw o hundred thirty-six thousand se ven hundred ninety dollars ($236,790) shall be annually increased by operation of law according to the adjustment for inflation set forth in the state wide cost inde x for class B construction, as determined by the State Allocation Board at its January meeting. The effective date of each annual adjustment shall be March 1.
The adjusted amount shall apply to tentati ve and v esting tentative maps whose applications were received after the effective date of the adjustment. (3) “Public improvements,” as used in this subdi vision, include traffic controls, streets, roads, highways, freeways, bridges, overcrossings, street interchanges, flood control or storm drain facilities, sewer facilities, water facilities, and lighting facilities.
(b) (1) The period of time specified in subdi vision (a), including an y extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include any period of time during which a de velopment moratorium, imposed after approval of the tentati ve map, is in e xistence. However, the length of the moratorium shall not exceed five years.
94 Ch. 162 — 9 —
(2) The length of time specified in paragraph (1) shall be e xtended for up to three years, b ut in no e vent be yond January 1, 1992, during the pendency of any lawsuit in which the subdivider asserts, and the local agency that appro ved or conditionally appro ved the tentati ve map denies, the existence or application of a development moratorium to the tentative map. (3) Once a development moratorium is terminated, the map shall be valid for the same period of time as w as left to run on the map at the time that the moratorium was imposed. However, if the remaining time is less than 120 days, the map shall be valid for 120 days following the termination of the moratorium.
(c) The period of time specified in subdi vision (a), including an y extension thereof granted pursuant to subdivision (e), shall not include the period of time during which a lawsuit involving the approval or conditional approval of the tentati ve map is or w as pending in a court of competent jurisdiction, if the stay of the time period is appro ved by the local agenc y pursuant to this section. After service of the initial petition or complaint in the lawsuit upon the local agenc y, the subdi vider may apply to the local agency for a stay pursuant to the local agency’s adopted procedures. Within 40 days after receiving the application, the local agency shall either stay the time period for up to five years or deny the requested stay. The local agency may, by ordinance, establish procedures for re viewing the requests, including, b ut not limited to, notice and hearing requirements, appeal procedures, and other administrative requirements.
(d) The expiration of the appro ved or conditionally appro ved tentative map shall terminate all proceedings and no final map or parcel map of all or any portion of the real property included within the tentati ve map shall be filed with the le gislative body without first processing a ne w tentative map. Once a timely filing is made, subsequent actions of the local agency, including, but not limited to, processing, appro ving, and recording, may lawfully occur after the date of expiration of the tentative map. Delivery to the county surv eyor or city engineer shall be deemed a timely filing for purposes of this section.
(e) Upon application of the subdivider filed before the expiration of the approved or conditionally appro ved tentative map, the time at which the map expires pursuant to subdivision (a) may be extended by the legislative body or by an advisory agenc y authorized to appro ve or conditionally approve tentative maps for a period or periods not e xceeding a total of six years. The period of e xtension specified in this subdi vision shall be in addition to the period of time pro vided by subdi vision (a). Before the expiration of an appro ved or conditionally appro ved tentative map, upon an application by the subdi vider to e xtend that map, the map shall automatically be e xtended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. If the advisory agenc y denies a subdi vider’s application for an extension, the subdivider may appeal to the legislative body within 15 days after the advisory agency has denied the extension.
94 — 10 — Ch. 162
(f) For purposes of this section, a de velopment moratorium includes a water or sewer moratorium, or a w ater and sewer moratorium, as well as other actions of public agencies that regulate land use, development, or the provision of services to the land, including the public agenc y with the authority to appro ve or conditionally appro ve the tentati ve map, which thereafter prevents, prohibits, or delays the appro val of a final or parcel map. A development moratorium shall also be deemed to exist for purposes of this section for any period of time during which a condition imposed by the city or county could not be satisfied because of either of the following:
(1) The condition was one that, by its nature, necessitated action by the city or county, and the city or county either did not take the necessary action or by its o wn action or inaction w as prevented or delayed in taking the necessary action before expiration of the tentative map. (2) The condition necessitates acquisition of real property or any interest in real property from a public agenc y, other than the city or county that approved or conditionally approved the tentative map, and that other public agency fails or refuses to convey the property interest necessary to satisfy the condition. Ho wever, nothing in this subdi vision shall be construed to require any public agency to convey any interest in real property owned by it. A development moratorium specified in this paragraph shall be deemed to have been imposed either on the date of approval or conditional approval of the tentative map, if evidence was included in the public record that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein may refuse to convey that property or interest, or on the date that the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein receives an offer by the subdivider to purchase that property or interest for fair market value, whiche ver is later . A de velopment moratorium specified in this paragraph shall extend the tentative map up to the maximum period as set forth in subdivision (b), but not later than January 1, 1992, so long as the public agency that owns or controls the real property or any interest therein fails or refuses to convey the necessary property interest, regardless of the reason for the f ailure or refusal, e xcept that the de velopment moratorium shall be deemed to terminate 60 days after the public agency has officially made, and communicated to the subdivider, a written offer or commitment binding on the agenc y to convey the necessary property interest for a f air market value, paid in a reasonable time and manner.
SEC. 4. The Le gislature finds and declares that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of state wide concern and not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, Sections 1 and 2 of this act adding Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7 to the Go vernment Code and Section 3 of this act amending Section 66452.6 of the Go vernment Code apply to all cities, including charter cities.
SEC. 5. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agenc y or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or 94 Ch. 162 — 11 —
because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Go vernment Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.
O
94 — 12 — Ch. 162
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-1-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-_____
AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ENACTED PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 ESTABLISHING EMERGENCY
REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT SPLITS AND HOUSING
UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9 , DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF AND MAKING A DETERMINATION OF
EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES SECTIONS 65852.21(J) AND 15061(B)(3)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Legislative Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does find, determine and declare that:
A. California state law allows a City to adopt an interim ordinance that imposes temporary restrictions on the approval of land use entitlements that may be in conflict with a contemplated general plan, specific plan, or zoning proposal that the legislative body or planning commission intends to study within a reasonable time. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858, this interim urgency zoning O rdinance must be adopted by not less than a four - fifths vote of the City Council and will be in effect for forty- five (45) days from the date of its adoption. The City Council may consider an extension of this interim Ordinance pursuant to the legal requirements provided in Government Code Section 65858.
B. On September 16, 2021 California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 9, entitled the “California Home Act”, into law, which establishes a series of new regulations to allow for ministerial approval of two units on parcels located in single -family residential zones as outlined in Government Code Sections 65852.21 and 66411.7. SB 9 took effect on January 1, 2022.
C. SB 9 requires cities to ministerially approve a parcel map for an urban lot split and/or a proposed housing development containing a maximum of two residential units within a single-family residential zone, if the two-unit or subdivision project meets certain statutory criteria.
SB 9 specifies that proposed projects and subdivisions cannot be proposed in prohibited locations under Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)-(K), such as in an earthquake fault zone, lands under conservation easement, a federally designated flood plain, and high fire hazard severity zones as defined under state law.
D. SB 9 further restricts the standards and regulations that local agencies may impose on qualifying two-unit or subdivision projects. In addition, SB 9 permits a local agency to deny a proposed two- unit or subdivisi on project only if the agency makes a w ritten finding based on preponderance of the evidence that the proposed project would have a specific, adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment, which is a very high standard for municipalities to meet under the statute.
E. The City of Jurupa Valley ’s natural beauty, equestrian lifestyle, and semi -rural residential communities are uniquely valuable public resources. Some parcels within the City are DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-2-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
also within high fire hazard severity zones, or other locations where increased d ensity may cause safety concerns. The City has substantial interests in protecting the community against these hazards. Unregulated or disorderly development represents an ever -increasing and true threat to the health, welfare and safety of the community.
F. SB 9 specifically authorizes local agencies to impose objective zoning, subdivision, and design standards consistent with the bill’s provisions, and to adopt an ordinance to implement its provisions. The default standards contained in the new state law l ack sufficient objective zoning, subdivision, and design s tandards to preserve the health, welfare and safety of the community. The City of Jurupa Valley desires to clarify the objective zoning and design standards that will apply to the ministerial review of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments in the City’s single-family residential zones.
G. The City Council is concerned that under the City’s current zoning standards and current general plan policies, the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 might cause a disproportionate public health, safety and welfare impact to the City of Jurupa Valley community and to its residents ‒ including potential detrimental impacts on vehicular and pedestr ian safety, emergency response, and housing affordability ‒ without compensating benefits to the community.
H. The City Council finds that studies need to be conducted to determine the proper location, concentration, regulations, and other land use regulatory controls that need to be in place in order to ensure that the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 does not burden the City and its residents and that the procedures for allowing such uses need to be stud ied to enable the City to address and mitigate potential burdens on the communities affected by these developments.
I. The City Council finds that in order to best protect the immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary for the City to immediately study and analyze the implications of approving qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 in the City.
J. To accomplish this, the City Council intends to impose, on an urgency basis, emergency regulations related to urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9.
K. These emergency regulations w ill allow City staff, the City Council, property owners, and the people of the City of Jurupa Valley sufficient time to analyze the burdens that urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9 will have on the City so that the appropriate land use regulatory controls and zone changes can be adopted if needed .
During this period, the City will be able to analyze their potenti al impacts on the public health .
The City Council finds that these studies will help the City Council and the City’s Planning Department determine how best to prevent impacts to the public health, safety and welfare. The City Council further finds that these emergency regulations will allow time to evaluate the City’s General Plan designations and policies, zoning me asures or development standards and develop appropriate regulations for qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments in the City to achieve a reasonable level of assurance that there will not be serious negative impacts to the overall DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-3-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
community and ensure positive outcomes for the City’s residents, business community, property owners, and developers.
L. The City Council finds that it is necessary that this interim Ordinance take effect immediately as there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare.
Without this interim Ordinance, urban lot splits and residential developments proposed pursuant to SB 9 may be established in the City that may be in conflict with regulations ultimately adopted.
Without this interim Ordinance, such urban lot splits and residential developments may be allowed to develop within the City that are incompatible with surrounding neighborhoods . Therefore, a current and immediate threat to the public safety, health and welfare exists.
M. For the reasons specified above and all the evidence in the record, the City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare caused by the approval of qualifying urban lot splits and residential developments pursuant to SB 9 in the City, and that the approval of any entitlement to allow such type of use would constitute a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents of the City.
SECTION 2. Adoption as an Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance. This interim Ordinance is adopted as an urgency zoning ordinance pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65858(a), and shall be effective immediately upon its adoption. Based upon the findings set forth in Section 1 of this interim Ordinance, the City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this interim Ordinance as an urgency ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of public health, safety and welfare pursuant to the requirements of Government Code Sections 65858(a) and 36937(b).
SECTION 3. Prohibition on SB 9 Projects that Fail t o Comply with Certain Standards. Notwithstanding any other ordinance or provision of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, SB 9 Development Projects, as defined herein, are prohibited unless the project complies with the following requirements:
A. Definitions. For the purposes of this interim Ordinance, certain words and phrases are defined as follows:
1. “Accessory Dwelling Unit ” has the same meaning ascribed in California Government Code Section 65852.2, as the same may be amended from time to time.
2. “Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit” has the same meaning ascribed in California Government Code Section 65852.22, as the same may be amended from time to time.
3. “Primary Residence” means the original dwelling on the property.
4. “SB 9” means a state law passed by the California state senate and approved by the Governor on September 16, 2021. The bill amends Government Code section 66452.6 and adds Government Code sections 65852.21 and 66411.7.
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-4-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
5. “SB 9 Development Project” consists of an Urban Lot Split or development project proposed pursuant to to the regulations set forth in SB 9.
6. “Urban Lot Split” means a parcel map subdivision permitted pursuant to the regulations set forth in SB 9 that creates no more than two parcels of approximately equal size.
B. Applicability: Ministerial Compliance Review.
1. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Jurupa Valle y Municipal Code, the provisions of this interim Ordinance shall apply to SB 9 Development Projects and Urban Lot Splits that are proposed for lots in the R -1 (One Family Dwellings ) zoning district pursuant to the regulations set forth in SB 9. Except as expressly provided in this interim Ordinance or SB 9, all other regulations of the underlying zone of a property developed pursuant to SB 9 shall apply, along with all other applicable regulations from the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
2. Proposed SB 9 Development Projects shall be subject to ministerial review by the Community Development Director or his designee to determine whether the criteria for approval have been met. An Urban Lot Split shall be processed as a parcel map, but no discretionary review or public hearing shall be conducted if all required criteria have been met.
3. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 66411.1, the City shall not require dedications of rights -of-way or the construction of offsite improvements for the parcels being created as a condition of issuing a parcel map for an Urban Lot Split.
4. Applicants are required to submit an application, including any maps, records, or other documents required by the Community Development Director. Applicants must provide a sworn statement affirming eligibility with SB 9 regulations.
5. The City may, at the applicant’s expense, conduct independent inquiries and investigation to ascertain the veracity of any or all portions of the sworn statement.
C. General Requirements.
A property owner seeking approval of an SB 9 Development Project shall comply with the following general requirements:
1. SB 9 and all objective requirements of other applicable state law including the Subdivision Map Act.
2. The Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, including Titles 7 (Subdivisions), 8 (Buildings and Construction) and 9 (Planning and Zoning), except as expressly provided in SB 9 or in this interim Ordinance.
3. Execution and recording of a covenant, supplied by the City and subject to the approval of the City Attorney, that contains the following provisions:
a. Non-residential uses on the site shall be prohibited; DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-5-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
b. The short term rental for periods less than 30 days of any units on the site shall be prohibited;
c. Any subsequent Urban Lot Split of land that was previously subdivided with an Urban Lot Split shall be prohibited;
d. Except as provided in Government Code Section 66411.7 for community land trusts and qualified nonprofit corporations, the owner of the property for which an Urban Lot Split is proposed shall sign an affidavit stating that the owner intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for at least three years from the date of the approval of the Urban Lot Split; e. Ongoing compliance with all SB 9 requirements and restrictions shall be required;
f. Access to the public right-of-way shall be maintained in perpetuity; and g. If, pursuant to SB 9, more than one unit is developed on a lot, one of such units shall be rented or leased at an affordable rent for moderate-income households (as defined in Health and Safet y Code Section 50053) , if it is rented. Upon request from the City, the property owner shall furnish a copy of the rental or lease agreement of any unit in an SB 9 Development Project that is rented or leased.
h. All required parking shall be maintained.
D. Objective Standards.
All SB 9 Development Projects shall comply with the following objective standards:
1. One enclosed or partially enclosed parking space is required for each unit created pursuant to the regulations in SB 9 and this interim Ordinance, unless the parcel upon which the unit is created is within one -half mile walking distance of a high quality transit corridor or a major transit stop or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the project. Required parking for an Urban Lot Split lot shall be accessed via an alley, if there is an alley adjacent to the lot.
2. Non-public utility electrical elements such as wires, conduits, junction boxes, transformers, ballasts, and switch and panel boxes shall be concealed from view from adjacent public rights-of-way.
3. All flashing, sheet metal vents, and pipe stacks shall be painted to match the adjacent roof or wall material.
4. Pedestrian access to a public street or alley shall be provided with an exterior pedestrian pathway from the primary entrances of each unit to the adjoining sidewalk, street, or alley.
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-6-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
5. More than 25 percent of the exterior structural walls of a Primary Residence shall not be demolished if the Primary Residence has been occupied by a tenant in the three years prior to the submissiom of an SB 9 Development Project application.
6. No unit created pursuant to the regulations in SB 9 and this interim Ordinance shall exceed 16 feet and one story in height.
7. No unit created pursuant to the regulations in SB 9 and this interim Ordinance shall be more than 1,200 square feet in floor area . For the purposes of this interim Ordinance, basements shall count as floor area.
8. Any units created pursuant to the regulations in SB 9 and this interim Ordinance shall have a minimum four foot setback from all side and rear lot lines except as allowed by Government Code Section 65852.21.
9. Any units created pursuant to the regulations in SB 9 and this interim Ordinance shall be separated from any other units on the same lot by at least 10 feet.
10. An SB 9 Development Project shall not require the demolition or alteration of any of the following:
a. Housing that is subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of moderate, low, or very low income.
b. Housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power.
c. Housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the three years prior to the submissiom of an SB 9 Development Project application.
d. Housing units removed from the rental market under the Ellis Act within the 15 years prior to the submission of an SB 9 Development Project application.
11. An SB 9 Development Project shall not be permitted on a parcel located in:
a. Prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the State Department of Conservation.
b. Wetlands, as defined in the United States Fish and Wildlife Service Manual , Part 660 FW 2 (June 21, 1993).
c. A very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-7-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
adopted by the State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 4202. This subparagraph does not apply to sites excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Government Code Section 51179, or sites that have adopted fire hazard mitigation measures pursuant to existing building standards or state fire mitigation measures applicable to the developmen.
d. A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the State Department of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 25356, unless the State Department of Public Health, State Water Resources Control Board, or State Department of Toxic Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or residential mixed uses.
e. A delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State Geologist, unless the development complies with applicable seismic protection building code standards adopted by the California Building Standards Commission under the California Building Standards Law (Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety Code), and by any local building department under Chapter 12.2 (commencing with Section 8875) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
f. A special flood hazard area subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood (100-year flood) as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless either of the following are met: (1) t he site has been subject to a Letter of Map Revision prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and issued to the City, or (2) the site meets Federal Emergency Management Agency requirements necessary to meet minimum flood plain management criteria of the National Flood Insurance Program pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 (commencing with Section
60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
g. A regulatory floodway as determined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in any official maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the development has received a no- rise certification in accordance with Section 60.3(d)(3) of Ti tle 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
h. Lands identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan pursuant to the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 2800) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), habitat conservation plan pursuant to the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), or other adopted natural resource protection plan.
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-8-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
i. Habitat for protected species identified as candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies, fully protected species, or species protected by the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 1531 et seq.), the California Endangered Species Act (Chapter 1.5 (commencing with Section 2050) of Division 3 of the Fish and Game Code), or the Native Plant Protection Act (Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 1900) of Division 2 of the Fish and Game Code).
j. Lands under conservation easement.
k. A historic district or property included on the State Histori c Resources Inventory, as defined in Section 5020.1 of the Public Resources Code, or a site that is designated or listed as a local landmark or historic property or district by the City.
12. An Urban Lot Split shall comply with SB 9 , the standards set forth above, and the following standards:
a. No lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split shall be smaller than 1,200 square feet. b. No lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split shall have more than two residential units inclusive of any Accessory Dwelling Unit or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit.
c. The two lots resulting from an Urban Lot Split shall be approximately equal in size, and no smaller than 40 percent or larger than 60 percent of the lot area of the original parcel.
d. No flag lots shall be created as a result of an Urban Lot Split if the subject property is adjacent to an alley, located on a corner, or on a through lot. e. The width of any lot resulting from an Urban Lot Split shall not be less than 20 feet wide.
f. The proposed parcel map shall demonstrate the ability to access the public right- of-way in perpetuity.
E. Exceptions.
The Community Development Director shall approve an exception to any of the standards specified in this interim Ordinance upon determining that complying with the standard would physically preclude the construction of up to two residential units per lot or would physically preclude either of the two residential units from being 800 square feet in floor area.
F. Denial. The Building Official may deny an application for an SB 9 Development Project upon m aking both of the following findings in writing based upon a preponderance of evidence:
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-9-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
1. The proposal would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety or the physical environment as defined and determined in Government Code Section 65589.5(d)(2).
2. There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.
SECTION 4. CEQA Finding. The City Council hereby finds, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, that this interim Ordinance is exempt from t he California Environmental Quality Act (“ CEQA”) because it can be seen with certainty that this interim Ordinance has no likelihood of causing a significant negative effect on the environment and accordingly both the City Council’s action of adopting this interim Ordinance and the effects derivative from that adoption are exempt from the application of CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)). This interim Ordinance will provide temporary emergency regulations related to SB 9 Development Projects and Urban Lot Splits in the City in order to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare, and will thereby serve to avoid potentially significant adverse environmental impacts during the term of the emergency regulations. There is no possibility that adopting this i nterim Ordinance will have a significant effect on the environment. It is therefore not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act review pursuant to Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Code of Regulations and no environmental analysis is required. Furthermore, this interim O rdinance is exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.21(j). The Community Development Director shall prepare and file a Notice of Exemption for this interim Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Planning Studies. City staff shall promptly commence the studies they may deem necessary and appropriate to make a recommendation to this City Council regarding the structuring of the General Plan, zoning and other necessary regulatory controls over SB 9 Development Projects within the City of Jurupa Valley. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d), City staff shall prepare and submit for City Council adoption, at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this interim Ordinance, or any extension hereof, a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this interim Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Extension of Time. The Community Development Director and the City Clerk’s office shall undertake all actions legally necessary to extend this interim Ordinance in the event the studies desired by this City Council will not be concluded on or before the forty- fifth (45th) day subsequent to the adoption of this interim Ordinance.
SECTION 7. Effect of Ordinance. This interim Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance or resolution of the City of Jurupa Valley in conflict with the terms of this interim Ordinance; provided, however, that nothing contained in this interim Ordinance is intended to nor shall be construed to impair the prosecution or other enforcement action for violations of such ordinances.
SECTION 8. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this interim Ordinance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this interim Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-10-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
would have adopted this interim Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof b e declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This interim Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its passage. It shall be of no further force or effect forty-five (45) days from the date of its adoption unless extended pursuant to the legal requirements contained in Government Code Section 65858.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 20th day of January, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
DRAFT: For January 20, 2022 City Council Meeting
-11-
12774-0007\2612088v1.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ___ was duly was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 20
th day of January, 2022, by the following vote, to
wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California this 20
th day of January, 2022.
____________________________
VICTORIA WASKO, CMC
CITY CLERK
/gid00023/gid00032/gid00045/gid00052/gid00001/gid00009/gid00036/gid00034/gid00035/gid00001/gid00007/gid00036/gid00045/gid00032/gid00001/gid00009/gid00028/gid00053/gid00028/gid00045/gid00031/gid00001/gid00020/gid00032/gid00049/gid00032/gid00045/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00027/gid00042/gid00041/gid00032 /gid00132/gid00131/gid00131/gid00183/gid00026/gid00032/gid00028/gid00045/gid00001/gid00007/gid00039/gid00042/gid00042/gid00031/gid00043/gid00039/gid00028/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00187/gid00007/gid00006/gid00014/gid00002/gid00188 /gid00019/gid00183/gid00132/gid00001/gid00187/gid00016/gid00041/gid00032/gid00001/gid00187/gid00132/gid00188/gid00001/gid00007/gid00028/gid00040/gid00036/gid00039/gid00052/gid00001/gid00005/gid00050/gid00032/gid00039/gid00039/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00046/gid00188 /gid00013/gid00006/gid00008/gid00006/gid00015/gid00005
/gid00019/gid00032/gid00049/gid00036/gid00046/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00132/gid00183/gid00135/gid00183/gid00133/gid00131/gid00133/gid00133 /gid00004/gid00010/gid00021/gid00026/gid00001/gid00016/gid00007/gid00001/gid00011/gid00022/gid00019/gid00022/gid00017/gid00002/gid00001/gid00023/gid00002/gid00013/gid00013/gid00006/gid00026/gid00001/gid00194/gid00001/gid00020/gid00003/gid00183/gid00140/gid00001/gid00002/gid00017/gid00017/gid00013/gid00010/gid00004/gid00002/gid00003/gid00010/gid00013/gid00010/gid00021/gid00026 /gid00015
ATTACHMENT 4 (10-Day Report Issued by the CC on 02.03.22) Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 3, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.H
ISSUANCE OF PUBLIC REPORT PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65858(D) REGARDING INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 2022-02 ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS RELATED TO URBAN LOT
SPLITS AND HOUSING UNITS BUILT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 9
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council issue this report pursuant to Government Code Section 65858(d).
BACKGROUND
Government Code Section 65858(d) requires that “ten days prior to the expiration or extension of any interim zoning ordinance, the legislative body [City Council] must issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance.” On January 20, 2022, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the Jurupa Valley City Council enacted Interim Urgen cy Ordinance No. 2022 -02 to impose a moratorium on the approval of applications for housing development projects and urban lot splits permitted by Senate Bill 9, that do not meet the regulations and standards set forth in the ordinance. Absent any additional action by the City Council, the Interim Urgency Ordinance will expire after 45 days on March 6, 2022. However, extra time is necessary to thoroughly research and evaluate a permanent, non -urgency ordinance that updates/amends the Municipal Code establi shing objective land use regulations and technical/design standards pertaining to SB 9 housing development projects and urban lot splits in the City. Therefore, City staff has scheduled and will notice a public hearing for February 17, 2022 so that the C ity Council may consider extending the Interim Urgency Ordinance for a period of 10 months and 15 days, through and including January 20, 2023.
In compliance with Government Code Section 65858(d), the City Council hereby issues this report for Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02.
Page | 2
Measures taken to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2022-02:
Since the Interim Urgency Ordinance was adopted, City Staff has continued its research on how best to implement SB 9 o n a permanent basis in order to ensure that the City’s semi-rural residential character is maintained while complying with the provisions of SB
9. City staff has begun identifying updates that will specifically address the housing development and design of structures and urban lot splits permitted by SB 9. While considering zoning and subdivision provisions, the City will be evaluating issues identified in the Interim Urgency Ordinance, including the following:
Research and analyze the standards adopted by other jurisdictions; Assess the compatibility of proposed structures and subdivisions with existing neighborhoods;
Identify the potential for applying objective development standards created to address the new construction of multiple-family dwellings; Determine the adequacy of City infrastructure to provide services including but not limited to the following: water; gas, electrical and cable utilities; sanitation; trash disposal; school capacity; and police and fire services; and
Evaluate the affordability of housing units that are constructed as a result of SB 9 in Jurupa Valley.
At this time, a preliminary project schedule has been prepared that may include two study sessions with the Planning Commission and public hearings with the Plannin g Commission and City Council. The further evaluation of potential unexpected increases in residential density will be essential to ensure the health, safety and welfare of the community as well as to ensure the efficient and adequate delivery of governmen tal services.
To ensure that regulations are in place while City staff drafts and the Planning Commission and City Council considers the adoption of a permanent ordinance, the Urgency Ordinance will need to be extended. This will serve to protect the City’s unique residential character but also ensures the City’s compliance with SB 9 as set forth in the statute.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the issuance of the report.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council issue this report.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
3. Council may elect to not issue the report.
ATTACHMENT 5 (Map Illustrating Applicability of SB 9)
/gid00023/gid00032/gid00045/gid00052/gid00001/gid00009/gid00036/gid00034/gid00035/gid00001/gid00007/gid00036/gid00045/gid00032/gid00001/gid00009/gid00028/gid00053/gid00028/gid00045/gid00031/gid00001/gid00020/gid00032/gid00049/gid00032/gid00045/gid00036/gid00047/gid00052/gid00001/gid00027/gid00042/gid00041/gid00032 /gid00132/gid00131/gid00131/gid00183/gid00026/gid00032/gid00028/gid00045/gid00001/gid00007/gid00039/gid00042/gid00042/gid00031/gid00043/gid00039/gid00028/gid00036/gid00041/gid00001/gid00187/gid00007/gid00006/gid00014/gid00002/gid00188 /gid00019/gid00183/gid00132/gid00001/gid00187/gid00016/gid00041/gid00032/gid00001/gid00187/gid00132/gid00188/gid00001/gid00007/gid00028/gid00040/gid00036/gid00039/gid00052/gid00001/gid00005/gid00050/gid00032/gid00039/gid00039/gid00036/gid00041/gid00034/gid00046/gid00188 /gid00013/gid00006/gid00008/gid00006/gid00015/gid00005
/gid00019/gid00032/gid00049/gid00036/gid00046/gid00032/gid00031/gid00001/gid00132/gid00183/gid00135/gid00183/gid00133/gid00131/gid00133/gid00133 /gid00004/gid00010/gid00021/gid00026/gid00001/gid00016/gid00007/gid00001/gid00011/gid00022/gid00019/gid00022/gid00017/gid00002/gid00001/gid00023/gid00002/gid00013/gid00013/gid00006/gid00026/gid00001/gid00194/gid00001/gid00020/gid00003/gid00183/gid00140/gid00001/gid00002/gid00017/gid00017/gid00013/gid00010/gid00004/gid00002/gid00003/gid00010/gid00013/gid00010/gid00021/gid00026 /gid00015
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.A
INTRODUCTION OF A CITY ORDINANCE, ADDING CHAPTER
11.95 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING
TO SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY, PROHIBITION AGAINST
UNDERAGE DRINKING, RECOVERY OF RESPONSE COSTS
FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 11.95 AND MAKING EXMPTION
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA ; AND ADOPTING A CITY
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.20 OF
THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022- 04, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 11.95 TO THE JURUPA
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY,
PROHIBITION AGAINST UNDERAGE DRINKING, RECOVERY OF
RESPONSE COSTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 11.95 AND MAKING
EXMPTION FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
2) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-14, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 1.20 OF THE JURUPA
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
BACKGROUND
Mayor Pro Tem Chris Barajas initially requested that the Council consider directing Staff to develop a Social Host Ordinance that holds non-commercial individuals responsible for underage drinking of alcoholic beverages and/or illegal substances on property they own, lease or otherwise control. Purchase, possession or consumption of alcohol and/or illegal substances by minors in public or commercial settings is already prohibited under state law. However, state law d oes not prohibit youth consumption of alcohol and/or illegal substances on private property.
Establishing a Social Host Ordinance can fill the gap in the law by providing law enforcement a tool to help address the problem of underage drinking and/or illeg al substances at parties.
The City has received complaints about short -term rentals and unruly gatherings. Many times unruly gatherings include a component of underage drinking and/or illegal substance usage. This ordinance can assist in those complaints that are received regarding short -term rentals and minimize the negative secondary effects related to unruly gatherings involving underage drinking and/or illegal substance usage.
On August 5, 2021, Staff presented and discussed with the City Council the merits of implementing a Social Host Ordinance. At that meeting, the City Council asked Staff to return with additional clarification about concerns and any statistics from cities who have implemented this ordinance.
On November 18, 2021, Staff returned to City Council with the additional clarification and addressed the concerns of the City Council Members. City Council asked Staff to return with a draft Ordinance for their consideration.
ANALYSIS
The Social Host Ordinance was created on these basic premises:
Municipalities have the authority to enact laws that promote public health, safety, and general welfare.
The occurrence of underage drinking and/or using illegal substances at parties on private property is harmful to the underage persons, and is a threat to public safety and the general welfare of the community.
Persons responsible for the occurrence of parties, or in possession/control of the property, have a duty to ensure that alcoholic beverages and/or illegal substances are not served to, or consumed by underage persons.
Police authority at such gatherings is necessary when such activities are determined to be a threat to the peace, health, safety, or general welfare of the public.
Police officers are often required to make multiple responses to the location of a gathering where alcoholic and/or illegal substances are consumed by minors in Page | 3
order to disperse uncooperative participants – causing a drain on public safety resources, and in some cases, leaving other areas of the City with delayed police response.
Problems associated with such gatherings are difficult to prevent and deter unless law enforcement officers have the legal authority to do so. Penalties against the responsible party will serve as an effective strategy for deterring underage drinking and/or illegal substances parties – thereby reducing alcohol consumption and abuse by minors, physical altercations and injuries, neighborhood vandalism, and excessive no ise disturbances, and thus improving public safety.
PENALTIES:
For violations of Chapter 11.95, Social Host Liability and Prohibition against Underage Drinking:
(1) For a first violation, the penalty shall be $750 per violation. (2) For a second violation, the penalty shall be $850 per violation.
(3) For a third or subsequent violations, the penalty shall be $1,000 per violation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact
ALTERNATIVES
1. Elect not to move forward with the ordinance at this time.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
-1-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY ADDING CHAPTER 11.95 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY,
PROHIBITION AGAINST UNDERAGE DRINKING , RECOVERY OF
RESPONSE COSTS FOR VIOLATIONS OF CHAPTER 11.95 AND
MAKING EXMPTION FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 11.95, Social Host Liability and Prohibition against Underage Drinking, is hereby added to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 11.95
SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY AND PROHIBITION AGAINST UNDERAGE DRINKING Sections:
11.95.005 Legislative findings.
11.95.010 Intent and purpose.
11.95.015 Definitions.
11.95.020 Consumption of alcohol by minor prohibited in public place, place open to public, or place not open to public.
11.95.025 Hosting, permitting, allowing a party, gathering or event where minors consume alcoholic beverages prohibited.
11.95.030 Prima facie evidence.
11.95.035 Separate violations for each incident.
11.95.040 Enforcement remedies.
11.95.045 Response Costs for Violation of Chapter; Billing and collection.
11.95.050 Appeals.
11.95.055 Special fund.
11.95.005 Legislative findings.
A. Minors often obtain, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages at gatherings held at private residences or other private property, places or premises, including rented commercial premises which are under the control of a person who knows or should know of the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors, yet persons responsible for the occurrence of such gatherings often fail to take reasonable steps to prevent the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors at these gatherings.
B. Consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors who are under the legal age to consume alcohol in the State of California is harmful to the minors themselves and poses an -2-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare in that it increases alcohol abuse by minors and leads to physical altercations and violent crimes including rape and other sexual offenses, accidental injury, neighborhood vandalism, and excessive noise disturbance, all of which may require intervention by local law enforcement.
C. Law enforcement responses to gatherings involving consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors often require extensive resources to manage the incident. Further, when law enforcement personnel respond to gatherings involving the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors it takes away valuable resources from other service calls in the community, thereby placing the community at increased risk. Law enforcement, fire and emergency response services are not currently reimbursed for the response costs when called to a property or gathering where minors obtain, possess, or consume alcoholic beverages.
D. The prohibitions found in this chapter are reasonable and expected to deter the consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors by holding responsible persons who know of, or should know of, the illegal conduct yet fail to stop or prevent it. In addition, the revenue received by the City of Jurupa Valley after cost reimbursement will be directed toward alcohol abuse and prevention education programs in the community.
11.95.010 Intent and purpose.
The purposes of this chapter are:
A. To protect public health, safety and general welfare of the community; B. To enforce laws prohibiting the service to and consumption of alcoholic beverages by minors; and
C. To reduce the costs of providing law enforcement, fire, and other emergency response services to premises where alcoholic beverages are served to or consumed by a minor, by holding the responsible person, social host and/or landowners responsible for the costs associated with providing law enforcement and other emergency response services.
11.95.015 Definitions.
The definitions contained in this section shall govern the construction of this chapter.
A. “Adult” is any person of or over the age of eighteen (18) years.
B. “Alcohol” means ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or spirits of wine, from whatever source or by whatever process produced.
C. “Alcoholic beverage(s)” includes any liquid or solid material intended to be ingested by a person which contains ethanol, also known as ethyl alcohol, drinking alcohol, or -3-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
alcohol, including, but not limited to, alcoholic beverages as defined in Section 109 of the California Vehicle Code, intoxicating liquor, malt beverage, beer, wine, spirits, liqueur, whiskey, rum, vodka, cordials, gin, and brandy, and any mixture containing one (1) or more alcoholic beverages. Alcoholic beverage includes a mixture of one (1) or more alcoholic beverages whether found or ingested separately or as a mixture.
D. “Family gathering” is a gathering where each minor present is supervised by his or her parent or legal guardian.
E. “Gathering” is a party, gathering or event where a group of two (2) or more persons have assembled or are assembling for a social occasion or social activity.
F. “Legal guardian” means: 1) a person who, by court order, is the guardian of the person of a minor; or 2) a public or private agency with whom a minor has been placed by the court.
G. “Minor” is any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years.
H. “Juvenile” is any person under the age of eighteen (18) years.
I. “Parent” is a person who is a natural parent, adoptive parent, foster parent, or step-parent of another person.
J. “Property” means any residence or other private property, place or premises, including any commercial or business premises.
K. “Response costs” are the costs associated with response by law enforcement, fire, or other emergency response providers to a gathering, including but not limited to:
1. Salaries and benefits of law enforcement, community enhancement, fire or other emergency response personnel for the amount of time spent responding to, remaining at, or otherwise dealing with a gathering, and the administrative cost associated with or attributed to such response(s);
2. The cost of any medical treatment for any law enforcement, community enhancement, fire or other emergency response personnel injured responding to, remaining at, or leaving the scene of a gathering;
3. The cost of repairing any City equipment or property damaged, and the cost of the use of any such equipment in, responding to, remaining at, or leaving the scene of a gathering;
4. Any other allowable costs related to enforcement of Sections 11.95.020 and 11.95.025.
L. “Responsible person” means a person or persons with a right of possession in the premises including, but not limited to:
1. An owner of the residence or other private property, place or premises, including any commercial or business premises;
-4-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
2. A tenant or lessee or licensee of the residence or other private property, place or premises, including any commercial or business premises;
3. The landlord or property manager responsible for the property;
4. The person(s) in charge of the residence or other private property, place or premises, including commercial or business premises; and
5. The person(s) who organizes, supervises, officiates, conducts or controls the gathering or any other person(s) accepting responsibility for such a gathering.
6. If a responsible person or social host for the party or gathering is a juvenile, then the parents or guardians of that juvenile and the juvenile will be jointly and severally liable for the response costs incurred pursuant to this chapter. To incur liability for response costs imposed by this chapter, the responsible person or social host for the gathering must be aware of the gathering, but need not be present at such gathering, which results in the imposition of response costs pursuant to this chapter.
M. “Social host” is a person who knowingly hosts, permits, or allows a gathering to take place where one (1) or more minors consume one (1) or more alcoholic beverages, or any portion thereof, on property owned or controlled by the person and the person knows or reasonably should have known that the minor is consuming or has consumed an alcoholic beverage.
11.95.020 Consumption of alcohol by minor prohibited in public place, place open to public, or place not open to public.
Except as permitted by federal or state law, it is unlawful for any minor to consume any alcoholic beverage at any place not open to the public, unless that minor is being supervised by his or her own parent or legal guardian in connection with the consumption of the alcoholic beverages.
11.95.025 Hosting, permitting, allowing a party, gathering or event where minors consume alcoholic beverages prohibited.
A. It is unlawful for any persons having control of any premises to knowingly host, permit or allow a gathering to take place at said premises where at least one (1) minor consumes one (1) or more alcoholic beverages, or any portion thereof, whenever the person having control of the premises either knows a minor is or has consumed an alcoholic beverage or reasonably should have known that a minor is or has consumed an alcoholic beverage had the person taken all reasonable steps to prevent the consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor as set forth in subsection (B) of this section.
B. Any person having control of any premises, who knowingly hosts, permits or allows a gathering at said premises shall take all reasonable steps to prevent the consumption of -5-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
alcoholic beverages by any minor at the gathering. Reasonable steps include, but are not limited to: 1) controlling access to alcoholic beverages at the gathering, 2) controlling the quantity of alcoholic beverages at the gathering, 3) verifying the age of persons attending the gathering by inspecting drivers’ licenses or other government-issued identification cards to ensure minors do not consume alcoholic beverages while at the gathering, and 4) supervising the activities of minors at the gathering.
C. This section shall not apply to conduct involving the use of alcoholic beverages that occurs exclusively between a minor and his or her parent or legal guardian, as permitted by Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution or if the event is a family gathering.
11.95.030 Prima facie evidence.
Whenever a responsible person and/or social host having control of the premises is present at the premises at the time that a minor obtains, possesses, or consumes any alcoholic beverage, it shall be prima facie evidence that such social host, regardless of age, knew or reasonably should have known, that the minor obtained, possessed, or consumed an alcoholic beverage at the gathering.
11.95.035 Separate violations for each incident.
Each incident in violation of Sections 11.95.020 and 11.95.025 shall constitute a separate offense.
11.95.040 Enforcement remedies.
This chapter shall be enforced as set forth in Chapters 1.20 and 1.25 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
11.95.045 Response Costs for Violation of Chapter; Billing and collection.
A. The amount of response costs for a violation of this Chapter shall be deemed a debt owed to the City of Jurupa Valley by the reasonable person and/or social host. Any person owing such costs shall be liable in a civil action brought in the name of the City for recovery for such costs, including reasonable attorney fees.
B. Notice of the imposition of response costs for which the responsible person is liable shall be mailed via first-class mail. The notice of the costs shall contain the following information:
1. The name of the person(s) being held liable for the payment of such costs; -6-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
2. The address of the private property or private premises where the gathering occurred;
3. The date and time of the response;
4. The law enforcement, fire, or emergency service provider(s) who responded;
5. An itemized list of the response costs for which the person(s) is being held liable.
C. The responsible person must remit payment of the noticed response costs to the City of Jurupa Valley within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice. The payment of any such costs shall be stayed upon the filing of a timely appeal pursuant to Section 11.95.024.
D. The failure of any person to pay the penalties assessed by an administrative citation and/or response costs within the time specified on the administrative citation or response cost bill may result in the Chief of Police or his or her authorized designee referring the matter to the Finance Director or other designated agent for collection. The City Attorney, Chief of Police or their designated agent(s) may pursue any other legal remedy to collect the penalties and/or response costs.
11.95.050 Appeals.
Any person who receives notice of imposition of response costs as set forth in Section 11.95.020 may appeal the imposition of these recovery costs pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 2.05.050 and the appeal shall be heard as provided in Chapter 2.40 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. Failure to appeal shall constitute a waiver of any claims regarding the imposition or collection of these costs and shall also constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The responsible person may appeal the decision establishing the response costs and invoice.
11.95.055 Special fund.
A. There is hereby established a special fund for the purposes of receiving and expending civil penalties and response costs collected under this chapter. This special fund shall be known and designated as the “prevention of underage drinking fund.” B. Expenditure of Monies. The appropriation of all monies in the prevention of underage drinking fund shall be made exclusively for the purposes of the prevention of underage drinking within the City of Jurupa Valley, which shall include the enforcement of, education for, and prevention of underage drinking. Expenditures shall include, but not be limited to, purchase of equipment, consultant services, materials and supplies, or any other expenditure(s) related to the prevention of underage drinking within the City of Jurupa Valley. The administration of the fund shall conform to the code and all accounting principles practiced by the City. -7-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
C. Accumulation of Monies in the Fund. The balance remaining in the prevention of underage drinking fund at the close of a fiscal year shall be deemed to have been provided for a specialized purpose and shall be carried forward and accumulated in said fund for the purposes set forth herein.
Section 2. The proposed Code Amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed Code Amendment, prohibiting the serving of alcoh ol to minors and imposing liability on social hosts of an event at which minors consume alcohol, will have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed Code Amendment is an exercise of the City’s police power to prohibit dangerous activities that will not result in direct or indirect phys ical changes in the environment. The City Council has reviewed the administrative record concerning the proposed Code Amendment and the proposed CEQA determinations, and based on its own independent judgment, finds that the Code Amendment set forth in this Ordinance is not subject to, or exempt from, the requirements of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Section 21080.17 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 3. If any sentence, clau se or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of th e remaining provisions of this O rdinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
Section 5. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 17th day of March 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-8-
12774-0001\2615093v1.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-04 was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 17th day of February, 2022, and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 17th day of March, 2022, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 17th day of March, 2022.
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Draft: 1-26-22
-1-
12774-0001\2615191v2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A
SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTRATIVE FINES PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 1.20 OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare as follows:
(a) Chapter 1.20 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provid es for the assessment of administrative penalties for violations of: (1) the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code; (2) the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, including but not limited to Riverside County Ordinances ado pted by the City; (3) any provision of any ordinance of the City not included within the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code; and (4) any provisions of state law that the City is authorized to enforce. (b) Section 1.20.060 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides for the establishment of fines to be imposed for violations subject to Chapter 1.20. The fine shall be $200 for each violation or such other amount as set forth in the administrative citation schedule established by resolution of the City Council. Section 1.20.060 provides:
“The fine imposed pursuant to this chapter for a particular violation shall be in the amount of two hundred dollars ($200) or such other amount as set forth by resolution of the City Council not to exceed that required by law per offense and which may include increased fines for repeat violations. The City Council may amend the administrative citation fine amounts and any late payment charges
imposed for failure to timely pay the fine by resolution. ”
Section 2. Schedule of Administrative Citation Fines. The fines to be assessed for the violations described in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 1.20.010 shall be those described on the "Schedule of Administrative Citation Fines" attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein as though set forth in full.
Section 3. Conflicting Resolutions. This Resolution shall supersede a ll parts of resolutions not consistent with or in conflict with this Resolution , including, without limitation , Resolution Nos. 2015-052, 2018-043, and 2021-051.
Section 4. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution, is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision sh all not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted Draft: 1-26-22
-2-
this Resolution, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify this Resolution in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held on this 17th day of February, 2022.
________________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Draft: 1-26-22
-3-
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-14 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 17th day of February, 2022 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 17th day of February, 2022.
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Draft: 2-10-22
A-1
EXHIBIT “A” TO RESOLUTION NO. 2022-14
SCHEDULE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FINES
1. The fines for violations for which administrative citations are issued pursuant to Chapter 1.20 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code shall be:
a) For all violations not otherwise described in this Fine Schedule:
(1) Two hundred dollars ($200) for the first offense;
(2) Five hundred dollars ($500) for the second offense; and (3) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for the third offense and each subsequent offense.
b) For violations of Section 11.70.010 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, prohibition of dumping of trash):
(1) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for every offense.
c) For violations of Chapter 11.45, Exempted Commercial Cannabis Activity:
(1) Five hundred dollars ($500) for the first offense; and (2) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for the second and each subsequent offense.
d) For violations of Chapter 11.05 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Noise Regulations:
(1) Two hundred fifty dollars ($250) for the first offense; (2) Five hundred dollars ($500) for a second offense;
(3) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for the fourth offense and each subsequent offense.
e) For violations of Chapter 11.40, Fireworks:
(1) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for each offense involving “safe and sane fireworks” as defined in Section 11.40.010.
(2) For each offense involving “dangerous fireworks” as defined in Section 11.40.010:
(A) One thousand dollars ($1,000) for the first offense; Draft: 2-10-22
A-2
12774-0001\2615191v2.doc
(B) Two thousand dollars ($2,000) for the second offense; (C) Five thousand dollars ($5,000) for the third and each subsequent offense.
f) For violations of Chapter 6.77, Recyclables and Organic Waste Collection:
(1) For a first violation, the penalty shall be $150 per violation. (2) For a second violation, the penalty shall be $500 per violation. (3) For a third or subsequent violation, the penalty shall be $1,000 per violation.
g) For violations of Chapter 11.95, Social Host Liability and Prohibition against Underage Drinking:
(1) For a first violation, the penalty shall be $750 per violation. (2) For a second violation, the penalty shall be $850 per violation. (3) For a third or subsequent violations, the penalty shall be $1,000 per violation.
2. In the event a person fails to pay an administrative citation fine within the time required by Chapter 1.20, there is imposed an initial charge of twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for administrative costs and then a late payment charge of one percent (1%) per month for each month the fine is over-due.
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 17, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.B
DISCUSSION OF OPTIONS TO CONSIDER FOR THE THIRD
AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDED 2019-2020 C OMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS ANNUAL ACTION PLAN
ALLOCATING CDBG-CV3 (COVID-19) FUNDS
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council discuss the options available for CDBG -CV3 funding and provide direction to Staff.
BACKGROUND
On July 20, 2017, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) informed the City that it qualifies as a potential new, direct grantee entitlement city for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Subsequently, the City of Jurupa Valley began the process to become a HUD direct grantee entitlement community. The City has been operating as an entitlement community since the 2018-19 CDBG program year.
HUD requires municipalities that receive CDBG funds to go through a public participation process to determine how the grant will be spent. The Annual Action Plan (AAP) includes the City’s CDBG budget for the upcoming year. To satisfy public participation requirements, the City constructs and publishes an AAP every year for public review. At the conclusion of the public hearing period, the City Council has the opportunity to formally approve the AAP.
On May 2, 2019, the City Council authorized the 2019-20 Annual Action plan by adopting Resolution No. 2019-29. This action established the City’s CDBG budget for the 2019 - 20 fiscal year.
On March 27, 2020, President Trump authorized the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). As a result, HUD awarded the City of Jurupa Valley
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
$702,928.00 in Community Development Block Grant -Coronavirus (CDBG -CV) funds .
The CARES Act also directed HUD to relax some of the regulatory requirements associated with the CDBG program. Reducing the regulatory requirements of the CDBG program helps entitlement communities plan for and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic faster. As of May 18, 2020, the following regulatory reductions have been implemented by HUD:
The public comment period that the CDBG budget will be subject to has changed from thirty (30) days to five (5) days. This will help the City program these funds faster.
Virtual public hearings (video streamed meetings with an online comment portal) are now an acceptable tool to meet citizen participation requirements.
Budgetary caps (such as the 15% cap on public service grant funds), which usually define how the City allocates CDBG funds to projects and programs, have been temporarily suspended. This gives the City greater flexibility in how these f unds are spent.
On June 4, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-41, which programmed the City’s $702,928.00 CDBG -CV allocation into the 2019 -20 Annual Action Plan. The City’s decision to amend the City’s 2019 -20 Annual Action Plan (and not the 2020-21 Annual Action Plan) effectively fast-tracked the approval process for the amendment. In general, HUD prioritizes the review of annual action plans and amendments based on budget year.
On September 11, 2020, the City received notice from HUD that an additional round of CDBG-CV funding would be made available to the City. This is HUD’s third major disbursement of CDBG funds to municipalities. The first round of CDBG-CV funding went to entitlement cities. The second round of CDBG-CV funding (CDBG-CV2) went to state and insular areas . This third round of CDBG -CV (CDBG -CV3) additional funding is $664,209.00. Like the City’s original CDBG-CV allocation of $702,928.00, this additional round of CDBG-CV funding was appropriated through a process that includes proposal solicitations, public noticing, and a public hearing. To program this addit ional $664,209.00, the City amended the 2019-20 Annual Action Plan.
At the December 17, 2020 meeting of the City Council, City Staff presented a proposed budget for the City’s second round of CDBG -CV funding. City Staff proposed that the bulk of these funds ($530,000.00) be allocated towards a rental assistance program. City Staff proposed this rental assistance program as a tool to mitigate the rapid accumulation of rental debt for low - to moderate -income tenants in the community. T he rental assistance program provides direct economic relief to debt -burdened tenants and landlords that have not received timely payments for properties that they own.
Page | 3
After receiving a generally positive reaction to the rental assistance program concept, City Staff moved forward with soliciting proposals from non -profits that could administer the program. On February 2, 2021, the City published a formal Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA), which solicited proposals to administer a rental assistance program through an application process. The NOFA was published in the Press Enterprise newspaper , the City’s website, and the City’s public bulletin board at City Hall. The NOFA was also sent to two non -profits that previously expressed an interest in administering a rental assistance program on behalf of the City; Path of Life Ministries, Inc. (Path of Life) and Mercy House.
In response to the NOFA, the City received a proposal from Path of Life to administer the proposed rental assistance program . Path of Life’s propo sal included a $50,000.00 administrative budget to distribute a total of $530,000.00 in rental assistance funds. In accordance with the rental assistance program approved by the City Council on May 20, 2021, Path of Life qualified Jurupa Valley residents to participa te in the program and established a contractual relationship with the landlord of each qualified tenant. After the tenant was qualified and the grant contract was signed by and between the landlord and Path of Life, Path of Life distributed rental payments directly to the landlord.
After several months of facilitating the rental assistance program , Path of Life notified Staff at the City that the program has faced some redundancy with distributing the rental support. When the additional CDBG -CV3 funding was allocated, rental assistance was the major component of the allowed uses for the funds and accordingly, the State of California and the County of Riverside both established programs as well. With these additional programs in place, the needs for rental assistance were being met. Path of Life estimated spending $270,000 for the program, which left a balance of $310,000 to be reallocated.
City Staff met with GRC and Associates (the City’s CDBG consultant) to discuss options to distribute some of the funding to areas of greater need due to the effects of COVID-19.
The CDBG-CV3 funding has specific requirements for distribution and staff and GRC and Associates assessed the opportunities. On February 3, 2022 , Staff recommended two options for the City Council’s consideration.
The Omicron variant is causing major impacts on the small business community. The spread of the new COVID -19 variant is causing staffing issues, higher costs and fewer customers to the City’s businesses. Regionally, the Omicron variant will affect factories and supply chains that may compound the economic threat to Jurupa Valley. The City’s Local Economic Assistance Program (LEAP) has been very helpful to small businesses.
Adding additi onal funding to the LEAP would provide much needed help to local businesses to weather the COVID -19, Omicron variant challenge. The LEAP Program had over 70 businesses that applied for a grant, with 44 grants being approved. There is a need to provide additional LEAP funding and there is sufficient demand for an additional 30 LEAP grants. New funding would assist businesses paying their staff or rent for a few months, the two qualifying LEAP expenditures. In summary, Staff proposed to use Page | 4
$260,000 of the remaining funds from the rental assistance program to strengthen small businesses in the City during this new COVID-19 outbreak.
The second qualifying option was to purchase refrigeration and kitchen equipment for the United Sikh Mission food bank. Purchasing equipment for a new food bank /kitchen is another eligible funding option. A kitchen would allow the Sikh Mission to cook and serve hot meals to those who are impacted by the pandemic as well as for any family who is experiencing food insecurities. The kitchen equipment , which is approximately $50,000 will be owned by the City for the life of the appliances.
At the February 3, 2022 meeting, the City Council approved the allocation of $50,000 for kitchen equipment for the food pantry and $185,000 for the LEAP program. City Council then asked Staff to return with additional recommendations for programs to distribute Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and COVID-19 tests with the remaining $75,000.
ANALYSIS
Staff met with GRC Consulting to research options available regarding City Council’ s direction for a new PPE /COVID-19 tests distribution program from the CDBG -CV3 funding. PPE/tests distribution is an eligible CDBG-CV activity.
Three options to consider:
Option 1: Low-Income Seniors - Focusing on seniors, since they are the most vulnerable population group. The PPE program could operate out of the City’s Senior Center. During the first round of CDBG-CV funding, Family Services Association (FSA) managed a PPE program out of the Senior Center. FSA gave seniors PPE packets along with their free meals. The City could partner with FSA or consider alternative project management, such as utilizing current Senior Center staff.
Option 2: Low -Income School Children/Families: The focus on this option would be on the City’s low -income families that would meet the income requirements. These low - income children and their families may not have the resources to purchase necessary PPE. A flyer could be given to all children to take home (English, Spanish, and possibly an Asian language ). The positives o f this option is that school staff (who are essent ial workers) would also have increased protection, in addition to the children and th eir families. The schools have the ability to reach the community and the City is being proactive in helping families. In addition, the City could allow residents that do not hav e children to apply and receive PPE if income requirements are met.
Option 3: Citywide PPE Program: This option would open the PPE program to any low- income person in the City, provided they fill out the income application and qualify. In addition, HUD requires 10-20% of the self-certified applicants to have income verification.
Advertising to the public and assisting the application process (either on-line or in person) could be facilitated by staff or consultant from City Hall or other location(s).
Page | 5
Duplication of effort issue: HUD will not allow Cities to duplicate any efforts from the State or Federal government. Therefore, to ensure there is no duplication of the current Federal government’s program to give every hous ehold four COVID test kits, the City’s program could include test kits, plus masks, wipes and lotion – in a small bag or box.
Budget/Number of Households Served: Surveyed various PPE costs (at discount retailers). Costs could be lower if purchase is in bulk. For budgeting purposes, some key cost figures are below:
PPE Component Costs
(Retail costs used for budgeting purposes)
PPE Costco Amazon Walmart Average Comments
Test Kits $39.99 $17.98 $17.98 $25.32
Costco 5
Tests, Others
2 Tests
Wipes $19.99 $24.62 $21.24 $21.95 6 pack
n95 Masks $24.99 $39.99 $29.98 $31.65 50 count
Hand
Sanitizer $19.99 $20.99 $39.97 $26.98 4 pack
Total: $105.90
Budget Estimate:
Total
Budget $75,000
20% Admin $15,000
Direct Costs $60,000
Avg. PPE
Cost $125
PPE
Packages 480 Households
Page | 6
Other items for consideration:
A citywide PPE/tests program could have challenges to qualify because of the requirements for the data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). HUD requires every CDBG recipient to gather information regarding income and demographics of every participant and ensure that there is no duplication of benefits and that the program benefits low and moderate-income persons or meets the “Urgent Need” national objectives.
A new program will take time to develop policies and procedures. Therefore , it will delay the Local Economic Assistance Program from distributing funding and delay the food pantry from purchasing equipment until the new program is approved; a Public Hearing is held and the Amendment to the Annual Action Plan is approved by the City Council.
Since COVID-19/Omicron variant cases are decreasing and the Federal Government is increasing efforts in distribution of PPE and testing, it is possible that residents will not need additional PPE and testing as anticipated.
Although, HUD does not give a strict deadline to distribute funds each year, they encourage Cities to expend funds as quickly as possible.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No financial impact
ALTERNATIVES
1. Direct Staff to prepare a new program for PPE and COVID-19 testing distribution and return at a later date with Policies and Procedures, a Public Hearing and Amendment to the Amended 2019-20 Annual Action Plan.
2. Direct Staff to allocate the remaining $75,000 to the Local Economic Assistance Program and return with Agreements.
3. Provide alternate direction to Staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************