The recommended DIF schedule will not address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per Government Code §66000 et. seq. and fairness, DIFs cannot address existing capital deficiencies. The proposed DIFs will recognize and accommodate the needs generated by the City's growing population and business community.
However, with the adoption of DIFs, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated needs for expanded services and facilities will remain available for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects.
The DIFs contained herein calculate only the costs of infrastructure required to support services provided by the City of Jurupa Valley (directly or via contract). They do not include development impact fees imposed by the school district(s), the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) or any other government agency.
The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the Jurupa Valley staff and consultants, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete. In addition to your assistance in direction and in communicating to staff of the highest priority of this project, the following management and technical personnel were instrumental in working, in some cases on a near daily basis, with RCS to generate the information and data so critically necessary for the legal support of the DIFs.
Dan Harris - Battalion Chief, 814A CAL FIRE/Riverside County Fire Jeff Hook - Principal Planner, Civic Solutions
Barbara Howison - County Librarian, Riverside County Library System Tim Jonasson - Senior Manager, Development Services
Steve R. Loriso, P.E. - Director of Public Works/City Engineer Michael Lujan - Lieutenant, Riverside County Sheriff's Department Michael Myers - Senior Civil Engineer
Terri Rollings - Assistant to the City Manager/City PIO Without their hard work and willingness to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy that it has. I would like to highlight the extraordinary staff efforts of former contract planner Jeff Hook in compiling the critical land use database information. Lastly, I would like to express appreciation to Alan Kreimeier, former Administrative Services Director (ret) and Tim Jonassen, for their valuable assistance in coordinating/expediting the flow of information between City staff and RCS and for their timely responses to RCS's many requests for financial information. The quality of information and resulting calculations were directly improved by their efforts.
The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan are submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's revenue structure. <
Scott Thorpe,
Senior Vice President
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter 1 - Background and lntroduction .................................................................................... 1 Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings .. , ................................................................................ 14 Proposed Development Impact Fees/Summary Schedules ............................................... 23 Chapter 3 - Fire Suppression/Medic/Rescue Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ...................... 24 Chapter 4 - Circulation (streets, signals and bridges) System .................................................. 36 Chapter 5-General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ........................................................... 55 Chapter 6 - Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations .................. 62 Chapter 7 - Park Infrastructure Development (Downey Park & 68th Street Parks) ..................... 67 Appendix A- Summary of Recommendations ............................................................................ 77 Appendix B - Maintenance Vehicle List and Distribution of Costs .............................................. 80 Appendix C - Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Average per Acre ..................................... 82 End of Report ...... ." ..................................................................................................................... 89 Commonly Used Report Acronyms and AKA's
CAL FIRE ............................................ California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection DIF ...................................................................................................... Development Impact Fee DOF ........................................................................................ -....... State Department of Finance GIS ............................................................................................. Geographic Information System !TE ....................................................................................... Institute of Transportation Engineers KSF ......................................................................................................... Thousand Square Feet LOS ..................................................................................................................... Level of Service MFP ............................................................................................................ Master Facilities-Plan Mitigation Fee Act or AB1600 ............................................................ Government Code§ 66000 Quimby Act .......................................... , ................................................ Government Code 66477 RCFCD ............................................................................ Riverside County Flood Control District RCTC ........................................................................ Riverside County Transportation Authority WRCOG ................................................................... Western Riverside Council of Governments Chapter 1
Background and Introduction
On March, 2011, residents of the communities of Belltown, Crestmore Heights, Glen Avon, Indian Hills, Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux and Sunny Slope made a momentous decision and voted to incorporate and as a result the City of Jurupa Valley was chartered shortly thereafter on July 1, 2011. Successful incorporation efforts are often derived from the wish of the local residents and the local business community to acquire policy decision-making over land use issues and policy determinations about Levels of Service (LOS) from the County and have such issues be considered and decided by the City. These two main goals of incorporation, consistent with most new cities, have been accomplished via the creation of a locally derived General Plan. In the City's own General Plan, this is how the "Plan" is defined.
The General Plan is the citizens' "blueprint" for development; the guide to achieving our vision. California law requires each local government to adopt a local General Plan, which must contain at least seven elements: Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Conservation, Noise, Open Space and Safety.1 The General Plan is often referred to as the blueprint intended for use by the City Council. The General Plan contains the basic objectives and goals to employ when making future policy decisions that have an effect on the City's residents and businesses. The General Plan is written so that it covers almost all aspects of cityhood both for the council, staff, citizens and business leaders alike. It creates the boundaries and map for decision-making so that others, over time, may make consistent decisions regarding residents and businesses. Prior to the creation of the local General Plan, the area now defined with actual boundaries as Jurupa Valley, was governed by the County of Riverside General Plan on a larger, more regional basis and as a result, it is now less relevant to the area that has become Jurupa Valley. Again, the desire of the local population to govern itself is often the stated reason the document filed for an incorporation efforts.
This is supported by the broadest statement in the General Plan which states:
Jurupa Valley's community services and facilities are a source of pride for the community and directly affect public health and safety, quality of life, land values, economic and environmental sustainability, and fiscal health. Due to the City's recent history as an unincorporated area, community services and facilities are provided by a number of public and private agencies and service districts.
Because of this, close coordination is needed to ensure that existing and future needs of the City are met.
There a number of services mentioned in the General Plan that, while the responsibility of the City, are not provided directly by the City. The examples are numerous:
The City contracts with the Riverside County Sheriff's office for law enforcement services. 1 City of Jurupa Valley, California, General Plan, April 2017.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 1 Chapter One Background and Introduction
The City contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department (staffed with CAL FIRE employees) for fire suppression/medic services and other general emergency and rescue services.
Strom drainage services, at least in the western portions of the City, are provided by the Riverside County Flood Control Agency and Water ConseNation District.
The City residents and businesses receive library services from the Riverside County Library Department.
The City residents rely upon the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District for the provision, management and maintenance of parks, open space and trails as well as recreation services.
The District already has a set of development impact fee schedules in place for parks, open space and trails. In the past, when unincorporated, the Jurupa area also received park acquisition assistance from the Riverside County Regional Parks Department.
None of this, however, lifts the burden of the responsibility for these services from the City. It is generally incumbent upon the City to work closely with these and other agencies to insure that infrastructure efforts are neither duplicated nor disregarded via lack of attention. The Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element contains five programs that define the City's responsibility for the municipal infrastructure and facilities (with the notable exception of the Circulation Element projects) needed to serve the community. The five programs are:
CSSF 2.1 Provide Facilities and Services. Work with community services agencies and districts on the planning and provision of adequate community facilities and services.
CSSF 2.2 Concurrency with Development. Ensure the provision of sufficient public facilities and services prior to, or concurrently with, new development.
CSSF 2.3 Facility Design. Work with service agencies to ensure that new public facilities are well designed, energy efficient and compatible with adjacent land uses.
CSSF 2.4 Fair Share. Ensure that new development pays its fair share of public facilities and service costs (italics added for emphasis of its importance).
CSSF 2.5 Joint Use. Promote the joint use of public facilities to meet multiple needs of the community.
Creation of a new municipal General Plan, where no such General Plan had existed before, is an extremely difficult task. It has to be written in a manner as to provide direction when making policy decisions that cover all manner of issues involved with management of a city, but it must also be understandable to Jurupa Valley's residents and business owners alike. The City, like most newly incorporated cities has had to temporarily retain any/all existing County adopted fee schedules during a period of time until they can calculate local fees for services and capital City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 2 Chapter One Background and Introduction
expansion as the older, more regionally based and broadly calculated fees become less relevant to the new city. Like all things, it simply takes time and effort to get through this transitional period during which the City must govern with the vestiges of County rules and fees while replacing them with Council adopted replacements in as timely a manner as possible.
The City staff just recently undertook an exhaustive effort with Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC (RCS, LLC) in calculating a schedule of operational fee-based services provided by the City such as tract map fees, plan check fees, and other non-tax supported services that, when adopted, will potentially replace the comparable fees in the County fee schedule.
The City, by undertaking this Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus (DIF) Study effort is now addressing an increasingly irrelevant County-based development impact fee schedule.
The existing DIF schedule will ultimately prove insufficient at meeting the City's many capital expansion needs required to meet the goals, programs and objectives within the recently completed General Plan. Thus the City of Jurupa Valley retained Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to undertake a comprehensive cost calculation of the City's development impact costs in support of the City's General Plan. The development impact cost calculations are intended to identify the cost of accommodating the many development applications in such a fashion as to not avoid any decrease to any infrastructure Level of Service (LOS) currently enjoyed by the City's existing residents and businesses. The fees need to be a reasonable representation of what it costs to provide the infrastructure necessary to merely accommodate continued development. The development impact cost calculations will then be formalized into a Development Impact Fee (henceforth referred to as DIFs) schedule that would need to be approved by the City Council.
The current County-based DIFs have become less relevant, especially in light of the City's creation of the newly adopted General Plan. Periodic review and adjustment of the DIFs will be both appropriate and warranted as better and more comprehensive information about the City's existing infrastructure and its future infrastructure becomes available. This is necessary in order to ensure that the City will collect adequate and sufficient DIF revenues required to provide the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate the anticipated growth of new residents and businesses expected to be developed in the City.
This Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report contains a significant amount of detail, such as a complete list of the 80 identified projects to be financed by the proposed infrastructure DIF schedules. Each project has a corresponding detail information page in the supporting Master Facilities Plan document which in turn tells the reader where additional information can be found regarding any specific project.
The Master Facilities Plan (henceforth referred to as the MFP) is a separate document which includes an expanded amount of information about each project, while allowing this Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report to remain more focused on the allocation and distribution of capital costs to the remaining new development. A Master Facilities Plan with this level of detail is generally not offered by other DIF consultants, and the City is to be commended for recognizing the importance of this information and committing the effort to generating it. The combined Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 3 Chapter One Background and Introduction
and the Master Facilities Plan offer: greater information for the Council to make policy decisions, greater transparency for the development community, and an easier project tracking system for the staff.
The Master Facilities Plan also serves to inform the users that collected DIFs are committed per §66000 et. seq. of the Government Code. The DIF receipts that are collected over five years (and kept in fund balances during that period) may not necessarily reach the level necessary to construct a needed project per the Master Facilities Plan. This does not mean the projects are no longer needed. The inclusion of those projects in the Master Facilities Plan indicates the continued importance of that project over time and certainly over a five year period.
The calculations and assumptions within this report are based upon the best information available to the City. A great deal of the information contained within this report was generated specifically to complete this report.
The Importance of Capital Infrastructure. The Levels of Service (LOS) of any one element of City infrastructure is significantly based upon (or limited by) the capacity of that infrastructure to support the City's residents or businesses. Most of the City's General Plan objectives involve the creation of capital facilities to meet the municipal service objectives contained in the City's new General Plan. As an example, the fire responses to calls-for-service cannot be improved over the existing level of service throughout the community without the addition of a response engine and an additional station. The design of any municipal project has a finite capacity, such as a four lane road, a 30" storm drainage pipe or a 10,000 square foot library. Each is designed in terms of capacity to meet the needs of a defined number of users. A street segment can only handle so many vehicles per hour, especially at a speed that makes it worth using for driving over longer distances. A storm drainage pipe that has a 30" capacity simply cannot handle storm flows twice that capacity. A library can hold just so many collection items and serve only so many people. Doubling the number of librarians cannot make up for limited library space. A municipality with 0.40 square feet per resident of library space will be able to serve more residents than a municipality limited by a 0.10 square feet standard of space per resident.
A reasonable municipal service level requires a balance of staff and infrastructure. However, make no mistake about it, the amount of and complexity of any infrastructure defines (all or in part) of the level of Service (LOS). This makes the one-time DIF financing of any City's infrastructure that much more important. It takes a balance to accommodate development with the law enforcement responses within the desired standard. It will take additional properly equipped officers, law enforcement station space, response and support vehicles and specialty equipment. The importance of having a properly calculated and documented DIF schedule in order to accommodate development-related demands cannot be over-stated. The same concept holds true for labor-intensive public safety services and the infrastructure-intensive services such as circulation, storm drainage collection, potable and recycled water distribution and wastewater collection. Of course, the DIFs can only be used for the capital acquisitions, the on-going labor staffing costs will need to come from other predictable annual revenue sources.
This Report demonstrates the potential and need for a development impact fee schedule covering the following infrastructure:
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 4 Chapter One Background and Introduction
Fire Suppression et. al. - The anticipated 33.7% increase in the calls-for service demand supports the potential need for one additional fire station to accommodate service to the additional calls-for-service. This increased demand is anticipated in the General Plan which states in Program CSSF 2. 16 Adequate Facilities. Work with the Fire Department to ensure the provision of adequate fire stations, personnel, and equipment to meet the City's needs over time. This program also can only be accomplished if there is adequate facilities space, vehicles and specialty equipment necessary to support the additional firefighters needed to accommodate the 2,657 additional fire suppression, medic, rescue and emergency calls-for-service resulting from new residential and business development.
Circulation (streets, bridges and signals) System (and the storm drainage needed to protect the road bed) - The potential 32.8% increase in traffic demand highlights the need to complete the City's local circulation system to maximize the ability to navigate throughout the City at the most expedient pace as exemplified by the anticipated additional 1,210,901 daily trip-miles supports any number of the goals, policies or programs within the City's Mobility Element, most specifically Goal ME 10: To be a City that establishes and maintains a balanced, multi-modal mobility network that Develops implementation strategies and identifies funding sources to provide for the timely implementation of the Mobility Element's goals, policies and program.
General Facilities, Library Collection Items/Public Use Computer Stations and Park Development - All of these infrastructures that are supported by an existing or proposed County DIF schedule are necessary to support the demands/needs of the additional 35,580 residents anticipated through the construction of 10,000 new residences. Because of this anticipated 35% increase in residents, the General Plan states in Program CSSF 2. 1, Provide Facilities and Services. Work with community services agencies and districts on the planning and provision of adequate community faci/J1ies and ser.;ices.
It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects will be replacements of the existing infrastructure while others will be capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal.
The replacement of an existing, but aged signal does not expand the capacity of that signal, while an upgrade of that same signal would only be undertaken if it increases capacity and is thus development generated.
2. Projects required as a result of the need to accommodate the demand for service from future added development. An example of this would be a signal that is currently City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 5 Chapter One Background and Introduction
controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in the near and downstream areas will ultimately need to be signalized. The commonality of these projects is that they expand capacity of that infrastructure to provide a higher level of service and thus eligible for impact fee financing.
It should be noted that each of the above two categories may have financial support from other resources such as inter-governmental support.
This report provides the documentation of the City's costs which serve as the basis for calculating DIFs. The updated DIF Schedules and related information can be found in Chapters 3 through 7 and Appendices A through C of this report.
RCS staff has worked with finance, fire suppression/medic, planning and engineering staff to generate and review the supporting data which forms the calculation of Development Impact Fee schedules. The results of this review can be found on the schedules located at the end of each Chapter.
Development Impact Fee Structure. The General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development. As such, the DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the impacts from a specific development. For example, a property zoned as detached dwelling residential development may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre.
Similarly, fees are calculated on a square footage (of building space) basis for business (retail/service, office and industrial, etc.} parcels to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for these types of development. Some of the infrastructures have an optional fee structure recommended for unusual developments, such as a parking structure, which in itself does not create demand (beyond additional storm drainage runoff}, whereas the structure that required the additional parking does create demand.
A second reason for the proposed DlF fee structure recommended in this report involves the issue of building expansion or intensification of retail, office and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of retail/service .or industrial property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a building square footage basis simplifies this calculation.
CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
In California, state legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as AB1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq. This State law went into effect on January 1, 1989.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 6 Chapter One Background and Introduction
Government Code §66000 et. seq. requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of direct benefit to the development which paid the fees. Many states have such controlling statutes. Specifically, Government Code §66001 et. seq. requires the following process:
1. 66001 "(1) Identify the purpose of the fee." Throughout the report this finding will be referred to as: The purpose of the fee.
2. 66001 "(2) Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged." Throughout the report this finding will referred to as: The use of the fee.
3. 66001 "(3) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed." Throughout the report this finding will referred to as: The relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development paying the fee.
4. 66001 "(4) Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed".
Throughout the report this finding will referred to as: The relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project.
5. 66001 (4) "(b) In any action imposing a fee as a condition of approval of a development project by a local agency, the local agency shall determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." Throughout the report this finding will referred to as: The relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project.
This report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of Government Code §66000 et. seq. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of DIFs for the City:
1. Define the level of service desired within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a traffic level of service (LOS) scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers.
Many agencies adopt a LOS of "D" as the most affordable option.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 7 Chapter One Background and Introduction
2. Review the Land Use Map and determine the existing mix of land uses and amount of undeveloped, underdeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning needed infrastructure. This inventory can be found in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2.
3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions.
4. Identify a level of responsibility, identifying, as termed in this report, the relative need ( or as referred to in the accompanying schedules as "Percent Need") for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate "growth" as defined, and as opposed to current needs.
5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis of land use. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative use of, or nexus, to the capital system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation characteristics.
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:
"Normal" Subdivision Improvements Omitted. "Local" public improvements generally associated with and identified as being the sole responsibility of the developer through the subdivision or development review process are not included in either of the project lists or consequent calculations. This type of "on site" and immediately adjacent improvement would include all such capital construction within the boundaries of any development, such as street lights, curb, gutter, sidewalks, neighborhood streets and storm drainage collection. These improvements would continue to be the direct responsibility of the developer, with or without the addition of DIFs.
Exclusion/Rejection of Any Type of "Credit" for Undeveloped Land. It has been argued by some that a credit for capital-related revenues, such as gas taxes, should be made against the DIFs calculated or imposed by a city. Using the state gas tax as an example, proponents of a DIF credit argue that a city will receive increased annual gas taxes because of the additional population generated by future residential development. It is therefore argued that a developer should receive a credit for any associated gas tax revenues collected as a result of the residents or businesses that occupy the new dwellings against any Circulation DIF imposed by the City based on either of two separate arguments.
The first argument for a gas tax credit against DI Fs supposes that the additional gas tax revenues created by residential development are used to pay for the maintenance of existing City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 8 Chapter One Background and Introduction
streets, which is the responsibility of existing development. Since the new streets constructed via DIFs will not require rehabilitation or reconstruction for another 10 to 20 years, the gas tax generated by new development is therefore a windfall to the City and should be credited against the DIF. What this argument fails to consider is that any new resident or business to the City will begin to contribute immediately to the use and deterioration of all existing City streets. A cursory review of City finances will reveal that the portion of the State gas tax received by cities falls well short of meeting the City's needed street improvements and repairs in any given year.
The gas taxes generated by new development simply cannot meet the maintenance costs of either the new streets associated with the development or the existing streets which the new resident uses on a daily basis.
The second argument proposes that the developer pays his full share of constructing new roads when the developer or homeowner pays the City's Circulation System Development Impact Fee and that the gas taxes generated by the additional residents in a development are unfairly used to make improvements to the existing street system. It is the experience of most municipal agencies that gas taxes are barely adequate to meet streets-related operational costs, and if they are sufficient to meet these costs, the remainder is used for capital-related maintenance projects.
For these reasons, credits of existing operational revenues are not considered for Circulation System DIFs in this report. A similar conclusion can be made for the other fees considered herein, and therefore no credits against any such fees are included in this calculation of development impact costs. Individual credits could be considered by staff and recommended to Council on a case by case basis. A policy document identifying the DIF credit policy and creation of reimbursement agreements (between developers) is recommended.
Appropriate Expansion. Debt service is a reasonable cost of construction of many, but not necessarily all, public facilities and infrastructure. The following example illustrates this. DIFs are collected in incremental amounts, but facilities are not expanded in those same incremental amounts. As an example, a community center fee, based upon a standard of 1.2 square feet per detached dwelling residence, may be collected for each residential dwelling in the City, but after collecting the fee for a 1 DO-unit subdivision, it would be impractical to expand the community center 120 square feet. Fees are collected, placed in a separate fund, generating interest until such a time that a 2,000 to 3,000 square foot expansion is possible. During that build-up time, the community center will experience some temporary overcrowding as the standard drops from 1.2 S.F./dwelling to about 0.9 S.F./dwelling. This "temporary overcapacity" clearly may be an inconvenience, bringing about some crowding and an increased unavailability for rental or reservation until enough DIFs have been collected for a practical expansion to bring the community center facility back up to the original standard. In short, a development of 120 residences may be brought "on-line
11 ( occupancy approved) and bring about a temporary
reduction in community center facility standards without endangering the citizen's health and safety.
However, such a temporary overcapacity in stormwater collection is not possible without the potential for damage to both private and public property. Capacity for the collection/removal of stormwater must be available prior to the construction that increases the impervious surface (and thus stormwater runoff) of the parcel. If the local storm collection line is currently at City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 9 Chapter One Background and Introduction
capacity (peak or otherwise), no additional units may be brought on line until additional collection capacity can be created. Again, there is a practical size of an addition to construct and it is not likely practical for developers to wait until there is enough added demand (and fees) to pay for the facility addition. As a result, financing through some type of debt instrument may be the only alternative. Circumstances vary from city to city as to what facility expansions are critical and which can absorb temporary overcapacity for limited periods of time.
Financing Costs. Since financing costs reflect an actual, and generally significant, outlay of funds for an agency, they would be included in the project costs where debt financing was required due to the immediacy of the need for the facility or infrastructure to show the full costs of such facility or infrastructure and insure that new development also pays its "fair share" of these costs. However, no project within this DIF report contains debt service. However, such costs should be considered in future updates should debt be incurred.
OTHER ISSUES
There are those who claim that the addition of DIFs unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing residences. The argument is that if the full service public agency adopts a $10,000 to $20,000 development impact fee rate per detached dwelling, then the price for an existing dwelling is artificially increased by the same amount. We will use the example of a detached dwelling unit that cost the developer $150,000 to construct and complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $150,000 represents only the above ground costs. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling is the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on-site <2> public improvements, and the cost of extending public services to that dwelling. These public service extension costs include (but are not limited to) (3):
• The addition of law enforcement personnel requmng the expansion of the law enforcement facility, response vehicles and specialty equipment. • Additional fire station, response vehicles and specialty rescue equipment. • Widening of road segment of traffic arterials, collectors, bridge and additional signals. • Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage collection pipes and the treatment of stormwater.
• The addition of animal control personnel requiring the expansion of the animal control facility, response vehicles and specialty equipment.
2 On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and gutters, wastewater lines, water lines, street lights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the City's development code on privately-held developments, hence the reference of "on-site".
3 The City does not necessarily provide all of these services, they are only highlighted to make a point about the types of municipal services typically required to support a residential dwelling or business facility.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 1 O Chapter One Background and Introduction
• Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and delivery. • Additions to the wastewater capability, including collection and treatment. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation service center and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. • Additional library, public meeting and developed park space for recreational/social purposes as well as open space protection and trails construction.
Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling unit may be $150,000, the previously identified "downstream" costs may be in the area of $15,000 (non utility agencies) to $25,000 (utility-providing cities) per detached dwelling unit or in the area of 8% to 12% of the above ground cost.
If this argument is not clear, picture a 3,000 square foot detached dwelling, costing $150,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control and no recreational facilities. What would be the market value of this detached dwelling? It would probably not even be the $150,000 that it cost to construct the structure. The $15,000 impact fee for the infrastructure needed to support that one residential unit appears to be a bargain. In short, new development needs an existing system of municipal infrastructure to provide municipal services to that new residential dwelling and the City provides those services. It will be noted that the City's proposed development impact fee total per detached dwelling is a very modest $3,933/Unit.
Thus, the true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling unit is the cost of constructing the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the dwelling regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service-related infrastructure costs have been recognized, the only question remaining is who should for pay them, existing or new residents?
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Within each "hard infrastructure" Chapter (Chapters Three through Seven) there will be three project cost/fee distribution tables. They will be:
The first schedule, the Allocation of Project Cost Estimates identifies the projects, their costs and the relationship, in an allocation percentage, to future development. These schedules will begin with the number x.1 as in 3.1, 4.1, 5.1 etc.).
Minimum Needs-based Impact Fee - This schedule will calculate the DIF schedule that would need to be adopted to meet the minimal capital needs identified in the Report ( on the second schedule at the end of the Chapter, i.e., 3.2, 4.2, 5.2 etc.) for that infrastructure but limited to the General Plan needs. Strictly speaking this schedule is a calculation of the development impact costs, suitable to be adopted as development impact fees, by the legislative body, in this case the Jurupa Valley City Council. With adoption of this level of DIFs, one could claim that new development is occurring without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 11 Chapter One Background and Introduction
You could not, however, necessarily claim that new development has paid its fair share.
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison This schedule, while not an impact fee calculation, identifies the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements and capital equipment. The distribution of this replacement value equity total over the existing developed community is the average amount that has been invested by the current community of residents and businesses and is a good indication, or comparison, with what could be imposed upon new development. This financial commitment will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current replacement costs. Significant differences between this schedule and the General Plan Minimum Needs-based DIF rate schedule would certainly be worth additional analysis. These Schedules would be numbered 3.3, 4.3, 5.3, etc.
If the average equity (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison Table is greater than the average cost on the previous Minimum Needs-based Table, then that infrastructure system is front-ended with more of the system, say 80% of it has been constructed while only at 50% of General Plan build-out and it likely has excess capacity at that point in time. The excess capacity is the result of earlier residents and businesses of the community having financed more of the system than will be necessary by the remaining un-built portions of the community. The existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there. This table is intended to be instructive rather than legal.
OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES
Distribution of Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance. Application of the existing County DIF schedule has generated a combined Fund Balance of $6.9 million (reserved separately by infrastructure) and each separate fee was created to finance various needed infrastructure as new residents and businesses located in newly created dwellings and buildings (See Table 2-1).
There are no specific restrictions on the monies, beyond the restriction that they be used on improvements within the title of the separate accounting fund and committed within a five-year time frame. The Master Facilities Plan, when adopted, suffices for that commitment.
Regardless, the City must prepare and make available an annual report regarding the starting balances, collection and use of the collected development impact fee receipts. Staff is aware of the annual DIF reporting requirements.
Zone ChangesNariances Allowing a Different Use of the Private Development. Newly constructed industrial developments, initially charged the typically lower industrial use impact fee, often end up being retail/service uses (via a CUP) and generate greater demands those of the industrial land uses. If this trend is left unrecognized, all city services will be faced with the greater demand from retail/service uses, but will be left only with the collection of the lower industrial-based impact fee rates. To avoid this under-collection when such a use is changed from the lowest-demand industrial use to any other business use (often via a CUP), the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference (or delta) between the ultimate use DIF and the previously paid industrial land use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a higher demand business use in an otherwise industrial zone.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 12 Chapter One Background and Introduction
Each of these Chapters identifies the amount to be contributed to the common service center on the project list. Appendix B is the list of vehicles needed to support the maintenance of the new infrastructure. It is recommended that the amount identified as needed, by infrastructure, for the service center and maintenance vehicles be transferred annually to a separate Maintenance Vehicle DIF Fund. The amount to be transferred is the calculated maintenance vehicle costs within that infrastructure as a function of all development related costs within the infrastructure.
The maintenance vehicle costs are limited to the Circulation System and the General Facilities projects.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 13 Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter summarizes the beginning and end of the DIF calculation process. It begins with an inventory of fully developed, undeveloped and under-developed units and acreage within the City and concludes with a summary of recommended DIF schedules, with the detailed infrastructure explanations in the chapters following this summary chapter.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
Table 2-1, Detailed Land Use Inventory, is the inventory of developed and undeveloped land within the City limits of Jurupa Valley and is based upon, and consistent with, the City's adopted General Plan. The undeveloped parcels, identified as Potential Development, combine to form the base for the distribution of the estimated costs of the service-expanding capital projects necessary to accommodate that development. Without the expansion projects, the City would be unable to accommodate that new development, effectively halting it.
Table 2-1, the resulting inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City and based on the General Plan's land use inventory, follows:
Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use Inventory
Total • Land-use Database Existini:i Development Potential Development Total General Plan Build-out Acres # of Units/S.F. Acres # of Units/S.F. Acres # of Units/S.F.
Low Density Detached Dwellings 6,757.8 10,967 843.9 1,058 7,601.7 12,025 Medium Density Detached Dwellin1:1s 2,843.4 13,663 1,850.7 6,843 4,694.1 20,506 Attached Dwellings 422.4 6,426 171.3 2,133 593.7 8,559
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 145.6 1,966 1.0 14 146.6 1,980 Commercial Lodging Units 9.0 165 40.0 730 49.0 895
Retail/Service/Office Uses Square Feet 784.7 12,124,382 334.9 5,202,229 1,119.6 17,326,611 Business Park Square Feet 776.6 17,760,065 308.7 8,068,184 1,085.3 25,828,249 Industrial Uses Square Feet 3,097.3 68,587,562 537.3 13,559,357 3,634.6 82,146,919 _______ T_o_ta_l _-C_ity....._L_im_its__.l ... I __ 1_4 __ ,8_36_.s_l.___98 __ ,5_0_5, __ 19_6 ..... l l .... __ 4 __ ,o_a7_.s ......... l __ 2 __ 6,_84_0 __ ,54_8_! 1._ __ 1_8.:.;.,9_24'-'-. 1'-!.___1_2.;.:.5'.;...34_5._,144___.! Private Residences 10,169.2 33,022 2,866.9 10,048 13,036.1 43,070 Commercial Lodging Rooms 9.0 165 40.0 730 49.0 895
Business Square Feet 4,658.6 98,472,009 1,180.9 26,829,770 5,839.5 125,301,779 City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 14 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-1 provides the source for the average number of unit yield per type of acre that is used in a number of the following chapter schedules. The average number of units or square feet per acre can be determined from Table 2-1.
DIF Land Use Type Definitions. This report classifies private development into one of four residential O/F Land Use Types or one of four different business-based DIF Land Use Types.
For purposes of the report, the term O/F Land Use Type will refer to one of the eight broad types under which the City's specifically defined zoning code Land Uses will fall into. DIF Land Use types are defined as:
Residential Land Uses:
• Low Density Detached Dwellings - This DIF land use category is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of Small Farm (RR), Ranch (EDR), Rural Community Low (RC-LDR), Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) and County Neighborhood (LDR).
• Medium Density Detached Dwellings - This DIF land use category is generally defined as a detached unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of Medium Density Residential (MDR) and construction of detached Medium-High Density (MHDR) and High Density Residential (HDR).
• Attached Dwellings - This DIF land use category consists primarily of apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is physically contiguous to (i.e. attached to) any other residential unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of the construction of attached Medium-High Density (MHDR) and High Density Residential (HDR) and Very High Density (VHDR) and Highest Density Residential (HHDR). • Mobile Home Dwelling Units (in a mobile park-setting) - This smaller DIF land use category consists of mobile home dwelling units. Although few such developments beyond perhaps the addition of a few remaining pads within existing mobile home parks are anticipated, they have slightly different nexus than other residential categories. They too correspond to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of Very High Density Residential Density. A manufactured dwelling unit outside of a mobile home park-like setting would be considered a detached dwelling unit within a specific density.
Business/Commerce Land Uses (All business uses are expressed in terms of square feet):
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units - This DIF land use category while not typically a zone, corresponds to the Commercial Tourist (CT) use designation and possibly a Specific Plan (SP), and within other areas acceptable for the hospitality development.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 15 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
• Retail/Service/Office Uses - As utilized in this report, Retail/Service/Office uses include the general type of commercial services and thus includes outlets ranging from neighborhood, local and regional shopping outlets. This DIF land use category falls within the Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and Commercial Office (CO) designations.
• Business Park Uses - As utilized in this report, business park uses consist of research and development activities, warehousing and distribution, light manufacturing/assembly, repair and corporate offices when used in conjunction with other business park uses. This DIF land use category consists of the Business Park (BP) and Technology and Innovation (LI) land-use designations.
• Industrial Uses - This DIF land-use category contains all businesses engaged in heavy industrial or more intense manufacturing in the Heavy Industrial (HI) zones.
• Overlays, such as any Specific Plan Overlay generally combine differing land uses and thus cannot have an impact fee of its own. Should any mixed use facilities be approved for construction as is common, then the DIF would be based upon the combination of the above land-use development impact fees. As an example, for a mixed use development consisting of Commercial Retail (CR) and Very High Density Residential (VHDR) project, the DIF would consist of the combination of the number of square feet of Commercial Retail/Service/Office and the number of Attached Dwellings included in the mix-use.
Definitions of DIF Application Categories Status. For each of the DIF land use categories detailed above and on Table 2-2, acreage is categorized as either Existing Development or Potential Development. Definitions regarding the status of each land use are as follows:
Existing Development Acres/# of Units - This column title reference identifies land in the City which is developed or land which has received a building permit but may not yet be constructed.
Acreage in this category may include non-conforming use areas of the City which contain extensive development prior to an annexation or before adoption of the General Plan.
Potential Development Acres/# of Units - The title refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City. This category also includes the acreage any vacant parcel.
Table 2-2 provides a summary of the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property, provided on Table 2-1. Staff's land use inventory reveals that there are presently 14,836.8 acres of privately-held developed land (about 78.4% of all privately owned acreage in the City) within the City's current boundaries. Conversely, there remain 4,087.8 acres of vacant or under-developed land (or about 21.6% of all privately owned acres in the City). Acreage designated for residential dwelling development constitutes the greatest amount (at about
68.1%) of vacant acreage within the City.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 16 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-2
Summary of the City of Jurupa Valley's
Developed and Potential Development Acreage
L.D. Detached Dwelling Units 6,757.8 35.8% 843.9
M.D. Detached Dwelling Units 2,843.4 15.0% 1,850.7
Attached Dwelling Units 422.4 2.2% 171.3
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 145.6 0.8% 1.0
Commercial Lodging Units 9.0 0.0% 40.0
Retail/Service/Office Uses S.F. 784.7 4.1% 334.93
Business Park Uses S.F. 776.6 4.1% 308.70
Industrial Uses S.F. 3,097.3 16.4% 537.30
POPULATION PROJECTIONS
4.5% 7,601.7
9.8% 4,694.1
0.9% 593.7
0.0% 146.6
0.2% 49.0
1.8% 1,119.6
1.6% 1,085.3
2.8% 3,634.6
A second component in determining the magnitude of impact of future development and the necessary facilities needed to mitigate that impact is a realistic assessment of the build-out population of the City. Many of the facilities contained in this report are sized according to either the estimated population at theoretical "build-out" or upon service levels which are based in part upon an estimation of the population to be served. Library facilities and developed parks are examples of cost areas which rely heavily on population projections to determine space and facility needs. Park standards are usually stated in terms of the number of acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, for instance.
There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City: (A) past growth trends projected forward and (B) population holding capacity based on the General Plan Land Use element. Each of these methods can be useful even though both have certain limitations.
There are several serious flaws in projecting the build-out population of a community using the past growth trends methodology. While this method is relatively simple and therefore easy for the general public to understand, it does not give consideration to when an area is actually built out. Eventually there comes a point in time where the amount of available land to build on is negligible. This technique does not help explain when that point is reached.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 17 Chapter2 Demographics and Findings
Also, the past growth trends approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Council or land use issues contained in the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this technique is more useful in projecting short-term population levels and should not be used to forecast the built-out population of an area. This report relies on the methodology of holding-capacity (described in the following section} to project future service levels and facility requirements.
Holding Capacity Analysis. The methodology used in this report to forecast the built-out population of Jurupa Valley is the current holding capacity approach. This method calculates the sum of existing development and potential development allowable under current land use regulations, using average densities found in the City.
The first step in projecting the City's population using the holding capacity approach is to inventory the remaining undeveloped residential acres within the City limits, which was previously accomplished in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of this Chapter. The next step is to estimate the potential dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average number of residents per type of unit.
The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 3.826, 2.593 and 2.854 persons for detached, attached and mobile home dwelling units respectively4. The 2000 Census data is used over the recently released 201 O Census due to a change in the way data is collected by Census officials, eliminating the ability to recognize differing types of residential structures.
Based on these 2000 Census dwelling density data, future residential development can be expected to generate somewhere from 34,364 to 35,800 additional residents 5 to the City of
Jurupa Valley, joining the 107,083 citizens already living in City, resulting in a total estimated population at build-out (based upon the inclusion of existing City limits) of approximately 142,165 residents. The higher number is based upon full occupancy of all new dwelling units and the lower figure is based upon the historical occupancy levels at the time of the census count. The 142,165 is the average of the two.
Table 2-3 following uses the additional housing projected in the Land Use Database and estimates the additional potential population for the City of Jurupa Valley through General Plan build-out. The number of potential new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use zone by the average densities (i.e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City's General Plan.
Use of the 2000 Census was limited to determining how many persons live in the differing types of residential dwellings, not the existing population, which was garnered from the California Department of Finance. Table 2-3 following, uses the additional residential dwellings projected in the Land-use Database and calculates an estimate of the additional potential population for the City of Jurupa Valley through General Plan build-out. 4 Based upon U.S. Census data from the Glen Avon, Jurupa, Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux and Sunnyslope CDPs. 5 Depending upon the residential vacancy factor based upon the average of 92.8% for all residences.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 18 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-3
City of Jurupa Valley
Development Impact Fee Detail
Average Residential Dwelling Occupancy
2000 United States (Special) Census Data (1)
Total
Units
Vacant
Units
Occupied
Units
Total Number Average
Existing Residential
=:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::------------ .. ____ _, of Occupants Occupancy
Detached Dwelling Units
Percentage
Occupied
Detached Dwellings 35,848 1,380 34,468 11 ..... ___ 1_3_1_,8_60__._I ___ 3._82_6_.!.__ __ s6_.1_5__.% 1 Attached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units 2,160 90 2,070 7,764 3.751 95.83% Duplex to Quadplex Units 1,298 74 1,224 3,076 2.513 94.30% Five to Forty-nine Units 2,763 116 2,647 5,318 2.009 95.80% Fifty or More Units (none) 933 68 865 1,493 1.726 92.71% Average 7,154 348 6,806 17,651 2.593 95.14%
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 4,084 274 ...._ __ 3.;....8_1 o ...... 1 .... 1 ___ 1_0 __ .8_72__._! ___ 2._ss_4 __ ! ______ s3_.2_9___,% I Existing - State Department of Finance 01/01/16 Population 107,083 j G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated Occupancy Probable Dwelling Anticipated At Historic Occu,:,ancy Rates Units Rate Occuoancy Density Pooulation Potential Detached Dwellings 7,901 96.15% 7,597 3.826 29,066 Potential Attached Dwellings 2,133 95.14% 2,029 2.593 5,261 Potential Mobile Home Dwellings 14 95.14% 13 2.854 37
Population to be Added Via Development at Historic Occupancy Rates 34,364 34,364 Current State of California Department of Finance Population 107,083 Potential "Build-out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates. 141,447 G.P. Build-out Population Anticipated Occupancy
At 100% Occupancy Rate Units Rate
Potential Detached Dwellings 7,901 100.00% 7,901 3.826 30,229 Potential Attached Dwellings 2,133 100.00% 2,133 2.593 5,531 Potential Mobile Home Dwellings 14 100.00% 14 2.854 40
Population to be Added Via Development at 100% Occupancy I 35,800 35,800 Current State of California Department of Finance Population 107,083 Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population. 142,883
Population at General Plan Build-out @ Low per Dwelling Resident Densities 141,447 Population at General Plan Build-out @ High per Dwelling Resident Densities 142,883 Average Population at General Plan Build-out 142,165
(1) Summary File 3 (SF3), available at http://factfinder.census.gov (2) Current population based upon State of California Department of Finance data.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 19 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
City staff and RCS have identified nearly $838.1 million in needed and master planned capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan primarily needed solely to support future private growth. Most of the total project list is required as the result of accommodating continued development, but projects with more regional benefits, about 73. 7% of the project total are likely to be funded by circulation-based inter-governmental revenue sources. Less than one tenth of 1 % of the identified development-generated capital projects can be funded by an existing balance in the various DIF receipts (or fund balance). Table 2-4 indicates the capital project costs by the differing types of infrastructure. "·/
1·:. ·,·,
.,. ··. ,>
Table 2-4
Total General Plan Build-out
Capital Requirements
..
Infrastructure
:.<,'iType
..
.
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System (Al
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
•·
Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computers Park Infrastructure Development (Downey & 68th St. Parks) '.•
Total - All Projects
(A) Includes a nominal amount of storm drainage improvements necessary to protect the road bed.
Total-Alf
P,roJec.ts
$20, 128,226
$798,294,703
$4,749,378
$1,546,930
$13,384,740
$838,103,977
While the above table indicates the amount of capital acquisition via the impact fee process, it is important to realize that this is only part of the inventory of improvements that the City will need to maintain. Needed public facilities (sidewalks, underground pipes, local roads, etc.) within the footprint of a development benefit only those residences or businesses within that development footprint. These local improvements are required as a condition of approval and are not distributed to any other developer as part of a DIF distribution. However, all of these improvements are ultimately dedicated, accepted by and maintained in perpetuity by the City.
The adoption of the recommended DIF schedule amounts supported by the calculations in this report (Schedule 2.1) would finance a great deal of this areas development-generated capital facilities by raising upwards to $137.0 million in new DIF revenues to be combined with the existing DIF fund balances of $6.9 million and other identified resources of $617.9 million available to fund growth-related capital projects or not place an unnecessary draw on other City revenues. Approximately $76.1 million (9.1 % of the total project list) in projects do not have funding sources identified. These projects are primarily local circulation projects that need further review to determine their continued viability and more accurate costs via the completion of a recommended Circulation Master Plan.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 20 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
DIFs Summary. Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of each of the remaining chapters of this report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per unit basis for residential land uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for business land uses.
Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary of the recommended DIF schedules for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The total recommended maximum DIFs for each of the eight Land Use DIF types within the General Plan area are summarized as following:
Table 2-5
Summary of Proposed Development Impact Costs
for the City's General Plan Area
Low Density Detached Dwelling Unit $5,500/Unit
Medium Density Detached Dwelling Unit $5,500/Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit $3,292/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit (in parks) $3,823/Unit
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Unit $2, 106/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses Square Foot $5.217/S.F.
Business Park Uses Square Foot $4.289/S.F.
Industrial Uses Square Foot $1.714/S.F.
Individual Development Impact Fees are recommended within each appropriate infrastructure Chapter. The specific DIF schedule rates for each land use are to be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure (see Also Appendix A). Schedule 2.1 at the end of this chapter also identifies the probable DIF revenue, the estimated capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g. fire). Most of the individual fee schedules are based upon a per unit or per square foot basis with the exception being storm drainage which is based upon a per acre basis.
Schedule 2.1, for parcels within Jurupa Valley, requires a single page to summarize the five infrastructure impact fee categories, identify the individual Infrastructure DIFs and combined DIFs by DIF Land Use Type and provide a calculation of the potential collection through build out at the proposed Minimum-Needs-Based DIF schedules and the cost of the total infrastructure needs.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 21 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
FORMAT OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter with a chapter devoted to each of the five sets of cost schedules listed following, and appendices the first of which contains a summary of DIF recommendations.
CHAPTER 3 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System CHAPTER 5 - General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
CHAPTER 6 - Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computers CHAPTER 7 - Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) APPENDIX A - Summary of Recommendations
APPENDIX B - Shared Maintenance Vehicle List and Distribution of Costs APPENDIX C - Park Improvement Unit Costs/Average Cost per Acre NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when included in text and supporting textual tables, has often been rounded to usually no more than two or three decimals for clarity and thus may not be replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end of each chapter.
If questions arise between the tables and schedules, the schedules at the end of the chapter will prevail as the more accurate. The schedules at the end of the Chapter are instructive to recommendations. The tables within each infrastructure text chapter are summaries of the schedule at the end of that chapter and are illustrative.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 22 "O
£l
(D
I'-> c,.,
Schedule 2.1
City of Jurupa Valley
General Plan Build-out Costs
Summary of Development Impact Fees By Type of Fee (continued on next page) (Costs/Fees per Residential Type Dwelling Unit, or Business Type Square Foot) Calculated Development Impact Costs
Low Density Detached Dwellings $672 $3,134
Medium Density Detached Dwellings $672 $3,134
Attached Dwellings $405 $1,693
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $955 $1,568
Commercial Lodging Units $425 $1,654
Retail/Service/Office Uses Square Feet $0.134 $5.061
Business Park Square Feet $0.381 $3.886
Industrial Uses Square Feet $0.036 $1.656
Potential Collection with Recommended Impact Fee Schedule Low Density Detached DwellinQs $710,976 $3,315,772
Medium Density Detached Dwellings $4,598,496 $21,445,962 Attached DwellinQs $863,865 $3,611,169
Mobile Home Dwellinq Units $13,370 $21,952
Commercial Lodging Units $310,250 $1,207,420
Retail/Service/Office Uses Square Feet $697,099 $26,328,483 Business Parle Square Feet $3,073,978 $31,352,963
Industrial Uses Square Feet $488,137 $22,454,295
Total Potential Collection $10,756,171 $109,738,016
Potential DIF Receipts $10,756,171 $109,738,016
Less: DIF Fund Balance $2,438,582 $1,381,388
Less: Other Resources $0 $617,978,711
Financial Resources Total $13,194,753 $729,098, 115
!Required Capital Total $20,128,226! $798,294,703!
I Over or (Under) Collection -$6,933,473! -$69, 196,588! $141 $130
$141 $130
$141 $88
$141 $97
$27 No Fee
$0.022 No Fee
$0.022 No Fee
$0.022 No Fee
$149,178 $137,540
$964,863 $889,590
$300,753 $187,704
$1,974 $1,358
$19,710 No Fee
$114,449 No Fee
$177,500 No Fee
$298,306 No Fee
$2,026,733 $1,216,192
$2,026,733 $1,216,192
$2,727,035 $332,236
$0 $0
$4,753,768 $1,548,428
$4,749,378{ $1,5_46_._9_~
$4,390{ $1,498}
$1,423
$1,423
$965
$1,062
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$1,505,534
$9,737,589
$2,058,345
$14,868
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$13,316,336
$13,316,336
$67,795
$0
$13,384,131
$13,384,7401
-$609j
$5,500
$5,500
$3,292
$3,823
$2,106
$5.217
$4.289
$1.714
$5,819,000
$37,636,500
$7,021,836
$53,522
$1,537,380
$27,140,031
$34,604,441
$23,240,738
$137,053,448
$137,053,448
$6,947,036
$617,978,711
$761,979,195
$838,103,977 j
($76, 124,782)!
per Unit
per Unit
per Unit
per Unit
per Unit
per S.F.
per S.F.
per S.F.
Chapter 3
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment The City's residents and businesses receive fire suppression, medic and rescue services from the Riverside County Fire Department from four fire stations within the City's limits. The County Department has a fleet of response fire engines, paramedic squad vehicles and battalion chief command vehicles as well as access to an inventory of specialty rescue vehicles.
Why a Fire Suppression/Medic Service Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee is Important. The City is responsible for public safety regardless of who actually provides these essential services. The General Plan recognizes this and the City of Jurupa Valley contracts with the Riverside County Fire Department. However, one of the keys to good fire suppression and medic services is adequate and sufficient working/response space, a sufficient number of response vehicles and a proper inventory of assigned and specialty emergency equipment for the sworn firefighters.
Relationship with the City's General Plan. Broadly, General Plan Program CSSF 2.1 states broadly this regarding (all) public safety facilities needed to serve the community:
Provide Facilities and Services. Work with community services agencies and districts on the planning and provision of adequate community facilities and services.
Specifically, CSSF 2. 7 Coordination. During preparation and implementation of the City's capital improvement programs, encourage coordination between CAL FIRE and Community Services Districts providing water services in Jurupa Valley to improve firefighting infrastructure, by proposing or requiring, when appropriate:
2. Assessment of impact fees as a condition of development.
Additionally, CSSF 1.28 Fire Protection Master Plan states:
Continue to utilize the Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan and Jurupa Emergency Response Plan as the base documents to implement the goals and objectives of the Community Safety Element.
The Purpose of the Fee. While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number and location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without fear of contradiction that all new private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire, rescue and emergency calls-for-service. The affect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more annual calls-for-service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for-service. Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing fire companies out-of-service for greater periods of time. These additional calls-for-service will increase demands upon the existing City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 24 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment capability established by the existing system of stations and response vehicles and specialty equipment. These new and additional demands may result in the reduction of infrastructure service level to the existing service levels. If so, the adoption of a properly calculated DIF would eliminate that effect.
The Riverside County Fire Department has invested in an extensive system of fire facilities, response vehicles and specialty equipment on behalf of its former unincorporated constituents.
The fire suppression/medic/rescue providers respond to calls-for-service within the City's limits from one or more of four fire stations within the City's boundaries. They are identified as follows:
Limonite Station (#16) is a 4,391 square foot facility located on a 0.51 acre parcel at 9269 Limonite Avenue. The facility houses a single engine/paramedic response company. This station is undersized and cannot be expanded and would be considered for relocation should such a major effort be undertaken.
San Savaine Station (#17) is a 9,050 square foot facility located on a 1.96 acre parcel at 10400 San Savaine Way. The facility houses a single engine/paramedic response company and the local aerial response vehicle.
Central Mission Station (#18) is a number of facilities totaling 6,018 square feet located on a 2.64 acre parcel at7521 Mission Boulevard. The facility houses a response engine, a paramedic response company as well as the battalion chief command vehicle.
Rubidoux Mission Station (#38) is the largest station within the City boundaries (at 11,428 square feet) and is located on 1.597 acres at 5721 Mission Boulevard and is owned by The Rubidoux Community Services District. This station also houses a single engine/paramedic company as well as a second battalion chief command vehicle for emergency responses within the City limits.
The City is also served by a sizable fleet of equipped response units assigned to these four local stations consisting of:
• Four Type I response engines.
• One paramedic squad vehicle.
• One aerial response truck; and,
• Two battalion chief command vehicles.
The capacity of any fire station is finite and will reach practical limits through its call-for-service frequency and incident time. When that capacity is exceeded, the level of service afforded to existing development will be greatly reduced. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire stations, the existing stations will be overwhelmed in terms of calls-for-service, making a timely response for emergency service a virtual coin flip. Without additional response capacity, the existing fire companies will reach a point where they will be unavailable to respond to all needs as they may be out-of-service on a simultaneous call in a different part of the community.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 25 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment In order to continue to be able to respond to an anticipated 27.6% increase in the number of expected calls, the fire administrative staff has determined the need for two additional stations in the City. One would be a large multi-company station in the southeast area of the City while the second one, primarily for relocation response time improvement purposes, will be a basic single engine company station in the more northwesterly area of the City.
Having the right type, size and number of fire stations in the right locations will enable the fire administrative staff and City Council to house firefighters, apparatus, and equipment in the most rational way ensuring maximum use of capital resources at the lowest annual operations cost.
Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible for either poor fire station location or a lack of one. Adverse effects are felt by the City staff, the City Council, and possibly by the existing taxpayers. With poor location or no additional locations, response times could vary within the City with some areas requiring response from a great distance. The unavailability of an out-of-service engine company due to a simultaneous call could become excessive. If a tragedy occurs, the incident would be well publicized.
Often, response time is mistakenly applied to only the first-in unit, and this can be a grave error.
Instead, the planned response time must consider a// the forces necessary to place the incident under control. If the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow, or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus, an increase in the number and type of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls-for service.
The Use of the Fee. The revenues generated from a properly calculated and legally-supported Fire Suppression, Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment DIF schedule receipts would be limited to one-time capital costs related to that growth consisting of approximately 10,048 dwelling units, 730 commercial lodging and 26.8 million square feet of business space (retail/service, office, business park, industrial and Industrial). The fee receipts would be used to construct a new station and increase the number of emergency response vehicles.
Conversely, the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment DIF receipts would not be used to repair any existing fire stations or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facilities are planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the capability (volume or calls and distance) of the existing stations.
Please note that reference to the two additional stations as the "5th" and "6th" stations in this report does not reflect any proposed order of construction nor their ultimate station numbering.
The capital expansions include:
FS-001, Southeast Fire Station "A" (three bays wide by two vehicles deep) - The proposed station approximately 9,445 square feet on two acres and would be a three bays wide by two vehicles deep configuration and would be near the intersection of Lakeside Drive and El Camino Boulevard. The station has an estimated acquisition cost of $9. 110,366. The proposed station would need to be equipped with the following response equipment (FS-002 to and including FS- 004):
FS-002, Engine/Pumper, Fully Equipped - The previously referenced southeasterly station would require a fully-equipped basic front-line response engine at $942,000.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 26 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment FS-003, Paramedic Squad Vehicle, Fully Equipped - Acquire a standard paramedic squad vehicle for $138,000. This vehicle is used for paramedic response beyond the fire response area of the station keeping the engine responses more readily available as the primary ("first in") response area.
FS-004, Aerial Response Truck - The City will need to acquire an aerial response vehicle for responses to over-width and over-height structures anticipated to be constructed in the central area of the City through General Plan build-out. The estimated cost of this type of fully equipped aerial/pumper vehicle is approximately $1,365,000.
FS-005, Northwest Fire Station "8" (two bays wide by two vehicles deep) - This station is proposed to be constructed in the northwesterly area of the City generally along Wineville Avenue between Cantu-Galleano Road and Bellegrave Avenue. This station would represent an increase in the existing level of service over what is available now but is not needed for additional responses thus is not attributed to new development. The station would be approximately 6,725 square foot, two-bays wide by two vehicles deep configuration with an estimated construction cost of $6,571,307. The new station would require the following response equipment:
FS-006, Engine/Pumper, Fully Equipped - The previously referenced northeasterly station would require a second fully-equipped basic front-line response engine at $942,000.
FS-007, Paramedic Squad Vehicle, Fully Equipped - Acquire a standard paramedic squad vehicle for $138,000. This vehicle is used for paramedic response beyond the fire response area of the station keeping the engine responses available in the primary ("first-in") response area.
FS-008, Traffic Signal Pre-emption System - As demands upon the City's streets and traffic facilities more than doubles, the fire emergency vehicle response times from the proposed stations will increase simply due to additional anticipated traffic as the City gets closer to General Plan build-out. Responses during the morning and evening drive time would be particularly difficult. Signal preemption, proposed at 31 intersections, offers a safe, practical and relatively inexpensive (at $921,553) yet significant mitigation of intersection stoppages or slow downs where additional lane miles are simply not an option.
The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 3.1 and are detailed in the MFP.
The total cost of $20,128,226 necessary to complete the fire infrastructure system becomes a net $17,689,644 after subtracting the existing $2,438,582 in prior collected Riverside County - Fire Development Impact Fee Fund balance. These proposed fire suppression and general emergency improvements are necessary to meet Fire and Emergency Medical Services Policy CSSF 2.16 within the City's General Plan which states:
And:
CSSF 2.16 Coordination Work with the Fire Department to ensure the provision of adequate fire stations, personnel, and equipment to meet the City's need over time.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 27 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment CSSF 1.28 Fire Protection Master Plan. Continue to utilize the Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan and Jurupa Emergency Response Plan as the base documents to implement the goals and objectives of the Community Safety Element.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. Fire service response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or else the result will be in the deterioration of the level of service (LOS) provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City of Jurupa Valley. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to contribute additional fire facilities. To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. The Riverside County Fire Department response or calls-for-service records are not currently able to be used to determine Jurupa Valley-specific calls-for-service data by land use.
Typically, the County Fire Department has been able to provide this data for other Riverside County Agencies assisted by RCS. This is likely due to the City's more recent incorporation and the local calls-for-service data should be to be available in future years for DIF calculation updates. Thus the process for identifying calls-for-service data for use as the nexus will be similar to that of the law enforcement services calls-for-service data in Chapter Three via use of averages from fifteen other public agencies, in this case fifteen municipal fire suppression agencies.
Table 3-1, following, summarizes the results of analysis of the calls-for-service received by fifteen other city and county law enforcement agencies over a twelve month period (per Schedule 3.2). The breakdown of calls-for-service into the land uses that generated them, divided by the number of developed units (during the same period) generates a ca/ls-for-service ratio, factor or nexus. The resulting factor of calls per residential unit or per KSF of business space will be applied to the existing and future Jurupa Valley development contained in the Land Use Database summarized in Table 2-1.
Table 3-1, following, identifies the number of calls-for-service received by the fifteen municipal agency fire departments during a twelve month period by the previously identified DIF Land Use types employed in this report. The number of requests for service received by the departments during the twelve month period was then divided by either the number of existing number of dwelling units or the developed business space (in KSF) to determine the number of future requests generated per residential dwelling unit, per commercial lodging unit or business square foot.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 28 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-1
Fire Suppression/Medic Services
Calls-for-Service Generated by DIF Land Use Type
(Average of Fifteen California Fire Suppressions/Medic Agencies over a Twelve Month Period)
Low and Medium Density Detached Units 24,630 4,089
Attached Dwelling Units 6,426 643
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1,966 458
Commercial Lodging Units 165 17
Retail/Service/Office Use KSF 404,522,342 400
Business Park Use KSF 17,028,441 1,669
Industrial Use KSF 341,653,842 671
0.166/Unit
0.100/Unit
0.233/Unit
0.105/Unit
0.033/KSF
0.094/KSF
0.009/KSF
In the sample, 4,089 calls-for-services were recorded to one of the 24,630 detached dwelling units, generating a ratio of 0.166 calls-for-service per residential detached dwelling. Business Park development is shown to generate the higher of the business use demands at 0.094 responses per 1,000 square foot of building space, while industrial development generates the least demand of 0.009 calls per 1,000 square feet. The lower demand by industrial uses over commercial uses should be expected given the greater density of employees and patrons in a retail/service/office use establishment when compared to an industrial business of similar square feet. However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant training is required to be prepared for industrial responses, (i.e., trenching shoring/rescue response, Urban Search and Rescue, and hazardous materials training).
Commercial lodging (hotels/motels) generates a rate of 0.105 calls per unit annually based upon the 17 calls to the existing 165 commercial lodging keyed units.
Based upon these calls-for-service and the anticipated future development demands in the General Plan will increase from the 7,894 annual calls-for-service to privately-owned development by 2,657 to 10,551 annual calls-for-service to privately held property per year.
Anticipated development will benefit from the existence of the current four stations and the fact that they have some existing capacity to respond. The existing four engine companies {at the existing four stations) currently handle approximately 1,973 calls each annually on average (to privately owned parcels). At General Plan build-out the total complement of five engine companies (or six should the City opt to increase the existing level of service) will each handle 2,110 annual calls-for-service each, an increase of about 7%. A stand-alone paramedic squad (FS-003) may reduce that average calls-for-service per station figure depending upon what number of calls-for-service can be handled by a paramedic squad alone. Table 3-2, (summarized from Schedule 3.2) demonstrates the anticipated additional calls-for-service.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 29 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-2
Fire Suppression Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use (Over a 12 Month Period)
LO Detached Dwelling Units 1,058 0.166/Unit 176
MD Detached Dwelling Units 6,843 0.166/Unit 1,136
Attached Dwelling Units 2,133 0.100/Unit 213
Mobile Homes Dwellings 14 0.233/Unit 3
Commercial Lodging Units 730 0.105/Unit 77
Retail/Service/Office Uses 5,202,229 0.033/KSF 172
Business Park Uses 8,068,184 0.094/KSF 758
Industrial Uses 13,559,357 0.009/KSF 122
Resulting General Plan DIF Schedule. The collection of the resulting DIFs through build-out, along with the existing Fire Suppression/Medic DIF Fund balance, would allow the City to acquire or construct just over half (53.5%) of the proposed expansions, improvements and required equipment. Table 3-3, following, indicates the DIF schedule necessary to finance the cost to the additional stations, response equipment and specialty equipment.
Table 3-3
Minimal Needs-Based Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land Use Type
LO Detached Dwelling Units $711,324 $672/Unit
MD Detached Dwelling Units $4,601,729 $672/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $862,824 $405/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $13,369 $955/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $310,495 $425/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $696,741 $0.134/S.F.
Business Park Uses $3,070,520 $0.381/S.F.
Industrial Uses $494,200 $0.036 S.F.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 30 Chapter 3 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. The DIF would be collected as the development occurs (generally at building permit or some predetermined point in the process). As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected DIF receipts would be limited to use to acquire the previously identified emergency response vehicles and additional fire stations necessary to respond to those additional calls-for-service, without reducing the capacity to respond to calls from the existing community (Schedule 3.1 ).
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Public Facility Attributed to the Development Project. It would be rare for any one development to create the need for a full fire station, thus all development will contribute resources towards a shared fire facility. Upon completion, all development projects that contributed towards the additional facilities and response vehicles will have fire suppression/medic services available from one of the five fire stations within the City's boundaries as needed.
The replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure serving the City's resident and businesses (stations, response fleet and related safety equipment) of $38,198,510 represents the current equity investment or financial commitment towards fire suppression capability by the existing community. When this figure is distributed over the existing community in the same manner as the future costs, by the land use demands, an investment, or financial "commitment" (or equity) per unit can be determined. As an example, each attached dwelling unit has invested about $803 into fire suppression capital while the proposed DIF is 15% less amount at $679 per attached dwelling. Table 3-4, following, demonstrates the existing financial commitment to Fire Suppression capability within the City.
Table 3-4
Existing Fire Suppression System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
LD Detached Dwelling Units $8,811,871 $803/Unit
MD Detached Dwelling Units $10,794,916 $803/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $3,111,495 $484/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $2,216,275 $1,127/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $82,263 $499/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $1,936,118 $0.160/S.F.
Business Park Uses $8,708,497 $0.455/S.F.
Industrial Uses $2,987,074 $0.044/S.F.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 31 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEES
The Minimum Needs-Based Impact Costs (Schedule 3.3) are necessary and sufficient to maintain this portion of the General Plan Safety Element as represented by additional demands upon the existing fire suppression/medic system capabilities.
RECAP OF FIRE SUPPRESSION/MEDIC ET AL. IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATIONS • Create a Fire Suppression/Medic Development Impact Fee Fund or modify title of existing fire-related development impact fee fund.
• Adopt Schedule 3.2, Development-Based Minima/. Capital Needs-Based Impact Costs and place the collected proceeds into the new DIF Fund
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 32 Schedule 3. 1
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Fire Suppression/Medic/Rescue, Vehicles Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment FD-001
FD-002
F0-003
FD-004
FD-005
F0-006
FD-007
FD-008
-0
ll>
co
(I)
w w
Southeast Fire Station "A" (Three Wide X Two Deep)
Engine/Pumper, Fully Equipped
Paramedic Squad Vehicle, Fully Equipped
Aerial Truck, Fully Equipped
Northwest Fire Station "B" (Two Wide X Two Deep)
Engine/Pumper, Fully Equipped
Paramedic Squad Vehicle, Fully Equipped
City-wide Traffic Sianal Pre-Emotion System
Sub- Total General Plan Total New Proiect Costs
Less: Development Impact Fee Fund Balance
Less: Other Dedicated Financial Resources
Sub-Total Off-Setting Revenues
!Total Net General Plan Project Costs
$9,110,366 0.00% $0 100.00% $9,110,366
$942,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $942,000
$138,000 0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
$1,365,000 74.82% $1,021,293 25.18% $343,707
$6,571,307 100.00% $6,571,307 0.00% $0
$942,000 100.00% $942,000 0.00% $0
$138,000 100.00% $138,000 0.00% $0
$921,553 75.35% $694,426 24.65% $227,127
$20,128,226 46.54% $9,367,026 53.46% $10,761,200
$2,438,582 100.00% $2,438,582 0.00% $0
$0 100.00% $0 0.00% $0
$2,438,582 100.00% $2,438,582 0.00% $0
$17,689,644 J 60.83%
Schedule 3.2
City of Jurupa Va/fey
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Fire Suppression/Medic/Rescue, Vehicles Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment 1,058 0.166
Medium Density Detached Dwl 1.aso.1 T 6,843 0.166
Attached Dwellings l 171.3 J 2,133 0.100
14 0.233
Commercial Lodaing Units I 40.0 730 0.105
Retail/Service/Office Uses Sq~ 334.9 5,202,229 0.033
Business Park Square Feet l 308.7 8,068,184 0.094
537.3 13,559,357 0.009
176 6.61% $711,324 $843 1.25
1,136 42.76% $4,601,729 $2,486 3.70
213 8.02% $862,824 $5,037 12.45
3 0.12% $13,368 $13,368 14.00
77 2.89% $310,495 $7,763 18.25
172 6.47% $696,741 $2,080 15,532
758 28.53% $3,070,520 $9,947 26,136
122 4.59% $494,200 $920 25,236
~•lttlr£1<1t;1ri~:::iJi1
1 ~r•et:t1:lllif1laLiillHitt:,,;r~11&Wh;,t1~1Jtf~,1~~illmi'at~~~"~Jril!~iil '"ti
ll>
(0
CD
w
..i::,..
$672
$672
$405
$955
$425
$0.134
$0.381
$0.036
Schedule 3.3
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Fire Suppression/Medic/Rescue, Vehicles Facilities, Vehicles & Equipment Low Density Detached Dwellin
Medium Density Detached Dw
Attached Dwellings
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodqing Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses Sq1
Business Park Square Feet
Industrial Uses Sguare Feet
-0
!I)
(0
<»
w
0,
6,757.8
2,843.4
422.4
145.6
9.0 784.7
776.6
3,097.3
10,967 0.166
13,663 0.166
6,426 0.100
1,966 0.233
165 0.105
12,124,382 0.033
17,760,065 0.094
68,587,562 0.009
1,821 23.07% $8,811,871 $1,304 1.62 $803
2,268 28.73% $10,974,916 $3,860 4.81 $803
643 8.15% $3,111,495 $7,366 15.21 $484
458 5.80% $2,216,275 $15,219 13.50 $1,127
17 0.22% $82,263 $9,140 18.33 $499
400 5.07% $1,936,118 $2,467 15,451 $0.160
1,669 21.15% $8,078,497 $10,402 22,869 $0.455
617 7.82% $2,987,074 $964 22,144 $0.044 --· --
Chapter 4
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
The following Chapter will discuss the Circulation System capital improvements which consist of the major widening street segments, traffic signals/intersection improvements, freeway intersections, bike routes, bridges and an on-site traffic control center. These projects are required for the City through General Plan build-out in order to maintain the existing LOS while absorbing the added traffic from development as identified in the Land Use Database Table in Chapter 2. Initially, RCS recommends adoption of a comprehensive DIF schedule covering all components of the circulation system within the General Plan area, those three components consisting of major street segments, signals and bridge improvements. The reasons are practical in that combining this infrastructure will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular circulation issue with a common nexus, a combination of trip-end6 generation and average trip distance. It is not uncommon that a single circulation capital project involves both a street improvement and signal improvement.
Why a Circulation DIF Schedule is important. Based upon the Land-use database included in this report (based upon the LUE in the General Plan), the City will have to be able to absorb a roughly 18.8% increase in traffic and circulation demands. Citizens are currently aware of and have expressed concerns about additional traffic from the construction of residential housing and business ventures
7 . The City may be able to expect inter-governmental financial assistance if/when the project has regional traffic implications but cannot expect that kind of assistance for projects that assist in dealing with local traffic issues. In Jurupa Valley, most of the cumulative project costs, about 63.4%, are regional in nature and will only likely be constructed with inter governmental assistance. Only an additional 3.5% of the City's total circulation projects necessary to support the City's Mobility Element have identified TUMF funding. Existing circulation system fund balance can finance a miniscule 0.1%. Inter-agency financial support is also at 0.1%. Approximately 7.5% of these project costs can be financed with the adoption and imposition of a local-municipal Circulation DIF schedule leaving 6.6% (primarily large projects with regional benefit) currently unfunded.
Relationship of DIF Schedule with the City's General Plan. The first sentence in the Mobility Element (page 3-1) states:
This Mobility Element guides the long-term circulation system of the City. Its goals and policies are closely linked with the Land Use.
Later, (page 3-7) the City's proposed General Plan Mobility Element states:
ME 10 Develops implementation strategies and identifies funding sources to provide for the timely implementation of the Mobility Element's goals, policies and program. 6 A trip is defined as a series of one or more trip-ends. A trip-end is a single stop in a trip. As an example, a drive from home to work is a trip. Each individual stop along the way along the way to drop children off at a school, buy gas, get a lunch, drop off laundry and the ultimate arrival at work or home is a trip-end. The term trip has no effect on the calculation and only means a drive. 7 Ghori, lmran, 'While Jurupa Valley residents are concerned about truck traffic, planners OK warehouse project." . The Press Telegram, 11 /08/17
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 36 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System The City currently has and maintains an existing system of extensive roadways, signalized intersections and bridges available for the transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational, recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of Jurupa Valley are classified as one of nine types of roadways (flus private roads) for the purposes of this report. Roads are defined in the City's General Plan as:
Roadway cross-section classifications range from the largest City capacity carrying Expressway (the largest carrying capacity) to a Local Street (the smallest carrying capacity). The roadway cross-sections accommodate a broad array of traffic volume conditions and modes and provide appropriate lane configurations, shoulders, medians, and other necessary facilities. They are defined in the City's General Plan Circulation element as:
Existing Roadway Network - Access and mobility in Jurupa Valley relies on several integrated transportation systems, namely automotive-based systems characterized by conventional streets and highways; a non-automotive system characterized by equestrian, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, both on- and off street; a trail system, accommodating multiple users such as pedestrians and equestrians and staging areas; facilities for freight movement, including commercial trucks and rail traffic; and airport facilities. These modes, and their relevant policies and programs, are discussed below.
A well-designed roadway network is essential for safe and efficient surface transportation. Such a network can cut down travel times, reduce accidents on certain facilities, assist in emergency operations, and help in allocating roadway funding. These facilities also serve as the primary thoroughfares for freight and goods movement that supply the local and regional economies.
Freeway - A highway upon which the abutter's rights of access are controlled and that provides separated grades at intersecting streets. The minimum right-of way width and number of lanes is determined by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans ).
Expressway - An Expressway is a multimodal roadway corridor for through traffic. Access from abutting property is restricted. Intersections with other streets or roadways are limited to approximately one-half mile intervals. The minimum right-of-way is 184 feet to 220 feet. The number of lanes is 6 or 8 and additional right-of-way may be needed at intersections. Segments of Van Buren Boulevard are currently designated as an Expressway.
Urban Arterial - An Urban Arterial is a roadway primarily for through traffic where access from other streets or roadways is• limited to approximately one quarter mile intervals. The minimum right-of-way is 152 feet. The number of lanes is 6 or 8 and additional right-of-way may be needed at intersections. 8 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, Mobility Element, pages 3-13 through 3-18. and Figure 3-5 Conventional roadway cross sections. References to Exhibit ME-6, Exhibit 1 have been removed. Please refer to the General Plan for this exhibit.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 37 Chapter4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Segments of Limonite Avenue are currently designated as an Urban Arterial roadway.
Arterial - An Arterial is a divided roadway primarily for through traffic to which access from abutting property is kept at a minimum. Intersections with other streets or roadways are limited to approximately one-quarter mile intervals. The minimum right-of-way is 128 feet. The number of lanes is 2 or 4 and additional right-of-way may be needed at intersections. Segments of Etiwanda Avenue are currently designated as an Arterial roadway.
Major - A Major roadway provides through-traffic property zoned for major industrial and commercial uses or serves through-traffic. Intersections with other streets or roadways may be limited to approximately 660-foot intervals. The minimum right-of-way is 118 feet. The number of lanes is 4 and additional right of-way may be needed at intersections. Limited segments on Pedley Road are currently designated as a Major roadway.
Secondary - A Secondary roadway serves through traffic along longer routes between major traffic-generating areas or serves property zoned for multiple residential, secondary industrial or commercial uses. Intersections with other streets and roadways may be limited to 330-foot intervals. The minimum right-of way is 100 feet. The number of lanes is four with no turn lanes and additional right-of-way may be needed at intersections. Figure ME-6, Exhibit 5 shows the cross-section for a Secondary roadway. Segments on Pacific Avenue are currently designated as a secondary roadway.
Collector Street - Collector streets are intended to serve intensive residential land uses, multiple-family dwellings, or to convey traffic through an area to roads of equal or similar classification or higher. A collector street may also serve as a cul-de-sac in industrial or commercial use areas but shall not exceed 660 feet in length when so used. The minimum right-of-way is 7 4 feet and the number of lanes is 2. Segments on 58th Street are currently designated as a Collector roadway.
Industrial Collector Street - Industrial collector streets are intended to serve the intensive needs of commercial/industrial truck traffic. The minimum right-of-way width is 78 feet, typically allowing two travel lanes, center median and parking lanes, plus pedestrian, bicycle and pedestrian facilities where appropriate.
Local Street - Local streets consist of public rights-of-way serving residential neighborhoods and are primarily two-lane, low-volume roadways with rights-of way (R.O.W.) typically ranging from 44 to 60 feet in width. In Jurupa Valley, local streets are intended to safely accommodate equestrians, pedestrians, bicyclists and motor vehicles in a manner that preserves and enhances the character of the community in which they are located.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 38 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System
GENERALPLANDEVELOPMENTIMPACTFEES
The Purpose of the Fee. Undeveloped parcels create few trip-ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes, planning purposes or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip-ends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable amount of trip-ends and trip-miles, depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e., residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the property may increase or decrease the number of trip-ends, i.e., the demolition of a low trip-generating insurance office into reconstruction as a new a high trip generating fast-food restaurant.
All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a project-by-project basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing major street segment lane miles existing in General Plan area include the following:
• The construction of 26.8 million square feet of private business uses on nearly 1,181 undeveloped acres will generate 884,090 additional daily trip-miles (or VMT or vehicle trip miles) or about 74% of the total new trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of retail/service uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued. •An increase in the City's full-time population through the construction of about 10,048 additional dwelling units on 2,866 vacant acres contributing approximately 313,496 new daily trip-miles or about 25% of the newly expected daily trip-miles.
•The addition of about 730 commercial lodging units on 32 acres will generate about 13,315 trip- miles, or about one percent of the total new trip-miles.
When the available vacant land in General Plan is developed, the City can expect an additional 1,210,901 daily trip-miles, see Table 4-1, following, as summarized from Schedule 4.3. For perspective, the City currently experiences an estimated 3,702,255 daily trip-miles from/to the existing residences and businesses as summarized from Schedule 4.2. The roughly 1,210,901 newly anticipated trip-miles represent an estimated 32.7% increase over the current 3,702,255 daily trip-miles. ·
[This space left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 39 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Table 4-1
Calls-for-Service Projection
for Existing (Schedule 4.2) and Future Development (Schedule 4.3) LD Detached Dwellings 379,480 36,609
MD Detached Dwellings 472,767 236,781
Attached Dwellings 120,063 39,853
Mobile Home Dwellings 35,490 253
Commercial Lodging Units 3,010 13,315
Retail/Service/Office Uses 676,710 290,357
Business Park Uses 761,640 346,004
Industrial Uses 1,253,095 247,729
Total 3,702,255 1,210,901
In Jurupa Valley most of the planned arterials and collectors already exist in some form, perhaps not yet fully widened to allow for the full number of lanes. Stated another way, there are few if any opportunities to construct any completely new arterial/collectors even in light of a nearly 32. 7% increase in daily trip-miles. The street segment improvement projects are listed as projects 1 through 6 on pages 3-26 and 3-27 in the Mobility Element of the General Plan. Thus the collection of Circulation System DIF receipts is imperative as a revenue source to finish off these existing but, limited, incomplete, or not yet maximized roads.
Additionally, the DIF revenues would be used to complete the system of signals that insures the smooth movement of vehicles through intersections. Efficient signalization (i.e. turn pockets and fully actuated left-turn signals) are also important to keep vehicular traffic moving at the optimum efficiency through major intersections. The proposed intersection projects in the Mobility Element are numbered 1-38 on pages 3-27 through 3-30 of that Element. All of the et projects are consistent with General Plan Planned Circulation System Policies and achieving the Circulation Elements Policies ME-2.16 and ME -2.17. Policy ME-2.16 states:
ME 2.16 Traffic Impacts. Traffic studies prepared for development entitlements (e.g., tracts, plot plans, public-use permits, conditional use permits) shall identify project-related traffic impacts and determine the "significance" of such impacts in compliance with CEQA.
Policy ME-2.17 further states:
ME 2.17 Impact Mitigation. Mitigate direct project related traffic impacts by requiring street improvements as a condition of approval, or for indirect and cumulative impacts, through the payment of mitigation fees to fund improvement of streets and other transportation facilities.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 40 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Again, given the magnitude of growth projected in this report, numerous intersection improve ments and construction of new traffic signals will be needed to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the most critical constraint in typical circulation networks is the design of the intersections that require motorists and/or pedestrians to stop.
While the street capacity may be theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at build-out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersection of two major streets.
While the City of Jurupa Valley will certainly undertake numerous major street widening projects, an equally important component of traffic circulation is the installation of traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the City. Indeed, 31 of the 91 proposed circulation projects are new signals or upgrades of existing limited signals.
The importance of traffic signals is two-fold. First, a City can construct only so many major collector/arterial streets and there are limits as to how many extra lanes they will have. Second, N/S collectors will by definition, intersect with E/W collectors assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal. The traffic carrying capacity of each collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by signalizing those intersecting collectors.
The collection of Circulation System DIFs is not intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the reimbursement capability.
The Use of the Fee. The collection of Circulation System DIF schedule receipts would be used to construct the projects (or portions thereof) identified in Schedule 4.1 under the columns identified as Infrastructure Needs Generated by Increased Development at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. These projects are consistent with the street segment improvements and intersection improvements included in the Mobility Element of the City's New General Plan, pages 3-26 through 3-30 and are supportive of the policies, programs and level of service (LOS) identified in pages 3-31 through 3-40. The collected DIF revenues will be used to create additional lane miles, overpass, bridge lanes and traffic signals with which to accommodate the additional 1,210,901 daily trip-miles expected from further General Plan development. The collected impact fee receipts will be used all or in part on the following types of projects:
Street widening projects - There are 18 proposed street widening/flow improvement projects that will optimize the total number of major street traffic lane miles within the City's boundaries. These total some $63.6 million.
Traffic signal installations, interconnection or traffic signal upgrades - There are 20 proposed traffic signal installations/upgrades totaling $12.3 million throughout the City. Traffic signals are the key to coordinating north/south traffic from east/west traffic to minimize delays at major intersections.
Roadway intersection improvements - There are nine proposed intersection improvement projects costing an estimated $25.6 million that will ultimately, with new demands from development, become underperforming. These projects will consist mostly of geometric improvements and the installation of controlled left/right turn pockets.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 41 Chapter4 Circulation {Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Freeway interchange improvements - There are five freeway interchange improvement projects costing $250.1 million. The improvements will improve on/off capabilities at the Limonite, Riverside, Country Village, Rubidoux (major) and Valley freeway access points.
Bridge/RR crossing improvements - There are nine bridge improvement projects totaling $382.9 million. The total cost represents roughly 48% of all improvement costs within this infrastructure.
Bike route improvements - There are 116.2 miles of Class I, II and 111 bike routes necessary to be constructed to provide the maximum protection of bicycle riders/commuters. Class I bike routes generate exclusive bicycle rights-of-way, with cross flows by motorists minimize and thus separate the bike riders from the motor vehicle traffic. These safety and movement improvements will cost approximately $50.3 million
There is a single traffic management system (at $12.3 million) consisting of traffic signal interconnection of the City's most critical intersections coupled with and an in house traffic management program that allows the staff to make traffic signal changes in real time.
Circulation planning and maintenance facilities/maintenance vehicles - There are two planning/maintenance projects costing $1.2 million. The two consist of a Circulation Master Plan and a limited number of maintenance vehicles for circulation projects, as well as the "local" streets constructed by developers and dedicated to the City in perpetuity.
The proposed project costs of $798.3 million are currently distributed, depending upon probable funding, to one of three columns, they are:
Construction Needs Supported by Other Resources - Most of these projects have other revenue sources including (but not limited to) Road and Bridge District revenues, Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees (TUMF), Inter-agency support, UPRR Over/Undercrossing Assistance and various Federal Assistance programs.
There is a $69.2 million shortfall of full funding of these 19 high cost/high benefit projects costing some $688.5 million with a slightly smaller $619.3 million in supportive revenue.
Infrastructure Needs Generated by Increased Development - There are 55 projects that will be financed all or in part, with DIF Receipts. The net total of $109.7 million will be distributed over the proposed development identified in Schedule 4.2 (from Table 2-1). This is the column that defines the Circulation System Development Impact Fee schedule.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 42 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. Schedule 4.1 identifies the additional traffic to be generated by new development, by type of development. The technical volume, Trip Generation (Manual) 7th Edition, produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, has been used to identify the nexus, or relationship between the type of development and the projected number of trips that development will generate. A 500-unit detached dwelling specific plan (on about 125 acres) would generate about 17,301 daily trip-miles and a 20 acre retail/service development would generate a very similar 17,335 daily trip-miles. Each would pay its proportional share of the total 1,210,901 newly created General Plan trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out. In the case of the detached dwelling residential development, the daily trip-miles generated by the 500 new residences represents about 1.43% of the total 1,210,901 new trip-miles anticipated at build-out, thus they would be required to pay or construct projects on the list to an amount equal to 1.43% of the total development-related project costs. The twenty acre retail/service development would also finance roughly 1.43% of the capital project list.
New Trip Adjustment for Pass-by or Diverted Trips. Schedule 4.2 contains a sub-schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip-ends. As an example, an acre of general retail/service use would be expected, on average, to generate about 620.3 trip-ends daily (39.94 trip-ends multiplied by 15,532 SF of pad per gross acre divided by 1,000 S.F.). However, approximately 15% of those trip-ends, or about 93 trip-ends per day, are pass-by trip-ends. The trip-end is not truly an end but is actually one in a series of stops, i.e. at various retail/service establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip-end or destination of the series of trip-ends. In order to be considered a pass-by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generator route 9, i.e. the route that would have been used even if the temporary stop had not been made. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that:
Thus when forecasted trips based upon the trip generation rates are distributed to the adjacent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will be attracted to the proposed development. 10
Pass-by trip-ends are fully adjusted (reduced at 100%) from the average trip-ends (per day) generated by the eight basic land uses identified in Schedule 4.2.
A diverted trip is similar to a pass-by trip-end in that it is an extra stop between, as an example, a motorists' work site and his or her residence. The diverted trip differs slightly from the pass-by trip in that it requires a minor deviation from the normal generator route and the temporary stop.
In short, a diverted trip creates a separate side trip using additional (and different) lane miles from that of the normal route from the motorist's place of employment and his or her residence.
These trips increase the traffic volume from the generator route, but only for brief distances. 9 An example of a diverted trip-end would be a single trip-end where along the way from work, a motorists evening drive deviates from the normal route taken home at perhaps a preferred grocery store, mail drop, or to pick up a child from a piano lesson before continuing home. Each of these three stops would be considered diverted trip-ends. 10 Trip generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street. Suite 300 West, Washington D.C. 20005-3438. Definition of terms, page 147.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 43 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets. Signal and Bridges) System The ITE states that diverted trips:
are produced from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (route) and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site. These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without access to the generator. 11
These diverted trips will be adjusted (reduced at 50%) from the full trip count for each of the land uses identified in Chapter 2. The sub-schedule at the bottom of Schedule 4.2 indicates the total trip-ends and the reduction due to the number pass-by trips (at 100%) and diverted trips (at 50%). The trip pass-by and diversion percentages were generated and are supported by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California government agencies 12 • WRCOG has not calculated such information either.
Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work-site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office averages 8.8 miles, residential trips average 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel (once in residence) averages 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a retail/service site is the shortest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers generally appear willing travel further distances to work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency (trip-ends) and distance (average miles per trip) have been combined into the nexus by multiplying average trip frequency by average trip distance. Trip mile rates have been calculated for the twelve DIF Land Use categories. They are demonstrated at the bottom of Schedule 4.3 at the end of the Chapter.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. The fee collected will be based on the projected number of trip-ends the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 1,210,901 additional projected trip-miles at build-out. Any amount imposed as a Circulation System DIF will be placed in a separate fund (collecting interest), and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 4.1 as development-related.
From time to time the City may require an applicant for a private project to construct a street or signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit (or reimbursement agreement) for any monies expended on this required improvement against their Circulation System DIF.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Public Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The calculation of the Circulation System DIFs based upon the recognition that differing types of developments generate differing amounts of trip-miles. Any single impact fee to be imposed upon a private development is 11 Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 300 west, Washington D.C. 8,3085-3438, Definition of Terms, ~age 146.
2 Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101. Brief Guide to Traffic Generators Rates. Compiled in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. U.S. Department of Transportation, The California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1995.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 44 Chapter4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System generated by dividing the net total of $109,746,269 in proposed development-generated projects by the projected number of daily trip-miles (the combined daily trip-ends and trip miles factor, or 1,210,901 daily trip-miles) and the multiplied by trip-miles estimated to be generated by that proposed private development project. This figure would be reduced by a credit for any listed DIF project (On Schedule 4.1) required of that development as a condition of development. If no such credit is due, the collected Circulation DIF receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount that could construct a meaningful project to mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 4-2 (summarized from Schedule 4.2) on the following page identifies the Minimal Needs-Based Circulation System DIF schedule for General Plan.
Table 4-2
Minimal Needs-Based Circulation System
Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land Use Type
LD Detached Dwelling Units $3,314,337
MD Detached Dwelling Units $21,455,396
Attached Dwelling Units $3,610,652
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $21,949
Commercial Lodging Units $1,207,209
Retail/Service/Office Uses $26,328,130
Business Park Uses $31,354,509
Industrial Uses $22,454,087
$3, 134/Unit
$3, 134/Unit
$1,693/Unit
$1,568/Unit
$1,654/Unit
$5.061/S.F.
$3.886/S.F.
$1.656/S.F.
Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent residences, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip-mile of $90.63 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found at the bottom of Schedule 4.2 and applied to Table 4-3, on the following page. These tables list trip rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and retail/service developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip rates theoretically provides more accuracy and therefore financial commitment in determining specific uses' impact on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increase the City's costs to administer the fee. A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, NY. [This space left blank to place the following table on a single page.] City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 45 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Table 4-3
Detail of Circulation System Minimal Needs-Based Development (rounded) Impact Fees for Specific General Plan Area Retail/Service/Office Uses RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit):
Detached Dwe/Ung Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $90.63 $3,135.80 /Unit Apartment 5.85 7.9 0.5 23.1 $90.63 $2,093.55 /Unit
Condominium/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $90.63 $1,921.36 /Unit High Density Dwelling 3.61 7.9 0.5 14.3 $90.63 $1,296.01 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $90.63 $1,640.40 /Unit RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door):
Hotel (multi-story) Keyed Room 6.29 1.6 0.5 23.9 $90.63 $2,166.06 /Room All Suites Hotel Keyed Room 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $90.63 $1,296.01 /Room Motel Keyed Room 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $90.63 $1,495.40 /Room INDUSTRIAL (per 1,000 SF):
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $90.63 $2,519.51 /KSF Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $90.63 $2,437.95 IKSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $90.63 $1,114.75 IKSF
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $90.63 $1,794.47 IKSF
MISCELLANEOUS BUS/NESS USES (per 1,000 SF):
Office Park 9.08 8.8 0.5 40.0 $90.63 $3,625.20 IKSF
Research Park 7.18 8.8 0.5 31.6 $90.63 $2,863.91 /KSF
Business Park (Specific) 11.29 8.8 0.5 49.7 $90.63 $4,504.31 IKSF RETAIUSERVICE USES (per 1,000 SF):
Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $90:63 $5,118.75 IKSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $90.63 $4,567.75 /KSF
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $90.63 $480.34 IKSF
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $90.63 $1,151.00 IKSF
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $90.63 $8,854.55 IKSF General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $90.63 $2,854.85 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $90.63 $5,881.89 IKSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $90.63 $2,229.50 IKSF
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $90.63 $12,262.24 IKSF High-Turnover Restaurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $90.63 $1,731.03 IKSF Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $90.63 $8,492.03 /KSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $90.63 $2,718.90 IKSF
Other: (not available Hper KSF'')
Cemetary (per acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $90.63 $598.16 /Acre Service Station/Market (avg) 94.43 2.8 0.5 132.2 $90.63 $11,981.29 IFP/Day Service Station/Car Wash 87.12 2.8 0.5 122.0 $90.63 $11,056.86 /FP/Day NOTES:
1. ADT = Average Daily Trips 3. Adjusted for Pass-by and Diverted Trips.
2. KSF = Thousand Square Feet of Gross Floor Area 4. FP!Day = per "Fueling Position" per day.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 46 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System Table 4-4 following, (and summarized from Schedule 4.3) identifies the assets of the existing system (at current construction and acquisition costs). The $920,210,926 consists of the existing circulation plan arterial and collector lanes (along with curb, gutter and parkway improvements) at $326,152,306 with an additional $367,529,729 in costs of acquiring the R.O.W. for the many arterial and collector streets. Signalized intersection improvements and traffic signals total an estimated $60,381,750 in replacement costs. The City's major bridges over the Santa Ana Riverbed have an estimated replacement cost of $57,234,375 with culvert based bridges an additional $79,406,250. The existing compliment of Type I and II bicycle lanes is estimated would be $14,839,627 to replicate. The City yard improvements dedicated to circulation system/trails maintenance has a replacement value of approximately $1,155,351 and the existing fleet of vehicles dedicated to circulation/trail system would cost some $361,850 to replace. The existing trail improvements replacement value has yet to be estimated. There is also a combined existing Circulation System DIF fund balance of $1,381,388. The total replacement value of the City's circulation system is a conservative $920,210,926 and does not include the significant amount of ROW owned by the City. When this total is distributed over the existing community, using the same nexus factor (e.g. trip-miles} used for distribution of future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use:
Table 4-4
Existing Circulation System
Community Financial Commitment Comparison Data
LO Detached Dwelling Units $94,321,337 $8,600/Unit
MD Detached Dwelling Units $117,508,210 $8,600/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $29,842,160 $4,644/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $8,821,188 $4,487/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $748,148 $4,534/Unit
Retail/Service/Office Uses $168,199,094 $13.873/S.F.
Business Park Uses $189,308,799 $10.659/S.F.
Industrial Uses $311,461,990 $4.541/S.F.
It should be noted that the existing community has contributed, on average, nearly 275% more than the amount needed of future development to accommodate their circulation needs at build out. While there is some excess capacity in the existing system, it is usually the result of the existing community absorbing the initial street construction costs including the costly right-of way acquisition, the later part of the community often finances only the smaller segment length widening's which maximize the street segments capacity. These figures could change upon completion of the greatly needed Master Plan of Circulation.
The collection of DIFs pursuant to this chapter will be largely used to construct additional or "extra" lane miles. "Extra" lane miles are defined as the outside two lanes of a four-lane road, City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 47 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System the outside four lanes on a six lane arterial, or the outside six lanes on an eight lane arterial.
The limitation of street widening projects to include only the additional lanes (beyond the first in each direction) is intended to create greater equity among privately owned parcels with differing contiguous lane configurations. Consider that some private parcels could be contiguous to six lane streets and could be exacted to build one half of the six lanes, while other private parcels may be contiguous to a planned two lane avenue and would only be exacted to construct one half of the two lanes, or two lanes with a reimbursement for one of the lanes when the parcel on the opposite side is developed. The inequity is obvious; those contiguous to the larger capacity carrying road types quite often pay a greater amount. The fees will also be used for bridges, intersection and signal improvements, over crosses and other similar improvements identified on Schedule 4.1 and detailed in the companion MFP.
Construction Responsibility vs. DIF Payment. This DIF conditions that when a currently vacant parcel that is proposed to be developed and is is contiguous to an unimproved city street, each developer shall:
• Dedicate the needed right-of-way;
• Construct all required public improvements to the City's satisfaction; or, If the City so determines it is in their best interest may require cash-in lieu.
Class l, II and Ill Bike Routes Reserve. Project ST-062 totals $12,390.011 in safe bikeway routes that provide an alternative to vehicular traffic thus by clearing the major street segments of some traffic. To insure that a reasonable amount of bikeways are constructed with Circulation Development Impact Fee Fund receipts it is recommended that Bikeway reserve within the Circulation DIF Fund be established. Roughly 11.33% of all collected Circulation System DIF receipts should be transferred annually to this proposed reserve ($12,390,011 in bikeway projects + $109,746,269 in total development-generated projects = 11.33%). The transfer could be made at the end of the fiscal year.
Recommended General Plan Circulation System DIF Schedule. The adoption of Schedule 4.2 at the end of the chapter (and as summarized in table 4-1 ), as the General Plan Circulation System DIF Schedule would generate enough capital to construct the facilities needed by the new development. In addition, the City should adopt the application of the per trip-mile fee from the bottom of Schedule 4.2 and multiplied by the specific use Table 4-2 or the more extensive listing of traffic generation by land use available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. New York, N.Y.
[This space left vacant to place the Chapter recap of recommendations on a single page).
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 48 Chapter 4 Circulation (Streets, Signal and Bridges) System
RECAP OF CIRCULATION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATIONS • Create a new Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Development Impact Fee.
• Adopt Schedule 4.2 for use with most Land Uses.
• Adopt per trip-mile rate on Schedule 4.2 to be used in conjunction with the ITE manual (and the trip length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 4.2) for unusual Land Uses (e.g. an amusement park). Additionally adopt the ALTERNATIVE FEE METHODOLOGY, per single trip-mile rate (page 46) for application of unusual land uses per the ITE.
• Create a reserve within the Circulation System DIF Fund titled "Bike Routes Reserve" and transfer 11.33% of all Circulation System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized reserve.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 49 -a
Q)
(0
CD
0,
0 Schedule 4. 1
City of Jurupa Valley
2018-19 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
ST-001 Bain - Umonite To Bellearave
ST-002 Cantu-Galeano Ranch - 1-15 To Dodd/Birtcher/Bellegrave (T) ST-003 Countrv Village Road - SR-60 To Philadelphia/NCL ST-004 Crestmore - Riverview To Mission
ST-005 Jurupa Road - Bellegrave To Mission
ST-006 Limonite - Pats Ranch Road To Riverview (TUMF)
ST-007 Market - Rubidoux To Santa Ana River/ECL (TUMF)
ST-008 Mission - SR-60/Country Village To Santa Ana River/ECL ST-009 Pacific - Limonite To Mission
ST-010 Pacific - Mission To Sierra
ST-011 Pedley Road - Jurupa To Mission
ST-012 Pedley Road - Limonite To Jurupa
ST-013 Pedley Road - Mission To Granite Hill
ST-014 Riverside Drive - 1-1 5 To Etiwanda (RBBD)
ST-015 Valley Wav - Jurupa To Mission
ST-016 Van Buren - SR-60 To Belle!lrave (TUMF)
ST-017 Van Buren - Bellegrave To Etiwanda/Mission (TUMF) ST-018 Construct 12' Median - Wineville - Limonite/68th ST-019 New Traffic Signal - Camino Real/Jurupa
ST-020 New Traffic Signal - Jurupa/Bain
ST-021 New Traffic Signal - Pedlev/Granite Hill
ST-022 New Traffic SiQnal - Pedley!Jurupa
ST-023 New Traffic Signal - Wineville/Harrel
ST-024 New Traffic Signal - Wineville/Riverside
ST-025 New Traffic Si!lnal- Wineville/68th & Holmes
ST-026 Upgrade Traffic Signal - Armstrong/Sierra
ST-027 Upgrade Traffic SiQnal - Camino Real/Jurupa
ST-028 Upqrade Traffic SiQnal - Country Village/Philadelphia ST-029 Upgrade Traffic Skmal - Country VillaaeNan Buren ST-030 Upqrade Traffic Signal - Country VillaQefWB SR-60 ST-031 Uoorade Traffic Sii:mal - Etiwanda/BelleQrave
ST-032 Upgrade Traffic Siana! - Etiwanda/Philadelphia
ST-033 Uparade Traffic Si!lnal - Pedlev/Limonite
$2,698,816
$4,301,175
$2,264,176
$350,000
$7,170,956
$9,714,096
$2,363,575
$5,943,274
$1,803,149
$859,856
$1,012,975
$5,627,121
$613,104
$4,102,426
$572,940
$9,074,045
$3,634,023
$1,500,000
$683,105
$483,000
$483,000
$1,319,280
$483,000
$621,000
$483,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
0.0% $0 100.00% $2,698,816
27.4% $1,178,295 72.61% $3,122,880
0.0% $0 100.00% $2,264,176
0.0% $0 100.00% $350,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $7,170,956
19.68% $1,911,780 80.32% $7,802,316
100.00% $2,363,575 0.00% $0
0.00% $0 100.00% $5,943,274
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,803,149
0.00% $0 100.00% $859,856
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,012,975
19.55% $1,100,000 80.45% $4,527,121
0.00% $0 100.00% $613,104
100.00% $4,102,426 0.00% $0
0.00% $0 100.00% $572,940
39.98% $3,628,000 60.02% $5,446,045
41.28% $1,500,000 58.72% $2,134,023
66.67% $1,000,000 33.33% $500,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $683,105
0.00% $0 100.00% $483,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $483,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,319,280
0.00% $0 100.00% $483,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $621,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $483,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
-0
I))
(0
CD
01 .....
Schedule 4. 1
City of Jurupa Valley
2018-19 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
ii - Valley/Mission
ST-036 Upqrade Traffic Signal - Van Buren/Bellearave
ST-037 Upgrade Traffic Sic:mal - Van Buren/Jurupa
ST-038 Uparade Traffic Signal - Van Buren/Mission
ST-039 Intersection Improvements - Bain/Bellegrave
ST-040 Intersection Improvements - Etiwanda/Jurupa
ST-041 Intersection Improvements - JurupaNalley
ST-042 Intersection Improvements - Mission/EB SR-60
ST-043 Intersection Improvements - Riverview/Mission
ST-044 Intersection Improvements - Rubidoux/Market
ST-045 Intersection Improvements - Van Buren/Bellegrave ST-046 Intersection Reconfiguration - Etiwanda/MissionNan Buren ST-047 Intersection Reconfiguration - Valley Way/Jurupa Road ST-048 Freewav lnterchanqe Improvements -1-15 At Limonite ST-049 Freeway lnterchanqe Improvements - SR-60 At Country Village ST-050 Freeway Interchange Improvements - SR-60 At Pacific ST-051 Freewav lnterchanqe Improvements - SR-60 At Rubidoux (TUMF) ST-052 Freeway Interchange Improvements - SR-60 At Valley ST-053 Bridge Construction - Etiwanda Avenue At Santa Ana River ST-054 Bridae Unarade - Market Street At Santa Ana River (TUMF) ST-055 Bridcie Upqrade - Mission Street At The Santa Ana River ST-056 Railroad Crossing Uoarade - Camino Real At Jurupa ST-057 Railroad Crossinci Uparade - 20th W/0 Avalon
ST-058 Railroad Crossinci Upgrade - Pedley Road At Jurupa ST-059 Railroad Grade Separation - Belleqrave At UPRR
ST-060 Railroad Grade Separation - Jurupa At UPRR
ST-061 Traffic Siqnal Inter-connection System
ST-062 Class I, II and Ill Bike Routes
ST-063 Master Plan of Circulation
ST-064 Share of Common Iv Used Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment -
Sub-Total General Plan Tot.il_New Projects
$5,520,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$138,000
$1,380,000
$138,000
$690,000
$1,035,000
$4,140,000
$13,800,000
$4.140,000
$64,610,000
$1,656,000
$89,700,000
$90,200,000
$4,002.000
$37,260,000
$52,440,000
$40,702,500
$2,911,800
$1,669,800
$4,111,800
$136,123,465
$107,640,000
$12,282,000
$50,271,704
$300,000
$925,542
$798,294,703
0.00% $0 100.00% $690,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $5,520,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,380,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $138,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $690,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,035,000
75.00% $3,105,000 25.00% $1,035,000
100.00% $13,800,000 0.00% $0
0.00% $0 100.00% $4,140,000
100.00% $64,610,000 0.00% $0
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,656,000
100.00% $89,700,000 0.00% $0
99.45% $89,700,000 0.55% $500,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $4,002,000
100.00% $37,260,000 0.00% $0
100.00% $52,440,000 0.00% $0
97.06% $39,504,200 2.94% $1,198,300
0.00% $0 100.00% $2,911,800
0.00% $0 100.00% $1,669,800
0.00% $0 100.00% $4,111,800
100.00% $136,123,465 0.00% $0
100.00% $107,640,000 0.00% $0
0.00% $0 100.00% $12,282,-000
75.35% $37,881,693 24.65% $12,390,011
0.00% $0 100.00% $300,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $925,542
86.25% $688,548,434 13.75% $109,746,269
-u
fl>
co
(I)
01 l'v
Schedule 4. 1
City of Jurupa Valley
2018-19 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
l~ub-Total General Plan Total New f>~jects (Previous page) Less: Transportation Roads DIF Fund Balance
Less: Transoortation Signals DIF Fund Balance
Less: Road and Bridae Benefit District Fund Balance
Less: Inter-agency Support (Colton Contribution and Prop 1 B) Less: Transportation Unified Mitigation Fees
Less: UPRR Over!Undercrossing Assistance
Less: Potential Road and Bridge District
Less: Federal Assistance
Sub-Total Mitigatini:i and Other Off-Setting Revenues
{Total Net General Plan Development Impact Fee Project Costs $798,294,703 J I
-$126, 118
$229,476
$1,278,030
$5,273,000
$27,378,650
$167,833,000
$79,796,396
$337,697,665
$619,360,099
$178,934,604 J
86.25%! $688,548,43411 13.75%! $109,746,269 !
100.00% ($126,118) 0.00% $0
100.00% $229,476 0.00% $0
100.00% $1,278,030 0.00% $0
100.00% $5,273,000 0.00% $0
100.00% $27,378,650 0.00% $0
100.00% $167,833,000 0.00% $0
100.00% $79,796,396 0.00% $0
100.00% $337,697,665 0.00% $0
100.00% $619,360,099 0.00% $0
Schedule 4.2
City of Jurupa Valley
2018-19 Development Impact Fee calculation
Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Medium Density Detached Dw,
Attached D'
Mobile Horne Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses S_g_
Business Park Square Feet
Industrial Uses S_g_uare Feet
TOTAL}
.i~' - t,Wf ~ 1t
Trip-ends Adjusbnent
Calculation
Land Use Title
Low Density Detached Dwellin
Medium Density Detached Dw
Attached Dwellings
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses Sqt
Business Park Square Feet
Industrial Uses Square Feet
-0 o.>
(0
CD
0,
w
1.0 40.0
334.9 I 5,202,229
308.7 I 8,068,184
537.3 I 13,559,357
Daily Percent of
Total Diverted
Trip-ends Trips
9.57 11
9.57 11
5.17 11
4.99 11
6.23 38
39.94 40
10.76 19
4.58 19
13,315
55.814 290,357
42.885 346,004
18.270 247,729
1,210,901 I
Diverted Diverted
Trip-end% Trip-end
Adjustment Percent
0.50 5.5
0.50 5.5
0.50 5.5
0.50 5.5
0.50 19.0
0.50 20.0
0.50 9.5
0.50 9.5
3.29%
0.02%
1.10%
23.99%
28.57%
20.46%
Percent
of Pass-by
Trips
3.0 3.0
3.0 3.0
4.0 15.0
2.0 2.0
$21,455,396
$3,610,652
$21,949
$1,207,209
$26,328, 130
$31,354,509
$22,454,087
$109,746,269
11:i~
Combined
Diverted and
Pass-by
8.5 8.5
8.5 8.5
23.0 35.0
11.5 11.5
$3,927 1.25 $3,134
$11,593 3.70 $3,134
$21,078 12.45 $1,693
$21,949 14.00 $1,568
$30,184 18.25 $1,654 perUnit
$78,608 15,532 $5.061 per S.F.
$101,570 26,136 $3.886 per S.F.
$41,791 25,236 $1.656 perS.F.
Total Infrastructure Master Plan Capital Needs
-~'~' i
Remaining Adjusted Trip Average Trip-ends
Trip% as Rate, Adjustmen Trip XLength
Adjustment % % X Total trips Length X50%
91.5% 8.76 7.9 34.602
91.5% 8.76 7.9 34.602
91.5% 4.73 7.9 18.684
91.5% 4.57 7.9 18.052
77.0% 4.80 7.6 18.240
65.0% 25.96 4.3 55.814
88.5% 9.53 9.0 42.885
88.5% 4.06 9.0 18.270
Schedule 4.3
City of Jurupa Valley
2018-19 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
Low Density Detached Dwellin
Medium Density Detached Dw
Attached Dwellings
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Commercial Lodging Units
Retail/Service/Office Uses SqL
Business Park Square Feet
Industrial Uses Square Feet
'"O
ll>
co
(1)
i
6,757.8 10,967
2,843.4 13,663
422.4 6,426
145.6 1,966
9.0 165
784.7 12,124,382
776.6 17.760,065
3,097.3 68,587_,562
34.602
34.602
18.684
18.052
18.240
55.814
42.885
18.270
379,480 10.25% $94,321,337 $13,957 1.62 $8,600 perUnit
472,767 12.77% $117,508,210 $41,327 4.81 $8,600 per Unit 120,063 3.24% $29,842,160 $70,649 15.21 $4,644 per Unit 35,490 0.96% $8,821,188 $60,573 13.50 $4,487 per Unit
3,010 0.08% $748,148 $83,128 18.33 $4,534 oer Unit
676,710 18.28% $168,199,094 $214,348 15,451 $13.873 oer S.F. 761,640 20.57% $189,308,799 $243,766 22,869 $10.659 per S.F. 1,253,095 33.85% $311,461,990 $100,559 22,144 $4.541 per S.F. ps,:!M~,iPrl, 1 llf~a$8i
Chapter 5
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
The Existing System. General Facilities are generally limited to general office or work buildings, vehicles and equipment used by City staff to undertake their daily service duties. The City possesses (i.e., owns outright) general facilities square footage/general improvements within the City Hall. The replacement costs for the City's general facilities are as follows:
City Hall Land/Facilities .......................................................................... $12,004,220 Computer Equipment, Software and Miscellaneous Electronic Equipment .. $750,000 General (pool and some maintenance) Vehicles ......................................... $361,850 General Maintenance Facilities ................................................................... $165,051 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee Fund balance .... $2,727,035 The combined land acquisition and replacement cost of the structures and equipment is $16,008,156.
Why a General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment DIF schedule is important. A City staff is all about extending municipal service to the public, the City's residents and business community. It is impossible to extend the appropriate level of service to the public without the proper tools or equipment, adequate work and public meeting space, electronic capabilities and maintenance service capacity. The City Hall capabilities are adequate at this point in time but they may not remain sufficient over time as more residents become aware of important City/civic functions and assistance that City staff can provide.
The Purpose of the Fee. Added development will increase citizen and business appointments over the current demand for assistance and business information. The citizens and business owner's increasing demands for appointments, assistance or information will require the addition of some staff and thus additional space to conduct the business of the municipality. As the City approaches a General Plan capacity build-out population of nearly 136,397 living in 43,070 private residences and a thriving business community of nearly 125.3 million square feet, some sort of adequate fixed general business center for conducting City business is needed. This Chapter addresses those municipal service needs.
The City's centralized and desktop computer processing capability storage space and information capability will also be impacted with greater amounts of necessary GIS data as the City reaches General Plan build-out.
The City will need a modest increase in the number of general maintenance vehicles.
The fee is to be used to finance the expansion of the City's administrative and business center (City Hall) and its computer functions and portion of the City Maintenance Service Center necessary to meet the demands of an expanding community.
The Use of the Fee. The revenues that are raised from a properly calculated and supported General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Impact Fee would be limited to capitalized costs related to that growth (per Schedule 5.1 ). The fees would be used to construct additional City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 55 Chapter 5 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
general facilities or reconfigure poorly used space generating more usable space and eliminating the need to acquire more space. Additionally, the collected fees would be used to maintain computer capacity in terms of budgeting, accounting and planning. The improvements necessary to contend with increased demand resulting from additional residents and businesses would include the following:
• Expand the existing City Hall by adding a 3,500 square foot council chamber (30' by 70'). As the City edges closer to General Plan build-out, City issues will draw larger audiences. The facility could be constructed contiguous to the City Hall and the central area could then be used for the limited additional employees that are likely to be needed.
This would allow for the addition of 3,375 square feet within the existing City Hall by completing the second floor to the City Hall. The two space improvements would cost approximately $3,930,610
• Upsizing of the existing centralized computer system capacity and information systems including budgeting and accounting as well as a more robust GIS (geographic information system) capacity at $750,000.
• A modest expansion of general service vehicles for such tasks as building maintenance and miscellaneous field inspections is estimated to be 68,768.
The three projects are estimated to be a combined $4,749,378 but approximately 57% of that figure would be mitigated through the existing public facilities impact fee fund balance of $2,727,035 to the net $2,022,343 that is then attributed to new development.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The need is based upon the recognition that additional developed parcels in the City will create more trips to the City Hall and greater attendance by its citizens and business owners at City Council meetings. The costs are distributed on a nexus of each vacant acre as benefitting equally as the most direct index of demand relating to access to central management services.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. Future development of all types will benefit from having a functioning City Hall.
Distribution will be based upon an equal acreage benefit in terms of general management of the City.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Public Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The fee would be based upon the size of the proposed development. A fee has been determined for individual units, either residential dwelling units or business square feet based upon the acreage number of units or square feet projected for the various land-uses. A development of twelve residential units would have to pay a fee twelve times larger than a single unit. No developer will be required to construct any portion of any general facility as a condition of development.
Resulting DIF Schedule. Table 5-1, following, summarizes the Minimum Needs-Based General Facilities et. al. DIFs. The fees identified following represent the fees necessary to construct or acquire the facilities identified on Schedule 5.1.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 56 Chapter 5 General Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment
Table 5-1
Minimal Needs-Based General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Development Impact Costs
by DIF Land Use Type
Dwelling Units $1,418,323 $141/Unit
Commercial Lodging Units $19,786 $27/Unit
Business Uses $584,234 $0.022/S.F.
It must be restated that the existing community has established the City Hall and specialty equipment. In short, the current community has created more than adequate staff facilities in the City Hall, so much so that no additional space need be acquired through General Plan build out. The existing space merely needs to be reconfigured to eliminate wasted space. As a result, the current community has amassed a significant equity position vis-a-vis future needs.
Table 5-2, following, identifies the average "equity" position or ownership per unit or square foot.
Table 5-2
Existing General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Community Financial Commitment Comparison
Residential Dwelling Units $10,972,062
Commercial Lodging Units $9,711
$332/Unit
$59/Unit
Business Uses $5,026,383 $0.051/S.F.
RECOMMENDED CHAPTER IMPACT FEES
The Minimum Needs-Based Impact Costs should be adopted for the three broad-based land uses, per Schedule 5.3 and summarized in Table 5-1.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 57 Chapter 5 General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECAP OF GENERAL FACILITIES ET. AL. IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDATIONS •Adopt Schedule 5.2 for the three basic Land Uses DIF types.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 58 Schedule 5.1
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Allocation of Project Cost Estimates
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
GF-001 City Council Chambers/Office Area Expansion
GF-002 Electronic Systems Capacity/Capabilities Expansion GF-003 Share of Commonly Used Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment Sub-Total General Plan Total New Project Costs
Less: Existing Development Impact Fee Fund Balance
Less: Other Financial Resources
I
I
Off-Setting Revenues Balance Totalj
7J
Q)
<O
(I)
(1l
(0
!Total Net General !='Ian J>!oject Costs
$3,930,610
$750,000
$68,768
$4,749,378
$2,727,035
$0
$2,727,035
$2,022,343 I
0.00% $0 100.00% $3,930,610
0.00% $0 100.00% $750,000
0.00% $0 100.00% $68,768
0.00% $0 100.00% $4,749,378
$0 100.00% $2,727,035
$0
$2,727,035
,343
~i&i
Schedule 5.2
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Minimal Needs-based Impact Costs
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
-0
SI)
(0
CD
(J)
0 1,181
:~,ilf"•)R"':~,;~~q~Y;'
Schedule 5.3
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Existing Community Financial Commitment Comparison
General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
"'U
Q)
(C
(1)
0)
.....
Chapter 6
Library Collection Items
and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations
The Existing System. The City is served by two County branch Libraries: Glen Avon and Louis Robidoux. Both have a broad inventory of books, tapes, subscriptions called a collection of volumes and a number of dedicated public use computer stations available to the public. The City also has approximately $157,031 in existing Library Book DIF fund balance representing about 4,946 additional collection items and four dedicated public computer stations. Table 6-1, following, identifies the current County Library offerings enjoyed by City of Jurupa Valley residents.
Table 6-1
Identification of Current Library Inventories and Calculation of Collection Items and Computers Stations Standards per Resident Glen Avon Branch Library 40,500 18
Louis Robidoux Branch Library 62,500 67
Items Available Within Fund Balance 10,465 9
Total Square Feet or Items 113,465 94
Current City Population 107,083 107,083
Current Standard/Resident 1.06 0.001
When the total 113,465 collection items are divided by the current population of 107,083, a library collection standard of 1. 060 collection items/person is established. The standard of collection items of 1.060 items per residents is based upon the existing 113,465 collection items divided by the current population of 107,083. When the 94 dedicated pubic use computer stations are divided by the current population of 107,083, a dedicated public use computer station standard of 0.001 dedicated public use computer stations/person is established.
Why a General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment DIF schedule is important. Stated simply, the 113,465 collection items will only be able to accommodate a finite number of patrons. Additional development will increase the demand on the existing collection items. The same will hold true for the 94 dedicated public-use computer stations. Without additional computer stations, the 94 existing stations will become harder to access with the additional 35,800 new residents from the 10,048 new private residences.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to enable the City to assist in the financing the acquisition of additional collection items and the acquisition of additional computer stations to ensure that the City's citizens have access to and enjoyment of the collection items and computer stations. Table 6-2, following, indicates that the remaining residential development and typical number of persons per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for an City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 62 Chapter 6 Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations additional 37,948 collection items in order to maintain the existing local library facility standard of 1.060 square feet per person and 36 dedicated public-use computer stations to maintain the existing standard of 0.001 stations per resident.
Table 6-2
Collection Items Required to Maintain Existing
Library Collection Items Standard
3.826
Attached Dwellin Units 2.593
Mobile Home Units 2.854
Additional Cit Units
Collection Items Required to Maintain Standard
35,800
1.060
37,948
The County currently has 85 computer stations (and nine additional stations represented in Library DIF Fund balance. Again, divided by the existing population of 107,083, the resulting standard is 0.001 dedicated public use computer stations per person. Table 6-3, following, indicates the additional number of residents (35,800) to be served by the existing 94 computer stations and the number of computer stations required (36) to maintain the existing standard to maintain the existing 0.001 computer stations per person in light of the additional 35,800 additional residents at build-out.
Table 6-3
Collection Items Required to Maintain Existing
Library Dedicated Public-use Computer Stations Standard Additional Cit Residents from Added Dwellin Units
Existin Computer Stations er Person Standard
Additional Computer Stations Required to Maintain Standard 40 35,800
0.001
36 City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 63 Chapter 6 Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, imposed and collected the Library DIF receipts would expended on acquiring additional library collection items and dedicated public-use computer stations, but not on the replacement of either. The preservation of the existing Library standards must be maintained.
The Relationship Between the Need for The Fee and The Type of Development Project.
The development of any acreage zoned for residential uses, increases the demand on the finite amount of library collection items and dedicated public-use computer stations. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher amounts of residents (i.e., detached dwelling unit) will be charged a proportionally higher amount. There is no information available demonstrating a link or nexus between library use and local businesses.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. Additional square feet will be constructed with the fees collected from residential development and additional volumes will be acquired for the collection. The fees cannot be used for any other purpose.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of acquiring additional volumes, called the accession process, 13 is $30.00 per item per Schedule 8.1. The accession process cost has been decreased steadily over recent years due to the contracting out this time-intensive process. The 118,266 collection items, when divided by the existing 107,083 citizens creates a standard of 1.060 collection items per resident. The standard of 1.060 collection items standard multiplied by the $30.00 per item results in a charge of $32.10 per additional City resident.
Table 6-4
Establishment of the Library Collection Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Librarv Collection Items 113,465
Current Population 107,083
Collection Items per Resident 1.060
Acquisition Cost of Collection Item $30.00
Cost per Additional Resident $31.80
The cost of acquiring a single dedicated public use computer station, installation, licenses, etc. (per Schedule 6.1) is estimated to be $2,130 per station. The 94 existing computer stations used by Jurupa Valley residents, when divided by the 107,083 existing citizens creates a standard of 0.001 library computer stations per City resident. The standard of 0.001 collection items multiplied by the $2, 130 per public computer station results in a cost of $2.13 per additional City resident, in order to maintain the existing standard. Table 6-5 identifies this:
13 The accession process includes: need research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and actual placement on the shelves.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 64 Chapter 6 Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations Table 6-5
Establishment of the Library Computer Station Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
City-owned ( or generated) Collection Items 94
Current Population (State D.O.F.) 107,083
Collection Items per Resident 0.001
Accessions Cost per Collection Item $2,130
Cost per Additional Resident $2.13
Library Collection Items and Computer Station DIF Schedule. The combined cost per new resident is $33.93 ($31.80 for 1.060 collection items and $2.13 for 0.001 additional computer stations). Table 6-6, following, indicates the amount required for pro-rata expansion of the library space per Schedule 9.1. If adopted and imposed on the remaining development, it would collect enough to acquire an additional 37,948 library collection volumes and 36 dedicated public-use computer stations.
Table 6-6
Summary of Collection Items and Computer
Stations Impact Costs
2.593 $33.93
2.854 $33.93
$88
$97
City Officials will need to meet and discuss the acquisition of library collection items and computer stations with the County as to the manner in which the collected DIF revenues would be used by the County.
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LIBRARY AND COLLECTION VOLUMES IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 6.1 for the four basic residential dwelling DIF types.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 65 Schedule 6.1
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations Glen Avon Branch Library
Louis Robidoux Branch Library 62,500
Collection/Computers Represented by Fund Balance 10,465 9 Number of Collection Items or Computer Stations 113,465 94 !Current City Population
Collection Items per Resident Standard
Computer Stations per Resident Standard
Cost per Collection Item
Cost per Computer Station (Installed)
Existing Collection Item and Computer Station Standard
Collection Item or Computer Station Cost per Resident $2.13 $33.93 I Detached Dwelling Unit 3.826 $122 $8 $130
Attached Dwelling Unit 2.593 $82 $6 $88
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 2.854 $91 $6 $97
Chapter 7
Park Infrastructure Development
(Downey and 68th Street Parks)
This Chapter summarizes the existing inventory of parks available to the City's residents within the City's boundaries. The City's residents benefit from many active and passive parks, open space and trails that have been provided by and/or are operated by other local agencies.
The City's General Plan states that the City will:
In cooperation with community services districts, the County of Riverside, the Jurupa Unified School District, and other agencies, the City helps meet the diverse recreation needs of existing and new residents by requiring the dedication and improvement of new parks and recreation facilities as a condition of new development. The City also promotes recreation and healthy exercise by providing equestrian, bicycle, and walking paths within the public right of way and by requiring new residential neighborhoods to include pedestrian and equestrian paths, where appropriate.14
Intensive parks and park recreational facilities constitute one of a community's greatest challenges both with respect to facilities for both current residents and future citizens, especially since the task is largely undertaken by another local agency, the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District. The District just recently (June 2017) acquired a Development Impact Fee calculation report.
However, if the number of municipal park acres available to the City's residents were to remain static at the existing 246.67 acres1 it will prove difficult to continue to meet the recreational demands of the community especially in light of a projected one third increase (35.3%) in the City's population at General Plan build-out.
EXISTING PARKS AND PARKS IMPROVMENTS SYSTEM
The provision of a well-planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered, is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of Jurupa Valley included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park users is considered optimal in most urban cities. A city's park system is often a major factor in selection of a place to live. The current acres dedicated to park use within the City will serve generally meet the City's current needs. However if the number of park acres remains static, the existing parks will begin to struggle to meet recreational demands given an anticipated one third increase in the City's residential population.
Existing Parks. Currently, the City is served by approximately 246.67 acres of parkland, most of which is developed. There are nine parks within the City that are 10. 0 acres or larger that represent over 82% (202.54 of 246.67 acres) of the park system acreage and provide the 14 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan. page 8-38.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 67 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) greatest variety of sports and active uses. The remaining 44.13 acres of the total 246.67 parks acres are the nine parks that are less than five to six acres in size. These neighborhood parks generally do not have parking lots but generally serve limited local walk-in needs. On occasion these smaller parks may be forced to meet larger community park needs, generally with mixed results.
The Park District has jurisdiction over 110.67 acres of the 246.67 park acres within the City.
Agate Park, Avalon Park, Centennial Park, Glen Avon Heritage Park and Veterans Memorial Park are the JAPRD'S largest developed parks, representing about 44.9% of all municipal park system acreage (including portion of the County regional parks, see below) and these provide the greatest variety of sports and passive uses.
The County of Riverside manages a like 110.00 acres. Rancho Jurupa Regional Sports Park adds 32.2 acres to the mix of parkland serving the City's residents active sporting activity needs.
Rancho Jurupa Park, at 113.3 acres adds a great amount of recreational opportunities but has been reduced by 36.5 acres to 73.8 acres to recognize that the recreational vehicle portion of the park generates more regionally-based uses and thus has limited benefit to local residents.
The City owns 30 acres of unimproved land intended to be improved as parkland and desires to improve/maintain and program these two City-owned parcels as City parks. The two parcels are generally known as Downey Park (the river area) and 68th Street Park and will be discussed later in the Chapter. It is not uncommon for municipalities that are generally served by a park district to have a few municipally-owned parks that can be managed by that municipality.
Table 7-1, following, is an inventory of the existing park acreage within the City's limits. [This space has been left vacant in order to place the following table on a single page].
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 68 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) Table 7-1
Inventory of Parkland Within Jurupa Valley
Agate Park 11.94
Avalon Park 10.00
Centennial Park 13.00
Clay Park 6.45
Downey Park 26.00
Feldspar Arena 5.50
Glen Avon Heritage Park 11.63
Horseshoe Lake Park site 13.73
Knowles Park 6.41
Laramore Park 5.18
Limonite Meadows Park 3.49
Paramount Park site 1.80
Rancho Jurupa Park (excluding RV portion) 73.80
Rancho Jurupa Regional Park Sports Park 32.20
Rancho Mira Loma Park 6.41
68th Street Park 4.00
Veterans Memorial Park 10.24
Wineville Park 4.89
Total Net Active/Passive Park Acres 246.67
The Purpose of the Fee. Future residential development will impact the existing park system by increasing demand for youth and adult sports fields with adequate space for various athletic practice activities as well as for passive park purposes (picnicking, gatherings, etc.). Given the magnitude of growth projected in this and other reports, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and parkland to serve the recreational needs of these new residents. The Jurupa Area Park and Recreation District will handle most of the day-to-day park needs of the community, but the City desires have to a few parks that would be under the City's management.
The Use of the Fee. Without additional parkland acquisition and continued development of currently owned but underutilized two park parcels during the next twenty to thirty years, the parks within the City's boundaries will likely become overcrowded and overused and requests for sports and meeting space will go unmet, with the ultimate result becoming a negative experience for the City's park users. The City's contribution of thirty acres would augment the park acreage managed by the Park District or the County.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 69 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) California's Quimby Act. Unlike the other facilities discussed in this report, the · California Government Code contains enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code is commonly referred to as The Quimby Act. The Act establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific adopted park standards. This report will recommend the adoption of Quimby-style park improvement fees for developments requiring the subdivision of land and a Mitigation Fee Act DIF (Government Code 66000) approach for parcels that do not require a subdivision.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. Under §66477 of the Government Code, the City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents even if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 for the existing population. The Government Code also enables a city to charge development based on a standard higher than 3.0 acres (to a maximum of 5.0 acres) if the municipality can demonstrate that it currently exceeds the minimum benchmark ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. In lieu of any other document or planned standard, the maximum standard, for Quimby Act application, is capped at 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
The law states that "if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds the (3 acres of park area per 1,000 person] limit ... the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons" (15l_ Park fees may be required by the City provided that the City meets certain conditions including:
• The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitants of the subdivision.
• The legislative body has adopted a General Plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein.
• The city ... shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities ... Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees.
The City's 5.0 acres or general open space per 1,000 residents General Plan de jure standard is greater than the Quimby minimum of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents and matches as the Quimby allowable demonstrated maximum cap of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents (Government Code §66447 (a) (2) and will be used in the remainder of the Chapter for park construction.
Numerous agencies impose park-related development impact fees without the de-facto proof of meeting of the standard or any de jure General Plan standard statement or any other legislatively controlling document (Park Master Plan). The City currently is afforded a cumulative standard of 2.435 acres per thousand based upon the combined 246.67 acres divided by the City's existing population of 101,325.
15 Califomia Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 66447 (b).
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 70 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) Based upon an actual standard of 2.435 acres per thousand, the City (or District) could adopt a park development Impact Fee standard based on a 3.0 acres per thousand standard calculation. Table 7-2 following indicates that such a calculation would require $371. 98 per new resident. This figure would then be multiplied by the number of residents per type of residential dwelling unit. Table 7-2 also indicates this.
Table 7-2
Calculation of Potential Park Development Impact Fee at Quimby-allowable 3.0 Acres per 1,000 residents
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre $435,600
Construction Cost per Acre $446,158
Total - Land Acquisition/Park Improvements $881,758
Number of Acres per 1,000 Residents Standard 3.0
Cost for Three Acres of New Park Space $2,645,274
Residents Served by Three Acres of Park 1,000
Cost per Resident $371.98
Detached Dwelling @ 3.826 Residents $10,121
Attached Dwelling @ 2.593 Residents $6,860
Mobile Home Dwelling @ 4.854 Residents $7,550
This would be an appropriate figure were the City to be solely responsible for parkland acquisition and development. However, this not the case and the City desires only to be able to finance the park improvements to the 30 acres of City-owned parkland.
CALCULATION OF NEEDED IMPACT REVENUES
Once a per capita standard for parks is determined, the cost of residential development's impact on the City's park system is then computed as follows.
Schedule 7.1 calculates the much lower figure needed by the City to develop the 30 acres of parkland. The 30 acres will cost approximately $13,384,740 to improve/develop based upon a cost of $446, 158/acre.
There are off-setting fund-balances in the following existing Impact Fee funds, they are:
Regional Parks (224) of -$753,842. While a negative fund balance, this fund is appropriate as one of the two parks to be improved is 26 acres and will clearly have a region-wide appeal.
Regional Trails (225) of $676,191. This is appropriate as Downey Park will include a number trails along the river.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 71 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) Community Parks (227) of $145,446. This is appropriate as the both parks will be used or community events as programmed by the City. Downey Park, at 26 acres, will be one of the largest parks within the City boundaries.
The net cost of the development of the 30 acres of City-owned parkland is $13,316,945 (based upon $13,384,740 total park development costs less the net $67,795 in mitigating park-based fund balances). When this net $13,316,945 park development figure is divided by the 35,800 new residents (Table 2-3) expected dues to General Plan based residential development, the figure of $371.98 per new resident is reached. It should be noted that the $371.98 is 14.1% of the maximum cost of 3.0 acres/1,000 residents Quimby Act based $2,645.27 per new resident identified in Table 7-2
Park Improvements Construction Costs. Park improvement construction costs are estimated to be approximately $446, 158 per acre (See Appendix C - Park Improvement Units Costs/Average Cost per Acre.
Average Cost per Dwelling Unit. Schedule 7.1 further calculates the cost per dwelling unit based on the per person parkland development and maintenance vehicles cost of $371. 98 (Schedule 7.1) and the average number of persons per unit for each category of housing.
Table 7-3
Calculation of Impact Fee for Limited City Park Purposes (for Development of Downey and 68th Street Parks)
Downey Park Acres 26.00
aath Street Park Acres 4.00
Total Park Acres to be Developed/Improved 30.00
Development Cost per pc3rk Acre $446,158
Park Development Cost for 30 Acres $13,384,740
Regional Parks (224) DIF Fund Balance (negative fund balance) $753,842 Regional Trails (225) DIF Fund Balance (positive fund balance) -$676, 191 Community Parks (227) DIF Fund balance (positive fund balance) -$145,446 Net Amount Needed from New Residential Dwelling Development $3,316,945 Number of Development Generated Residential Dwellings 35,800 Limited Park Impact Cost per New Resident $371.98
Detached Dwelling @ 3.826 Residents $1,423
Attached Dwelling@ 2.593 Residents $965
Mobile Home Dwelling@ 2.854 Residents $1,062
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. The City has indicated a need to be able to develop two parks totaling 30 acres to have a few parks that the City can plan, program, maintain and control. Downey Park will likely be the site of numerous City-planned and managed events.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 72 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks) The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Public Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Detached dwelling residential housing has the highest number of persons per dwelling unit (@ 3.826 per unit) and consequently carries the highest impact fee, $1,423 per unit ($371.98 X 3.826 residents per dwelling unit, rounded). Attached dwelling units have an average of 2.593 persons per attached dwelling unit and would need to be assessed $965 ($371.98 X 2.593 residents, rounded). Mobile home dwelling units (within a park setting) have an average of 2.854 residents per mobile home dwelling unit and would need to be assessed $1,062 ($371.98 X 2.854 resident, rounded).
Table 7-4 following, summarizes the calculated and recommended fees for each of these four residential categories.
Table 7-4
Summary of Park Development Fees for
Residential Dwelling Construction
Low Density Detached Dwelling Unit $1,423/Unit
Medium Density Detached Dwelling Unit $1,423/Unit
Attached Dwelling Unit $965/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit (in a MH Park) $1,062/Unit
The DIFs for detached dwelling residential development involving the subdivision of a privately owned parcel, as identified in Table 7-4, should be adopted under the auspices of the Quimby Act. Any residential dwelling units not requiring the sub-division of will need to be adopted (imposed and collected) as an Government Code § 66000 supported DI F (15>_ The standard for each is the same. There is no argument that can be made that a detached dwelling unit constructed on a single lot, thus no subdivision, should be any amount different from that of a detached dwelling unit constructed as part of a subdivision. The demand created by each detached dwelling unit is the same.
[This space left vacant in order to place the Chapter Recommendations on a single page]. 16 This is required because the Quimby Act is referenced in the State Subdivision Code.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 73 Chapter 7 Park Infrastructure Development (Downey and 68th Street Parks}
RECAP OF PARK AND PARK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Establish each of a Quimby Act Park Development Fund and DIF Mitigation Act Fund, Note {1 ).
• Adopt Schedule 7.1, Park Infrastructure Development, for residential uses requiring the sub-division of land for Quimby Act application.
• Adopt Schedule 7.1, Park Infrastructure Development, for residential uses not requiring the sub-division of land for Mitigation Fee Act.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 7 4 Schedule 7.1
City of Jurupa Valley
2019-20 Development Impact Fee Calculation
Local City-owned/Operated Parks Development Impact Fee
Downey Park (River Area)
68th Street Park
Total Park Acres
Construction Cost per Acre
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre
Acres Required for Purchase/Construction
Acquisition/Construction Cost per Acre
Park Financial Resources Required
Regional Parks (224) Fund Balance
Regional Trails (225) Fund Balance
Community Parks (227) Fund Balance
Total Mitigating Park Fund Balances
0.00 26.00
0.00 4.00
0.00 30.00
0.00 30.00 1-----,-------i
$435,600 $446,158
$0 $13,384,740 ..,_ ______ __,
$0 -$753,842
$0 $676,191
$0 $145,446
$0 $67,795
Park Financial Resources Required $:0~11===$::;::1=:3=,3;:::8:::::4::::::, 7=4=:c::10 Less Mitigating Fund Balance (above) . -$67,795 Net Park-related Resources Needed $13,316,945 _______ __, Total Park Acquisition/Consttruction Costs $0.00 $13,316,945 -------~ Anticipated Additional City Population 35,800 35,800 Cost per Added Resident $0.00 $371.98 .__ ____ __,
Cost per Additional Resident $371.98
3.826 $1,423
MD Detached Dwelling Uni 3.826 $1,423
Attached Dwellin Unit 2.593 $965
Mobile Home Dwelling 2.854 $1,062
$371.98
$1,423
$1,423
$965
$1,062
End of Chapter Text
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 76 Appendix A
Summary of Recommendations
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 77
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Chapter 3 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment • Create a Fire Suppression/Medic Development Impact Fee Fund. • Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 34, Development-Based Minimal Capital Needs-Based Impact Costs and place the collected proceeds into the new DIF Fund Chapter 4 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System • Immediately undertake a Master Plan of Circulation study with special emphasis on the projects identified on Schedule 4.1 as Tier Three Projects - Infrastructure Need to be Reviewed Pending Completion of a Circulation Master Plan. Upon completion of the Master Plan, amend the Circulation Impact Fee calculation in this Chapter to include all Tier Three projects that have been deemed development-generated/related. • Adopt Schedule 4.2, page 55, for use for most Land Uses. • Adopt the per trip-mile rate on Schedule 4.2 to be used in conjunction with the ITE manual (and the trip length figures (via SANDAG) at the bottom of Schedule 4.2) for unusual Land Uses (e.g. an amusement park). Additionally adopt the ALTERNATIVE FEE METHODOLOGY, per single trip-mile rate (page 47) for application of unusual land uses per the ITE.
• Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Vehicles Improvements Fund" and transfer
1.55% of all Circulation System DIF receipts collected within that fiscal year to that specialized account.
Chapter 5 - General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
• Adopt Schedule 5.2 (page 62) for the three broader basic Land Uses DIF types. • Create a DIF Fund titled "City Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment" (or a reserve within this DIF Fund) for the commonly used General Maintenance Vehicle/Equipment acquisitions and annually transfer the appropriate amounts from the Circulation (1.55% of the total Circulation DIF collection) and General Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment (2.42% of the total General Facilities et. al. DIF collection).
Chapter 6 - Library Collection Items and Dedicated Public Use Computer Stations • Adopt Schedule 6.1 (page 68) for the four basic residential dwelling DIF types.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 78 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS (Continued)
Chapter 7 - Park Infrastructure Development, Open Space and Trails Acquisition and Development
• Establish each of a Quimby Act Park Development and DIF Mitigation Act Fund, Note (1 ). • Adopt Schedule 7 .1, Park Infrastructure Development (page 77), for residential uses requiring the sub-division of land for Quimby Act application. • Adopt Schedule 7.1, Park Infrastructure Development (also page 77), for residential uses not requiring the sub-division of land for Mitigation Fee Act.
NOTES:
(1 ). Separate Park Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas the AB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures.
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 79 Appendix B
Shared Maintenance Vehicles/Equipment List
and Distribution of Costs
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 80 Appendix B - Maintenance Vehicle
List and Distribution of Costs
General Delivery Van
Message Board Trailer
Miscellaneous Power/Hand Tools
Rotary Mower Highway
Site Lighting Tower
Skid Steer Loader
Tractor - Full-sized
Tractor (Mower)/Trailer
Truck -10 Yard Dump
Truck - Hot Patch
Truck - Pick-up 1/2 Ton
Truck - Service Truck
Walk-behind Compactor/Trailer
Walk-behind Roller/Trailer
Weed Sprayer/Trailer
-a
Q)
(0
(1)
(X)
.....
Vehicle
Cost
$37,500
$24,449
$5,000
$4,250
$35,000
$25,000
$30,625
$25,500
$169,900
$137,000
$35,865
$53,060
$14,500
$22,500
$26,000
w~~:;;e~, c~~~i~"i~~O, !a:: 1'ieeded.foi~,c-J·• ·..• Circulatie>n . General 1 ' Fu~lil(i:tnventory :i ~ysten1. i •. ::Faci.lities
$40,690 $2,810 $43,500 1 $43,500 $0 $43,500
$26,530 $1,830 $28,360 4 $113,440 $113,440 $0
$5,430 $380 $5,810 7 $40,670 $40,670 $0
$4,610 $320 $4,930 1 $4,930 $3,697 $1,233
$37,980 $2,630 $40,610 1 $40,610 $40,610 $0
$27,130 $1,880 $29,010 1 $29,010 $29,010 $0
$33,230 $2,300 $35,530 1 $35,530 $35,530 $0
$27,670 $1,910 $29,580 1 $29,580 $22,185 $7,395
$184,340 $12,740 $197,080 1 $197,080 $197,080 $0
$148,650 $10,280 $158,930 1 $158,930 $158,930 $0
$38,910 $2,690 $41,600 4 $166,400 $149,760 $16,640
$57,570 $3,980 $61,550 1 $61,550 $61,550 $0
$15,730 $1,090 $16,820 1 $16,820 $16,820 $0
$24,410 $1,690 $26,100 1 $26,100 $26,100 $0
$28,210 $1,950 $30,160 1 $30,160 $30,160 $0
TOTAL I I 27.00 $994,3101 I $925,5421 $68,7681
Appendix C
Parkland Development Costs
by Unit/Average Per Acre
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 82 "'CJ
I.\)
ca
(1)
CX)
c..>
Appendix C
Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Average Per Acre
ENR at January 2001 6281
Current ENR Construction Cost Index 9516
ENR Percent Increase 151.50%
Public Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $121 Linear Foot
Lame Park Grading/Irrigation/Turf $25,500 Acre
Small Park Grading/Irrigation/Turf $30,600 Acre
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 Gallon Box/Acre $200.00 Each
T rees-15, 15 Gallon/ Acre $100.00 Each
Shrubs-10, Five Gallon $19.00 Each
Shrubs-30, One Gallon $7.00 Each
Plav aooaratus
Play Aooaratus - Large $120,000 Lot
Lan::ie Ao □ aratus Curbing, 450' $18.50 Linear Foot
Play Aooaratus - Medium $80,000 Lot
M'edium Aooaratus Curbing, 375' $18.50 Linear Foot
Play Aooaratus - Small $40,000 Lot
Small Aparatus Curbing, 225' $18.50 Linear Foot
Apparatus Safety Surface $2.50 Square Foot
Buildings:
Restroom - Small $60,450 Each
Restroom - Large $102,300 Each
Electrical Service Extension $15,000 Each
Equipment Storage Facility $55,800 Each
Combined Restroom/Concession $167,400 Each
Parking Lot
Parking Space 4" A.G. W/6" Rock base $1,627.50 Space
V-gutter $7.44 Linear Foot
Drain Inlet $744 Each
Drain Inlet Connector $1,209 Each
Storm Drainage Collection Line $18.00 Linear Foot
Drive Approach $1,674 Each
Perimeter Curbinq $9.30 Linear Foot
Parkina Lot StrioinQ $0.28 Linear Foot
Exterior Street LiQhting Standards $1,674 Each
Lot SiQnage $186 Lot
Storm Drainage Facilities (in park)
,WftJV•·: ::=~::::.-,,~,p:%, P' f:\»tii,;;1;1-~~l-ij'\JW::fll 151.5% $183.32 Linear Foot 1,680 $307,978
151.5% $38,630 Acre 0 $0
151.5% $46,360 Acre 5 $231,800
151.5% $303.01 Each 25 $7,575
151.5% $151.50 Each 75 $11,363
151.5% $28.79 Each 50 $1,440
151.5% $10.61 Each 150 $1,592
151.5% $181,810 Lot 0 $0
151.5% $28.03 Linear Foot 0 $0
151.5% $121,200 Lot 1 $121,200
151.5% $28.03 Linear Foot 375 $10,511
151.5% $60,600 Lot 0 $0
151.5% $28.03 Linear Foot 0 $0
151.5% $3. 79 Square Foot 8,789 $33,310
151.5% $91,580 Each 0 $0
151.5% $154,990 Each 0 $0
151.5% $22,730 Each 0 $0
151.5% $84,540 Each 0 $0
151.5% $253,620 Each 0 $0
151.5% $2,465.74 Square foot 8 $19,726
151.5% $11.27 Linear Foot 96 $1,082
151.5% $1,127.19 Each 1 $1,127
151.5% $1,831.69 Each 1 $1,832
151.5% $27.27 Linear Foot 144 $3,927
151.5% $2,536.00 Each 1 $2,536
151.5% $14.09 Linear Foot 490 $6,904
151.5% $0.42 Linear Foot 80 $34
151.5% $2,536.00 Each 4 $10,144
151.5% $281.80 Lot 1 $282
"'U
O>
CQ
CD
CX>
~
AppendixC
Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Average Per Acre
ENR at January 2001 6281
Current ENR Construction Cost Index 9516
ENR Percent Increase 151.50%
Inlets $744 Each
Connections $1,209 Each
Lateral (to arterial) $18.00 Linear Foot
Sewer Facilities
Connection to Arterial $1,860 Lot
Line in Street $14.50 Linear Foot
Line in Park $12.50 Linear Foot
Fire Hvdrant $2,790 Each
Park Liahtina
Walkway Liqhtina Standards $1,256 Each
Duct Work/Wirina $767 Each
Walkway Electical WirinQ $15 Linear Foot
Water Facilities
3" Meter $1,860 Each
#" Backflow Device $2,325 Each
Line in Street $11.16 LinearFoot
Water Fountains $651.00 Each
Fountain Lines in Park $11.16 LinearFoot
Benches/Tables
Concrete Picnic Tables $750 Each
7' x 10' CementTable Pads $1,050 Each
Individual BBQ Grills $326 Each
Concrete Benches $325 Each
3' x 6' Concrete Bench Pads $270 Each
Bleachers $3,255 Each
Laroe Covered Picnic Ramada $57,660 Each
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $13,950 Each
User Electrical Service $9,300 Each
Electrical Service per Group area $1,163 Each
Game Courts $75,600
Basketball Courts $50,350 Each
Basketball Court Liahtina $32,550 Each
Fenced Tennis Courts $55,800 Each
Tennis Court Liohtina $32,550 Each
151.5% $1,130 Each
151.5% $1,830 Each
151.5% $27.27 Linear Foot
151.5% $2,820 Lot
151.5% $21.97 Linear Foot
151.5% $18.94 Linear Foot
151.5% $4,230 Each
151.5% $1,900 Each
151.5% $1,160 Each
151.5% $20 Each
151.5% $2,820 Each
151.5% $3,520 Each
151.5% $20 Linear Foot
151.5% $990 Each
151.5% $20 Linear Foot
151.5% $1,140 Each
151.5% $1,590 Each
151.5% $493.90 Each
151.5% $492.39 Each
151.5% $409.06 Each
151.5% $4,930 Each
151.5% $87,360 Each
151.5% $21,130 Each
151.5% $14,090 Each
151.5% $1,760 Each
151.5% $76,280 Each
151.5% $49,310 Each
151.5% $84,540 Each
151.5% $49,310 Each
l'ilaliWIIRIIIRfflmllil ;,;;;we::::;;::
2 $2,260
2 $3,660
1,050 $28,634
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1 $4,230
~ I
$3
0 1 $2,820
1 $3,520
1,320 $26,400
1 $990
200 $4,000
4 $4,560
4 $6,360
2 $988
4 $1,970
4 $1,636
0 $0
0 $0
4 $84,520
0 $0
1 $1,760
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
-0 n>
<O
(D
CX)
01 Appendix C
Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Average Per Acre
ENR at January 2001 6281
Current ENR Construction Cost Index 9516
ENR Percent Increase 151.50%
Baseball Field - Competitive $46,500 Each 151.5%
Ballfield Lighting $186,000 Per two fields 151.5%
Baseball Field - Recreational $13,950 Each 151.5%
Soccer Field (crowned) $16,740 Each 151.5%
Skateoark $17.50 Sciuare Foot 151.5%
Pedestrian Walkway
5'wide $75.00 Linear Foot 151.5%
6'wide $81.00 Linear Foot 151.5%
9'wide $108.00 Linear Foot 151.5%
Miscellaneous Flatwork $15.00 Sciuare Foot 151.5%
Small Park Sii:inage $4,650 Lot 151.5%
Large Park Sii:inai:ie $15,000 Lot 151.5%
Bike Rack/Pad $1,395 Each 151.5%
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, etc) $375,000 Each 151.5% Small concrete stage $29,060 Each 151.5%
Medium Ampitheater/bandshell $139,500 Each 151.5%
Total Cost per Park
Number of Parks
Total Cost of Parks
Total Improved Park Acres
Average Construction Cost per Park Acre
1~1'4}\>w5-~lllffl"'·"··; ;Y¢~~Vd~lf4;:;::=, =~.<
4 ,,,.-9 ·- . , . ''"u;·, ,';,' ': ,~.~")f@)'"''~
$70,450 Each 0 $0
$281,800 Per two fields 0 $0
$21,130 Each 1 $21,130
$25,360 Each 0 $0
$26.50 Each 0 $0
$113.63 Linear Foot 1,680 $190,898
$122. 72 Linear Foot 1,680 $206,170
$163.62 Linear Foot 0 $0
$22. 73 Linear Foot 500 $11,365
$7,040 Lot 1 $7,040
$22,730 Lot 0 $0
$2,110 Each 2 $4,220
$568, 140 Each 0 $0
$44,030 Each 1 $44,030
$211,350 Each 0 $0
Total Cost $1,441,004
Total Acres 5
Average Cost per Acre $288,201
$1,441,004
15.00 9
$66,923,649 $12,969,036
150.00 45
$446,157.66
iJ
Q)
co
(D
(X)
0)
Appendix C
Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Averat
ENR at January 2001
CurrentENR Construction Cost Index
ENR Percent Increase
l~IMlllllwfi~'.eiJ'Jlbl ii~¥\iii:r@MB-•
Public Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. 3,360 $615,955 3,780 $692,950 Large Park Grading/lrrigationffurf 15 $579,450 20 $772,600 Small Park GradinQ/lrrigationffurf 0 $0 0 $0
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 Gallon Box/Acre 75 $22,726 50 $15,151
Trees-15, 15 Gallon/Acre 225 $34,088 300 $45,450
Shrubs-10, Five Gallon 150 $4,319 100 $2,879
Shrubs-30, One Gallon 450 $4,775 300 $3,183
Play apparatus
Play Aooaratus - Large 1 $181,810 1 $181,810
Large Aooaratus Curbing, 450' 450 $12,614 450 $12,614
Play Apparatus - Medium 2 $242,400 1 $121,200
M'edium Aooaratus Curbing, 375' 750 $21,023 375 $10,511 Plav Aooaratus - Small 2 $121,200 1 $60,600
Small Aparatus Curbing, 225' 450 $12,614 225 $6,307
Apparatus Safety Surface 36,562 $138,570 24,609 $93,268 Buildinas:
Restroom - Small 1 $91,580 1 $91,580
Restroom - Larae 1 $154,990 1 $154,990
Electrical Service Extension 2 $45,460 2 $45,460
Equioment Storage Facility 0 $0 1 $84,540
Combined Restroom/Concession 1 $253,620 2 $507,240
Parking Lot
Parkina Space 4" A.C. W/6" Rock base 150 $369,861 400 $986,296 V-gutter 1,800 $20,286 4,800 $54,096
Drain Inlet 8 $8,454 20 $22,544
Drain Inlet Connector 8 $13,738 20 $36,634
Storm Drainaae Collection Line 2,700 $73,629 7,200 $196,344 Drive Aooroach 4 $10,144 6 $15,216
Perimeter Curbina 3,600 $50,724 9,600 $135,264
Parking Lot Striping 1,500 $630 4,000 $1,680
Exterior Street Lighting Standards 18 $45,648 20 $50,720 Lot Signage 3 $845 3 $845
Storm Drainage Facilities (in park)
-0 m
<O
(D
00 -.J
Appendix C
Parkland Development Costs by UniUAvera£
ENR at January 2001
Current ENR Construction Cost Index
ENR Percent Increase
;;;;::=::;: :;;;'.½~!\; :<;FJ1'¾'fo~;i,t;B,1;;:=!~~J'"c:l,11~,,, fll•~~lllllilllll':w;;,d f:
1 ,Kwc:~J;;'":'~lllfflli~',._1:t+W 51
Inlets 30 $33,900 40 $45,200
Connections 6 $10,980 8 $14,640
Lateral (to arterial) 4,725 $128,851 6,300 $171,801
Sewer Facilities
Connection to Arterial 2 $5,640 2 $5,640
Line in Street 120 $2,636 120 $2,636
Line in Park 630 $11,932 630 $11,932
Fire Hydrant 4 $16,920 5 $21,150
Park LightinQ
Walkway Lighting Standards 252 $478,800 235 $446,880
Duct Work/Wirino 12 $13,920 5 $5,800
Walkway Etectical Wirino 13,120 $262,400 8,830 $176,600 Water Facilities
3" Meter 1 $2,820 1 $2,820
#" Backflow Device 1 $3,520 1 $3,520
Line in Street 120 $2,400 120 $2,400
Water Fountains 8 $7,920 12 $11,880
Fountain Lines in Park 1,000 $20,000 1,000 $20,000
Benches/Tables
Concrete Picnic Tables 60 $68,400 30 $34,200
7' x 10' Cement Table Pads 60 $95,400 30 $47,700
Individual BBQ Grills 30 $14,817 10 $4,939
Concrete Benches 30 $14,772 15 $7,386
3' x 6' Concrete Bench Pads 30 $12,272 15 $6,136
Bleachers 0 $0 14 $69,020
Laroe Covered Picnic Ramada 2 $174,720 0 $0
Individual Covered Picnic Pad 20 $422,600 4 $84,520
User Electrical Service 2 $28,180 1 $14,090
Electrical Service per Group area 6 $10,560 4 $7,040
Game Courts
Basketball Courts 2 $152,560 4 $305,120
Basketball Court Liahtina 0 $0 4 $197,240
Fenced Tennis Courts 2 $169,080 6 $507,240
Tennis Court LightinQ 0 $0 6 $295,860
"'O
0,)
co
CD
00 00
AppendixC
Parkland Development Costs by Unit/Avera{
ENR at January 2001
Current ENR Construction Cost Index
ENR Percent Increase
,,~,.;,~~RrllllJIRRIBI 111wi1•1~'.i~@tl;c-,1m1111W11t1"WI ;,Vk)*;;=1ffl;;;;;;;:=:;,:;;~~,,,;:="'~~= :::~,:
Baseball Field - Competitive 0 $0 6 $422,700
Ballfield Lighting 0 $0 4 $1,127,200
Baseball Field - Recreational 6 $126,780 0 $0
Soccer Field (crowned) 0 $0 4 $101,440
Skatepark 14,400 $381,600 21,600 $572,400
Pedestrian Walkway
5'wide 1,680 $190,898 1,050 $119,312
6'wide 1,680 $206,170 1,050 $128,856
9'wide 2,940 $481,043 3,780 $618,484
Miscellaneous Flatwork 8,500 $193,205 4,000 $90,920
Small Park Signage 0 $0 0 $0
Large Park Signage 1 $22,730 1 $22,730
Bike Rack/Pad 9 $18,990 12 $25,320
Natural Element Improvement (lake, etc) 1 $568,140 0 $0 Small concrete stage 2 $88,060 1 $44,030
Medium Amoitheater/bandshell 1 $211,350 0 $0
$7,786,119 $10,198,752
15 20
$519,075 $509,938
$7,786,119 $10,198,752
'
3 3
$23,358,357 $30,596,256
45 60
End of Report
City of Jurupa Valley 2019/20 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Page 89 Draft: 4-06-22
-1-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-08
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
AMENDING CHAPTER 3.75 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE)
OF THE JURUPA MUNICIPAL CODE TO CLARIFY THAT
THE METHOD FOR CALCULATING DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FOR RETAIL/SERVICE/OFFICE, BUSINESS
PARK, AND INDUSTRIAL USES SHALL BE BASED ON THE
SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING , AND TO CLARIFY
THAT FEES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND COMMERCIAL
LODGING ARE CALCULATED BASED ON A PER UNIT BASIS
AND T HAT FEES FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ARE
BASED ON THE COMBINATION OF THE LAND USES ,
MAKING CONFORMING REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 3.75 ,
AND MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER
SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15273(A)(4) OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
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 January 21, 2021, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021-02 approving the “Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Jurupa Valley” approved by the City Council on January 21, 2021” (“Nexus Report”) and the “Master Facilities Plan” referenced therein, and approving the development impact fees (“DIFs”) calculation; (b) On February 4, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2021 -02 amending Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code pertaining to DIFs based on the Nexus Report; and (c) The City Council now seeks to clarify the method of calculating DIFS for retail/service/office, business park, industrial, and residential uses, along with commercial lodging and mixed use developments to ensure consistency with the Nexus Report.
Section 2. Code Amendment. Section 3.75.060 (Definitions.) of Chapter 3.75 (Development Impact Fee) of Title 3 (Revenue and F inance) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this sec tion, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning or where the meaning is amended by resolution of the City Council:
Accessory Dwelling Unit or ADU means an accessory dwelling unit as defined by California Government Code Section 65852.2(j)(1), or as defined in any successor statute.
Draft: 4-6-22
-2-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
Attached Dwelling means apartments, townhomes, condominiums or any other living unit that is physically contiguous to (i.e., attached to) any other residential unit and corresponds to a n allowable use within the City’ s Land Use designations of Medium-High Density (MHDR) , High Density Residential (HDR), Very High Density (VHDR), and Highest Density Residential (HHDR).
Business Park Use means research and development activities, warehousing and distribution, light manufacturing/assembly, repair and corporate offices when used in conjunction with other business park uses. These uses correspond to the City’s Land Use designations of Business Park (BP) and Technology and Innovation (LI).
Certificate of occupancy means a certificate of occupancy as defined by Chapter 8.05 or state law.
City means the City of Jurupa Valley.
City Manager means the City Manager of the city or his or her designee.
Credit means a credit allowed pursuant to Section 3.75.140 which may be applied against the DIF.
Commercial and Industrial Use means Business Park Use, Industrial Use, and Retail/Service/Office Use.
Commercial Lodging (keyed) Unit means each room in a hotel, motel, inn or other temporary lodging use that has a se parate key or keycard and corresponds to the City’s Land Use designation of Commercial Tourist (CT), and possibly a Specific Plan (SP), and withi n other areas acceptable for this type of hospitality development.
Development agreement means an agreement entered into between the city and an owner of real property pursuant to California Government Code Section 65864 et seq.
Development impact fees, DIF or fees means the fees imposed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
Development project or project means any project undertaken for the purpose of development including the issuance of a permit for construction pursuant to Chapter 8.05.
DIF program means the process of collecting and expending development impact fees.
Facilities and equipment means the public facilities and equipment financed by the DIF program and includes all of the facilities set forth in the Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan and any subsequently revisions thereof approved by resolution of the City Council, including the la nd and right- of-way required for the facilities.
Final inspection means a final inspection as defined by Chapter 8.05.
Industrial Uses means all businesses engaged in heavy industrial or more intense manufacturing in the Heavy Industrial (Hl) zones.
Draft: 4-6-22
-3-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
Low Density Detached Dwelling means a detached residential unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of Small Farm (RR), Ranch (EDR), Rural Community -Low (RC-LDR), Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) and County Neighborhood (LDR).
Master Facilities Plan means the list of needed public facilities referenced in the Nexus Report and approved by the City Council.
Medium Density Detached Dwelling means a detached residential unit and corresponds to an allowable use within the City's Lan d Use designations of Medium Density Residential (MD R) and construction of detached Medium-High Density (MHDR) and High Density Residential (HDR).
Mobile Home Dwelling Units means mobile home dwelling units in a mobile unit setting. These units correspon d to an allowable use within the City's Land Use designations of Very High Density Residential Density. A manufactured dwelling unit outside of a mobile home park -like setting would be considered either a Low Density Detached Dwelling or a Medium Density Detached Dwelling depending on the City’s land use designation.
Nexus Report means the “Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Jurupa Valley” and the “Master Facilities Plan” approved by the City Council on January 21, 2021.
Primary Dwelling Unit means the existing or proposed single -family dwelling or multi -family dwelling on the lot where an ADU would be located.
Residential Dwelling means Low Density Detached Dwellings , Medium Density Detached Dwellings, Attached Dwellings and Mobile Home Dwelling Units.
Retail/Service/Office Use means general type of commercial services ranging from neighborhood, local and regional shopping outlets. These uses correspond with the City’s Land Use designation of Commercial Retail (CR), Commercial Neighborhood (CN) and Commercial Office (CO).
Revenue or revenues means any funds received by the city pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for the purpose of defraying all or a portion o f the cost of the facilities set forth in the public facilities needs report, purchasing regional parkland, and preserving habitat and open space. ” Section 3. Code Amendment. Section 3.75.080 (Imposition of DIF.) of Chapter 3.75 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions shown in underlined text and deletions shown in strikethrough text):
“Section 3.75.080 Intentionally deleted.”
Section 4. Code Amendment. Section 3.75.100 (Payment of DIF.) of Chapter 3.75 (Development Impact Fees) of Title 3 (Revenue and finance) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows (with additions shown in underlined text and deletions shown in strikethrough text):
“(1) For Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units and Commercial and Industrial Uses, DIF shall be paid prior to the issuance of a building permit. The DIF shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the development project or upon final insp ection, whichever occurs first. However, this section shall not be construed to prevent payment of Draft: 4-6-22
-4-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
the DIF prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. The DIF may be paid at the time application is made for a building permit.
(2) DIFs shall be assessed one (1) time per lot or parcel except in cases of changes in land use. DIF for changes in land use shall be reduced by the amount of any previously paid DIF for that property, and no refunds will be provided for changes in land use to a lower fee category. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to provide documentation of any previously paid DIF. DIFs for commercial and industrial development projects shall be paid in its entirety for the project area and shall not be prorated.
(3)The DIF required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment.
(4) There shall be no deferment of the DIF beyond final inspection or issuance of certificate(s) of occupancy, except as provided by law. (5) Notwithstanding any other written requirements to the contrary, the DIF shall be paid whether or not the development project is subject to city conditions of approval imposing the requirement to pay the DIF.
(6) If all or part of the development project is sold prior to payment of the DIF, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the DIF as provided herein.
(7) For development projects which the city does not require a final inspection or issue a certificate of occupancy, the DIF shall be paid pri or to any use or occupancy. (8) DIFs for Residential Dwellings s hall be due and payable in accordance with Government Code Section 66007, upon the issuance of a building permit; provided, however, that the DIFs imposed may be deferred until the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, pursuant to a written agreement, entered into and recorded in accordance with Government Code Section 66007(c).”
Section 5. Code Amendment. Section 3.75.110 (Acreage based DIF.) of Chapter 3.75 (Development Impact Fee) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby renamed as “Method of Calculating DIF” and is amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“(1) Development impact fees for Commercial and Industrial Uses shall be computed on the basis of the square footage of building area, subject to modification by resolution of the City Council. The building area shall be determined or verified by city staff bas ed upon the applicant's site plan as submitted to the City.
(2) Development impact fees for Residential Dwellings shall be computed based on a per dwelling unit basis, subject to modification by resolution of the City Council.
Draft: 4-6-22
-5-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
(3) Development impact fees for Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units shall be based on a per unit basis, subject to modification by resolution of the City Council.
(4) Development impact fees for mixed use developments shall be based upon the combination of t he above land -use development impact fees. As an example, for a mixed use development consisting of Commercial Retail (CR) and Very High Density Residential (VHDR) project, the DIF would consist of the combination of the number of square feet of Commercia l Retail/Service/Office and the number of Attached Dwellings included in the mix-use.”
Section 6. Code Amendment. Section 3.75.130 (Exemptions .) of Chapt er 3.75 (Development Impact Fee) of Title 3 (Revenue and Finance) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:
“The following types of construction shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter:
(1) Reconstruction of a Residential Dwelling, Commercial or Industrial Use, or Commercial Lodging (keyed) Units damaged or destroyed by fire or natural causes; (2) Rehabilitation or remodeling of an existing Residential Dwelling, Commercial or Industrial Use;
(3) Additions to an existing single family residence;
(4) The location or installation of a Mobile Home Dwelling Unit, without a permanent foundation, on any site. The DIF required under this chapter shall not be applicable to a site preparation permit or an installation permit for a mobile home without a permanent foundation. No site preparation permit or installation permit for a mobile home with a permanent foundation shall be issued after January 22, 1989, except upon the condition that the development impact fees required by this chapter be paid; provided, however, in those instances where a site preparation permit or an installation permit has been previously issued for a site and the development impact fees have been paid, the DIF required under this chapter shall not be applicable to a site preparation permit or an installation permit for a Mobile Home Dwelling Unit with a permanent foundation. Further, in those instances where an installation permit was issued prior to January 22, 1989, for a Mobile Home Dwelling Unit without a permanent foundation and a site preparation permit or installation permit is subsequently requested for the construction of a permanent foundation for said existing mobile home, the DIF required under this chapter shall not be applicable to the permit subsequently issued for the construction of said permanent foundation; and (5) To the extent required by State law, Accessory Dwelling Units that are less than 750 square feet in size.”
Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Findings . This ordinance was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality A ct (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that adoption of this ordinance will not have a significant Draft: 4-6-22
-6-
12774-0007\2656363v3.doc
impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because the amendments to Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code pertain to the method of calculating development impact fees and do not approve any actual development projects . In addition, the adoption of this ordinance approves and sets forth a procedure for deter mining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4). Therefore the adoption of this ordinance does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Section 8. 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 porti on 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.
Section 9. 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.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 2nd day of June, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Draft: 4-6-22
-7-
12774-0007\2656363v3.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 Ordinance No. 2022-08 was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 19th day of May, 2022, and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of June, 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 2nd day of June, 2022. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
4-26-22
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-34
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS, AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER SECT IONS 15061(B)(3) AND
15273(A)(4) OF THE CALIFOR NIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
(a) In adopting Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (the “Municipal Code”), the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (the “City”) established the requirement for the payment of development impact fees (“DIFs”) by new development projects within the City, to ensure that certain public facilities or capital improvements are constructed and made available consistent with build -out of the City, in accordance with the City’s General Plan and concurrent with the need caused by new development. (b) Chapter 3.75 (“Development Impact Fee”) to the Municipal Code, provides that the City Council shall, by resolution, establish the amount of the DIFs, the description of the facilities and equipment to be financed by DIF s, definitions of terms necessary to implement the DIFs, and such other regulations as may be necessary or convenient to implement and administer the DIFs to be imposed pursuant to Chapter 3.75 of the Municipal Code. (c) On January 21, 202 1, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2021 -02 approving the “Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nex us Report for the City of Jurupa Valley” (“Nexus Report”) and the “Master Facilities Plan” referenced therein, and approving the development impact fee calculation. Resolution No. 2021-02 contained fees for various residential uses including Low Density Detached Dwelling Units, Medium Density Detached Dwelling Units, Attached Dwelling Units and Mobile Home Dwelling Units. Resolution No. 2021 -02, however, did not specify how the fees for Accessory Dwelling Units (“ADUs”) would be calculated. (d) The Nexus Report identifies capital projects and acquisitions necessary to meet the goals, programs, and objectives within the City’s General Plan. Chapter 2 of the Nexus Report describes the benefit and impact areas on which DIFs are to be imposed and collected, describes the reasonable relationship between the DIFs and the various types of new development, analyzes the need for new public facilities and improvements which will be necessi tated by new development, sets forth a methodology for determining the relationship between new development, the needed public facilities, and the estimated cost of those improvements, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law, and Government Cod e Sections 66000 et seq. (the “Mitigation Fee Act”), with regard to the imposition and collection of DIFs. 4-26-22
-2-
(e) The Nexus Report projects developmental growth in the City through years 2025, based on the City’s General Plan, adopted specific plans and other dev elopment approvals, and provides the basis for calculating and adopting DIFs in the following categories: (1) fire suppression/medic/rescue facilities, vehicles, and equipment, (2) circulation (streets, signals, and bridges) systems, (3) general facilities, vehicles, and equipment, (4) library collection items and dedicated public use computer stations, and (5) park infrastructure development (Downey Park & 68th Street Parks).
(f) The analysis of capital projects and acquisitions contained in the Nexus Report, taken together with the methodology established by the Nexus Report , demonstrate the specific costs associated with providing adequate public facilities commensurate with projected levels of new development in the City.
(g) The Nexus Report provides the docu mentation, detail, and other information required by the Mitigation Fee Act as the basis for the adoption and imposition of the DIFs for (1) fire suppression/medic/rescue facilities, vehicles, and equipment, (2) circulation (streets, signals, and bridges) systems, (3) general facilities, vehicles, and equipment, (4) library collection items and dedicated public use computer stations, and (5) park infrastructure development (Downey Park & 68th Street Parks), and Chapters 3 through 7 of the Nexus Report describe the benefit and impact area on which the DIFs are to be imposed, lists the specific public improvements to be financed through the imposition and collection of the DIFs, describe the estimated cost of providing the improvements and facilities, describe the reasonable relationship between the DIFs and the various types of new development, and otherwise satisfies the requirements of the law with regard to the imposition and collection of DIFs. (h) Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds tha t there is a reasonable relationship between the need for park land and park improvements and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which a corresponding fee is charged because future residential development (including ADUs) will increase the City’s population and will require additional park space and improvements to adequately serve the athletic and recreational needs of these new residents.
(i) Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the development and improvement of parks and residential development that does not involve the subdivision of land for which the fee is imposed, because the additional parks and improvements will improve and expand the City’s pa rk system and thus reduce the risk that the City’s increasing population will overuse or overcrowd the City’s parks. (j) Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, the City Council finds that the proposed fees for circulation systems does not duplicate fees collected under the Western Riverside County Traffic Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Ordinance because the items listed in the Nexus Report only include costs for transportation improvements at intersections, and other costs, that are not included in the TUMF, but wo uld require improvements due to background growth and new development in the City.
(k) The facts and evidence presented to the City Council have established that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for new facilities or improvements and the 4-26-22
-3-
impacts of new development for which a corresponding fee is charged, and also that there is a reasonable relationship between the fees’ use and the type of development for which the fee is imposed.
(l) The City has complied with the notice and hearing requirements of state law and the Mitigation Fee Act prior to adopting this Resolution, and a notice of public hearing on the DIFs for ADUs was mailed as required by law to any interested party who filed a written request with the City Clerk for mailed notice of a meeting on new or increased fees. (m) The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing at the May 19, 2022 Regular City Council meeting, at which time further testimony was presented and the public hearing was closed.
(n) The City Council finds that the record of these proceedings, including the Nexus Report, the City’s General Plan, ordinances and resolutions, the staff report, written correspondence received by the City, and the testimony received at the public hearing prior to the adoption of this Res olution, held on May 19, 2022, contains substantial evidence to support the imposition and collection of the DIFs established herein. (o) The City Council has reviewed and considered the DIFs established herein, and finds that the fees will mitigate some of the impacts associated with additional capital project and infrastructure needs necessitated by new residential development in the City.
Section 2. Adoption and Incorporation of Recitals . The findings and recitals set forth in Section 1 of this Resolution are true and correct, and are incorporated herein.
Section 3. Adoption of Development Impact Fees . The City Council hereby approves and adopts DIFs for ADUs in accordance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. These fees are not duplicative of the DIF s set forth in Resolution No. 2021-02 and the fees set forth in Resolution No. 2021-02 remain in effect.
Section 4. Methodology for Calculation, Adjustment, and Colle ction of Development Impact Fees. The DIFs established for ADUs in Exhibit A is hereby adopted, and shall be calculated, adjusted, and collected in accordance with City ordinances and the Nexus Report. The amount of the DIFs may be adjusted annually for inflation on July 1st of each year by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): Riverside- San Bernardino-Ontario (or any successor index). The calculation for that annual adjustment shall be made using the month of April over the month of April in the prior year.
Section 5. Imposition and Deferral of Development Impact Fees . The DIFs for ADUs established herein shall be due and payable in a ccordance with Government Code Section 66007, upon the issuance of a building permit; provided, however, that the DIFs imposed may be deferred until the date of the final inspection, or the date the certificate of occupancy is issued, whichever occurs first, pursuant to a written agreement, entered into and recorded in accordance with Government Code Section 66007(c).
4-26-22
-4-
Section 6. Effective Date of New Development Impact Fees . The DIFs established by Section 5 of this Resolution shall be effective on the sixtieth (60 th) day following the adoption of this Resolution.
Section 7. Exceptions. The DIFs established herein does not include fees established and collected pursuant to Chapter 3.80 (“Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee Ordinanc e”) or Chapter 3.70 (“Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program”) of the Municipal Code.
Section 8. Appeal of Fee Imposition. Any applicant who is subject to payment of the DIFs established herein may file an appeal in accordance with Section 2.05.050 (“Appeals of Discretionary Actions and Fees”) of Chapter 2.05 (“City Council”) of Title 2 (“Administration and Personnel”) of the Municipal Code, as that Chapter may be amended from time to time.
Section 9. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. The adoption of the DIFs for ADUs specified in this Resolution, was reviewed in accordance with the criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The City Council finds that adoption of the DIFs specified in this Resolution will not have a significant impact on the environment and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of State CEQA Guidelines because these actio ns involve the amendment of DIF s and no specific development is authorized by the adoption of new DIFs. Therefore the adoption of the DIFs does not have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of this Resolution approves and sets forth a procedure for determining fees for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas and is statutorily exempt from CEQA pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines 15273(a)(4).
Section 10. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Resolution or any part hereof is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining port ion of this Resolution or any part thereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
Section 11. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 19th day of May, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
4-26-22
-5-
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko , City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby cert ify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-34 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 19th day of May, 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 19th day of May, 2022.
___________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
4-26-22
A-1
EXHIBIT A
SCHEDULE OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
Adopted on May 19, 2022, and Effective on July 18, 2022 The development impact fee to be paid for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) is as follows:
ADU type and size DIF
Attached or Detached ADU less than 750
square feet in size
No fee pursuant to Government Code Section
65852.2(f)(1).
ADUs that are 750 square feet or more in size
that are on a lot with a single family residence
DIF is charged proportionally in relation to the
square footage of the primary dwelling unit.
Low Density Detached Dwellings are charged
DIF in the amount of $5,500 per unit. ADUs
located on a parcel with a single family
residence will be charged DIF i n an amount
proportional to the square footage of the
primary dwelling. For example, a proposed
1,000 square foot ADU to be constructed on
the same parcel as a 2,000 square foot primary
dwelling unit would pay DIF as follows: The
1,000 square feet ADU rep resents 50% of the
2,000 square foot primary unit (1,000 SF/2,000
SF = 50%). 50% of $5,500 = $2,750.
ADUs that are 750 square feet or more in size
that are on a lot with a multi-family residence
DIF is charged proportionally in relation to the
square footage of the primary dwelling unit. If
the ADU is not attached to a particular unit
(i.e., the ADU will be constructed as a
standalone unit in an apartment complex or
townhome), then the “primary dwelling” is
determined by calculating the average size of
all units located in the Attached Dwelling.
Attached Dwellings are charged DIF in the
amount of $3,292 per dwelling unit. An ADU
will be charged DIF in amount proportional to
the square footage of the primary dwelling.
For example, a proposed 1,000 squa re foot
ADU that will be attached to a 2,000 square
foot primary dwelling unit would pay DIF as
follows: The 1,000 square feet ADU represents
50% of the 2,000 square foot primary unit
(1,000 SF/2,000 SF = 50%). 50% of $3,292 =
$1,646.
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 19, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BULTER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.A
STUDY SESSION: MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 22080 (PAR22013) PROJECT: MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT CONSISTING OF 84 DETACHED CONDOMINIUMS AND A 5.91 -ACRE COMMERCIAL
CENTER LOCATED AT THE CORNER OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD
AND FELSPAR STREET BOUNDED BY 54TH STREET TO THE SOUTH, AND 51ST STREET TO THE NORTH (APNS: 169-290-003 & 169-300-016) (APPLICANT: OC INFRA, LLC)
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council (1) receive an introduction of the project design and (2) identify items of concerns or request for additional information that staff will need to address prior to the public hearing(s). Since this is a study session, no action will be taken.
STUDY SESSION PROCESS
This agenda item is an opportunity for the applicant to introduce the project to the City Council and receive feedback. The City Council will not take action. Each council member will have an opportunity to ask questions about the project and communicate to the applicant any issues that should be addressed when the project is before the Planning Commission and City Council for a public hearing. Although not a public hearing, the City Council should also allow for public comments on this study session item.
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The applicant, OC Infra, LLC, submitted an application for the preliminary review of a new mixed-use project on a vacant 22.27-acre site generally bounded by Van Buren Boulevard, Felspar Street, and vacant land to the south . See Exhibit A for site location and Exhibit B for conceptual site plan . The mixed -use project consist of 84 detached condominiums on 15.54 acres and a 34,800 square-foot commercial center on 5.91 acres (see Exhibit B). The overall density is 5.4 dwelling units per acre. Table 1 (below) provides the General Plan and Zoning information for the project site.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
SITE LOCATION
The 22.27-acre undeveloped site is located generally bounded by Van Buren Boulevard, Felspar Street, and vacant land to the south . Adjacent land uses include single family residential and commercial to the north, manufacturing to the east, single family residential to the west, and single family residential to the south.
EXHIBIT A: SITE LOCATION MAP
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
PROJECT AREA 22.27 acres
GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION LDR (Country Neighborhood)
GENERAL PLAN
OVERLAY Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay
ZONING
R-A (Residential Agricultural) & W-1
(Watercourse, Watershed and Conservation
Areas)
CURRENT USE Vacant land
PROPOSAL
The applicant proposes to develop a mixed-use project on a combined 22.27-acre site (see Conceptual Site Plan Exhibit B). The commercial portion is mostly proposed north of
Page | 3
52nd Street, which would be extended to Van Buren Boulevard as part of the Jurupa Road Grade Separation project. The residential component is mostly proposed between 52 nd Street and 54 th Street. It consis ts of 84 detached condominium units with a proposed density of 5.4 dwelling units per acre . The project also provides two open space areas as amenities for the residents. Table 3 below presents details of the unit mix and square footages.
The conceptual plan, Exhibit B, proposes six access points. Three access points are on Felspar Street, one access point is on Van Buren Boulevard, and two access points are on 56th Street.
EXHIBIT B: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
Commercial Center. A 5.91-acre neighborhood commercial center is proposed at the northern portion of the project (see Exhibit C for an enlargement). The building sizes will range from 3,800 square feet to 7,500 square feet. The vison for the commercial portion is a traditional shopping center consisting of high-end architecture, enhanced landscaping, lighting, and security for the area. There are five buildings proposed for the following uses:
Three drive-thru restaurants (shown in pink on the site plan) Three retail tenant spaces (shown in red on the site plan) One retail use or bank (shown in red on the site plan) The sizes of the buildings are unknown at this time until the tenant s are secured. The applicant is currently working on attracting tenants. The access points to the commercial center are from (1) Felspar Street and (2) 52nd Street via Felspar Street or Van Buren Boulevard.
Page | 4
The applicant is open to providing some open space areas where residents as well as outside community members will be able to gather. Exhibit D presents the elevations proposed for the commercial buildings.
EXHIBIT C: ENLARGEMENT OF PROPOSED COMMERCIAL SITE
EXHIBIT D: ELEVATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS
Page | 5
EXHIBIT E: ENLARGEMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY
Residential Community. The proposed residential community is between 52 nd and 54th Street as seen on Exhibit E. Because these are detached condominiums, there would be a Homeowner’s Association for the maintenance of the common area and amenities.
The home sizes would range between 2,200 square-feet and 3,000 square-feet. Each home is two stories high. The units may include four to five bedro oms with a two-car garage. See Exhibit F for proposed Cottage style elevation and Table 2 for the details of the units.
The access points to this site would be from 52 nd Street, Felspar Street, and 54th Street.
The proposal includes two open space recreation areas. The northern recreational area is located between the two -tenant retail building and units 73 – 82. The southern recreation area is located behind units 49 – 56.
Page | 6
EXHIBIT F: COTTAGE STYLE ELEVATIONS FOR CONDOMINIUMS
REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
The proposed mixed-use project requires the following entitlements:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA): Change the existing Country Neighborhood (LDR) land use designation (up to 2 units / acre) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) land use designation ( up to 8 units / acre) for the proposed residential area and Commercial Retail (CR) for the commercial portion . The project proposes 5.91 dwelling units per acre.
2. Change of Zone (CZ): The existing zoning is R-A (Residential Agricultural) and W-1 (Watercourse, Watershed, and Conservation Areas) . A Change of Zone will be required. The appropriate zone or zones would be determined during the formal review process.
TABLE 2: CONDOMINIUM – SUMMARY OF UNITS
Plan No. Unit Mix Unit Sizes
Plan 1 4 bedroom / 3 bath 2,200 sq.ft.
Plan 2 4 bedrooms / 3.5 bath 2,700 sq.ft.
Plan 3 5 bedrooms / 3.5 baths 3,000 sq.ft.
TOTAL UNITS: 84
Page | 7
CORE ISSUES FOR FEEDBACK
The following issues would be addressed during the entitlement process:
A. Proposed Land Uses: The surrounding residential community to the west of the project has a land use designation of Country Neighborhood (LDR), which allows up to 2 dwelling units per acre, and zoned L ight Agricultural (A -1) with the exception of most of the lots abutting to the west of Felspar Street across the project site. These lots are designated for commercial and industrial uses in the General Plan. Currently, it seems to be used for residential. The land use designations are Commercial Retail and Light Industrial and zoning classifications are Scenic Highway Commercial (C-P-S) and Manufacturing Service Commercial (M-SC). The residential lots in the surrounding neighborhood (west of Felspar Street) range approximately between 0.2 to 2 acres. See Exhibits G and H for Land Use and Zoning Maps.
EXHIBIT G. LAND USE MAP OF PROJECT SITE
The proposed commercial area will be abutting the existing Commercial Retail and Light Industrial designated land. The proposed Medium High Density Residential designation would be abutting residential lots on the west side of Felspar Street.
Page | 8
MHDR allows for the development of single -family attached and detached residences, which include detached, small lot single-family homes, attached single family patio homes, courtyard development, and townhouses, with a density range between 5 and 8 dwellings per acre.
EXHIBIT H. ZONING MAP OF PROJECT SITE
B. Architectural Styles & Quality: The City’s recommended architectural styles are Craftsman, Victorian, California Bungalow, California Ranch, and American Farmhouse (see Attachment No. 1). These are reminiscent of architectural styles historically found in the area. The proposed architectural styles are Spanish and Cottage. The styles are generally adequate, but the elevations should be further
M-SC
C-P-S
Page | 9
enhanced with additional richer architectural features that are true to the architectural styles.
C. Amenities for Residents . The project includes two recreational areas. The northern recreational area is located between the two-tenant retail building and units 73 – 82. The southern recreation area is located behind units 49 – 56. The project must provide sufficient amenities for the residents. Further discussion of the activities tha t the recreational area could support would occur during application review.
EXHIBIT I. RECREATION AREAS
D. Guest Parking: All units would be constructed with a two -car garage that meets the parking requirement. However, the project does not include any guest parking spaces. The City anticipates that the applicant would address guest parking through the entitlement process. Further review would determine the amount of guest parking spaces that would be adequate for 84 units.
E. Equestrian Connectivity: The project site is within the General Plan Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay. Per the Overlay, the project must be designed to be equestrian friendly and without interference with surrounding equestrian neighborhood. Hitching posts are required to be provided per the General Plan.
On the General Plan’s Generalized Equestrian Trails Plan (Exhibit J), Felspar Street is planned for a Secondary Equestrian route. Secondary Equestrian routes are typically unimproved equestrian trails located on the unpaved shoulder and behind drainage swales or catch basins. These routes may include low -level, downlighting (such as bollards), safety crossings and signage and are ty pically located on connector streets or minor arterials. Currently, there is an existing
Page | 10
informal equestrian trail along the west side of Felspar Street. Since this site is on the east side of Felspar Street, this project would not be required to construct a trail on the east side of Felspar Street.
EXHIBIT J. GENERALIZED EQUESTRIAN TRAILS PLAN
F. Delivery Trucks & Loading Areas : Loading areas and circulation of delivery trucks/vehicles must be considered for the commercial component for general safety and welfare on the project site and adjacent streets . Locations for access points and loading areas for delivery trucks are encoura ged to be further away from residential properties. Access points for delivery trucks are encouraged to be on Van Buren Boulevard and 52nd Street.
Furthermore, trash enclosure areas would also need to be efficiently designed in order to comply with Burrtec’s standards and be located away from residential community to the west.
G. Drive–thru Uses: The project includes three drive-thru restaurants within the commercial component. These drive-thrus would be accessed via 52nd Street and the northern access point on Felspar Street. Below are issues regarding the drive- thru uses and the proposed location of the drive-thru lanes:
Page | 11
a. The entrances of two drive-thru lanes are proposed fairly close the access points from 52nd Street and Felspar. The vehicle queuing lines for the drive- thrus may affect circulation within the commercial center and entrance s to the project.
b. Possibly reconsider location of drive-thru lanes.
c. Consider full -service restaurant s instead of drive -thru restaurants as the City is oversaturated with drive-thrus.
DISCUSSION TOPICS FOR CITY COUNCIL
Appropriate Residential Density
Architectural Design & Quality of Design
Residential Amenities
Guest Parking
Drive-thru Uses
Commercial Center
Site Layout
o Special attention to existing land uses
o Neighborhood scale design, consideration of massing, landscaped parkways and overall development layout
o Streetscape
Circulation
o Vehicular and pedestrian circulation
o Internal project circulation
NEXT STEPS
Applicant to consider City Council’s feedback from this Study Session Submittal of entitlement application
Future study sessions and/or public hearings by the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City Council is the approving body since the project includes a General Plan Amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Costs associated with the application process is covered by the applicant.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council identify concerns or request additional information staff will need to address prior to or during the entitlement process.
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Jurupa Valley Residential Style Sheets
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Conceptual Site Plan, Floor Plan, and Elevations
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 19, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.B
CONSIDERATION OF ANNUAL RATE CEILING ADJUSTMENT
REQUEST FROM BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council approve the annual rate ceiling adjustment of 5.00% for all residential and commercial customers serviced by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. per section 17.8 of the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement between the City and Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc.
BACKGROUND
The City is currently served by Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. (“Burrtec”) and USA Waste of California, Inc. (“Waste Management”) for refuse collection, disposal, and recycling services. Burrtec provides services to a majority of the City as part of a Franchise Agreement with the City to collect, sort, and dispose of refuse and recycling. Beginning July 1, 2022, Burrtec will be the City’s exclusive franchise waste hauler.
Section 17.8.1 of the Franchise Agreement and Sections 17.8.4 and 17.8.5 of the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with Burrtec describes the rate ceiling adjustment process. Every year, Burrtec may submit a rate adjustment request to the City for Council consideration. Pursuant to the Third A mendment, as of the franchise year beginning July 1, 2020, the standard annual rate adjustment is capped at 5.00%. In any case where the rate increase in any one franchise year exceeds the 5.00% cap, the excess portion shall be carried forward and applied to the subsequent franchise year, subject to the 5.00%.
ANALYSIS
Per Section 17.8 of the Franchise Agreement with Burrtec, the refuse hauler may submit a rate adjustment request by March 1st of each franchise year with the new rate becoming effective on July 1st. The annual rate adjustment is based on the percentage increase in
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for the previous January to December calendar year and the documented weighted changes in refuse and green waste disposal costs.
On February 27, 2022, Burrtec submitted a letter and supporting documentation requesting a rate adjustment for the period commencing J uly 1, 2022 (Attachment A). In addition to CPI and disposal costs, Burrtec’s rate adjustment request also included organic waste services associated with Senate Bill 1383 (“SB 1383”), the Short -lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Act. The SB 1383 costs included program administration and a proposed change in the billing rat e methodology, including a pass through cost for organic waste services. The change in billing methodology is a substantial change to the Franchise Agreement and requires additional research.
Staff met with Burrtec in March 2022 and discussed how to proceed with the cost of living as set forth in the Franchise Agreement and keep the dialogue open for the potential change in the billing methodology along with providing additional services for SB 1383 compliance. On April 22, 2022, Burrtec provided updated supporting documentation that included CPI and the weighted changes in disposal, green waste, and recycling processing costs (Attachment B) . City staff reviewed the proposed rate increase and concluded that the adjustment was consistent with previous years and as set forth in the approved Franchise Agreement . The calculations show that based on the CPI rate adjustment of 3.38% and changes in disposal and recycling costs, the total rate increase for franchise year 2022/23 is 5.16%. Due to the 5.00% cap, Burrtec is only able to request a maximum rate increase of 5.00% and the remaining .16% will be carried forward to the following year.
If the proposed rates are approved, the standard monthly residential rate of $30.50 will increase to $32.03 and the new rate will take effect July 1, 2022. The new rates will also apply to current Waste Management customers after Burrtec becomes the City’s exclusive franchise waste hauler.
City staff will work with Burrtec to implement an SB 1383 program that satisfies State requirements. This may result in an amendment to the Franchise Agreement and another rate increase to account for administration and programming costs required to comply with SB 1383 legislation. Staff will continue discussions with Burrtec and anticipates to bring these items back to the City Council for consideration later this year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
No significant financial impact. Assuming that the amount of ratepayers remains constant or grows, a modestly higher rate would generate hig her gross receipts. Since the Franchise Fee is applied to gross receipts, a slight increase in revenue can be projected.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide alternate direction to Staff.
BURRTEC
WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
"We'll Take Care Of It"
February 27, 2022
Mr. Paul Toor
Public Works Director/City Engineer
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Annual Refuse Rate Adjustment 2022
Mr. Toor,
Burrtec Waste Industries is respectfully requesting the Annual Adjustment for Residential and Commercial Refuse Collection Rates for fiscal year 2022/2023, as per Section 17.8 of the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Burrtec Waste Industries.
Attached is the proposed rate schedule based on adjustments in CPI, Disposal, Compliance and Processing following our discussions with city staff in regards to a componentized rate structure.
This new rate structure will be needed for the implementation of the City's SB 1383 program.
Upon approval by City Council, these rates will become effective July 1, 2022.
On behalf of Burrtec Waste Industries, we thank you and the City for your continued support and the opportunity to serve the residents and businesses of Jurupa Valley. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
rreguin
Vice President
CC: Mr. Rod Butler, City Manager
9890 Cherry Avenue • Fontana, California 92335 • 909-429-4200 • FAX 909-429-4290 Attachment A
Staff requested a revision to the request in March 2022.
SB 1383 rates are not reflected in Attachment B.
2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 1 Total
Rate %
Increase
7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/21 vs.
Size Freq Current Rate Proposed Rate 7/1/22
Residential Barrel Service
Trash Service (95-gal) 30.50 32.03 5.02% Trash Service (senior 65-gal) 27.05 28.40 4.99% Extra 95-gal trash barrel 6.88 7.22 4.94% Extra 95-gal recycling barrel 5.63 5.91 4.97% Extra 65-gal recycling barrel (senior) 5.63 5.91 4.97% Extra green waste barrel 95-gal 6.88 7.22 4.94% Mobile Home Park
Trash Service (95-gal) 23.09 24.25 5.02% Recycling (95-gal) - 1st barrel - - n/a Extra 95-gal trash barrel 6.88 7.22 4.94% Extra 95-gal recycling barrel 5.63 5.91 4.97% Residential Bins (trash bin & 95-gal recycling barrel)
1.5 1 93.27 97.94 5.01%
1.5 2 170.55 179.08 5.00%
1.5 3 240.53 252.55 5.00%
1.5 4 307.40 322.77 5.00%
1.5 5 374.24 392.96 5.00%
1.5 6 440.42 462.44 5.00% 2 1 99.49 104.46 5.00%
2 2 181.94 191.03 5.00%
2 3 256.59 269.42 5.00%
2 4 327.91 344.31 5.00%
2 5 399.22 419.19 5.00%
2 6 469.82 493.31 5.00%
3 1 153.42 161.09 5.00%
3 2 259.40 272.37 5.00%
4 1 171.32 179.88 5.00%
4 2 294.27 308.98 5.00%
Commercial Barrel Service (trash & recycling barrels)
95-gallon recycling barrel 48.28 50.69 4.99% 95-gallon trash barrel 48.28 50.69 4.99% Extra 95-gal trash barrel 12.92 13.57 5.03% Multi-Family / Commercial Bins
1.5 1 106.09 111.40 5.01% 2 1 115.19 120.94 4.99%
2 2 194.77 204.51 5.00%
2 3 274.25 287.96 5.00%
2 4 353.83 371.52 5.00%
2 5 433.37 455.04 5.00%
2 6 512.94 538.58 5.00%
3 1 155.72 163.50 5.00%
3 2 264.00 277.20 5.00%
3 3 372.32 390.94 5.00%
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7/1/22 RATES
2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 2 Total
Rate %
Increase
7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/21 vs.
Size Freq Current Rate Proposed Rate 7/1/22
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7/1/22 RATES
3 4 475.82 499.61 5.00%
3 5 579.29 608.26 5.00%
3 6 681.72 715.81 5.00%
4 1 174.38 183.10 5.00%
4 2 300.40 315.42 5.00%
4 3 426.48 447.80 5.00%
4 4 552.48 580.11 5.00%
4 5 678.57 712.50 5.00%
4 6 804.53 844.76 5.00%
6 1 300.39 315.41 5.00%
6 2 540.06 567.07 5.00%
6 3 771.13 809.69 5.00%
6 4 1,004.90 1,055.15 5.00%
6 5 1,241.86 1,303.95 5.00%
6 6 1,477.27 1,551.14 5.00%
Hard to Service Bins
1.5 1 141.66 148.74 5.00% 2 1 162.64 170.77 5.00%
2 2 289.57 304.05 5.00%
2 3 416.53 437.36 5.00%
2 4 543.46 570.63 5.00%
2 5 670.82 704.37 5.00%
2 6 797.36 837.23 5.00%
3 1 226.82 238.16 5.00%
3 2 406.24 426.55 5.00%
3 3 585.63 614.91 5.00%
3 4 760.37 798.38 5.00%
3 5 934.89 981.64 5.00%
3 6 1,108.39 1,163.81 5.00%
Commercial Compactor Trash Service
2 1 173.44 182.11 5.00%
2 2 311.27 326.83 5.00%
2 3 449.00 471.45 5.00%
2 4 586.81 616.15 5.00%
2 5 724.59 760.81 5.00%
2 6 862.40 905.52 5.00%
3 1 243.07 255.22 5.00%
3 2 438.76 460.70 5.00%
3 3 634.41 666.14 5.00%
3 4 825.35 866.62 5.00%
3 5 1,016.17 1,066.97 5.00%
3 6 1,205.92 1,266.22 5.00%
4 1 290.89 305.44 5.00%
4 2 533.43 560.11 5.00%
4 3 775.95 814.75 5.00%
4 4 1,018.48 1,069.40 5.00%
2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 3 Total
Rate %
Increase
7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/21 vs.
Size Freq Current Rate Proposed Rate 7/1/22
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7/1/22 RATES
4 5 1,260.97 1,324.02 5.00%
4 6 1,503.53 1,578.70 5.00%
Commingled / Multi-Family Recyclables
1.5 1 84.73 88.97 5.00% 2 1 85.13 89.39 5.00% 2 2 134.81 141.55 5.00%
2 3 184.53 193.76 5.00%
2 4 234.29 246.01 5.00%
2 5 284.05 298.25 5.00%
2 6 333.84 350.54 5.00%
3 1 110.57 116.09 4.99%
3 2 174.37 183.09 5.00%
3 3 238.19 250.10 5.00%
3 4 297.20 312.06 5.00%
3 5 356.19 373.99 5.00%
3 6 414.23 434.94 5.00%
6 1 210.31 220.83 5.00%
6 2 360.61 378.64 5.00%
6 3 502.47 527.60 5.00%
6 4 647.02 679.37 5.00%
6 5 794.70 834.43 5.00%
6 6 940.83 987.87 5.00%
Cardboard Compactor
6 1 231.09 242.64 5.00%
6 2 392.28 411.89 5.00%
6 3 543.55 570.73 5.00%
6 4 698.05 732.96 5.00%
6 5 856.13 898.94 5.00%
6 6 1,012.42 1,063.04 5.00%
Green Waste Bin Service
3 1 159.79 167.78 5.00%
3 2 272.74 286.37 5.00%
3 3 385.72 405.00 5.00%
3 4 494.01 518.71 5.00%
3 5 602.14 632.25 5.00%
3 6 709.37 744.84 5.00%
35 Gal 1 n/a 40.74 n/a
35 Gal 2 n/a 65.58 n/a
35 Gal 3 n/a 85.77 n/a
35 Gal 4 n/a 106.37 n/a
35 Gal 5 n/a 135.92 n/a
35 Gal 6 n/a 146.96 n/a
65 Gal 1 n/a 43.14 n/a
2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 4 Total
Rate %
Increase
7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/21 vs.
Size Freq Current Rate Proposed Rate 7/1/22
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7/1/22 RATES
65 Gal 2 n/a 70.28 n/a
65 Gal 3 n/a 92.77 n/a
65 Gal 4 n/a 115.67 n/a
65 Gal 5 n/a 147.52 n/a
65 Gal 6 n/a 160.86 n/a
Food Waste Recycling
35-gal 1 n/a 61.37 n/a
35-gal 2 n/a 106.83 n/a
35-gal 3 n/a 147.65 n/a
35-gal 4 n/a 188.87 n/a
35-gal 5 n/a 239.04 n/a
35-gal 6 n/a 270.71 n/a
60-gal 1 76.12 79.93 5.01% 60-gal 2 137.97 144.87 5.00% 60-gal 3 195.66 205.44 5.00% 60-gal 4 253.75 266.44 5.00% 60-gal 5 319.76 335.75 5.00% 60-gal 6 369.30 387.76 5.00% 2 1 252.12 264.73 5.00%
2 2 454.02 476.72 5.00%
2 3 640.19 672.20 5.00%
2 4 827.79 869.18 5.00%
2 5 1,045.53 1,097.81 5.00%
2 6 1,200.77 1,260.81 5.00%
Pull Out Service (per bin, per service)
Feet
0-25 N/C N/C n/a
26-50 14.08 14.78 4.97% 51-75 21.12 22.18 5.02% 76-100 28.15 29.56 5.01% Scout Service (per 1/2 hour, per bin, per service) 77.92 81.82 5.01% (required for over 100 feet)
Roll-Offs (Trash)
10 yd demo box (8 tons) 754.48 792.20 5.00% 20 yd box (6 tons) 652.71 685.35 5.00% 40 yd box (6 tons) 652.71 685.35 5.00% 40 yd compactor (8 ton) 803.71 843.89 5.00% Trip/Relocate 95.24 100.00 5.00% Steam clean (compactor box) 199.35 209.32 5.00% Roll-Offs (Recycling) + applicable disposal fee
10 yd 274.76 288.50 5.00% 2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 5 Total
Rate %
Increase
7/1/21 7/1/22 7/1/21 vs.
Size Freq Current Rate Proposed Rate 7/1/22
ATTACHMENT B
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. - 7/1/22 RATES
20 yd 274.76 288.50 5.00% 40 yd 274.76 288.50 5.00% 40 yd compactor 312.67 328.31 5.00% 40 yd-Flatbed for Del Real Foods + disposal fee 324.20 340.41 5.00% Tilthopper for Del Real Foods 49.46 51.93 4.99% Flat Bed (53' cardboard) 364.60 382.83 5.00% 53 ft. trailer 364.60 382.83 5.00% Trailer offload rate - destroys 121.90 128.00 5.00% Trailer offload rate - recycling 91.42 95.99 5.00% Liner for Rolloff 121.90 128.00 5.00% 40 cy w/ retractable lid 264.71 277.95 5.00% Miscellaneous Services
Bulky Item (per item) - residential 26.14 27.45 5.01% Bulky Item (1st Item) - commercial 44.90 47.15 5.01% Bulky Item (ea addl item) - commercial 26.95 28.29 4.97% Delinquent/late fee - per month 1.5% 1.5%
Electronic waste (per item) 39.80 41.79 5.00% Extra pick-up (barrel) 17.30 18.16 4.97% Extra pick-up (bin) 50.34 52.86 5.01% Extra pick-up (compactor bin) 108.28 113.70 5.01% Extra pick-up (food waste bbl) 22.84 23.98 4.99% Extra pick-up (food waste bin) 75.63 79.41 5.00% Barrel Exchange (first exchange free) 18.22 19.13 4.99% charge does not apply to graffiti or damaged barrels
Barrel Replacement 78.50 82.43 5.01% resdl-customer damaged; comml-lost or stolen
Bin Exchange (first exchange free)
91.12 95.68 5.00%
charge does not apply to graffiti or damaged bins
Bin Replacement + actual cost of bin
100.93 105.98 5.00%
comml-lost or stolen
Certificates of Destruction:
Taken to Burrtec MRF - per Load
128.00 134.40 5.00%
Taken to Riverside County Landfills (per ton) 67.87 71.27 5.01% Lock rental (monthly) 18.21 19.12 5.00% Steam Cleaning 46.42 48.74 5.00% Temporary Bins - 3 yd 7 day 115.91 121.71 5.00% Temporary Bins Dump & Return 97.88 102.77 5.00% Rental Fee (perm roll-off box 4 load min) 254.80 267.50 4.98% Rental Fee (temp roll-off box per day) 36.40 38.22 5.00% Recycling contamination-Bins 46.62 48.96 5.02% Recycling contamination-Barrels 17.12 17.97 4.96% Tilthopper 41.92 44.01 4.99% 2022 Jurupa Valley Commercial Rates 4-22-2022 Weighted Index City File 1 Weighted Index Jurupa Valley Comml
Calculation Based on CPI + Proportional Disposal, Green Waste, & Recycling Cost Changes.
Burrtec
Burrtec Disposal and Green Waste Disposal GW Total % Disposal % GW % of 35 Dis % of 35 GWSum Disposal 2011/2012 245.31 70.81 316.12 77.60% 22.40% 27.16% 7.84% 35.00% (1) 2022 Rate 246.18 pounds/home/month at $59.95/ton 2012/2013 242.88 67.86 310.74 78.16% 21.84% 27.36% 7.64% 35.00% 2021 Rate 264.64 pounds/home/month at $55.00/ton 2013/2014 241.89 66.99 308.88 78.31% 21.69% 27.41% 7.59% 35.00% 2020 Rate 241.06 pounds/home/month at $52.81/ton 2014/2015 235.39 66.13 301.52 78.07% 21.93% 27.32% 7.68% 35.00% 2019 Rate 222.13 pounds/home/month at $50.29/ton 2016/2017 219.79 111.45 331.24 66.35% 33.65% 23.22% 11.78% 35.00% 2018 Rate 223.30 pounds/home/month at $48.80/ton 2017/2018 223.30 125.06 348.36 64.10% 35.90% 22.44% 12.56% 35.00% 2017 Rate 219.79 pounds/home/month at $43.63/ton 2018/2019 222.13 116.18 338.30 65.66% 34.34% 22.98% 12.02% 35.00% 2015 Rate 235.39 pounds/home/month at $41.94/ton 2019/2020 241.06 123.24 364.30 66.17% 33.83% 23.16% 11.84% 35.00% 2014 Rate 241.89 pounds/home/month at $41.64/ton 2020/2021 264.64 138.02 402.66 65.72% 34.28% 23.00% 12.00% 35.00% 2013 Rate 242.88 pounds/home/month at $41.17/ton 2021/2022 246.18 123.63 369.81 66.57% 33.43% 23.30% 11.70% 35.00% 2012 Rate 245.31 pounds/home/month at $39.96/ton Note: tonnages provided by Burrtec Green Waste
(2) 2022 Rate 123.63 pounds/home/month at $57.29/ton 2021 Rate 138.02 pounds/home/month at $52.76/ton
2020 Rate 123.24 pounds/home/month at $51.60/ton
2019 Rate 116.18 pounds/home/month at $50.08/ton
2018 Rate 125.06 pounds/home/month at $48.60/ton
2017 Rate 111.45 pounds/home/month at $40.47/ton
2015 Rate 66.13 pounds/home/month at $38.90/ton
2014 Rate 66.99 pounds/home/month at $38.62/ton
2013 Rate 67.86 pounds/home/month at $38.18/ton
2012 Rate 70.81 pounds/home/month at $37.46/ton
Current (updated to include Recycling Costs for 7/1/20):
Service Disposal
Green
Waste Recycling Total Service Disposal
Green
Waste Recycling Total
1/1/2021
Increase
Max Rate
7/1/20
Index Change % Gate Change % Gate Change % Proc. Cost Change % 2017/2018 256.210 6.964 2.79% 48.80$ 5.17$ 11.85% 48.60$ 8.13$ 20.09% 1.88$ (2.68)$ -58.71% 63.0% 26.6% 10.0% 0.5% 100.0% 1.76% 3.15% 2.00% -0.29% 6.63% 2018/2019 265.962 9.752 3.81% 50.29$ 1.49$ 3.05% 50.08$ 1.48$ 3.05% 32.96$ 31.08$ 1650.66% 56.9% 29.6% 13.3% 0.2% 100.0% 2.17% 0.90% 0.41% 3.63% 7.11% 2019/2020 274.114 8.152 3.07% 52.81$ 2.52$ 5.01% 51.60$ 1.52$ 3.04% 64.49$ 31.53$ 95.64% 53.8% 29.8% 12.6% 3.9% 100.0% 1.65% 1.49% 0.38% 3.69% 7.21% 2.21% 5.00% 2020/2021 278.567 4.453 1.62% 55.00$ 2.19$ 4.15% 52.76$ 1.16$ 2.25% 63.29$ (1.20)$ -1.86% 47.1% 32.2% 13.2% 7.5% 100.0% 0.77% 1.34% 0.30% -0.14% 2.26% 1.05% 3.31% 2021/2022 289.244 10.677 3.83% 59.95$ 4.95$ 9.00% 57.29$ 4.53$ 8.59% 56.31$ (6.98)$ -11.03% 43.3% 34.7% 14.3% 7.7% 100.0% 1.66% 3.13% 1.23% -0.85% 5.16% 5.00% From Resdl Rate worksheet:
Used for 2022 Index Used for 2021 Index Used for 2020 Index Used for 2019 Index Used for 2018 Index Components 2021 Rate 2020 Rate 2019 Rate 2018 Rate 2017 Rate Refuse 8.98$ 34.7% 7.89$ 32.2% 6.95$ 29.8% 6.81$ 29.6% 6.04$ 26.6% Recycling 1.99$ 7.7% 1.85$ 7.5% 0.90$ 3.9% 0.05$ 0.2% 0.11$ 0.5% Greenwaste 3.70$ 14.3% 3.22$ 13.2% 2.94$ 12.6% 3.07$ 13.3% 2.27$ 10.0% Total Disposal* 14.67$ 56.7% 12.96$ 52.9% 10.79$ 46.3% 9.92$ 43.1% 8.42$ 37.1% Service Fee 11.18$ 43.3% 11.55$ 47.1% 12.55$ 53.8% 13.12$ 56.9% 14.30$ 62.9% Franchise Fee 4.65$ 15.25% 4.41$ 15.25% 4.20$ 15.3% 3.44$ 13.0% 2.74$ 10.8% Rate 30.50$ 100.0% 28.92$ 100.0% 27.54$ 100.0% 26.48$ 100.0% 25.46$ 100.0% Total Disp & Servic 25.85$ 24.51$ 23.34$ 23.04$ 22.72$ Indices Weighting Weighted Index
CPI Disposal Rate Green Waste Recycling
Series Id:
Series
Title:
Area:
Item:
Base
Period:
Years:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual HALF1 HALF2 annual increase 2020 277.755 278.657 276.589 275.853 276.842 278.121 279.899 280.116 279.366 279.947 280.102 279.560 278.567 277.303 279.832 1.62% 2021 280.178 281.347 282.648 285.808 287.620 289.218 290.890 291.333 292.209 294.961 296.790 297.925 289.244 284.470 294.018 3.83% Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA
CPI-All Urban Consumers (Current Series)
Original Data Value
CPI for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U)
Original Data Value
All items
1982-84=100
2009 to 2021
CUURS49ASA0
Not Seasonally Adjusted
All items in Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, CA, all
urban consumers, not seasonally adjusted
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 19, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.C
INITIATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN
COMMUNITY SAFETY, SERVICES, AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
TO MEET STATE LAW
______________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Initiate an amendment to the General Plan Community Safety, Services , and Facilities Element to meet state law.
BACKGROUND
State law requires that each local jurisdiction adopt a General Plan to outline a comprehensive long -term plan for the physical development of the county or city.
California Government Code section 65302 requires g eneral plans to include seven mandatory elements including Land Use, Open Space, Conservation, Housing, Circulation, Noise, and Safety. Cities and counties with identified disadvantaged communities must also address environmental justice in their general plans, including air quality, either through a standalone element or through policies throughout the document.
General plans may also contain other optional elements based on the issues and characteristics of the jurisdiction.
The City of Jurupa Valley adopted its first General Plan on September 7, 2017. The Jurupa Valley General Plan addresses the seven required elements and four optional elements including the Air Quality, Environmental Justice, Healthy Communities and Economic Sustainability Elements. One of the required elements, the Housing Element, is unique in that it must be updated every eight years and must be reviewed and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The Jurupa Valley City Council approved the 6th Cycle Housing Element for the 2021-2029 planning period on December 2, 2021. The Housing Element was subsequently certified by HCD
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
on April 21, 2022 as being in full compliance with State Housing Element law (Attachment 1).
In the Jurupa Valley General Plan, the Safety E lement is contained within Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element and addresses the protection of life and property from natural and man-made hazards. Two recent State laws require that the Element be updated “upon the next revision of the Housing Element” to address specific issue areas.
Specifically, new S tate legislation requires that cities include additional goals, policies, objectives, and feasible implementation measur es to address wildfires, flooding, and climate change. Thus, initiation of a n amendment to the Jurupa Valley General Plan is required to enable the Community Development Department to evaluate the issues and bring forward a recommendation for consideration at future Planning Commission and City Council public hearings.
ANALYSIS
Section 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires that any request for a General Plan Amendment be ‘initiated’ by the City Council. Initiation does not entail an evaluation of the merits of the proposed amendment, but only whether or not to proceed with a formal evaluation process and public hearings. If initiated, the Community Development Department will proceed with an evaluation of the issues . Th is will also include an assessment of any potential environmental effects of the actions per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Section 65302( g)(5) of the California Government Code was amended to include additional requirements for the Safety Element upon revisions to the Housing Element.
Additional information is required for cities like Jurupa Valley with Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. In addition, the element must address climate adaptation and resiliency strategies applicable to the jurisdiction. If initiated, the Community Development Department will evaluate these issues and prepare a proposed amendment to the Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element in compliance with State law. The Department will also coordinate closely with CalFire Southern Region Riverside to ensure the document meets Cal Fire’s requirements; and the Element is required to be submitted to the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection for review and approval. It is anticipated that we will bring forward a recommended amendment to the Planning Commission and City Council in the summer of 2022.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Costs associated with research, analysis and adoption of the General Plan amendment will be covered by the Community Development Department budget.
Attachment 1
HCD Letter Dated 4-21-22
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 21, 2022 *****corrected*****
Rod Butler, City Manager
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA
92509
Dear Rod Butler:
RE: City of Jurupa Valley’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element
Thank you for submitting the City of Jurupa Valley housing element adopted December 2, 2021 and received for review on February 22, 2022, including minor revisions authorized by Resolution 2021-99. Revisions were posted to the City’s website on April 13, 2022 and received on April 20, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review.
HCD is pleased to find the adopted housing element in full compliance with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code). The adopted element, including minor revisions, addresses the statutory requirements described in HCD’s July 26, 2021 review.
Additionally, the City must continue timely and effective implementation of all programs including but not limited to the following:
• HE 1.1.1. (General Plan and Zoning Amendments)
• HE 1.1.4 (Affordable Housing Incentives)
• HE 1.1.7 (Accessory Dwelling Units)
• HE 2.1.4 (Affordable Homes Conservation)
• HE 6.1.1 (AFFH Actions)
The City must monitor and report on the results of this and other programs through the annual progress report, required pursuant to Government Code section 65400.
Please be aware, Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i) grants HCD authority to review any action or failure to act by a local government that it determines is inconsistent with an adopted housing element or housing element law. This includes failure to implement program actions included in the housing element. HCD
Rod Butler, City
Manager Page 2
may revoke housing element compliance if the local government’s actions do not comply with state law.
Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.
HCD appreciates the hard work, cooperation and responsiveness the City’s housing element team provided throughout the housing element review. HCD wishes the City success in implementing its housing element and looks forward to following its progress through the General Plan annual progress reports pursuant to Government Code section 65400. If HCD can provide assistance in implementing the housing element, please contact Gianna Marasovich, of our staff, at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Paul McDougall
Senior Program Manager