Page - 1 -
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, August 4, 2022
Regular Meeting: 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
1. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
2. INVOCATION
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
A. As a courtesy to those in attendance, we ask that cell phones be turned off or set to their silent mode and that you keep talking to a minimum so that all persons can hear the comments of the public and City Council.
B. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Comments must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. Each agenda item up will be open for public comments before taking action. Public comments on subjects that are not on the agenda can be made during the “Public Appearance/Comments” portion of the agenda.
C. If the Meeting is conducted via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), the public may submit comments to the City Council via em ail or via telephone prior to the Mayor calling the item. Email comment shall be sent to:
[email protected]. Telephone comments may be made by calling (951) 332 - 6464, Ext. 140. Email and telephone comments are subject to the same rules as in-person comments.
D. Members of the public who wish to comment on the CONSENT CALENDAR may do so during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda prior to the adoption of the Consent Calendar.
E. As a courtesy to others, and to assure that each person wishing to be heard has an opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
Page - 2 -
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES -
INTRODUCTION OF “PET OF THE MONTH”
6. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
7. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
8. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. UPDATE ON THE INTERAGENCY COORDINATING COUNCIL
MEETING OF JULY 22, 2022
2. UPDATE ON THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF
AUGUST 1, 2022
B. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. UPDATE ON THE METROLINK / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY MEETING OF JULY 22, 2022
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
10. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JULY 21, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects other than those listed on the Agenda are requested to do so at this time. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Appearance/Comments OR the Consent Calendar must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. When addressing the City Council, please come to the podium and state your name and ad dress for the record. While listing your name and address is not required, it helps us to provide follow -up information to you if needed. In order to conduct a timely meeting, we ask that you keep your comments to 3 minutes. Government Code Section 5495 4.2 prohibits the City Council from taking action on a specific item until it appears on an agenda.
Page - 3 -
11. CONSENT CALENDAR (COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA TAKEN HERE) (All matters on the Consent Calendar are to be approved in one motion unless a Councilmember requests a separate action on a specific item on the Consent Calendar. If an item is removed from the Consent Calendar, it will be discussed individually and acted upon separately.)
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED IN
THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the re ading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
B. CONSIDERATION OF CHECK REGISTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$7,284,519.51
Requested Action: That the City Council ratify the check registers dated June 30 and July 7, 14, 20, and 21, 2022; as well as the payroll registers dated June 30 and July 8 and 22, 2022.
C. ACCEPTANCE OF THE FEDERAL AWARDS REPORT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE (SINGLE AUDIT
REPORT)
Requested Action: That the City Council receive and file the federal awards report audited by the City’s Independent Auditors, Eide Bailly (CPAs).
D. APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH REACH OUT FOR FY 2022 -23
FUNDING
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Reach Out Agreement for FY 2022/23 funding in the amount of $30,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
E. APPROVAL OF THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE JURUPA
VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INCLUDING THE COVID
RELIEF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the annua l agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce for an amount not to exceed $25,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
Page - 4 -
F. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND MARK THOMAS, INC. FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES FOR THE BRIDGE
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
1. Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for grant writing services for the Bridge Investment Program and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
2. Authorize staff to submit the grant application for the Market Street Bridge project.
G. APPROVAL OF PURCHASE OF TWO TOYOTA RAV4 VEHICLES
FROM CROWN TOYOTA
1. Requested Action: That the City Council appr ove the purchase of two Toyota RAV4 vehicles, utilizing funding from the Assembly Bill 2766 ("AB 2766") Program ("Program") of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, (“SCAQMD”), included in FY 2022-23 Budget; and
2. That the City Council approve re-appropriation of funds within the Public Works Department from the JVOC facility funds for the purchase of a 2021 Toyota RAV4 LE for the cost of $36,725.
12. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
13. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER (1) AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 9.267 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT; (2) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING AND IN -LIEU FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION
ESTABLISHING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES; AND (3) A
RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 9.267 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING) OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY M UNICIPAL CODE (CONTINUED FROM THE
JULY 21, 2022 MEETING)
1. Requested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and receive any public testimony; and
Page - 5 -
2. That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-14, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.267 TO TITLE 9 OF THE
JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE AND MAKING
FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND
3. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-93, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING AND IN -LIEU FEE STUDY AND
RECOMMENDATION ESTABLIS HING INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING FEES; AND
4. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-94, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.267 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING)
OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CO NSIDER MASTER APPLICATION ( MA) NO. 21347: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21013; CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) NO. 21015; AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 266; SITE DEVELOPMENT PER MIT (SDP) NO. 21115; AND SETBACK
ADJUSTMENT (SBA) NO. 21003; PROJECT: “VERNOLA
MARKETPLACE APARTMENT COMMUNITY” (PHASE B) - DEVELOP
8.34 ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO 208 -UNIT APARTMENT
COMMUNITY; LOCATED S OUTH OF VERNOLA MARK ETPLACE
SHOPPING CENTER, EAS T OF I -15 FREEWAY AN D WEST OF P ATS RANCH ROAD AT THE IN TERSECTION OF 65TH S TREET (APN: 152 - 640-005 AND 006); (APPLICANT: ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST U/T/D)
1. Requested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and receive any public testimony; and
2. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-95, entitled:
Page - 6 -
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING
AND REPORTING PROGR AM, AND APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21013, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO
SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 266, SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO. 21003,
AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21115 TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 208 -UNIT APARTMENT COMMUNITY ON
APPROXIMATELY 8.34 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
SOUTH OF VERNOLA MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER,
EAST OF I-15 FREEWAY AND WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD AT
THE INTERSECTION OF 65TH STREET (APNS: 152 -640-005, -
006); AND
3. That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022-15, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGING THE
ZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 8.34-ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15) AND
THE WEST SIDE OF PATS RANCH ROAD AT THE
INTERSECTION OF 65TH STREET ; (APN: 152-640-005 AND 006);
FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK (I -P) TO GENERAL RESIDENTIAL
(R-3), AND MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
14. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. REVIEW AND AWARD OF 2022-23 COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANTS
Requested Action: That the City Council review the Community Service Grant (CSG) Committee funding recommendation for the 2022 -2023 CSG program, award funding to the 11 highest -ranking proposals and appropriate an additional $15,000 toward the program from the General Fund undesignated fund balance.
15. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
16. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
17. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of August 18, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
Page - 7 -
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council or other services, please contact Jurupa Valley City Hall at (951) 332 -6464. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or time when services are needed will assist staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Agendas of public meetings and any other writings distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the City Council are public records. If such writing is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a public meeting, the writing will be made available for public inspection at the City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members. The City Council may also post the writing on its Internet website at www.jurupavalley.org.
Agendas and Minutes are posted on the City’s website at www.jurupavalley.org.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.A
-1-
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
July 21, 2022
1. 6:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR CLOSED SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the closed session meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano was absent.
2. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
There were no public comments regarding the closed session items.
B. CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The City Council met in closed session pursuant to Governme nt Code Sections 54957 and 54957.6 to evaluate the performance of the City Manager and establish goals and performance objectives for the next year as required by the City Manager’s Employment Agreement.
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – INITIATION OF
LITIGATION. The City Council met in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4) with respect to one matter of potential litigation. A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the City Attorney, based on exis ting facts and circumstances, there is a significant exposure to litigation involving the City and the City Council will decide whether to initiate litigation.
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS I N CLOSED
SESSION
City Attorney Peter Thorson announced that there were no reportable actions taken.
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
4. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Leslie Altamirano, Mayor Pro Tem
● Lorena Barajas Bisbee, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Guillermo Silva, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the regular meeting to order at 7:23 p.m.
5. INVOCATION was led by Imam Shaw from the Islamic Center of Jurupa Valley.
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was given by Vicki Wasko.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee , seconded by Council Member Guillermo Silva, to approve the Agenda.
Roll Call:
Ayes: C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano
8. PRESENTATIONS
9. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
The City Clerk read a letter from an anonymous speaker voicing a concern that the proposed Local Roadway Safety Plan does not include bicycle safety nor does it mention separated and protected bike lanes.
The City Clerk read a letter from Patricia Vargas asking the Council to stop rezoning the City to appease developers and to stop the Hudson project. She would like to keep her country lifestyle and her current way of life.
The City Clerk read a letter from Historic Mira Loma asking that they reject the Hudson Project. The developer has multiple projects in the City and he has built a retaining wall that is now negatively impacting a resident by causing flooding to her home. At this time, the developer has ignored her pleas for help.
Pamela Blynn voiced a concern that there are not enough road improvements for the added housing developments that are being planned. Additionally, there are no public transportation services in the Sunnyslope are a. She suggested that the Council consider additional traffic measures to control speeding on Sierra Avenue. She encouraged the Council to provide public comments so that citizens know what is going on in their city.
-3-
Renae Rock spoke in support of Vicki Goedert who is dealing with flooding issues as a result of the Hobbs development. She asked that the Council stop this project. She noted that the Mira Loma residents have voiced their desire to keep their animal keeping lifestyle. She encouraged the Council to take a drive over there and see it for themselves.
Roberto Ramirez asked the Council to stop the medium high density projects in the community as the people moving here will eventually complain about the equestrian and animal keeping lifestyle that current residents enjoy.
10. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no Council comments.
11. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Western Riverside Council of Governments Executive Committee meeting of July 11, 2022.
2. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Western Riverside Council of governments – administration & finance committee meeting of July 13, 2022.
3. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Western Community Energy Board of Directors & Technical Advisory Committee meeting of July 13, 2022.
B. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Metrolink / Southern California Regional Rail Authority – Audit and Finance Committee meeting of July 8, 2022.
2. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside County Transportation Commission meeting of July 13, 2022.
3. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the N orthwest Transportation Now Coalition meeting of July 14, 2022.
-4-
C. COUNCIL MEMBER GUILLERMO SILVA
1. Council Member Guillermo Silva gave an update on the Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District meeting of July 21, 2022.
Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano arrived at 7:50 p.m.
12. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Rod Butler reported that this month marks the two-year anniversary of the partnership with the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District to jointly operate the Eddie Dee Smith Senior Center. He noted that this successful p artnership has allowed the City to increase the level of services that will involve future community services as well.
13. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT UPDATE
Lieutenant Jason Sexton introduced Corporal Heath Noyes and his K9 partner, Hyde.
Corporal Noyes has been serving the Jurupa Valley community since 2004. He is being promoted to the rank of Sergeant and will be transferred to the Moreno Valley station.
Corporal Noyes introduced Hyde to the Council, stating that it has been an honor to serve the Jurupa Valley community as partners since 2016. Mayor Chris Barajas presented Corporal Hyde with a Recognition Certificate thanking him for his dedicated service. He presented Hyde with a dog bone in recognition of his upcoming retirement. Corporal Hyde announced that after Hyde retires he will remain with him and his family.
14. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JULY 7, 2022 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee , to approve the Minutes of the July 7, 2022 regular meeting.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
15. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS INCLUDED IN
THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda.
-5-
B. REAFFIRM FINDINGS AUTHORIZING CITY COUNCIL TO MEET IN
WHOLE OR IN PART BY TELECONFERENCING UNDER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(E) DURING THE COVID -19
STATE AND LOCAL EMERGENCY
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022 -88, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE
CITY COUNCIL TO BE HELD WITH A TELECONFERENCE OPTION
FOR MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC DUE TO
THE GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY AND THE CITY
COUNCIL’S DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT
TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e), AND MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE SAME
C. BIENNIAL REVIEW OF THE CITY OF JURUPA V ALLEY’S CONFLICT
OF INTEREST CODE
Requested Action: Direct the City Manager to initiate the 2022 Biennial Review of the City ’s Conflict of Interest Code to determine if there is a need to amend the Code.
D. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-12
Requested Action: That the City C ouncil conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-12, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL
CODE CONCERNING THE W -1 ZONE (WATERCOURSE,
WATERSHED AND CONSERVATION AREAS) AND PERMITTED USES
WITHIN THE W -1 ZONE, AND FINDING AN EXEMPTION FROM
CEQA UNDER SECTION 15601 (B) (3) OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
E. ORDINANCE NO. 2022-13
Requested Action: That the City C ouncil conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2022-13, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL O F THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ADDING SECTION 2.37 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC WORKS ADIVSORY
COMMITTEE
-6-
F. APPROVAL OF COOPE RATIVE AGREEMENT BET WEEN THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY, CE NTURY COMMUNITIES OF CALIFORNIA
LLC, AND THE RIV ERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND
WATER CONSERVATION D ISTRICT FOR CONSTRUC TION AND
MAINTENANCE OF BELLT OWN 30 TH STREET STORM DRAINS
STAGE 1 GENERALLY LO CATED ALONG AVALON S TREET, CANAL
STREET, CANAL STREET EXTENSION, AND 30TH STREET
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the cooperative agreement with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (District) and Century Communities of California LLC, (Developer) and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
G. AGREEMENT FOR C ONSULTING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY AND KILEY AND ASSOCIATES FOR FEDERAL
LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY SERVICES
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Kiley and Associates for Federa l Legislative Advocacy Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
H. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND EXP
U.S. SERVICE S, INC. FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES FOR
PACIFIC AVENUE PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE IMPROVEMENTS,
CIP NO. 19106
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and EXP U.S. Services, Inc. for engineering design services for Pacific Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, CIP No. 19106, and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
I. APPROVAL OF FIN AL TRACT MAP 37893 LOCATED ON THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND AGATE
STREET INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION,
APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS, AND ACCEPTANCE OF
IMPROVEMENT BONDS (GDC-RCH MONTECITO, LP, A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP)
1. Requested Action: That the City Council approve Tract Map 37893 and accept the dedications as follows:
-7-
a. Accept the real property described as an easement for street and public utility purposes over all of Lot “D”, inclusive as shown on Tract Map 37893.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign Tract Map 37893; and
3. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreements; and
4. Accept the surety bonds for construction of related off -site improvements and survey monumentation.
J. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTI ON APPROVING THE LOC AL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN AND FINDING THIS ACTION EXEMPT FROM CEQA
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-68, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, APPROVING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND
FINDING THE PLAN IN CONFORMANCE WITH CIT Y OF JURUPA
VALLEY GENERAL PLAN AND FINDING THIS ACT ION EXEMPT
FROM CEQA UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15262
K. AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E CITY OF JURUPA VAL LEY AND RHA LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS, IN C. FOR ON -CALL LANDS CAPE
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES; AND
AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E CITY OF JURUPA VAL LEY AND VAN
DYKE LANDSCAPE ARCHI TECTS, INC. FOR ON -CALL LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES
1. Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and RHA Landscape Architects, Inc. for On-Call Landscape Architectural Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
2. Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Van Dyke Landscape Architects, Inc. for On-Call Landscape Architectural Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
-8-
L. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND MCE
CORPORATION FOR SPECIAL DISTRICT LANDSCAPING SERVICES
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and MCE Corporation for Special District Landscaping Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
M. APPROVAL OF FINAL TRACT MAP 37 052 LOCATED ON THE
NORTHWEST QUADRANT OF 60 TH STREET AND HUDSON STREET
INCLUDING ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION,
APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION AGREEMENTS, AND ACCEPTANCE OF
IMPROVEMENT BONDS (GDC -RCH HUDSON, LP, A DELAWARE
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
1. Requested Action: That the City Council approve Tract Map 37052 and accept the dedications as follows:
a. Accept the real property described as an easement for and public over all of Lots “A” through “E”, inclusive as shown on Tract Map 37052.
2. Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign Tract Map 37052; and
3. Approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute the Subdivision Agreements; and
4. Accept the surety bonds for construction of related off -site improvements and survey monumentation.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Council Member Brian Berkson, to approve the Consent Calendar.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
16. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 9.267 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE; A RESOLUTION ADOPTING
THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND IN -LIEU FEE STUDY AND
-9-
RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
FEES; AND A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING FEE
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing and called for any public comments.
The City Clerk read a letter from Masaki Mendoza asking that the Council revise the Zoning Code to allow higher density. This would provide more housing choices which are more affordable and could allow future generations to live in Jurupa Valley.
Ezra Ausy stated that there will always be a homeless crisis but w hen cities keep zoning for homes and not for apartments or inclusionary housing, the homeless crisis cannot be solved. She suggested that the Council consider higher density homes which will also contribute to the local economy.
Tom Elder stated that residents do not want high density housing. He encouraged those who want to live in apartments or high density housing to move elsewhere.
Roberto Ramirez stated that he has lived in Jurupa Valley for 24 years and he does not appreciate the comments from the youth who want to change the community by advocating for high density housing.
Kady Dong stated that children are the future and they will make their own decisions about housing. She suggested that there are issues such as homelessness and low -income residents who cannot afford housing. She stated that there needs to be some sacrifices and compromises.
Renae Rock stated that there are sufficient numbers of apartments just west of the I-15 freeway. What most of the Mira Loma residents want is mo re equestrian and animal keeping properties. The homes being built now are not compatible with the community.
At the request of City staff, the public hearing was continued to the August 4, 2022 meeting.
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
B. PUBLIC HEARING TO CO NSIDER A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
THE DELINQUENT ACCOU NTS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICES AND LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
COLLECTION AGAINST C ERTAIN PARCELS OF PR OPERTY
-10-
SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY IN THE BURRTEC SOLID WASTE
INDUSTRIES, INC. SERVICE AREA
Staff Report presented by Andrea Mejia, Senior Management Analyst.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing and called for any public comments.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Council Member Brian Berkson , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano , to approve the report for delinquent comprehensive waste collection service payments to Burrtec Solid Waste Industries, Inc. and assess the cost thereof as a special assessment and lien against those certain properties in the City; and adopt Resolution No. 2022 - 89, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DELINQUENT
ACCOUNTS FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES PROVIDED BY BURRTEC
SOLID WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. AND ORDERING THAT THE
DELINQUENT CHARGES SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND
AND ARE LIENS ON SAID LANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE
RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
C. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING
THE DELINQUENT ACCOUNTS FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICES AND LEVYING SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS FOR
COLLECTION AGAINST CERTAIN PARCELS OF PROPERTY
SITUATED WITHIN THE CITY IN THE USA WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. SERVICE AREA
Staff Report presented by Andrea Mejia, Senior Management Analyst.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public heari ng and called for any public comments.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee , to a pprove the report for delinquent comprehens ive waste collection service payments to USA Waste
-11-
of California and assess the cost thereof as a special assessment and lien against those certain properties in the City; and adopt Resolution No. 2022 - 90, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE DELINQUENT
ACCOUNTS FOR SOLID WASTE SERVICES PROVIDED BY USA
WASTE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. AND ORDERING THAT THE
DELINQUENT CHARGES SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL
ASSESSMENTS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND
AND ARE LIENS ON SAID LANDS IN THE AMOUNT OF THE
RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
D. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ZONE FF) TO THE CIT Y OF JURUPA VALLEY L ANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89 -1-CONSOLIDATED
(THE “DISTRICT”) AND THE LEVY AND COLLEC TION OF
ASSESSMENTS WITHIN S UCH TERRITORY; LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND AGATE STREET
INTERSECTION
Staff Report presented by Paul Toor, Director of Public Works.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing and called for any public comments.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
At the request of the mayor, the City Clerk reported that one owner cast one ballot. All votes cast were in favor of the special assessment.
A motion was made by Council Member Lorena Barajas Bisbee, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano, to adopt Resolution No. 2022 -91, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXAT ION OF
TERRITORY (ZONE FF); LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND AGATE STREET TO CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANC E DISTRICT
NO. 89 -1-CONSOLIDATED, CONFIRMING A DIAG RAM AND
ASSESSMENT, ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AN D THE LEVY
-12-
AND COLLECTION OF A SSESSMENTS WITHIN SU CH TERRITORY
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023 -24 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF
PART 2 OF DIVISION 1 5 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND
HIGHWAYS CODE AND AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE XIII D OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
E. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY (ZONE W) TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LANDSCAPE AND
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89 -1-CONSOLIDATED
(“CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY L&LMD 89 -1-C”), WEST OF HUDSON STREET BETWEEN 59TH AND 60TH STREET
Staff Report presented by Paul Toor, Director of Public Works.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing and called for any public comments.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
At the request of the mayor, the City Clerk r eported that one owner cast one ballot. All votes cast were in favor of the special assessment.
A motion was made by Council Member Guillermo Silva , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano , to adopt Resolution No. 2022 -92, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF
TERRITORY (ZONE W ); LOCATED WEST OF HUDSON STREET
BETWEEN 59TH AND 60TH STREET TO CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89 -1-
CONSOLIDATED, CONFIRMING A DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENT,
ORDERING THE IMPROVEMENTS AND THE LEVY AND
COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS WITHIN SUCH TERRITORY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2023 -24 PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF PART 2 OF DIVISION 15 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS
CODE AND AS PROVIDED BY ARTICLE XIII D OF THE CALIFORNIA
CONSTITUTION
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, L. Barajas Bisbee, B. Berkson, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
-13-
18. COUNCIL BUSINESS
19. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Peter Thorson had no report.
20. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Leslie Altamirano encouraged residents who have questions or concerns to contact the City Council through their email as the Council is always available to receive public input and are willing to set up a meeting to listen to their constituent’s concerns.
21. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas adjourned the meeting at 8:39 p.m.
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held August 4, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: CONNIE CARDENAS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.B
CHE
CK REGISTERS
RECO
MMENDATION
That
the City Council ratify the check registers dated June 30 and July 7, 14, 20, and 21, 2022; as well as the payroll registers dated June 30 and July 8 and 22, 2022.
The C
ity Council of the City of Jurupa Valley authorizes expenditures through the annual budget process. The FY 2021- 22 Budget was adopted on June 17, 2021 and the FY 2022-23 Budget was adopted on June 16, 2022. Expenditures not included in the annual budget process are approved by resolution throughout the fiscal year.
ANAL
YSIS
A
ll expenditures on the attached check registers have been approved by the City Council and are in conformance with the authority provided by Section 37208 of the Government Code. The check register dated June 30, 2022 includes payment s of $6,043.05 and $10,586.38 to Chase Card Services. The statement with purchase details are attached herewith.
OT
HER INFORMATION
N
one.
F
INANCIAL IMPACT
C
heck registers:
06 /30/22 $ 1,524,805.17
07/07/22 $ 3,332,750.94
07/14/22 $ 781,986.65
07/20/22 $ 1,081,646.17
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: CONNIE CARDENAS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.C
ACC
EPTANCE OF THE FEDERAL AWARDS REPORT IN
ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM GUIDANCE (SINGLE AUDIT
REPORT)
RECO
MMENDATION
That
the City Council receive and file the attached federal awards report audited by the City’s Independent Auditors, Eide Bailly (CPAs).
BAC
KGROUND
E
ach year, the City contracts with external independent auditors to audit the City’s financial statements, report to Council on the City’s financial position and offer an opinion on the accuracy of the information reported. The 2020- 21 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) was presented by Eide Bailly and received and filed by City Council on March 17, 2022.
I
n addition, when the City expends $750,000 or more in federally awarded funds in a fiscal year, the City contracts with external independent auditors to conduct an audit of federal award expenditures (single audit) as required by the Uniform Guidance. The auditors select federally funded programs to audit using Uniform Guidance requirements and their own risk assessment of the City’s federal award expenditures. Upon completion of audit procedures, the auditors issue the single audit report, which summarizes the audit results and presents the auditor’s opinion on the City’s compliance with federally funded programs.
For
the 2020-21 single audit, the auditors selected two of the City’s four federal programs:
the COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund – Allocation to Cities and the Highway Safety Improvement Program. T he auditor’s opinion states the City complied in all material respects with compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on the City’s major federal programs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Federal Awards Reports in Accordance
with the Uniform Guidance
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
City of Jurupa Valley, California
eidebailly.com
City of Jurupa Valley, California
Table of Contents
June 30, 2021
Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards .......................................................................................................................... 1 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance ............................................................................................................................................... 3 Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ....................................................................................................... 6 Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ......................................................................................... 7 Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Section I - Summary of Auditor’s Results .......................................................................................................... 8 Section II - Financial Statement Findings .......................................................................................................... 9 Section III - Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs .............................................................................. 11 Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings.......................................................................................................... 12
1 I
ndependent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters Based on an Audit of Financial Statements Performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards
T
o the Members of the City Council
City of Jurupa Valley, California
W
e have audited, in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Jurupa Valley, California (City), as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements and have issued our report thereon dated March 4, 2022.
In
ternal Control over Financial Reporting
In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements, we considered the City's internal control over financial reporting (internal control) as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing our opinions on the financial statements, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control.
A de
ficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, misstatements on a timely basis. A material weakness is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
O
ur consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies and therefore, material weaknesses or significant deficiencies may exist that have not been identified. We did identify certain deficiencies in internal control, described in the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs as item 2021-001 that we consider to be a material weakness.
What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com
10681 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 300 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3831 | T 909.466.4410 | F 909.466.4431 | EOE 2 C
ompliance and Other Matters
As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the City’s financial statements are free from material misstatement, we performed tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit and, accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. The results of our tests disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards.
C
ity’s Response to Findings
The City’s response to the findings identified in our audit are described in the accompanying Schedule of Findings and questioned costs. The City’s response was not subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it.
P
urpose of this Report
The purpose of this report is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control or on compliance. This report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards in considering the entity’s internal control and compliance. Accordingly, this communication is not suitable for any other purpose.
R
ancho Cucamonga, California
March 4, 2022
3 Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program; Report on Internal Control over Compliance; and Report on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance
To the Members of the City Council
City of Jurupa Valley, California
Report on Compliance for Each Major Federal Program
We have audited the City of Jurupa Valley, California’s (City) compliance with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that could have a direct and material effect on the City’s major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021. The City’s major federal programs are identified in the summary of auditor’s results section of the accompanying schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Management’s Responsibility
Management is responsible for compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of its federal awards applicable to its federal programs.
Auditor’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance for the City’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. We conducted our audit of compliance in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Those standards and the Uniform Guidance require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether noncompliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on a major federal program occurred. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence about the City’s compliance with those requirements and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.
We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion on compliance for each major federal program. However, our audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance.
Opinion on Each Major Federal program
In our opinion, the City complied, in all material respects, with the types of compliance requirements referred to above that could have a direct and material effect on each of its major federal programs for the year ended June 30, 2021.
What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com
10681 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 300 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3831 | T 909.466.4410 | F 909.466.4431 | EOE
4 Report on Internal Control over Compliance
Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above. In planning and performing our audit of compliance, we considered the City’s internal control over compliance with the types of requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each major federal program to determine the auditing procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances for the purpose of expressing an opinion on compliance for the federal programs and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
A deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. A material weakness in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance, such that there is a reasonable possibility that material noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program will not be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. A significant deficiency in internal control over compliance is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in internal control over compliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program that is less severe than a material weakness in internal control over compliance, yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance.
Our consideration of internal control over compliance was for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph of this section and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over compliance that might be material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. We did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over compliance that we consider to be material weaknesses. However, material weaknesses may exist that have not been identified.
The purpose of this report on internal control over compliance is solely to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over compliance and the results of that testing based on the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Accordingly, this report is not suitable for any other purpose.
Report on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards Required by the Uniform Guidance We have audited the financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements. We issued our report thereon dated March 4, 2022, which contained unmodified opinions on those financial statements. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the basic financial statements. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented for purposes of additional analysis as required by the Uniform Guidance and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements. The information has been 5 s
ubjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. In our opinion, the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements as a whole.
R
ancho Cucamonga, California
July 7, 2022
S
ee Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 6 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended J une 30, 2021
Federal Financial
Assistance Grant Pass-Through Federal Pass-through
Listing/Federal Identification Identifying Award Award to CFDA Number Number Number Expenditures Subrecipients
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
Direct Assistance
Community Development Block Grant/Entitlement Grants 14.218 B-18-MC-06-0607
B-19-MC-06-0607
B-20-MC-06-0607
N/A 779,034$ 170,144$
COVID-19 - Community Development Block Grant/Entitlement Grants (CDBG-CV) 14.218 B-20-MW-06-0607 N/A 637,274 240,793 Subtotal CDBG Entitlement Grants Cluster 1,416,308 410,937 Total U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 1,416,308 410,937 U.S. Department of the Treasury
Pass-Through the California Department of Finance
COVID-19 - Coronavirus Relief Fund - Allocation to Cities 21.019 N/A 10200 1,322,168 - Total U.S. Department of the Treasury 1,322,168 - U.S. Department of Transportation
Pass-Through the California Department of Transportation Highway Safety Improvement Program 20.205 HSIPL-5487 (002) 08-RIV-0-JVLY 839,659 - Subtotal Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 839,659 - Total U.S. Department Transportation 839,659 - U.S. Department of Justice
Direct Assistance
COVID-19 - Coronavirus Emergency Supplemental Funding
(CESF) Program 16.034 N/A N/A 41,460 -
Total U.S. Department of Justice 41,460 - Total Federal Financial Assistance 3,619,595$ 410,937$ Federal Grantor/Pass-Through
Grantor/Program or Cluster title
7 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Notes to Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Note 1 - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the schedule) includes the federal award activity of the City of Jurupa Valley, California (City) under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2021. The City’s reporting entity is defined in Note 1 of the City’s financial statements. All federal awards received directly from federal agencies as well as federal awards passed through from other government agencies are included on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. The information is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of the City, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position or fund balance, or cash flows of the City.
Amounts reported in the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards agree with the amounts reported in the related federal financial reports. However, certain federal financial reports are filed based on cash expenditures. As such, certain timing differences may exist in the recognition of revenues and expenditures between the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards and the federal financial reports.
Note 2 - Summary of Significant Accounting Policies
Funds received under the various grant programs have been recorded within the special revenue funds of the City. The City utilizes the modified accrual basis of accounting for the special revenue funds. Expenditures reported in the schedule are reported on the modified accrual basis of accounting. When applicable, such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.
Note 3 - Indirect Cost Rate
The City does not draw for indirect administrative expenses and has not elected to use the 10% de minimis cost rate.
8 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Section I – Summary of Auditor’s Results
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Type of auditor's report issued Unmodified
Internal control over financial reporting:
Material Weaknesses identified Yes
Significant deficiencies identified not considered
to be material weaknesses None Reported
Noncompliance material to financial statements noted? No
FEDERAL AWARDS
Internal control over major federal programs:
Material Weaknesses identified No
Significant deficiencies identified not considered
to be material weaknesses None Reported
Type of auditor's report issued on compliance
for major programs: Unmodified
Any audit findings disclosed that are required to be reported in accordance with Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.516: No
Identification of major federal programs:
Federal Financial Assistance Listing/
CFDA Number
COVID-19 Coronavirus Relief Fund 21.019
Highway Planning and Construction Cluster 20.205
Dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A
and Type B programs: $750,000
Auditee qualified as low-risk auditee? No
Name of Federal Program or Cluster
9 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Section II – Financial Statement Findings
2021-001 Developers Deposits
Material Weakness
Criteria:
The City reports deposits payable, which reflect deposits paid by developers to be applied to future permits and fees due to the City’s General Fund and other agencies (such as TUMF and MSHCP). Once the fees have been applied, any remaining deposits are returned to the developers. As such, positive balances should reflect the amount due to developers as of June 30, 2021. Negative balances should be avoided, which would reflect City services or payments in excess of the developer deposits. The City’s deposits payable were previously reported in an Agency fund, but due to the implementation of GASB 84, Fiduciary Activities, are now reported in the General fund.
Condition:
The City classified $1,064,419 within the General Fund’s accounts receivable balance, which reflect negative balances of deposits payable. These negative deposit balances for planning, building, and engineering deposits reflects services rendered by the City in excess of the developer’s initial deposits; these amounts are owed by developers to the City. The City has made an effort in the current year to collect or write off these balances, but continues to have significant negative balances reported within the overall deposit balance as of June 30, 2021.
This is a repeat finding.
Context:
The condition was noted during our testwork over the City’s accounts receivables and developer deposits.
Effect:
$1,064,419 reflects amounts applied to permits for developers, but fees have not been remitted from developers. To the extent cash was remitted from the deposits account, such cash could be related to developers balances on deposit for which services have not been performed.
Cause:
The City reported $1,064,419 as Accounts Receivable within the City’s General Fund.
City of Jurupa Valley, California
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2021
10 Recommendation:
We recommend the City continue to develop and formalize procedures to ensure deposits and related amounts due for permits is properly captured, collected by the City, and reported within the General fund. For older balances due to the City for these permits, the City should consider plans for collection or write-off of such balances due.
Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions:
Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
11 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs
None noted.
12 City of Jurupa Valley, California
Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings
Year Ended June 30, 2021
Financial Statement Findings
2020-001 Agency Fund - Deposits
2020-002 Financial Reporting and Closing
2020-003 Internal Controls Over Payroll
Partially implemented - See current year finding 2021-001 Finding No. Area Status of Corrective Action
Implemented
Implemented
Federal Awards Findings
2020-004 Community Development Block
Grant/Entitlement Grants
14.218 Reporting Implemented
Finding No. Area Compliance
RequirementsCFDA No. Status of Corrective Action
1 July 7, 2022
To the Members of the City Council
City of Jurupa Valley, California
We have audited the financial statements of the City of Jurupa Valley, California (City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and have issued our report thereon dated March 4, 2022.
W
e have also provided our communication in accordance with professional standards on the audit of the financial statements in our letter dated March 4, 2022. Professional standards require that we advise you of the following matters relating to our audit of compliance under the Uniform Guidance.
Our Responsibility in Relation to the Financial Statement Audit under Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and Government Auditing Standards and our Compliance Audit under the Uniform Guidance
As communicated in our letter dated May 5, 2021, our responsibility, as described by professional standards, is to form and express an opinions about whether the financial statements that have been prepared by management with your oversight are presented fairly, in all material respects, in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and to express an opinion on whether the City complied with the types of compliance requirements described in the OMB Compliance Supplement that have a direct and material effect on each of the City’s major federal programs. Our audit of the financial statements and major program compliance does not relieve you or management of your respective responsibilities.
Our responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards, is to plan and perform our audit to obtain re
asonable, rather than absolute, assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit of financial statements includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, as part of our audit, we considered the internal control of the City solely for the purpose of determining our audit procedures and not to provide any assurance concerning such internal control.
O
ur responsibility, as prescribed by professional standards as it relates to the audit of the City’s major federal program compliance, is to express an on opinion on the compliance for each of the City’s major federal programs based on our audit of the types of compliance requirements referred to above. An audit of major program compliance includes consideration of internal control over compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances and to test and report on internal control over compliance in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of internal control over compliance. Accordingly, as part of our major program compliance audit, we considered internal control over compliance for these purposes and not to provide any assurance on the effectiveness of the City’s internal control over compliance.
What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com
10681 Foothill Blvd., Ste. 300 | Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3831 | T 909.466.4410 | F 909.466.4431 | EOE
2 We are also responsible for communicating significant matters related to the audit that are, in our professional judgment, relevant to your responsibilities in overseeing the financial reporting process. However, we are not required to design procedures for the purpose of identifying other matters to communicate to you.
We have provided our report regarding internal controls in our Independent Auditor’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on Compliance and Other Matters based on an Audit of the Financial Statements performed in Accordance with Government Auditing Standards dated March 4, 2022. We have also provided our comments regarding compliance with the types of compliance requirements referred to above and internal controls over compliance during our audit in our Independent Auditor’s Report on Compliance with Each Major Federal Program and Report on Internal Control Over Compliance Required by the Uniform Guidance dated July 7, 2022.
Planned Scope and Timing of the Audit
We conducted our audit consistent with the planned scope and timing we previously communicated to you.
Compliance with All Ethics Requirements Regarding Independence
The engagement team, others in our firm, as appropriate, our firm, and other firms utilized in the engagement, if applicable, have complied with all relevant ethical requirements regarding independence.
Qualitative Aspects of the Entity’s Significant Accounting Practices
Significant Accounting Policies
Management has the responsibility to select and use appropriate accounting policies. A summary of the significant accounting policies adopted by City as it relates to the Single Audit are included in the notes to the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). There have been no initial selection of accounting policies and no changes in significant accounting policies as it relates to the Single Audit. No matters have come to our attention that would require us, under professional standards, to inform you about (1) the methods used to account for significant unusual transactions and (2) the effect of significant accounting policies in controversial or emerging areas for which there is a lack of authoritative guidance or consensus.
Significant Accounting Estimates
Accounting estimates are an integral part of the financial statements prepared by management and are based on management’s current judgments. Those judgments are normally based on knowledge and experience about past and current events and assumptions about future events. Certain accounting estimates are particularly sensitive because of their significance to the financial statements and because of the possibility that future events affecting them may differ markedly from management’s current judgments.
The most sensitive accounting estimates were disclosed in our letter dated March 4, 2022, and there are no changes as of July 7, 2022.
Financial Statement Disclosures
Certain financial statement disclosures involve significant judgment and are particularly sensitive because of their significance to financial statement users.
3 The most sensitive disclosures affecting the City’s financial statements were described in our letter dated March 4, 2022 and there are no changes as of July 7, 2022.
Significant Difficulties Encountered during the Audit
We encountered no significant difficulties in dealing with management relating to the performance of the audit.
Uncorrected and Corrected Misstatements
For purposes of this communication, professional standards require us to accumulate all known and likely misstatements identified during the audit, other than those that we believe are trivial, and communicate them to the appropriate level of management. Further, professional standards require us to also communicate the effect of uncorrected misstatements related to prior periods on the relevant classes of transactions, account balances or disclosures, and the financial statements as a whole and each applicable opinion unit. We have previously communicated items in our letter dated March 4, 2022, and there are no changes as of July 7, 2022.
Disagreements with Management
For purposes of this letter, professional standards define a disagreement with management as a matter, whether or not resolved to our satisfaction, concerning a financial accounting, reporting, or auditing matter, which could be significant to the City’s financial statements or the auditor’s report. No such disagreements arose during the course of the audit.
Representations Requested from Management
We have requested certain written representations from management which are included in the management representation letter dated July 7, 2022.
Management’s Consultations with Other Accountants
In some cases, management may decide to consult with other accountants about auditing and accounting matters. Management informed us that, and to our knowledge, there were no consultations with other accountants regarding auditing and accounting matters.
Other Significant Matters, Findings, or Issues
In the normal course of our professional association with the City, we generally discuss a variety of matters, including the application of accounting principles and auditing standards, operating and regulatory conditions affecting the entity, and operational plans and strategies that may affect the risks of material misstatement.
None of the matters discussed resulted in a condition to our retention as the City’s auditors.
Other Information in Documents Containing Audited Financial Statements
Pursuant to professional standards, our responsibility as auditors for other information in documents containing the City’s audited financial statements does not extend beyond the financial information identified in the audit report, and we are not required to perform any procedures to corroborate such other information.
However, in accordance with such standards, we will review the information inputted into the data collection form and will consider whether such information, or the manner of its presentation, is materially consistent with the financial statements.
4 Our responsibility also includes communicating to you any information which we believe is a material misstatement of fact. Nothing came to our attention that caused us to believe that such information, or its manner of presentation, is materially inconsistent with the information, or manner of its presentation, appearing in the financial statements.
M
odification of the Auditor’s Report
W
e have made the following modification to our auditor’s report.
A
s discussed in Notes 1 and 12, the City has adopted the provisions of GASB Statement No. 84, Fiduciary Activities, which has resulted in a restatement of the net position and fund balance as of July 1, 2020. Our opinions are not modified with respect to this matter.
This report is intended solely for the information and use of the City Council, and management of the City and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other than these specified parties.
R
ancho Cucamonga, California
Page | 1
120
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.D
APP
ROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH REACH OUT FOR F Y 2022-23
FUNDING
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That
the City Council approve the Reach Out Agreement for FY 2022/23 funding in the amount of $30,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
BAC
KGROUND
I
n the interest of improving the health and quality of life for all residents, the City of Jurupa Valley has funded the Healthy Jurupa Valley (HJV) program for the past 9 years. The HJV program is administered through a partnership with the non-profit organization “Reach Out.”
E
ach year Reach Out develops a list of deliverables for HJV and a year -end report to detail the success of the program. Below is the table depicting the 2021-2022 deliverables and the details of their completed status.
Healthy Jurupa Valley
Activities
City of Jurupa Valley
Contract Deliverables
Status/Report
1. Monthly HJV Convening:
Facilitate at least 10 HJV
meetings to unite residents,
partners, and city leaders
and reach a minimum of 400
attendees.
August - 21
September - 34
October - 39
November - 28
December - 26
January - 33
February - 26
March - 36
April - 32
May - 31
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
June - 42
Total: 348
We saw a decrease of
attendance due to virtual
meeting fatigue. Our June
meeting was in-person, and
we finally saw numbers
comparably to what we were
getting before the pandemic.
We will soon be moving to
hybrid meetings.
2. Action Team Meetings:
Facilitate 50 Action Team
meetings to support the
HJV’s mission by completing
the following objectives
outlined below:
Total of 54 meetings from
August
a. Community Prosperity
1. Conduct the annual Small
Business Summit and Expo
to support the city of Jurupa
Valley’s small businesses
owners to inspire them to
grow.
2. Host quarterly meeting
every other month to bridge
the gap between small
business owners and local
government officials/staff.
1. Summit occurred on
November 9, 2021.
2. Meetings held: a. October
28, 2021
b. April 12, 2022
c. May 31, 2022
b. Gardens and Markets
1. Kick-off event and ribbon
cutting for the new
Adventure Garden project
once finalized.
2. Recruit at least 5 new
gardens and markets
stakeholders to the action
team by June 30, 2022.
1. Adventure Garden grand
opening held March 26,
2022.
2. New stakeholders: a.
Jurupa Valley YMCA –
Mattie Cramer & Crystal
Rodriguez
b. Glen Avon Library-
Michael Jacome
c. Healthy Mission Nutrition-
Alejandrop Romero
d. County of Riverside-EMD
e. Matthew Barker-
Community Member
Page | 3
c. Arts and Recreation
1. Recruit at least 5 new art
and recreation stakeholders
to the Action Team by June
30, 2022
2. Complete 2 community-
based or school-based
beautification projects by
June 30, 2022.
1. New stakeholders: a.
Riverside County Office of
Education
b. Blue Anthem
c. Covered CA
d. Wylie Center
e. County of Riverside -
EMD
2. Peralta Elementary and
Sunnyslope Elementary
completed April 2022.
d. Safety and Readiness
1. Implementation and
follow up with Smoke Free
Ordinance and increasing
awareness of policy with
signage.
2. Provide policy support
and educational component
of Social Host Ordinance
implementation.
1. Met with City of JV and
created awareness with
signage for businesses and
flyers.
2. SHO passed March 17,
2022, and we were able to
provide community
education during ride a
longs with JV Sheriffs.
e. JV Family Resource
Network
1. Provide monthly
meetings to adults who
have completed JV
Leadership Academy to
increase knowledge of
community resources.
2. Implementation of third
Leadership Academy
cohort led by graduated
leader.
1. Monthly meetings were
held in person and have
been supporting with
community outreach.
2. Third cohort of leaders
graduated on March 29,
2022.
ANALYSIS
The City Council included funding for Reach Out in the FY 2022/23 budget adopted on June 16, 2022 in order to continue the HJV program.
The HJV’s work is accomplished through five Action Teams. Each Action Team is co- chaired by volunteer leaders from the community and is focused on specific goals. The five action areas are: Arts and Recreation, Safety and Readiness, Community Prosperity, Page | 4
Gardens and Markets and Jurupa Valley Family Resource Network. The Table below i s the Scope of Work for the 2022-2023 fiscal year.
Healthy Jurupa
Valley
City of Jurupa Valley Contract Deliverables
1. Monthly HJV
Convening:
Facilitate 10 HJV meetings to unite residents, partners, and city leaders and reach a minimum of 400 attendees.
2. Action Team
Meetings:
Facilitate 50 Action Team meetings to support the HJV’s mission by completing
the following objectives outlined below:
a. Community
Prosperity
1. Conduct the annual Small Business Summit and Expo in support of the city of Jurupa Valley’s small businesses owners to inspire them to grow, by December 2022.
2. Host bi-annual events to encourage recognition of small businesses within the community to increase community
support to local businesses, by June 2023.
b. Gardens and
Markets
1. Support 3 gardens in Jurupa Valley and work toward creating 1 new garden by June 30, 2023.
2. Host Earth Day Celebration community event to promote sustainability in Jurupa Valley by April 2023.
c. Arts and
Recreation
1. Host an arts event that directly engages local artists and the community by June 30, 2023.
2. Facilitate beautification projects at 2 local schools by June 30, 2023.
d. Safety and
Readiness
1. Promote safety in our community with 2 safety campaigns such as safe driving, violence prevention, and emergency planning by June 30, 2023.
2. Increase core membership of youth participating in drug prevention strategies by conducting outreach to all 4 high schools and reaching at least 50 students by June 30, 2022. e. JV Family
Resource
Network
1. Provide monthly meetings to adults who have completed JV Leadership Academy to increase knowledge of community
resources by June 30, 2023.
2. Implementation of fourth Leadership Academy cohort led by graduated leader during school year 22-23 and by June 30, 2023.
Fiscal Year 2022/23
The attached Agreement is for one year, August 4 , 2022 - June 30, 2023. Staff recommends approval of the Agreement, and authorization for the Mayor to execute the Agreement.
-1-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND REACH OUT FOR
OPERATION OF HEALTHY JURUPA VALLEY
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of August 4, 2022 , by and between the CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ("City"), and REACH OUT, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (“Recipient”). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct:
A. Recipient is a non-profit corporation providing social services, educational opportunities, and healthy living opportunities to the people in Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
B. “Healthy Jurupa Valley” is a program in the City of Jurupa Valley that provides significant public health and community benefits to the people of Jurupa Valley. Healthy Jurupa Valley is part of a national Healthy Cities movement to improve the health and quality of life of all Jurupa Valley residents. Healthy Jurupa Valley was formally established in December of 2012. The work of Healthy Jurupa Valley is accomplished through five ACTION TEAMS. Each Action Team is co-chaired by volunteer leaders from the community, and is focused on goals set by community members, for community members. These powerful Action Teams are:
Arts & Recreation
Gardens & Markets
Jurupa Valley Family Resource Network
Community Safety & Readiness
Community Prosperity
C. In consideration of the benefits to the City of the Healthy Jurupa Valley program, City is willing to provide funds to Recipient to continue its work for Healthy Jurupa Valley as provided in this Agreement.
2. Scope of Work. Recipient shall meet benchmarks and goals described in Exhibit “A, entitled “Scope of Work” attached and incorporated by reference, in accordance with this Agreement.
3. Funding. The City hereby agrees to provide funding to Recipient for the operation of the Healthy Jurupa Valley Program in the amount of thirty thousand dollars ($30,000) for Fiscal Year 2020-21 subject to the provisions of this Agreement.
4. Use of Funds.
A. Recipient shall use the funds to support the operations of Healthy Jurupa Valley and for no other purposes.
-2-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
B. Recipient shall coordinate and facilitate the discussion of community needs and the development of community projects through the Action Teams described in Paragraph 1.B.
C. Funds shall not be used to support or oppose any candidates for elected or appointive office or to support or oppose any ballot measure on local or state ballots.
5. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on August 4, 2022, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City Council may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, on five (5) days prior written notice to the Recipient. The City Manager may at any time, upon notice to Recipient, suspend the funding and work of Recipient should the City Manager determine that Recipient is operating in violation of this Agreement.
6. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REVIEW. Recipient shall provide a quarterly financial review of its operations to the City. This financial review shall be completed and submitted to the City Manager on October 1, 2021, January 3, 2022, April 4, 2022 and June 30, 2022. The financial review shall provide a general summary report on how Funds were expended and used to benefit Jurupa Valley residents and shall include documentation, including but not limited to, copies of invoices, receipts and cancelled checks to support the use of Funds. The financial documentation shall comply with the usual and customary accounting documentation of non- profit organizations with such additional documentation as may be required by the City Manager.
7. INDEMNIFICATION. Recipient shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Recipient’s negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement.
7. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Recipient shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Recipient, its agents, representatives, or employees.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Recipient shall maintain limits no less than:
-3-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
1) General Liability: one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3) Employer’s Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self -insured retentions shall not exceed $25,000 unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager in his sole discretion.
D. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Recipient; products and completed operations of the Recipient; premises owned, occupied or used by the Recipient; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Recipient. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
2) For any claims related to this project, the Recipient’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Recipient’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
4) The Recipient’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty -4-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
(30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII.
F. Verification of Coverage. Recipient shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City’s forms, the Recipient’s insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. City Manager is authorized to modify the insurance requirements of this Paragraph 6 in his sole discretion.
G. Recipient, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies:
“I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workman’s Compensation or undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract.”
8. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Recipient shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation, such laws prohibiting discrimination against protected groups. Recipient shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Recipient to comply with this section.
9. ASSIGNMENT. Recipient shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City Manager.
10. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice, and shall be effective upon personal services or two business days following deposit with a document delivery service or mail:
CITY: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attention: City Manager
-5-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
RECIPIENT: REACH OUT, INC.
1126 W. Foothill Blvd, Ste 250
Upland, CA 91786
Attention: Executive Director
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
A. Recipient shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor.
The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Recipient shall at all times be under Recipient's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Recipient or any of Recipient's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Recipient shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Recipient shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
B. No employee benefits shall be available to Recipient in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Recipient as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Recipient for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Recipient for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
12. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material. -6-
12774-0001\2194495v1.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Peter M. Thorson, City Attorney
REACH OUT, INC, a California non-profit corporation
By:_____________________________
Name:
Title:
By:_____________________________
Name:
Title:
[*Note: Signatures of two corporate officers are required for corporations – First signature must be one of the following: 1) the chairman of the board; 2) the president; or 3) any vice president.. The second corporate signature must be one of the following: 1) the secretary; 2) any assistant secretary; 3) the chief financial officer; or 4) any assistant treasurer.
SCOPE OF WORK (July 2022 – June 2023)
The table below contains the overall scope of work within which Reach Out will work.
Reach Out acts as the convener and backbone organization for the Healthy Jurupa Valley (HJV) collaborative. The work is accomplished through staff support and community member involvement. First and foremost, HJV is a resident driven initiative.
Healthy Jurupa
Valley
Activities
City of Jurupa Valley Contract Deliverables
1. Monthly HJV
Convening:
Facilitate 10 HJV meetings to unite residents, partners, and city leaders and reach a minimum of 400 attendees.
2. Action Team
Meetings:
Facilitate 50 Action Team meetings to support the HJV’s mission by completing the following objectives outlined below:
a. Community
Prosperity
1. Conduct the annual Small Business Summit and Expo in support of the city of Jurupa Valley’s small businesses owners to inspire them to grow, by December 2022.
2. Host bi-annual events to encourage recognition of small businesses within the community to increase community support to local businesses, by June 2023.
b. Gardens and
Markets
1. Support 3 gardens in Jurupa Valley and work toward creating 1 new garden by June 30, 2023.
2. Host Earth Day Celebration community event to promote sustainability in Jurupa Valley by April 2023.
c. Arts and
Recreation
1. Host an arts event that directly engages local artists and the community by June 30, 2023.
2. Facilitate beautification projects at 2 local schools by June 30, 2023. d. Safety and
Readiness
1. Promote safety in our community with 2 safety campaigns such as safe driving, violence prevention, and emergency planning by June 30, 2023.
2. Increase core membership of youth participating in drug prevention strategies by conducting outreach to all 4 high schools and reaching at least 50 students by June 30, 2022.
e. JV Family
Resource
Network
1. Provide monthly meetings to adults who have completed JV Leadership Academy to increase knowledge of community resources by June 30, 2023.
2. Implementation of fourth Leadership Academy cohort led by graduated leader during school year 22-23 and by June 30, 2023.
SCOPE OF WORK (July 2022 – June 2023)
The table below contains the overall scope of work within which Reach Out will work.
Reach Out acts as the convener and backbone organization for the Healthy Jurupa Valley (HJV) collaborative. The work is accomplished through staff support and community member involvement. First and foremost, HJV is a resident driven initiative.
Healthy Jurupa
Valley
Activities
City of Jurupa Valley Contract Deliverables
1. Monthly HJV
Convening:
Facilitate 10 HJV meetings to unite residents, partners, and city leaders and reach a minimum of 400 attendees.
2. Action Team
Meetings:
Facilitate 50 Action Team meetings to support the HJV’s mission by completing the following objectives outlined below:
a. Community
Prosperity
1. Conduct the annual Small Business Summit and Expo in support of the city of Jurupa Valley’s small businesses owners to inspire them to grow, by December 2022.
2. Host bi-annual events to encourage recognition of small businesses within the community to increase community support to local businesses, by June 2023.
b. Gardens and
Markets
1. Support 3 gardens in Jurupa Valley and work toward creating 1 new garden by June 30, 2023.
2. Host Earth Day Celebration community event to promote sustainability in Jurupa Valley by April 2023.
c. Arts and
Recreation
1. Host an arts event that directly engages local artists and the community by June 30, 2023.
2. Facilitate beautification projects at 2 local schools by June 30, 2023. d. Safety and
Readiness
1. Promote safety in our community with 2 safety campaigns such as safe driving, violence prevention, and emergency planning by June 30, 2023.
2. Increase core membership of youth participating in drug prevention strategies by conducting outreach to all 4 high schools and reaching at least 50 students by June 30, 2022.
e. JV Family
Resource
Network
1. Provide monthly meetings to adults who have completed JV Leadership Academy to increase knowledge of community resources by June 30, 2023.
2. Implementation of fourth Leadership Academy cohort led by graduated leader during school year 22-23 and by June 30, 2023.
Healthy
Jurupa Valley
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
July 2021 – June 2022
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
2 | P a g e
Executive Summary
Unlike other groups with a narrow focus, HJV allows each community member and partner agency to be involved with what is most important to them, while also ensuring that they stay connected to the big picture issues of health in the community through our monthly meetings, workshops, and events. The big ideas discussed at our monthly collaborative meetings get translated to action through Healthy Jurupa Valley’s Action Teams. These 5 Action Teams were created with direct input from the community and are focused on the top priorities identified by our friends and neighbors. Everyone is invited to attend!
Our volunteer Action Team chairs work
tirelessly in coordination with Reach Out,
the City of Jurupa Valley and community
stakeholders to bring community values to
life. Their dedication enables community
change at the neighborhood, community,
and policy levels. These community
champions embrace empowerment
through HJV and are a significant resource
to the initiative. They are responsible for
planning agendas for monthly Action Team
meetings, facilitating meetings so that all
voices are heard, guiding Action Team
activities in support of their mission, and
acting as advocates.
Monthly Meeting Schedule
Collaborative Meeting 1st Tuesday, 9 – 11 AM
Arts & Recreation 2nd Thursday, 9:30 – 11 AM
Community Prosperity 3rd Monday, 9 – 11 AM
Gardens & Markets 2nd Monday, 9 – 10:30am
JV Family Resource Network Variable
Safety & Readiness 3rd Thursday, 1 – 2pm
Celebrating our Action Team Chair
members at the Healthy Jurupa Valley 9th
Anniversary luncheon
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
3 | P a g e
Collaborative Meetings
August
Facilitated by the Arts & Recreation Action Team
Speakers
Cati Porter, Inlandia Institute
Victor Beecham, Path of Life Ministries
September
Facilitated by Gardens & Markets
Speakers
Joan Tyler, Louis Robidoux Library
Tracie Randolph, Glen Avon Library
October
Facilitated by Safety & Readiness
Speakers
Karina Mariscal, DPSS
Dianne Leibrandt, RUHS-PH
November
Facilitated by JVFRN
Speakers
Alejandra Herrera, Community Engagement and Partnerships Representative for Riverside County Office of Education
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
4 | P a g e
December
Facilitated by All Action Teams
Speakers
Rubidoux Chamber Choir Special Guest Performance
Stephen Villasenor, Vice President of Impact & Equity of Reach Out January
Facilitated by Arts and Recreation
Speakers
Cosmé Cordova, Artist Founder/Director Division 9 Gallery Melissa Ragole, President JUSD Board of Education
February
Facilitated by Community Prosperity
Speakers
Pricilla Leal, Financial Coach and HUD Certified Counselor March
Facilitated by Gardens and Markets
Speakers
Rachel Kochhar, Outreach Specialist, Reach Out, National Nutrition Month 2022 Mariana Lopez, Community Relations Manager, Community Health Systems April
Facilitated by Safety and Readiness
Speakers
Steven Filson, Victims of Illicit Drugs (VOID)
Matthew Hydar, California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
5 | P a g e
May
Facilitated by JVFRN
Speakers
Joel R. Hernández and Aida Blanco
Inland Caregiver Resource Center
Debbie George and Michelle Thornburg
EASE T1D (Type 1 Diabetes)
June
Facilitated by All Action Teams
Speakers
Diana Malloy – Spiritual Counselor
June Meeting (Above) Virtual Meeting (Below)
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
6 | P a g e
Arts & Recreation Action Team
Mission: Inspire, develop, and enhance equitable opportunities that unify the communities of Jurupa Valley through artistic, creative, and recreational activities.
Goals
1) Host an arts event to increase action team membership and recruitment by June 30, 2022. 2) Creation of a marketing plan to increase visibility of and interaction with the action team by June 1, 2022.
3) Conduct beautification projects at 2 schools by June 30, 2022.
Meetings Held: August 12, 2021; September 17, 2021; October 14, 2021; November 10, 2021; December 9, 2021; January 13, 2022; February 10, 2022; March 10, 2022; April 14, 2022; May 13, 2022; and June 9, 2022.
Marketing Plan
The Arts & Recreation Action Team is continuing our work to meaningfully embed diversity, equity, and inclusion in all our activities. This process began with a revisiting of our mission statement and continues as we review our processes and strategies for gaps in equity. We focus on activities that align with our new mission and focus on best practices and research to create transformative community change through recreation and the arts. This process led to the identification of gaps in our action team makeup and projects, particularly the lack of diverse representation in both action team members and artists engaged for projects. The team reflected that the main activity needing our focus to address this issue was a targeted recruitment and marketing campaign. The team worked together over the course of multiple meetings to brainstorm ideas, activities, and strategies to address the issue. This process is ongoing and continues to be refined.
Action Team members begin a brainstorming session on recruitment strategies Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
7 | P a g e
Community Beautification
Finalization of Animal Shelter Murals
In January of 2020, Healthy Jurupa Valley, Riverside County Department of Animal Services, and the Animal Solutions Konnection (ASK) Foundation collaborated on a grant application for CID funding from the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, District 2, to support a mural project at the animal shelter on Van Buren Boulevard in Jurupa Valley. This funding was awarded, but unfortunately the project had to be put on hold due to COVID-19. However, we are happy to report that painting on the murals was completed in August of 2021, and shelter staff reports that the murals serve as a draw for people visiting the shelter. The selfie mural is particularly popular for community members wishing to pose for pictures with their new animal family members.
The purpose of this project is to:
• Drive more people to the shelter to adopt animals
• Increase the welcoming atmosphere of the shelter, leading to increased positive word-of- mouth and repeat visits for potential adopters
• Increase awareness of the shelter and its needs
• Increase community health through pet ownership
This project was so successful that animal shelter staff recently approached the Action Team about completing further art projects together to continue to beautify shelter grounds, and to help find forever homes for tens of thousands of animals every year.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
8 | P a g e
Dinosaur Design Contest
The Arts & Recreation Action Team was approached by Jurupa Valley Rotary for assistance with a fun project at the Jurupa Mountains Discovery Center. Rotary will be working with JMDC to refurbish an old triceratops with new fiberglass. The triceratops will be part of a “dinosaur garden” concept for younger attendees, with brightly painted dinosaurs to bring color and attention to the area. The Action Team took the lead in creating a design contest that calls for community members of all ages to produce potential designs. With Reach Out’s assistance, a website for the contest was launched with information and can be found here: https://we-reachout.org/calling-all-artist- dinosaur-design-contest/
While the original deadline was in November, it has been postponed to March 15 to allow more entries while JMDC readies the project. We have received over 15 submissions from local young artists and look forward to seeing which creative design is chosen!
A design submitted by a local 9-year-old that mimics
butterfly scales
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
9 | P a g e
Little Free Libraries & Jurupa Valley Reads
We continue to engage the community through our Little Free Library (LFL) project. Work has been completed on 3 out of 5 planned new Little Free Libraries that will be donated to community residents, businesses, or agencies in the upcoming months. The first three have found new homes.
One went to a family in the Indian Hills area who tragically lost in a daughter in a car accident. She loved to read, and they are working on decorating the LFL to put up in her honor. Two more libraries went to excited residents in Pedley and Jurupa Hills.
Our map of all registered Little Free Libraries in the city will be updated when these new LFLs are installed. We also look forward to taking our mobile Little Free Library and free books back out to events throughout the city as public health guidelines ease. We accept book donations throughout the year and have given away over 2,300 books to community members as part of this project.
One of our newest happy Jurupa Valley Little
Free Library Stewards
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
10 | P a g e
We are working with local leaders and authors on the “Jurupa Valley Reads!” social media campaign highlighting literacy, the work of local authors, and neighborhood connectedness.
Karen Bradford delivered our spookiest episode yet for “Jurupa Valley Reads! After Dark” when she read her short story, “How the Moro Blood Orange Came to Be...or...What Happened When Harvey Finally Had Enough!” Karen is currently the clerk for the JUSD School Board, and she brings her unique flair to this dramatic reading. It was posted to social media on October 28, 2021 and can be found on both Facebook and YouTube.
https://fb.watch/bHBu4FpsQf/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtN0GdSKBhU
Local author and school board member Karen Bradford gestures dramatically during her reading
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
11 | P a g e
“Drop the Drugs” Opioid Prevention Art Contest
The Arts & Recreation Action Team was excited to partner with the Safety & Readiness Team to create and conduct an opioid prevention art contest that asked young artists to create artwork to be displayed on the front of 3 prescription drug drop boxes. This project’s goals were two-fold: 1) continue to involve youth voice in the important issues facing our community, and 2) draw attention to our prescription drug drop boxes to reduce the availability of opioids in our community. Our team helped to engage an outstanding panel of well-known judges across different sectors, and to plan/facilitate all contest activities. Please see more information on this project in the Safety & Readiness Action Team section.
Art & Business Partnership Planning and Collaboration
In the work we completed in our Tactical Marketing Plan, the business sector was identified as an opportunity to expand networks/partnerships to bring the work of local artists into our community, as well as to engage more artists in our projects. As such, our team began a collaboration with the Community Prosperity Action Team and artist/art gallery owner Cosme Cordova. This project is still in the beginning stages, but we are continuing to work with Mr. Cordova to identify businesses and artists willing to be a part of the project. The first strategy will be to embed the work of local artists on site at businesses throughout the city. We are very excited to see where this collaboration takes us.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
12 | P a g e
Community Engagement
The thing we love best is getting out into the community and doing art projects with our neighbors throughout the city. While community events were still fairly limited during this time, we attended the Halloween event at the Louis Robidoux Library and the annual Tree Lighting event at city hall.
We also hosted a “Wrapping Party” at the Reach Out office prior to the Tree Lighting. With many volunteers including a local boy scout troop, we managed to wrap over 300 books to give away at the Tree Lighting. The “Wrapping Party” featured a showing up a holiday movie and a hot chocolate bar with all the fixings.
The stalwart group of volunteers who tirelessly wrapped books Local boy scouts lending a hand Hot chocolate!
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
13 | P a g e
Tree Lighting Event at City Hall
The books from the Wrapping Party were distributed at the Tree Lighting event. We also offered two different crafts for community members to create that were fun for all ages.
Halloween Event at the Louis Robidoux Library
At this event we offered a craft where community members could create their own decorated Halloween or Día de los Muertos wooden spoon, and hosted a recreational game.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
14 | P a g e
School Beautification Projects
The Arts and Recreation Action Team took on two Beautification projects, by painting murals and stenciling games on the floor at two local elementary schools, Peralta Elementary and Sunnyslope Elementary schools. With a team of staff and volunteers, in collaboration with the school Principals, our team braved the sun and painted a myriad of murals on different handball courts and walls! A video recapping the entire process was uploaded on Facebook, found here:
https://www.facebook.com/HealthyJurupaValley/videos/984484788878148 Peralta Elementary School:
Sunnyslope Elementary School:
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
15 | P a g e
Community Prosperity Action Team
Mission: Building a supportive and viable environment for business and entrepreneurship and building strength and prosperity in families.
Goals:
1) Conduct the annual Small Business Summit and Expo to support the city of Jurupa Valley’s small businesses owners to inspire them to grow by December 31, 2021. 2)Host quarterly meetings to encourage engagement between small business owners and local government officials/staff by June 30, 2022.
3) Starting October, promote 6 businesses every quarter on social media to encourage shopping local by highlighting discounts and giveaways, by June 2022.
Meetings Held: August 16, 2021; September 20, 2021; October 18, 2021; November 15, 2021; December 20, 2021, January 17, 2022; February 23, 2022; March 21, 2022; April 18, 2022; May 16, 2022; and June 20, 2022.
Small Business Owners Meetings
The Community Prosperity Action Team continues to provide small business owners and the community of Jurupa Valley with amazing speakers. We had the pleasure this year to have 4 different guest speakers provide great information and resources to help businesses continue to prosper thought out the community. All our meetings are promoted through social media, community newsletters, and meeting announcement. Healthy Jurupa Valley always makes sure to provide all attendees with relevant helpful information by taking into consideration all the feedback provided in the meetings. All meetings take place at the Reach Out office in Jurupa Valley.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
16 | P a g e
The Community Prosperity Action Team hosted Karen
Spiegel, the County Supervisor of Riverside in the
October Small Business Owners Meeting. Karen Spiegel
presented on the Economic Development Updates and
Opportunities in Jurupa Valley. The Meeting took place in person at the Jurupa Valley Reach Out office. The
community members present were thankful for all the
important information that was given in the
presentation. As well Mrs. Spiegel was able to provide
everyone with her contact information and different
resources that the county offers their residents. The
County Supervisor is well informed about the efforts and outstanding opportunities that Healthy Jurupa Valley
offers the community. The presentation was inspirational and informative for all community members and
business owners.
On April 12, 2022, Robert Vasquez, Program Coordinator
for the City of Jurupa Valley presented information on the Local Economic Assistance Program (LEAP) available to all small businesses that have been affected by the
Coronavirus Pandemic. The program provides qualifying
small businesses grants to assist them to succeed and
thrive in hard circumstances. He provided all the small business owners with information on the requirements
necessary to qualify for the program and the submission deadline. Robert provided his contact information for
anyone that had questions or needed assistance in filling out the applications.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
17 | P a g e
Small Business Summit
The Small Business Summit and Expo is Community Prosperity’s signature annual event. On November 9, 2021, the Community Prosperity Action Team held our 8th Annual Small Business Summit & Expo. This year’s event was a hybrid event that was in person as well as streamed lived on Zoom and our Facebook Page. Our meeting was held at the Skyview Event Center with a business mixer to follow. A lot of planning goes into this event, and we partnered with the City of Jurupa Valley and the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce for a successful event. The event was sponsored by The District at Rubidoux and Supervisor Karen Spiegel’s office. We purchased gift cards with these funds to give away as a randomized opportunity drawing for all attendees. We had guest speakers from the City of Jurupa Valley including city updates from Rod Butler and Mike Flad.
Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes joined us and gave us state updates and what we as a community could expect to see in our community in the months to come. Michelle Skiljan, Executive Director for IE Women’s Business Centers was the main speaker who shared resources with businesses and focused on how to hire and retain amazing employees. Many businesses were thankful for the resources she was able to provide them.
On May 31, 2022, Linda Hinojos and Dianne
Guevarra from the City of Jurupa Valley provided
the community members information on the new
upcoming developments in the city of Jurupa
Valley. They discussed housing, commercial, and
economic developments that are under
construction and under review. The developments
that are currently under construction are Shadow
Rock, Paradise Knolls, Vernola Marketplace
Apartments, Limonite Plaza, and The Shops at
Jurupa Valley. All our Community Prosperity Action
team members found the information very useful
and knowledgeable on the future developments of
their community. The team members had
previously asked to have a presentation on the
upcoming developments of Jurupa Valley and were
please to have Linda and Dianne present at our
Small Business Owner Meeting.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
18 | P a g e
As usual, the Chamber of Commerce hosted the business mixer at the end of the event. We had 42 people attend the Small Business Summit in person and worked to continue engaging them in our meetings moving forward. Since our summit was back in-person, we were able to offer vendor tables and had a few businesses and nonprofits join us to promote their services. After the summit we sent out a survey to collect feedback from attendees which we reviewed as a team during an event debrief meeting. We also shared our registration and participation list with the Jurupa Chamber of Commerce to help them in recruiting members.
During our Small Business Summit debrief meeting, we discussed what went well and what we hope to improve for next year. Per the survey, we received an average rating of 4.7 out of 5 which was higher than our rating from last year. We agreed that the event was one of the best executed yet as we have been able to make them better each year. The information shared was all relatable and applicable for businesses. The Chamber of Commerce is hoping to be more involved next year, and the Board Members will make more of an effort to attend meetings moving forward.
Survey Results can be found here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-DFC3SC2C9/
For our 2021 event we are looking forward to hosting it at Crestmore Manor once again so that we can increase the networking and relationship building with a little more space. The team has already begun discussing themes and have tentatively set a date for November 15, 2022.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
19 | P a g e
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
20 | P a g e
Small Business Summit Program Pages 2 and 3
Shop The Walk
Shop the Walk is a way to promote small businesses within the city of Jurupa Valley in efforts of supporting small businesses and encouraging the community to shop locally. The Community Prosperity Action Team had the opportunity to partner up with 6 local businesses to participate in the Shop the Walk promotion. The businesses that participated in the Shop the Walk program were as fallow; Healthy Mission Nutrition, Flabob Airport Café, Loyalty Insurance, Hair Spot Salon and Barger, Opal Car Wash, and JV Speedy tires. All six businesses offered specials during their promotional month in which Healthy Jurupa Valley was able to assist in promoting. The coupons were uploaded into all the Healthy Jurupa Social Medias and Newsletters. Some of the business owners that were part of the Shop the Walk project are now more involved in the Healthy Jurupa Valley efforts. A great example is the owner of Healthy Mission Nutrition, he has been attending the Healthy Jurupa Community Monthly Meetings and promoting Healthy Jurupa Valley events in the Healthy Mission social medias. He has express gratitude for allowing Healthy Mission to be part of the Community Prosperity Action Team, Shop the Walk project.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
21 | P a g e
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
22 | P a g e
Businesses that participated in the Shop the Walk were able to see an increase of community members entering their business during the time of the promotion. Healthy Jurupa Valley has received great feedback from the community and partners. Some businesses are interested in participating again in the Shop the Walk promotion. Everyone that presented the coupons to the businesses were entered in a opportunity drawing in which they had a chance to win a $50 dollar gift card.
Opportunity Drawing Winners!!!!!
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
23 | P a g e
Gardens & Markets Action Team
Mission:
Striving to provide increased access to healthy food by connecting our community to food’s earthy origin.
Goals:
a. Kick-off event and ribbon cutting for the new Adventure Garden project once finalized by March 2022.
b. Recruit at least 5 new gardens and markets stakeholders to the action team by June 30, 2022. c. Support 3 gardens in Jurupa Valley and work toward creating 1 new garden by June 30. 2022.
Meetings Held:
July 12, 2021; August 9, 2021; September 13, 2021; October 11, 2021; November 8, 2021; January 10, 2022; February 11, 2022; March 14, 2022; April 11, 2022; May 9, 2022; June 13, 2022
Adventure Garden – Gateway to Stories, Activities and Learning The Gardens and Markets Action Team continues working toward the Born Learning Trail installation and Adventure Garden. It is located behind Louis Robidoux Library beside the Rubidoux Child Development Center and behind the Butterfly Garden. In this reporting period, work on the garden by our community members has been steady, almost on a weekly basis. In partnership with Riverside County’s CalFresh Healthy Living department, we were able to paint the sidewalk surrounding the garden with various physical activity stencils provided by them. Such examples of these activity can be seen in the images below.
In partnership with the Robidoux Library, the surrounding walls were painted, by their staff, to depict the story of The Very Hungry Caterpillar. The interior of the garden has been completely redone by the team. First, they were able to clear away all the weeds and overgrown plants to provide a clean canvas for the project. As of now, the team has installed 3 raised flowerbeds (pictured above) that will each contain plants or flowers pertaining to a human sense (smell, touch and hearing). Mulch has been spread across much of the garden and sod has been laid bringing a sense of cohesiveness to the space (pictured below). Additionally, the team has built a pathway that leads from the front sidewalk to
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
24 | P a g e
the center raised flowerbeds, and, in partnership with IEHP, we have been able to pave the pathway with small pebbles. (Fun Fact: IEHP’s logo can be spotted at the beginning of the pathway and a small tree made of pebbles, with the names of people who have helped at the garden, can be found at the end.)
Pictured: Pathway leading to the 3
raised flowerbeds.
Pictured: After first delivery and
laying of mulch and sod.
Pictured: Sight word lily pads and sun from
The Very Hungry Caterpillar
Team painting the Turtle Hopscotch activity
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
25 | P a g e
Adventure Garden Grand Unveiling
After years of planning and months of hard work,
the Gardens and Markets team hosted the
Adventure Garden Grand Unveiling event on
March 26, 2022. The unveiling was a community
event that consisted of the garden unveiling,
resource fair and vaccine clinic. In attendance we
had a variety of community members and elected
officials, such as Councilmember Altamirano,
School Board President Ragole, and
representatives from the Offices of
Assemblymember Cervantes and Senator Roth.
Additionally, the event hosted 15 vendors that
provided the community with a variety of fun
activities and resources. In partnership with
Riverside County’s Public Health team, a mobile
vaccine clinic was stationed in the parking lot
adjacent to the event. This was done to remind
our community the importance of Covid safety
protocols and increase access to life saving
vaccines. The event incorporated a ribbon cutting
and special recognitions for all those involved in
the creation of the community space. Please see
below for pictures of the event:
Pictured: Community members displaying their
recognition awards for working on the garden.
Pictured: Adventure Garden with poppies in bloom, on the day of the unveiling.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
26 | P a g e
Pictured: Adventure Garden ribbon cutting. Pictured: Councilmember Altamirano speaking at event.
Pictured: Recognitions from Office of Assemblymember
Cervantes.
Pictured: Tyler Bryne tabling for Jurupa Valley Rotary.
Pictured: Balloon artist making flower for community
member.
Pictured: Reach Out staff- Ruben Gonzalez, Josie Gaytan, and Jesus Gomez Manzo.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
27 | P a g e
Pictured: CalFresh Recipe Finder game
Pictured, left to right: Joan Tyler (former Library Manager), Jesus Gomez Manzo (Reach Out staff), Rosa Sanchez
(Library Programmer)
Fresh Produce Fair at Louis Robidoux Library
In partnership with the Louis Robidoux Library, our Gardens and Markets team was able to support at the library’s Fresh Produce fair in October. Reach Out’s CalFresh staff and the Gardens and Markets co- chairs were able host an informational booth with the aim of supporting the library’s event and recruiting community members to the HJV action teams. Reach Out staff was able to work with the county’s CalFresh Healthy Living department to provide the event with fruit and vegetable costumes (see image below). The costumes were specifically requested by the library to provide a more engaging and festive event for the community. The costumes ended up being a big hit with the community, especially the kids, as they were visibly delighted to interact with the costumed staff. The Reach Out team was also able to distribute healthy recipe cards and recipe finder “fortune teller” hand game for the kids. The hand game was quite popular which led the staff having to hold a quick demonstration on how to properly fold the origami style “fortune teller” game (see game below). The location of the event proved quite beneficial to the Gardens and Markets co-chair, as they were able to walk community members over to the Adventure Garden for a quick look at the project. This style of outreach resulted in the recruitment of a very passionate community member for the Gardens and Markets team. While the event has gone on a hiatus, we continue to communicate with the library awaiting its return so that we may continue to support at the event.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
28 | P a g e
Jurupa Valley YMCA Garden Box
In partnership with the Jurupa Valley YMCA, the Gardens and Markets action team began a garden box project in April of 2022. Per the YMCA, their site had started building a school garden early 2020. Once lockdown went into effect, the unfinished box fell into disrepair. The new site supervisor decided that she wanted to revamp the box and make it into a functional site garden for her students. After multiple planning meeting, the work on the box was done over 2 days- June 8 and June 15. The focus of our June 8th workday was to plant a variety of fruits and vegetables in the garden box. We ended up planting strawberries, carrots, zucchinis, and cucumbers in the box. One of our main concerns was the lack of staff availability over the weekends to water the garden; however, we were able to work with the maintenance team to have a drip irrigation system installed into the box. That same day, our team also painted the entire box a vibrant yellow in preparation for the next phase of the project. The June 15th day was focused mainly on adding the student’s handprints across the garden box. With the help of the YMCA staff, our team was able to include the handprints of about 80 students, ranging from 6 months to 12 years of age. We included the names of the students alongside their handprints in the hope of providing the student with a greater sense of pride and personal attachment for the YMCA and garden box.
Pictured: YMCA garden box before workdays.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
29 | P a g e
Jurupa Valley YMCA Garden Box
Out of this partnership, there arose the opportunity for one of our members, Karen Bradford, to co-host a gardening workshop for the kids of the YMCA. Karen was able to teach the kids the importance of having worms in their garden. Her workshops included a live demonstration with worms our co-chair, Pat Taylor, acquired as a donation. The workshop was a huge success as the worms were added to their new garden box and the kids were able to plant their very own sunflowers to take home.
Pictured: June 8, 2022 – Planting Day.
Pictured: June 15, 2022 – Painting Day.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
30 | P a g e
Jurupa Valley Family Resource Network
Mission:
Equip Jurupa Valley community members with the knowledge and resources available in their communities.
Goals:
a) 1.Provide monthly meetings to adults who have completed JV Leadership Academy to increase knowledge of community resources by June 30, 2022. b) 2. Implementation of third Leadership Academy cohort led by graduated leader during school year 21-22 and by May 31, 2022.
Meetings Held:
July 27, 2021; August 24,2021; September 28, 2021; October 26, 2021; November 23, 2021; December 15, 2021; January 25, 2022; February 22, 2022; March 22, 2022; May 24, 2022; June 30, 2022
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
31 | P a g e
Monthly Meetings
The Family Resource Network meeting have provided a space for our graduated leaders to remain up to date with upcoming events and to learn new resources for their community. In the above listed dates, our leaders have been introduced to the following topics and resources: Reach Out’s Social Host Ordinance, TruEvolution, lead poisoning prevention, Riverside University Health Systems- Public Health, Mexico Consulate in San Bernardino, and nutrition.
For the first half of the reporting period, the meetings were held via Zoom. However, by request from our leaders, we have begun to slowly transition the meetings back to in person. This has proved beneficial for the group as more leaders have been able to attend the meetings and network.
December Celebration
To celebrate the holiday season and to show our appreciation for our leader’s hard work, the Reach Out staff hosted a celebration for our leaders in December. This provided a space for our leaders to unwind and socialize amongst themselves with the only goals were to build bonds and strengthen relationships.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
32 | P a g e
Community Leadership in Action
Our group of graduated leaders have been providing support for Reach Out’s Vaccine Equity project.
For the reporting period, our graduates have assisted at Riverside County’s mobile vaccine clinics across various cities. They have provided support with translation, griage, outreach, and general clinic support. Our leaders also provided support at Reach Out’s Vaccination Celebration event during the month of December (see pictures below).
Responding to the new year’s huge demand for Covid testing, Reach Out began hosting weekly on- site testing clinics at our Jurupa Valley office. Our community leaders became integral to the effective operation of the testing clinics. The leaders assisted with every aspect of the operation, from set up to registration and even test administration support. It was in big part due to our leaders that we were able to run our testing sites multiples days a week for a few months.
Pictured: On-site testing clinic
Pictured: A leader supporting with after-vaccine
wait times.
Pictured: A leader sharing HJV resources.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
33 | P a g e
In addition to the abovementioned vaccine work, the leaders have been supporting our Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) efforts. Under this scope of work, the leaders have been collecting surveys at vaccine clinics across both Riverside and San Bernardino Counties.
Jurupa Valley Leadership Academy Cohort 3
During the first half of this reporting period, our staff began planning for a 3rd cohort of the Jurupa Valley Leadership Academy. Outreach and recruitment hit its peak in December and January culminating in the launch of our 3rd cohort January 25, 2022. The overall goal of the program is to empower community members to become leaders in their community and equip them with resources they can share. This group met for 2 hours weekly for 10 weeks to learn and practice various leadership skills. For example, some topics included effective communication, conflict resolution, safety in your community and cultural competency. Additionally, the cohort was introduced to a new local organization or resource at every class, such as Connect IE, TODEC, and IEHP.
Pictured: JV Leadership Academy Cohort 3
Pictured: Yadira leading class activity.
Pictured: Presentation from Community Health
Sy
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
34 | P a g e
Safety & Readiness
Mission: Engaging the community with resources, education and information on safety and emergency preparedness.
Goals
1) Implementation and follow up with Smoke Free Ordinance and increasing awareness of policy with signage by June 30, 2022.
2) Provide policy support and educational component of Social Host Ordinance implementation by June 30, 2022.
Meetings Held: August 19, 2021; September 16, 2021; October 21, 2021; December 16, 2021 ; November 18, 2021; December 16, 2021; January 20, 2022; February 17, 2022; March 17, 2022; April 21, 2022; May 19, 2022; June 16, 2022.
Drug-Free Communities – Substance Use Prevention
During the SAR October meeting, the team discussed the upcoming JV Needs Assessment as a method to help the EP team learn how to best support the community. Goals of the EP-Riverside grant were reviewed, and discussions ensued on how we could get input from youth, parents, and educators in the community. The EP team and DFC team also discussed updates regarding the Social Host Ordinance (SHO) in the city of Jurupa Valley. The team asked community members to voice their opinions on this ordinance and walked members through the public comment process. Lastly, our team was able to share more about the upcoming Sticker Shock campaign and promote National Take Back Day.
At the November SAR Meeting, the EP team again shared about the opportunity to submit a public comment for a SHO in JV and reviewed a SHO informational handout that was created by EP staff. Upcoming needs assessments were also discussed in further detail.
During December’s SAR meeting, the EP and DFC team shared results from the Sticker Shock Campaign and Jurupa Valley Student Focus Group. Further discussion ensured with Councilman Chris Barajas on the city council's decision to move forward with the Social Host Ordinance. Councilman Chris Barajas also shared other safety & drug free related activities the city is working towards and “Safety and security don’t just happen. They are the result of collective consensus and public investment. We owe our children…a life free of violence and fear.” -Nelson Mandela
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
35 | P a g e
provided guidance to where our collaborative could support. The Safety and Readiness Team also discussed Crosswalk Safety Discussion with Safe Routes to School, the rising death toll in vehicle accidents, and how our team could combat this, and how we can support parent groups concerned about child safety.
At the January HJV Meeting, the EP & Safety & Readiness (SAR) Action Team was able to share about updates since the last SAR Action Team meeting in December, including discussion of the Social Host Draft Ordinance, new city alcohol guidelines, and the Sticker Shock campaign that was carried out with Jurupa Youth United. For the January SAR Action Team Meeting, Iman Abouazra from Riverside Overdose Data to Action (RODA) presented on opioid use in the region. Our guest speaker shared about overdose death rates in 2020 compared to the previous 5 years, deaths due to fentanyl, & more. SAR was also shown how to navigate the online Overdose Data dashboard. This discussion on opioid use segued into brainstorming ideas for the Opioid Art Contest that was soon to be launching.
During the February HJV Meeting, our teams shared some of the data that RODA had presented on at the last SAR Action Team Meeting. Other items discussed included the Opioid Art Contest progress & the upcoming Jurupa Youth United meetings. During
the February SAR Meeting, the EP team shared about
the opportunity to submit a public comment for the
SHO draft that was being presented at the next City
Council Meeting. The EP team highlighted that the
ordinance only addressed alcohol, but not other
substances. The EP team also discussed some of the
comments and trends that were apparent via the
various Jurupa Valley needs assessments that were
conducted. Lastly, updates were shared regarding the
following: Opioid Prevention Art Contest, partnership
with Tobacco Control Project, and Smoke Free Multi
Unit Housing progress.
At the March HJV Meeting, our team shared that the first reading of the Jurupa Valley Social Host Ordinance was approved at the previous city council meeting. The team shared a timeline for the Opioid Prevention Art Contest & discussed other projects in the works. During this month's SAR meeting, the EP team discussed how at the upcoming City Council meeting they would be conducting a second reading & considering adoption of the social Host Ordinance. Members were encouraged to submit public comment and help spread awareness of this ordinance. Other items discussed at this meeting included Opioid Art Contest updates, National Drugs & Alcohol Facts Week, Tobacco Prevention, and planning for the next HJV meeting which was SAR-led.
The Drug Free Community Work Group hosted April's monthly HJV meeting with 40 coalition members. We highlighted the DFC successes of 2022 thus far with guest speakers including members of VOID (Victims of Illicit Drugs) who offer opioid-prevention education, and ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control). Jurupa Valley’s City Council passed the Social Host Ordinance with upcoming DFC-funded party patrols during graduation season. The Jurupa Youth United group hosted a Spring Social &
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
36 | P a g e
launched the Drop the Drugs Opioid Prevention Art Contest & opioid education. The Reach Out team is hosting upcoming Responsible Beverage Sales and Services (RBS) training to 50 on-sale alcohol businesses. ABC officer detailed recent State-wide shoulder tap operation where nearly 300 adults were cited for supplying alcohol to minors with three local citations. They requested HJV assist with minor decoy ops., which is included in our next year's DFC action plan.
In the SAR Action Team meeting for April, we had guest speaker Stan Clark from Southern California Public Pool Operators Association (SCPPOA) share Water Safety and Drowning Prevention facts and the ABCs of Safe Swimming. Our team also discussed Jurupa Valley’s Local Roadway Safety Plan from the Traffic Safety Committee. City Collision Data collected for 2016-2020 identified Four Emphasis Areas: Improper Turning, Unsafe Speed, Right-of-Way Violation/Failure to Yield, Driving under the influence/Distracted Driving.
In May, Mayor Chris Barajas shared with the SAR/DFC Team about the upcoming Deemed Approved Ordinances in the City of Jurupa Valley. We also discussed Responsible Beverage Server Trainings, because beginning July 1st, 2022, new ABC law mandates that establishments cannot employ or continue to employ any alcohol server without valid alcohol server certification. Reach Out team will be providing RBS training in-person in the upcoming months.
Jurupa Valley Social Host Ordinance
Throughout this
reporting period,
our Safety &
Readiness Action
Team worked
alongside the Drug-
Free Communities
and Reach Out team
to educate about
the importance and
benefit of a Social Host Ordinance in Jurupa Valley. Healthy Jurupa Valley introduced a Social Host Ordinance for Jurupa Valley at a City Council meeting in August 2021. Jurupa City Council expressed some concerns and questions regarding the ordinance and requested additional information to better inform their decision to move forward. Our team worked with Principal Management Analyst, Amy Sells, to compile additional information per their request.
During our SAR Action Team and HJV Coalition meetings, we regularly communicated updates regarding the Social Host Ordinance and invited community members to give their input regarding this ordinance via submission of public comment. In the month of November, SHO was reintroduced
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
37 | P a g e
to City Council with the additional information our team helped to prepare, resulting in Jurupa City Council’s approval to move forward with a draft Jurupa Valley Social Host Ordinance.
On Thursday, March 17, 2022, Jurupa Valley City Council conducted a second reading/consideration of adopting Ordinance No. 2022-0, and unanimously voted to adopt the city-wide Social Host Ordinance which holds adults liable for providing the space where underage substance use takes place.
Smoke-Free Ordinance
A Smoke Free Multi-Unit Housing policy passed in the previous year, and since then no complaints have been reported to code enforcement. New complexes have been notified, but not older units.
Our team identified a need to increase policy awareness and compliance. Code Enforcement and HJV Staff discussed with City Management on February 16th, 2022, about sending formal letters to apartments, and adding resources to City Website. HJV produced signage for businesses and MUHs.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
38 | P a g e
Jurupa Youth United
Meetings Held: September 14, 2021; October 22, 2021; November 19, 2021; December 11, 2021; January 21, 2022; February 18, 2022; March 24, 2022; April 30, 2022; June 10, 2022.
In the August and September meetings, we
re-introduced the Jurupa Youth United
youth group to new and incoming students
in the new school year. The team
reiterated the fact that we wish to
empower youth to ignite change, create
activities, and influence policies to reduce
youth substance misuse, bringing greater
health, safety & quality of life to everyone
in the city. We began planning out future
meetings and important upcoming events
for the rest of the calendar year.
At our October Jurupa Youth United Halloween Social, our team presented on youth and alcohol trends in the city of Jurupa Valley. Additionally, the Reach Out team introduced information on a Social Host Ordinance for the city of Jurupa Valley. Students learned more about the process to submit a public comment on items discussed during City Council meetings & had the opportunity to draft a public comment regarding the Jurupa Valley Social Host Ordinance.
During the November Jurupa Youth United Meeting, our team shared updates and progress regarding the Social Host Ordinance in Jurupa Valley. Students had the opportunity to participate in the DFC's Sticker Shock campaign for the city of Jurupa Valley. Students learned the purpose of a sticker shock campaign and the dangers of underage drinking. Students also had the opportunity to experience what is like being under the influence with marijuana and alcohol goggles.
For our December meeting, Jurupa Youth United gathered for DFC’s Sticker Shock campaign.
Students first learned about the dangers of underage alcohol consumption. The team also shared statistics regarding alcohol use amongst youth in the city of Jurupa Valley. One point we highlighted was that only 19% of teens consume alcohol, which surprised many students.
Everyone engaged in further discussion about social norms.
Finally, students had the opportunity to visit different establishments that sold alcohol to spread awareness of the dangers of providing alcohol to minors with stickers.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
39 | P a g e
Sticker Shock Campaign
Students posing in front of HJV
murals before starting the
Sticker Shock Campaign
Students posing in front of HJV
murals before starting the
Sticker Shock Campaign
Stickers placed on alcohol cases by youth at local alcohol retailers
In January, we welcomed all the students back after their Winter Break, and began focusing on well- being, and highlighted the 8 Dimensions of Wellness. Students were able to identify the areas where they have strengths in and areas where they would be focusing on improving.
In February, we continued the discussion on wellness, and talked about the progress each student was making on the areas where improvement was needed. In this meeting, we also introduced opioids statistics to the youth. We shared with them how opioid related deaths and hospitalizations were rising within the Inland Empire. We introduced the idea of an Opioid Prevention Art Contest,
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
40 | P a g e
to bring awareness of the crisis in
the two counties and highlight our
Medication Drop Boxes throughout
the city.
In March, we held a Spring Social
for our JYU group, during the
student’s Spring Break. Here we
talked about National Drug Facts
Week and had an opportunity to
practice Assertive Communication
when saying “No!” to peer
pressure. Light refreshments,
games, and an opportunity drawing
were provided.
In March, we also officially launched the Drop the Drugs Opioid Prevention Art Contest, in collaboration with the Arts and Recreation Action Team. This art contest was open to all students in Riverside and San Bernardino County. Three winners would be chosen from a panel of judges and have their winning entry displayed on 1 of 3 Medication Drop Boxes installed in Jurupa Valley and win a $100 prize. Flyers were passed out all over the region and shared through all Social Media channels.
April is Cannabis Awareness Month, and our team shared infographics and messaging throughout our Instagram and Facebook pages. Every post shared was intended to help spread awareness about the crisis and share resources for those looking to stop the misuse. In April, our Jurupa Youth United students and staff participated in the City of Jurupa Valley’s Spring Community Clean Up Day.
Volunteers from all over came together in their commitment to keep the city clean and beautiful by picking up trash all around the park and streets.
In respect for the students finishing
their school year and finals, we held
off any meetings in the month of
May, instead taking the time to
reassess our meeting times and
dates. We also heavily promoted
our Drop the Drugs Opioid
Prevention Art Contest to various
schools and other organizations.
May is also Mental Health
Awareness Month, and many of our
social media post were related to
managing stress and mental
wellbeing.
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
41 | P a g e
In June, we ended our Drop the Drugs art contest, and collected all the entries throughout the Inland Empire. We recruited Reach Out staff, Arts and Recreation Action Team members and Jurupa Youth United members to film a video to reveal the winners of the art contest. This video reveal was promoted in the month of July. Link to that video can be found here:
https://youtu.be/0E6SEmMFfxQ
Drop the Drugs Opioid Prevention Art Contest
Andrew Nim – Eastvale Chloe Lin – Jurupa Valley
Kelly Tapia – Hemet Yamilet Lopez - Riverside
Healthy Jurupa Valley Report to City Council: July 1, 2021 – June 30, 2022
42 | P a g e
Jasmine Khaligov - Indio Maria Guerra – Perris
During the next school year, we hope to be able to involve many more youth. Our staff team has growth, three of which are JUSD high school graduates who will be able to do more targeted outreach to teachers and administration. We are hoping to incorporate a Leadership Academy for youth as well.
Closing
Healthy Jurupa Valley is a key touchstone for many residents that allows them to stay informed of the work of many organizations and agencies throughout the city. We would like to extend our thanks to the city council and city staff for their support, both financially and otherwise, for Healthy Jurupa Valley. Not many cities truly offer their residents the voice and empowerment that is found through HJV. These resident-led activities truly make a difference in our community in so many ways. We look forward to a continued partnership in elevating the health and wellbeing of our friends and neighbors. We look forward to the great projects that will be accomplished in the years to come.
Page | 1
S
TAFF REPORT
DAT
E: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.E
APP
ROVAL OF THE ANNUAL AGREEMENT WITH THE JURUPA
VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INCLUDING THE COVID RELIEF
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
RECO
MMENDATION
That the City Council approve the annual agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce for an amount not to exceed $25,000 and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached and as approved by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
In the interest of improving economic development and supporting business in the City of Jurupa Valley, the City Council has allocated funding as part of the annual budget to the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce. T he City and the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce have collaborated on economic development activities to the benefit of local businesses and the City through goals included in the Chamber’s annual contract with the City.
Each year, with the funds provided by the City, the Chamber provides business outreach, hosts social events for the businesses; cross promotes City events, coordinates grands openings, provides marketing materials and hosts two important City events – The Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast and the State of the City.
Although the last two years was a challenge with the Covid- 19 pandemic, the Chamber is proud to highlight some of the efforts made to maintain members, improve services and provide additional value and support during a time when many businesses closed their doors. Provided a free marketing e-book given to new email subscribers. This allows the Chamber to provide an email campaign focused on sharing the Chamber’s benefits.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
• Created dual business blogs. One for the community and a more detailed “how-to” for their members.
• Retention program created, which includes a phone call from one of the Board of Directors, a social media post, a plaque and thank you letter, check-in phone calls and postcards.
• Worked closely with the City to promote economic development. • Promoted City events on social media platforms.
• Continued to plan ribbon cuttings, mixers, business networking opportunities and events
• Hosted the Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast and currently planning the State of the City The Covid-19 pandemic posed numerous challenges to local business es that both the City and Chamber helped alleviate as restrictions were lifted and businesses were able to resume normal operations. To that end, in 2021 the Chamber pr oposed a City- sponsored discounted Chamber membership to be included with all new and renewing business registrations that are currently not Chamber members. The Covid Relief Jurupa Valley Economic Development program with the Chamber of Commerce brought seventeen new members in 2021- 2022 to the Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber requested the continuation of the program for 2022-2023. The goal would be to introduce as many businesses as possible to the benefits of Chamber membership as well as a goodwill measure on behalf of the City.
ANALYSIS
The City Council included funding for the Jurupa Valley Chamber of Commerce in the FY 2022/23 budget adopted on June 16, 2022 in order to continue supporting the Chamber and the Jurupa Valley business community. The Funds provided to the Chamber shall be used as detailed in the Agreement for the following purposes:
A. Chamber shall use the funds for the promotion and enhancement of the business community of Jurupa Valley and for no other purposes. Chamber shall promote and enhance the business community of Jurupa Valley, and the residential community it serves, and to assist our members in a safe and successful execution of operations; both in the immediate needs of today, and the long-term needs of the future including the following activities:
1) Continue all activities related to membership development and educational activities for local businesses including seminars and webinars. 2) Continue all ac tivities related to business development opportunities within the City of Jurupa Valley including business outreach, retention and recruitment, inclusive of business related events, social media,
-1-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
AGREEMENT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES BETWEEN
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND THE JURUPA VALLEY
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of August 4 , 2022, by and between the CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ("City"), and JURUPA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, Inc., a California nonprofit corporation (“ Chamber”). In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions and undertakings set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Recitals. This Agreement is made with respect to the following facts and purposes, which each of the parties acknowledge and agree are true and correct:
A. Chamber is a non-profit corporation established as a chamber of commerce to promote and enhance the business community of Jurupa Valley.
B. The mission of the Chamber is to “Promote and enhance the business community of Jurupa Valley, and the residential community it serves and to assist our members in a safe and successful execution of operations; both in the immediate needs of today, and the long term needs of the future."
C. In consideration of the benefits to the City of the promotion and enhancement of the business community of Jurupa Valley, City is willing to provide funds to Chamber to continue its work for Jurupa Valley as provided in this Agreement.
2. Funding.
A. The City hereby agrees to provide funding to Chamber for the promotion and enhancement of the business community of Jurupa Valley in the amount of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000) during the term of this for the uses described in Paragraph 3.A subject to the provisions of this Agreement. The Chamber of Commerce will invoice the City for the $20,000 and at year-end June 30, 2021 and invoice for the “Covid Relief Jurupa Valley Economic Development Program.” The City shall also reimburse Chamber for the discounted Chamber membership fee program described in Paragraph 3.B of this Agreement in an additional amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
3. Use of Funds.
A. Chamber shall use the funds for the promotion and enhancement of the business community of Jurupa Valley and for no other purposes. Chamber shall promote and enhance the business community of Jurupa Valley, and the residential community it serves, and to assist our members in a safe and successful execution of operations; both in the immediate needs of today, and the long-term needs of the future including the following activities:
1) Continue all activities related to membership development and educational activities for local businesses including seminars and webinars. -2-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
2) Continue all activities related to business development opportunities within the City of Jurupa Valley including business outreach, retention and recruitment, inclusive of business related events, social media, newsletters, direct meetings with potential businesses, host social events for the businesses; cross promote City events, coordinate grand openings, provide marketing materials and host two important City events – The Mayor’s Prayer Breakfast and the State of the City.
3) Funds shall not be used to support or oppose any candidates for elected or appointive office or to support or oppose any ballot measure on local or state ballots.
B. In order to help expand the Chamber membership and encourage full participation of all businesses in the economic development of the City, Chamber shall implement the “Covid Relief Jurupa Valley Economic Development Program” (“Program”). The Program is a City- sponsored discounted Chamber membership fee program for all new and renewing business registrations for businesses that are not Chamber members. The shall terminate on June 30, 2023. Chamber shall notify the City each month of the number of Chamber memberships provided under this Program. On or before July 1, 2022, the City shall reimburse the Chamber for the difference between the membership fee provided to new members pursuant to this Program and the membership fee in effect as of the date of this Agreement, in a total amount not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000.00).
4. TERM. This Agreement shall commence on August 4, 2022, and shall remain and continue in effect until June 30, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement. The City Council may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, on five (5) days prior written notice to the Chamber. The City Manager may at any time, upon notice to Chamber, suspend the funding and work of Chamber should the City Manager determine that Chamber is operating in violation of this Agreement.
5. QUARTERLY FINANCIAL REVIEW. Chamber shall provide a quarterly financial review of its operations to the City. This financial review shall be completed on the first day of each calendar quarter and submitted to the City Manager. The financial review shall provide a general summary report on how Funds were expended and used to benefit Jurupa Valley residents and shall include documentation, including but not limited to, copies of invoices, receipts and cancelled checks to support the use of Funds. The financial documentation shall comply with the usual and customary accounting documentation of non-profit organizations with such additional documentation as may be required by the City Manager.
7. INDEMNIFICATION. Chamber shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley, its elected officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and representatives from any and all suits, claims, demands, losses, defense costs or expenses, actions, liability or damages of whatsoever kind and nature which the City, its officers, agents and employees may sustain or incur or which may be imposed upon them for injury to or death of persons, or damage to property arising out of Chamber’s negligent or wrongful acts or omissions arising out of or in any way related to the performance or non-performance of this Agreement.
6. LIABILITY INSURANCE. Chamber shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Chamber, its agents, representatives, or employees.
-3-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001).
2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto).
3) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Chamber shall maintain limits no less than:
1) General Liability: one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. 2) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3) Employer’s Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
C. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions shall not exceed $25,000 unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager in his sole discretion.
D. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Chamber; products and
completed operations of the Chamber; premises owned, occupied or used by the Chamber; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Chamber. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
2) For any claims related to this project, the Chamber’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insured maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Chamber’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
-4-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
4) The Chamber’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City.
E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII.
F. Verification of Coverage. Chamber shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City’s forms, the Chamber’s insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. City Manager is authorized to modify the insurance requirements of this Paragraph 6 in his sole discretion.
G. Chamber, by executing this Agreement, hereby certifies:
“I am aware of the provision of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for Workman’s Compensation or undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Contract.”
7. LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES. Chamber shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement, including without limitation, such laws prohibiting discrimination against protected groups. Chamber shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of Chamber to comply with this section.
8. ASSIGNMENT. Chamber shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City Manager.
9. NOTICES. Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (i) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that -5-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice, and shall be effective upon personal services or two business days following deposit with a document delivery service or mail:
CITY: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attention: City Manager
CHAMBER: JURUPA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
Post Office Box 3798
Jurupa Valley, CA 92519
Attention: President
10. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
A. Chamber shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor.
The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Chamber shall at all times be under Chamber's exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Chamber or any of Chamber's officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Chamber shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City. Chamber shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
B. No employee benefits shall be available to Chamber in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Chamber as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Chamber for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Chamber for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party's own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
-6-
12774-0001\2576893v2.doc
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
________________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________
Peter Thorson, City Attorney
JURUPA VALLEY CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ,
INC., a California non-profit corporation
By: _____________________________
Name:
Title:
By: _____________________________
Name:
Title:
[*Note: Signatures of two corporate officers are required for corporations – First signature must be one of the following: 1) the chairman of the board; 2) the president; or 3) any vice president.. The second corporate signature must be one of the following: 1) the secretary; or 2) the chief financial officer. One person signing the Agreement on behalf of the corporation will be accepted if the person is authorized to sign corporate pursuant to a corporate resolution.]
Page | 1
120
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR/CITY ENGINEER
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.F
AG
REEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND MARK
THOMAS, INC. FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES FOR THE BRIDGE
INVESTMENT PROGRAM
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That
the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Va lley and Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. for grant writing services for the Bridge Investment Program and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached and as approved by the City Attorney. 2) A
uthorize staff to submit the grant application for Market Street bridge project BAC
KGROUND
On June 10, 2022, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration published a Notice of Funding Opportunity (“NOFO”) to solicit grant applications for the Bridge Inv estment Program (“BIP”). BIP funding focuses on revitalizing existing bridges to reduce the overall number of bridges in poor condition. A total of $2.36 billion in BIP funds are available for bridge projects. The funds will be awarded on a competitive basis for bridge replacement, rehabilitation, and preservation.
Staff reviewed the NOFO and concluded that Market Street bridge and the Mi ssion Boulevard bridge are eligible projects. The City shares ownership of both bridges with the City of Riverside. As a result, the City will be the lead agency applying for the Market Street bridge project and the City of Riverside will be the lead agency for the Mission Boulevard bridge project. Based on the preliminary engineering cost estimate, the City is requesting approximately $66 million to fully fund the construction of Market Street bridge project. The BIP application is due on September 8, 2022.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
ANALYSIS
Due to the complexity of the grant application and the short application window, the City contacted five engineering firms with expertise in drafting infrastructure related grants .
The firms were invited to submit proposals to provide the grant writing services, including the engineering analysis and benefit cost analysis. Of the five firms that were contacted, three responded.
The City received proposals from the following firms (in alphabetical order):
o HDR Inc., Riverside, CA
o Mark Thomas & Company, Rancho Cucamonga, CA
o Transystems, Santa Ana, CA
Per Section 3.15.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, professional services are defined as services provided by any specially trained and experienced person or firm in areas such as accounting, engineering, finance, and planning. A greements for professional services are awarded by the City Council on the basis of the demonstrated competence, qualifications, and on the fairness and reasonableness of the cost of services to the City, and shall not be awarded solely on the basis of cost.
Engineering staff reviewed the proposals and Mark Thomas & Company , Inc. (“Mark Thomas”) was ranked as the best qualified firm to provide the services. Staff began communications with Mark Thomas and confirmed that they have the ability to perform the services and complete the application before the September deadline. Mark Thomas is a well-established engineering firm with offices in Rancho Cucamonga, California. The firm specializes in civil engineering and has completed numerous projects on behalf of the California Department of Transportation.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The Agreement calls for a not to exceed amount of $35,871.00 for the preparation of the grant application for Market Street bridge.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not approve the Agreement between the City and Mark Thomas
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
-1-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
AGREEMENT FOR GRANT WRITING SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. FOR GRANT
WRITING SERVICES FOR THE BRIDGE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
THIS AGREEMENT is made and effective as of August 4, 2022, between the City of Jurupa Valley (“City”) and Mark Thomas & Company, Inc. a California Corporation (“Consultant”). In consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, the parties agree as follows:
1. Term
This Agreement shall commence on August 4, 2022, and shall remain and continue in effect until tasks described herein are completed in accordance with the Scope of Services, but in no event later than August 3, 2023, unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement.
2. Services
Consultant shall perform the services and tasks described and set forth in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Consultant shall complete the tasks according to the schedule of performance, which is also set forth in Exhibit A.
3. Performance
Consultant shall at all times faithfully, competently and to the best of his or her ability, experience, and talent, perform all tasks described herein. Consultant shall employ, at a minimum, generally accepted standards and practices utilized by persons engaged in providing similar services as are required of Consultant hereunder in meeting its obligations under this Agreement.
4. Payment
A. The City agrees to cause Consultant to be paid monthly, in accordance with the payment rates and terms and the schedule of payment as set forth in Exhibit B, Quotation for Service, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full, based upon actual time spent on the above tasks. This amount shall not exceed Thirty-five Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy-one dollars ($35,871.00) for the total term of the Agreement unless additional payment is approved as provided in this Agreement.
B. Consultant shall not be compensated for any services rendered in connection with its performance of this Agreement which are in addition to those set forth herein, unless such additional services are authorized in advance and in writing by the City Council.
C. Consultant shall submit invoices monthly for actual services performed.
Invoices shall be submitted between the first and fifteenth business day of each month, for services provided in the previous month. Payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of -2-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
receipt of each invoice as to all non-disputed fees. If the City disputes any of consultant’s fees it shall give written notice to Consultant within 30 days of receipt of an invoice of any disputed fees set forth on the invoice.
5. Suspension or Termination of Agreement Without Cause
A. The City may at any time, for any reason, with or without cause, suspend or terminate this Agreement, or any portion hereof, by serving upon the consultant at least ten (10) days prior written notice. Upon receipt of said notice, the Consultant shall immediately cease all work under this Agreement, unless the notice provides otherwise. If the City suspends or terminates a portion of this Agreement such suspension or termination shall not make void or invalidate the remainder of this Agreement.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated pursuant to this Section, the City shall pay to Consultant the actual value of the work performed up to the time of termination, provided that the work performed is of value to the City. Upon termination of the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant will submit an invoice to the City pursuant to Section 4.
6. Default of Consultant
A. The Consultant’s failure to comply with the provisions of this Agreement shall constitute a default. In the event that Consultant is in default for cause under the terms of this Agreement, City shall have no obligation or duty to continue compensating Consultant for any work performed after the date of default and can terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the Consultant. If such failure by the Consultant to make progress in the performance of work hereunder arises out of causes beyond the Consultant’s control, and without fault or negligence of the Consultant, it shall not be considered a default.
B. If the City Manager or his delegate determines that the Consultant is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he or she shall serve the Consultant with written notice of the default. The Consultant shall have (10) days after service upon it of said notice in which to cure the default by rendering a satisfactory performance. In the event that the Consultant fails to cure its default within such period of time, the City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice to any other remedy to which it may be entitled at law, in equity or under this Agreement.
7. Ownership and Maintenance of Documents
A. Consultant shall maintain complete and accurate records with respect to sales, costs, expenses, receipts and other such information required by City that relate to the performance of services under this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain adequate records of services provided in sufficient detail to permit an evaluation of services. All such records shall be maintained in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and shall be clearly identified and readily accessible. Consultant shall provide free access to the representatives of City or its designees at reasonable times to such books and records, shall give City the right to examine and audit said books and records, shall permit City to make transcripts there from as necessary, and shall allow inspection of all work, data, documents, proceedings and activities -3-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
related to this Agreement. Such records, together with supporting documents, shall be maintained for a period of two (2) years after receipt of final payment.
B. Upon completion of, or in the event of termination or suspension of this Agreement, all original documents, designs, drawings, maps, models, computer files containing data generated for the work, surveys, notes and other documents prepared in the course of providing the services to be performed pursuant to this Agreement shall become the sole property of the City and may be used, reused or otherwise disposed of by the City without the permission of the Consultant. With respect to computer files containing data generated for the work, Consultant shall make available to the City, upon reasonable written request by the City Manager, the necessary computer software and hardware for purposes of accessing, compiling, transferring and printing computer files.
8. Indemnification.
Consultant shall defend, hold harmless and indemnify the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role City officials (collectively “Indemnitees”) with respect to any and all claims, demands, damages, liabilities, losses, costs or expenses, including attorneys’ fees and costs of defense (collectively, “Claims” hereinafter), including but not limited to, Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to acts or omissions of Consultant or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement, except for such loss or damage arising from the negligence or willful misconduct of the City, as determined by final arbitration or court decision or by the agreement of the parties. Consultant shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City’s choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including all attorneys’ fees and experts’ costs actually incurred in connection w i t h such defense. Consultant’s duty to defend pursuant to this Section shall apply independent of any prior, concurrent or subsequent misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions or Indemnitees.
9. Insurance Requirements.
A. Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property, which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives, or employees.
as:
1) Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least as broad
a) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability form No. CG 00 01 11 85 or 88.
b) Insurance Services Office Business Auto Coverage form CA 00 01 06 92 covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). If the Consultant owns no automobiles, a non-owned auto endorsement to the General Liability policy described above is acceptable.
-4-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
c) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance. If the Consultant has no employees while performing under this Agreement, worker’s compensation insurance is not required, but Consultant shall execute a declaration that it has no employees.
d) Professional liability insurance shall be written on a policy form providing professional liability for the Consultant’s profession.
no less than:
2) Minimum Limits of Insurance. Consultant shall maintain limits
a) General Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. If Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
b) Automobile Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
c) Worker’s Compensation as required by the State of
California; Employer’s Liability: One million dollars ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease.
d) Professional liability insurance in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000) per claim and in the aggregate.
3) Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions shall not exceed $25,000 unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager in his sole discretion.
B. Other Insurance Provisions. The general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1) The City, its elected officials, officers, employees, designated volunteers and those City agents serving as independent contractors in the role City officials (“Additional Insured”) shall be covered as insured’s as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of the Consultant; premises owned, occupied or used by the Consultant; or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Consultant. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the Additional Insureds.
2) For any claims related to this project, the Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the Additional Insureds. Any insurance or self- insured maintained by the Additional Insureds shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
-5-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
3) Any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the policies including breaches of warranties shall not affect coverage provided to the Additional Insureds.
4) The Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.
5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall be endorsed to state that the insurer shall endeavor to provide thirty (30) days’ prior written notice, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the City prior to any action to suspend, void, cancel or otherwise reduce in coverage or in limits.
6) Within one (1) business day following receipt by Consultant of any notice correspondence or notice, written or oral, of an action or proposed action to suspend, void, cancel or otherwise reduce in coverage or in limits of the required insurance, Consultant shall notify City of such action or proposed action.
C. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A-:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City. Self- insurance shall not be considered to comply with these insurance requirements.
D. Verification of Coverage. Consultant shall furnish the City with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The endorsements are to be on forms provided by the City. All endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. As an alternative to the City’s forms, the Consultant’s insurer may provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.
E. Modifications. City Manager may, with the consent of the City Attorney, waive the provisions of this paragraph or provided for other forms of insurance as may be necessary to enable the City to receive adequate insurance protection as contemplated in this section.
10. Independent Contractor
A. Consultant is and shall at all times remain as to the City a wholly independent contractor. The personnel performing the services under this Agreement on behalf of Consultant shall at all times be under Consultant’s exclusive direction and control. Neither City nor any of its officers, employees, agents, or volunteers shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant’s officers, employees, or agents except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not at any time or in any manner represent that it or any of its officers, employees or agents are in any manner officers, employees or agents of the City.
Consultant shall not incur or have the power to incur any debt, obligation or liability whatever against City, or bind City in any manner.
-6-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
B. No employee benefits shall be available to Consultant in connection with the performance of this Agreement. Except for the fees paid to Consultant as provided in the Agreement, City shall not pay salaries, wages, or other compensation to Consultant for performing services hereunder for City. City shall not be liable for compensation or indemnification to Consultant for injury or sickness arising out of performing services hereunder.
11. Legal Responsibilities
The Consultant shall keep itself informed of all local, State and Federal ordinances, laws and regulations which in any manner affect those employed by it or in any way affect the performance of its service pursuant to this Agreement. The Consultant shall at all times observe and comply with all such ordinances, laws and regulations. The City, and its officers and employees, shall not be liable at law or in equity occasioned by failure of the Consultant to comply with this section.
12. Confidentiality; Release of Information
A. All information gained by Consultant in performance of this Agreement shall be considered confidential and shall not be released by Consultant without City’s prior written authorization.
B. Consultant, its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, shall not without written authorization from the City Manager or unless requested by the City Attorney, voluntarily provide declarations, letters of support, testimony at depositions, response to interrogatories or other information concerning the work performed under this Agreement or relating to any project or property located within the City. Response to a subpoena or court order shall not be considered “voluntary” provided Consultant gives City notice of such court order or subpoena.
13. Assignment
The Consultant shall not assign the performance of this Agreement, nor any part thereof, nor any monies due hereunder, without prior written consent of the City. City consents to the use of the sub-consultants described in Exhibit A to this Agreement provided the costs of such sub-consultants shall be borne by the Consultant and shall not exceed the costs described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement.
14. General Provisions
A. Notices
Any notices which either party may desire to give to the other party under this Agreement must be in writing and may be given either by (I) personal service, (ii) delivery by a reputable document delivery service, such as but not limited to, Federal Express, that provides a receipt showing date and time of delivery, or (iii) mailing in the United States Mail, certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, addressed to the address of the party as set forth below or at any other address as that party may later designate by Notice. Notice shall be -7-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
effective upon delivery to the addresses specified below or on the third business day following deposit with the document delivery service or United States Mail as provided above.
To City: City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attention: City Manager
To Consultant: Mark Thomas & Company, Inc.
10630 Town Center Drive, Suite 117
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attention: Darin Johnson, Associate Principal
B. Licenses. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall have in full force and effect, all licenses required of it by law for the performance of the services described in this Agreement.
C. Governing Law; Venue
1) The City and Consultant understand and agree that the laws of the State of California shall govern the rights, obligations, duties and liabilities of the parties to this Agreement and also govern the interpretation of this Agreement.
2) Any litigation concerning this Agreement shall take place in the municipal, superior, or federal district court with geographic jurisdiction over the City of Jurupa Valley. In the event such litigation is filed by one party against the other to enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party, as determined by the Court’s judgment, shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses for the relief granted.
D. Prohibited Interest. No officer, or employee of the City of Jurupa Valley who has participated in the development of this Agreement or its administration shall have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, the proceeds thereof, the Consultant, or Consultant’s sub-contractors, during his/her tenure or for one year thereafter. The Consultant hereby warrants and represents to the City that no officer or employee of the City Council or City of Jurupa Valley has any interest, whether contractual, non-contractual, financial or otherwise, in this transaction, or in the business of the Consultant or Consultant’s sub- Consultants on this project. Consultant further agrees to notify the City in the event any such interest is discovered whether or not such interest is prohibited by law or this Agreement.
E. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire understanding between the parties relating to the obligations of the parties described in this Agreement. All prior or contemporaneous agreements, understandings, representations and statements, oral or written, are merged into this Agreement and shall be of no further force or effect. Each party is entering into this Agreement based solely upon the representations set forth herein and upon each party’s own independent investigation of any and all facts such party deems material.
F. Time is of Essence. In carrying out the provisions of this Agreement, both parties acknowledge and agree that time is of the essence. -8-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
G. Authority To Execute This Agreement. The person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Consultant warrants and represents that he or she has the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the Consultant and has the authority to bind Consultant to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed the day and year first above written.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
By:
Name:
Title:
By:
Name:
Title:
[SIGNATURES OF TWO CORPORATE OFFICERS OR CORPORATE AUTHORITY RESOLUTION REQUIRED]
-9-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Consultant will prepare the grant application for the 2022 Bridge Investment Program. The scope of work will coincide with Task 1 – Bridge Investment Program of the Consultant’s proposal dated July 14, 2022.
July 14, 2022
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Attn: Paul Toor, PE
RE: Proposal – Market Street Bridge Over Santa Ana River Grants
Dear Mr. Toor:
We are excited for the opportunity to work with the City of Jurupa Valley (City) to pursue funding for the Market Street Bridge over Santa Ana River Project (Project). Mark Thomas has been requested to submit a proposal for a Bridge Investment Program (BIP) Grant application for the Project.
The BIP is a new program from USDOT for the rehabilitation and replacement of bridges.
The current condition of the bridge and seismic issues makes the bridge a great candidate for this funding program.
We have developed our scope of work and fee estimate to prepare both grant applications for the Project. Final design, environmental clearance, detailed right of way and utility services, and surveying and mapping services are excluded from this scope.
SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1 – Bridge Investment Program Grant
Task 1.1 – Grant Preparation
Mark Thomas will prepare the grant application for the BIP following the 2022 NOFO. We will develop a grant application outline and a needs chart describing each section of the grant and any information needs. The BIP grant application will include the following sections:
• Cover Letter
• Grant Narrative (25 pages)
o Basic Project Information – Description, Location, and Parties o National Bridge Inventory Data
o Project Costs – Grant Funds, Sources, and Use of All Project Funding o Project Outcome Criteria
o Benefit-Cost Analysis
o Project Readiness and Environmental Risk
o Project Priority Considers
• Standard Form (SF) 424 – Application for Federal Assistance • SF 424C – Budget Information for Construction Programs • SF 424D – Assurances for Construction Programs
• SF LLL – Disclosure of Lobbying Activities
• Grants.gov Lobbying Form
• Key Contacts
Task 1.2 – Benefit Cost Analysis
As a subconsultant to Mark Thomas, Economic & Planning Systems (EPS) will prepare the Benefic Cost Analysis (BCA) required for the grant following USDOT guidance.
Define Project Costa and Alternatives
The benefits of the Project will be measured against a “no-build” baseline or under the assumption that no grant funding is provided. EPS will work with Mark Thomas and the City to define the no-build baseline, construction timeline, and associated capital and operations and maintenance (O&M) costs for each.
Describe and Quantify Project Benefits
EPS will strive to monetize based on available data supplemented by reasonable estimates and assumptions to be developed. Some are standard benefit-cost metrics used in established federally approved methodologies. Other more qualitative benefits will be evaluated based on the local context and qualitative and quantitative information available. EPS and Mark Thomas will identify any transportation modeling data that can be used. As additional Project details are available and specific grant program guidance is reviewed, this list is subject to change.
Conduct the Benefit-Cost Analysis
EPS will have tabulated and discounted each of the costs and benefits of the Project. The consultant team will then develop a spreadsheet model to sum the present value of the benefits (relative to travel patterns under baseline conditions) and compare them to the present value of the costs (relative to the baseline) of Project development and maintenance. The ratio between benefits and costs is the benefit-cost ratio. EPS will present the overall benefits and costs in tabular and graphic form.
Consider Additional Benefits
EPS will consider other benefits as necessary, appropriate, and feasible under the time constraints of the assignment. Additional benefits will be considered and estimated, where appropriate, for all benefit categories outlined in the US DOT guidelines, including safety, quality of life, environmental protection, state of good repair, and economic competitiveness.
Prepare Draft and Final Reports
EPS will prepare a draft technical memorandum along with all related charts, tables, and graphics for review by Mark Thomas and the City. This document will categorize all benefits evaluated and describe in detail the calculation used to analyze each benefit and cost. Upon receiving feedback from Mark Thomas and the City, EPS will produce a final technical memorandum, ensuring the deliverable meets the requirements of the potential grant funder.
Deliverables
• Draft grant application
• Final grant application
• Draft BCA analysis and memo
• Final BCA analysis and memo
PROJECT SCHEDULE
BIP Bridge Projects category grant applications are due September 8, 2022, and SS4A grant applications are due by September 15, 2022. We’ve anticipated a Notice to Proceed on July 21. Below is the schedule for both grant applications.
BIP Grant
• July 29- Mark Thomas develop stakeholder list and draft letter of support and send to the City for review.
• August 4 – City provide comments on stakeholder list and letter of support. • August 5 – Mark Thomas to request letters of support from stakeholders. • August 12 – Mark Thomas provide draft application to the City for review. • August 26 – City provide review comments to Mark Thomas on the draft application.
• September 6 – Mark Thomas provide final grant application to the City. • September 8 – City submit grant application files on grants.gov.
FEE ESTIMATE
The not-to-exceed project fee to complete the Scope of Work is $35,871.
Thank you again for this opportunity. If you have any questions regarding our scope and fee, please don't hesitate to contact Ryan Bissegger at (916) 539-4680 or email him at [email protected].
Sincerely,
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC.
Darin Johnson, PE Ryan Bissegger
Division Manager + Associate Principal New Business Director + Associate
-10-
12774-0001\1689879v1.doc
EXHIBIT B
Q
UOTATION FOR SERVICE
Consultant shall not exceed $35,871.00 throughout the term of the agreement. Consultant’s rate schedule expiring June 30, 2023, is attached.
MARK THOMAS & COMPANY, INC. RATE SCHEDULE
EXPIRES JUNE 30, 2023
Engineering Surveying
Design Engineer I $96 - $159 Surveyor $119 - $169
Design Engineer II $119 - $194 Sr. Surveyor $135 - $204 Project Engineer $160 - $201 Project Surveyor $157 - $240 Sr. Project Engineer $173 - $236 Sr. Project Surveyor $183 - $247 Sr. Technical Engineer $173 - $236 * Single Chief $167 - $222 Technical Lead $199 - $271 * Single Instrumentman $157 - $197 Sr. Technical Lead $237 - $345 * Single Chainman $148 - $194 Engineering/Design Manager $308 - $395 * Apprentice $89 - $152 Sr. Engineering Manager $340 - $493 * 1 Person Field Crew $167 - $222 * 2 Person Field Crew $314 - $416
Construction Management * 3 Person Field Crew $403 - $567 Office Engineer $119 - $226 Drone Pilot $235
* Asst. Resident Engineer $170 - $310
* Inspector - CM $163 - $310 Technicians
RE/Structural Representative $224 - $377 Intern $51 - $113 Area Manager - CM $336 - $493 Technician/Office/Survey Technician $67 - $141 Sr. Technician/Survey Technician $99 - $194
Planning
Planner I
$90 - $116
Lead Technician/Survey Technician $135 - $219
Planner II $115 - $144 Project Management & Oversight
Sr. Planner $131 - $180 Project/Survey Manager $199 - $282 Sr. Project/Survey Manager $237 - $377
Landscape Architecture/Urban Design Division Manager $266 - $416 Landscape Designer I $83 - $123 Principal $426 - $504
Landscape Designer II $103 - $155
Landscape Architect $119 - $208 Project Support
Sr. Landscape Architect $128 - $233 Technical/Sr. Technical Writer $64 - $187 Project/Sr. Project Assistant $77 - $144
Grant Writing Project/Sr. Project Coordinator $103 - $183 Funding Specialist $119 - $229 Graphic/Sr. Graphic Designer $109 - $204 Sr. Funding Specialist $160 - $264 Project/Sr. Project Accountant $112 - $194 Funding Manager $272 - $356 Sr. Graphic Manager $154 - $226 Project Accountant Manager $170 - $236
District Management
* Inspector - Apprentice $64 - $116 Special Services
* Inspector/Sr. Inspector $106 - $173 Expert Witness $470 Assistant/Associate Sanitary Engineer $151 - $226 Strategic Consulting $470 Sanitary/Sr. Sanitary Project Engineer $176 -$307
Operations/Deputy District Manager $243 - $370
District Manager-Engineer $333 - $402
Reimbursables including, but not limited to; reproductions, delivery and filing fees; outside consultant fees; and survey field expenses will be billed at Cost Plus 5% . Mileage will be billed per current IRS Rate.
Additional promotional steps exist within various rate categories.
This rate schedule expires June 30, 2023; rates are subject to escalation with new hourly rate schedule as of July 1, 2023. * These charge rates are subject to Prevailing Wage laws and Union contract.
RATE SCHEDULE Q-1 | PAGE 1 OF 1
2022 Hourly Billing Rates
Sacramento Office
Managing Principal
$295–$310
Senior Principal
$360
Principal
$275
Executive/Senior Vice President
$250
Senior Consultant
$250
Vice President
$225
Senior Technical Associate
$205
Senior Associate
$195
Associate
$175
Research Analyst II
$140
Research Analyst I
$100
Production and Administrative Staff
$90
Billing rates updated annually.
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: CONNIE CARDENAS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 11.G
APP
ROVAL OF PURCHASE OF TWO TOYOTA RAV4 VEHICLES FROM
CROWN TOYOTA
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That the City Council approve the purchase of two Toyota RAV4 vehicles, utilizing funding from the Assembly Bill 2766 ("AB 2766") Program ("Program") of the South Coast Air Quality Management District , (“SCAQMD”), included in FY 2022-23 Budget; and
2 ) That the City Council approve re-appropriation of funds within the Public Works Department from the JVOC facility funds for the purchase of a 2021 Toyota RAV4 LE for the cost of $36,725.
BAC
KGROUND
The City has been making a reasonable effort to gradually acquire its own vehicles since its incorporation in 2011. In March 2015, the City Council approved the purchase of pick-up trucks and passenger vehicles to be used by the Code Enforcement, Public Works, and the Building Inspection staff.
T
he General fund is enhanced with funding for vehicle purchases made possib le through AB 2766, which formed the Motor Vehicle Subvention Fund Program. The f
unds for the Program are distributed by the SCAQMD; the district provides funding to cities and counties to assist in developing clean transportation programs and reducing vehicle emissions.
I
n January 2020, the City Council approved the purchase of three vehicles .
C
urrently the Public Works Department utilizes pick-up trucks and passenger vehicles for inspection use. The City fleet continues to grow along with in-house
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
staffing, and now includes two Nissan Frontiers, Toyota High landers, and a most recent purchase of a 2022 Ford F350 Service Truck on March 17, 2022.
ANALYSIS
As City staff continues to grow and services are brought in-house, the need for more City vehicles has become apparent. The Community Development Department anticipates recruiting additional in-house staff. On December 2, 2021, Council approved the purchase of two Ford Escapes. The Purchase Order (“PO”) was issued on December 16, 2021. Due to product delays and supply chain disruptions, this PO has yet to be fulfilled by Ford. City staff has been given three separate delivery dates for the two Ford Escapes that where ordered in December. Our Ford sales representative has been providing frequent updates on the multiple delays and disruptions in vehicle production.
The 2023 Ford Escape ordering window was scheduled to open on July 18, 2022, and that order date has been rescheduled to middle of August 2022 with a six to nine month anticipated delivery timeline of Spring 2023. The F-150 does not have an ordering window at this time because they are already at ordering capacity. The City has hired additional public works staff who require vehicles to perform their daily position responsibilities.
Due to vehicle availability, t he Toyota RAV4 was chosen as an alternative to t he Ford Escape. To ensure fiscal responsibility, City staff solicited quotes from three local dealerships . The dealerships disclosed that due to COVID-19, chip manufacturing continues to remain heavily disrupted. Crown Toyota in Ontario was the only dealership with in-stock delivery ready vehicles.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Upon approval, re-appropriation of funds will be generated within the Public Works Department from the Jurupa Valley Operations Center facility funds for the purchase of the 2021 Toyota RAV4 LE for the cost of $36,725. Funding is budgeted in the AB 2766 SCAQMD Program in current FY 2022/23 Budget, for the 2022 Toyota RAV4 Hybrid for the cost of $54,003.
ALTERNATIVES
1) Provide alternative direction to staff
P
age | 1
STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.A
PUBL
IC HEARING TO CONSIDER (1) AN ORDINANCE ADDING
CHAPTER 9.267 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT;
(2) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND
IN-LIEU FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES; AND (3) A RESOLUTION
ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.267
(INCLUSIONARY HOUSING) OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE (CONTINUED FROM THE JULY 21, 2022
MEETING)
_____
________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
1) R
equested Action: That the City Council open the public hearing and receive any public testimony; and
2) That
the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022- 14, entitled:
AN O
RDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ADDING CHAPTER
9.267 TO TITLE 9 OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENT AND
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT; AND
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
3) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-93, entitled:
4) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND
IN-LIEU FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES; AND
5) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2022-94, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.267 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING) OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
BACKGROUND
Across California, cities are experiencing what is often referred to as a "housing crisis." The demand for housing continues to grow faster than supply, causing both homeowners and renters to be "housing cost-burdened" (i.e. spending more than 30% of their income on housing). High housing costs lead to overcrowding, economic instability, and homelessness, particularly among vulnerable groups such as seniors, farmworkers, lower income families, and persons with physical and mental disabilities. In Jurupa Valley, 20% to 40% of owner-occupied households and 40% to 60% of renter households are housing cost-burdened, according to data in the City's Housing Element update to the General Plan, approved by the City Council in December 2021.
Under state law, the Cit y must adopt plans, policies and programs that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development, and demonstrate how the City’s share of regional growth will be accommodated. Through the s tate- mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") process, cities are allocated housing production targets, including for households with very low, low, and moderate incomes (defined by the percentage of area median income or "AMI"). The City of Jurupa Valley, like all cities, must meet a significantly higher housing development target in the 6th RHNA cycle planning period from 2021 through 2029.
Table 1 below shows the number of units by income category, and the percentage of the total, that Jurupa Valley has been allocated.
Page | 3
Table 1: Jurupa Valley 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation
There is a shortage of housing in Riverside County, and the region, that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households. The recently certified Housing Element determined that the City has the existing capacity needed to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation in the Moderate and Above-Moderate categories with a combined surplus of 1,558 units in those categories. However, there is an unmet need of 354 units in t he low-income category and an unmet need of 529 units in the very low/extremely low-income Category.
On September 2, 2021, the City Council approved an Agreement with RSG, Inc. to conduct an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee Study in order to establish fees the City could levy upon housing developers as an alternative to imposing an inclusionary housing requirement. The City currently does not have an inclusionary housing ordinance, but has been working with many recent housing development applicants to secure affordable housing as a component of approved projects. In some cases, the applicants are seeking to pay into a housing trust fund in-lieu of building affordable units on site. The purpose of the affordable housing in-lieu fee study was to ascertain an appropriate fee to be charged in these circumstances.
Inclusionary housing policies require applications for development of new, market rate, non-income restricted housing to designate a percentage of units for affordable households, who earn less than 120 percent of the County area median income (AMI), adjusted for household size and tenure (ownership or rental). Inclusionary housing policies are often accompanied by alternatives to the production of housing on- site, typically allowing applicants to either donate land or pay a fee in- lieu of on- site development. The City would then utilize the donated land, or the in-lieu fees accumulated in an affordable housing fund, to provide incentives or subsidies for the production of affordable housing and support administrative functions related to affordable housing development, including the preparation of inclusionary housing plans and affordable housing agreements for eligible projects. Local affordable housing funds are often leveraged with other regional, State, and Federal funding sources by affordable housing
Page | 4
developers to produce more units of housing with the same "local dollars" than might be achieved with an on-site only inclusionary housing policy.
Inclusionary housing policies are generally implemented in one of three ways:
• Through an inclusionary housing ordinance that applies citywide. • Through an overlay zone where a specific area or type of affordable housing is designated.
• On a case-by-case basis during the discretionary approval process.
The key variables of an inclusionary housing policy include:
• The target households (whether aligned with the RHNA allocation, or some other affordability standards).
• The proportion of new units that are desired to be inclusionary (typically ranging from 5 to 15 percent, rarely exceeding 15 percent).
• Whether or not the application of the policy varies for different household tenure (ownership or rental).
On January 20, 2022, during a City Council study session, the City Council directed staff to analyze the feasibility of an inclusionary housing requirement on housing development projects to ensure that affordable housing is either constructed in the City, or accounted for through the payment of in lieu fees. RSG, Inc., prepared a study dated June 16, 2022 entitled “Inclusionary Housing and In-Lieu Fee Study and Recommendation” (Attachment A) addressing the gap between market rate sales prices and rents for housing units in the City and sales prices and rents affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. The study also contains detailed analysis for the estimated development - funding gap related to constructing the affordable units on site.
On June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and In-Lieu fee requirement. The Planning Commission voted 3-0, with two Commissioners absent, to adopt Resolution No. 2022 - 06-22-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and Inclusionary Housing Requirement, but deferred to the City Council to establish the percentage of units that must be made available at an affordable cost and the amount of the inclusionary housing fee. Provided below are the recommendations expressed by individual Planning Commissioners:
• Vice Chair Carmona recommended that inclusionary unit requirement be set at 10% and that the in-lieu fee be set at $14 per square foot • Commissioner Pruitt recommended that the inclusionary unit requirement be set at 10% and that the in-lieu fee be set at $5 per square foot • Commissioner Schultz recommended that the inclusionary unit requirement be set at 7% and that the in-lieu fee be set at $4 per square foot • Chairperson Jackson and Commissioner Newman were absent
Page | 5
The Planning Commission also recommended that the in -lieu fee payment be imposed on any housing development project that has not been approved by the City on or before September 17, 2022 (effective date if Ordinance).
ANALYSIS
At its January 20, 2022 Study Session, the City Council evaluated the potential impact of an in-lieu fee, as well as the data on inclusionary policies adopted by communities in the region. The consensus among Council members was to move forward with consideration of an inclusionary housing ordi nance, but to set the inclusionary percentage and in- lieu fee at a level that more closely matches comparable cities in the region. Councilmembers discussed a possible 10% inclusionary requirement and an in- lieu fee of approximately $2.00 per square foot. Councilmembers also noted that many cities in the region have not adopted such policies to date. Based upon direction from the City Council, the report prepared by RSG recommends an inclusionary housing ordinance and in- lieu fee schedule that will do the following:
1. Establish an inclusionary requirement that 5 percent of the units in all new residential development be affordable.
2. Require such inclusionary housing be provided at an affordable price or rent to households earning below 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of area median income (“AMI”).
3. Among other alternate means of compliance, permit applicants (developers) the option to pay a fee in- lieu of providing units, or for any fraction of units, with said funds deposited into an Affordable Housing Trust Fund ("AHTF") managed by the City.
4. Establish that the AHTF may be used to leverage other resources to produce, preserve or protect affordable housing throughout the City (including, but not limited to, subsidizing affordable development, or providing housing grants and assistance).
5. Establish an in-lieu fee amount of $2.00 per square foot on market rate residential development.
RSG concluded that a 5% inclusionary percentage and an in-lieu fee amount of $2.00 per square foot of market -rate development w ould most closely align with the direction provided by the City Council to staff at the Study Session. In addition, the inclusionary percentage and in- lieu fee are roughly in balance so that developers may be likely to choose either method of compliance.
The proposed $2.00 per square foot in- lieu fee would result in in- lieu fee amounts per market rate unit for the prototype single- family, townhome, and apartment, respectively, used in the RSG analysis, as follows:
Page | 6
Prototype Size In-lieu fee
Single-family home 2,500 sf $5,000 per unit
Townhome 1,200 sf $2,400 per unit
Apartment 950 sf $1,900 per unit
An Inclusionary Housing ordinance will establish standards and procedures that encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income levels. The purpose of the ordinance is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by ensuring that the addition of affordable housing units is in proportion with the overall increase in new housing units and to provide standards and procedures for the administration of the C ity's inclusionary housing program.
On-Site Inclusionary Requirements
The report prepared by RSG, Inc. recommends 5 percent of all residential development projects to be rented or sold at an affordable housing cost, as follows:
• The first inclusionary unit required would be rented or sold at an affordable housing cost to a moderate-income household.
• The second inclusionary unit would be rented or sold to a low-income household. • The third and fourth inclusionary unit would be rented or sold to a very low-income household.
All subsequent inclusionary units would follow the same distribution as above such that 25% of inclusionary units will be affordable to moderate-income households, 25% to low- income households, and 50% to very low-income households. Affordable units produced in compliance with the ordinance shall be restricted by covenants recorded with a term of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing.
In-Lieu Fee Option
Per City Council`s direction at its January 20, 2022 study session, an alternative to the provision of affordable on-site units, a developer can pay an in-lieu fee as follows:
• The amount of the in-lieu fee shall be calculated using the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council.
• It is recommended that the proposed in-lieu fee amount be set at $2.00 per square foot on market rate residential development.
• The full payment of the in- lieu fee would be paid prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the residential development project.
Page | 7
Inclusionary Housing Plan and Housing Agreement
The proposed ordinance will require applicants to submit an inclusionary housing plan, in a form specified by the Director of Community Development (Director), detailing how they will meet the Inclusionary Housing requirements in their proposed project. I f the inclusionary housing plan includes alternatives to on- site units, then the inclusionary housing plan would be subject to the review and approval of the Director with the option of review and approval by the City Council.
Proposed applicants would also be required to execute and record an affordability agreement. The affordability agreement would be a legally binding, recorded agreement between the applicant and the City that ensures that the requirements of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance are sat isfied, whether through the provision of inclusionary units or through an approved alternative method. Once the residential development including allocated units receives its final discretionary approval, the applicant must file an application, including payment of any processing and monitoring fees, with the Community Development Department for approval and finalization of the affordability agreement.
Standards for Inclusionary Units
The proposed ordinance would require all inclusionary units to be:
• Reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project. • Proportional, in number of bedrooms, and location, to the market rate units. • Comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of size, design, materials, finished quality, and appearance. • Permitted the same access to project amenities and recreational facilities, as are market rate units.
All inclu sionary units in a project must be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the City approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required inclusionary units must be provided within each phase of the residential project.
Accessory dwelling units would not be counted towards meeting a project’s inclusionary requirements.
Petition for Waiver or Reduction
An applicant may request a waiver or reduction in the requirements, provided that the applicant provides evidence of economic hardship, such as inability to achieve a reasonable commercial profit, which must be verified by an independent third-party review at the applicant's sole cost. Such review would include a comparison of the applicant's projected costs and rental/sale revenue assumptions with current market standards, including a market rate of return on cost. Per the P lanning Commission`s direction, any waiver or reduction request would be subject to review and approval by the City Council.
Page | 8
Alternative Methods of Compliance
Alternatives to provision of on- site allocated units or payment of the housing in- lieu fee include provision of allocated units off-site (directly by applicant or through an agreement with a third party), dedication or conveyance of land, conversion of market rate units to affordable, preservation of at-risk housing, use of inclusionary credits, or other innovative approaches. All alternative compliance measures must produce at least the same number and affordability of units that would have been provided on- site, and are subject to review and approval by the City Manager, with the option of review and approval by the City Council.
Exemptions
There are some residential developments that would be exempt from these requirements because they are contributing to meet affordable housing. These common exemptions include:
• Construction of units under an agreement with the City that restricts occupancy to lower-income households at an affordable cost for a period of 55 years for rental or 45 years for ownership.
• Construction of homeless shelters, community care facilities, health care facilities, single room occupancy units.
• Construction of a dwelling unit to replace a previously existing dwelling unit on the same lot that was demolished or destroyed within the last five years. • Construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) which is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family home. • Home remodels and additions.
• Density bonus units.
• Projects built under a development agreement that provides alternative community benefits.
• Mobile home units.
The City`s Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) urgency ordinance currently requires one of the new residential units constructed on the property to be affordable. If the City’s urgency ordinance expires without a permanent ordinance being adopted that contains an affordability requirement, then any new SB 9 units would be subject to the inc lusionary housing requirement. Under this scenario, if a single- family lot is split to construct two homes, as is now permitted by Senate Bill 9, all the units constructed would be subject to the in-lieu fee. If one side of the split lot already contains a home, it would be exempt, even if a new dwelling unit was constructed to replace the existing home.
Page | 9
Administration of Inclusionary Housing Requirement
The City Council, by resolution, may from time to time adopt procedures, policies, rules and requirements, including the adoption of processing and administrative fees, to implement, administer, and/or enforce the provisions of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The Director of Community Development or his/her designee would be authorized to determine the number of dwelling units contained within a particular residential development, if a determination is needed to resolve a disagreement.
Periodic Review
The first review of the proposed ordinance would be in three years, and thereafter upon review of the Housing Element. After the third year, the Community Development Department would prepare a report on the effectiveness of the inclusionary housing ordinance, which would include the following:
• By income category, the total number of on-site inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report.
• By income category, the total number of off-site inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report.
• By income category, the total number of inclusionary units converted from market rate during the time period covered by the report.
• By income category, the total number of affordable units preserved as an alternative to fulfill an inclusionary requirement during the time period covered by the report.
• By income category, the total number of additional inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report, as well as those issued building permits in the preceding 9 years.
• The amount of any housing in-lieu fees collected.
• Any recommendations with regard to changes or revisions to the adopted program to improve its effectiveness and/or administration.
Affordable Housing Trust Fund
Housing in -lieu fees collected by the City through t he proposed ordinance would be deposited into an affordable housing trust fund maintained by the City for use in the site acquisition, development, rehabilitation, or preservation of affordable housing, either directly by the City or in partnership with the Housing Authority or third- party affordable housing developers.
Date: July 27, 2022 Via Electronic Mail
To: Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
From: Mark Sawicki, Director
Brandon Fender, Associate
SUBJECT: INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This technical memorandum provides supporting information regarding a proposed inclusionary housing ordinance with a fee in-lieu option. After receiving feedback and direc tion from City Council at a Study Session held on January 20, 2022 , RSG recommends preparing for consideration an inclusionary housing ordinance and in-lieu fee schedule that will do the following:
1. Establish an inclusionary requirement that 5 percent of the units in all new residential development be affordable,
2. Require such inclusionary housing be provided at an affordable price or rent to households earning below 50 percent, 80 percent, and 120 percent of area median income (“AMI”),
3. Among other alternate means of compliance, permit applicants (developers) the option to pay a fee in -lieu of providing units, or for any fraction of unit s, with said funds deposited into an Affordable Housing Trust Fund ("AHTF") managed by the City,
4. Establish that the AHTF may be used to leverage other resources to produce, preserve or protect affordable housing throughout the City (including, but not limited to, subsidizing affordable development, or providing housing grants and assistance), and
5. Establish an in-lieu fee amount of $2.00 per square foot on market rate residential development.
This memorandum presents an analysis of housing affordability and the market economics of residential real estate development in Jurupa Valley, used to determine an appropriate inclusionary requirement and in-lieu fee that would balance the need to produce affordable housing with the feasibility of residential development. Specifically, the memo presents the following information:
1. A brief background on inclusionary housing programs in California and how such a program could help Jurupa Valley meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") production targets.
2. The methodology and preliminary analysis of prototypical residential development economics and affordable housing cost in Jurupa Valley.
3. A review of inclusionary housing program design options and best practices, and a survey of other communities' programs.
4. An analysis of various design options for a potential Jurupa Valley inclusionary program.
5. Recommendations for a Jurupa Valley inclusionary housing program with an in-lieu fee option (See pages 13-15 for a quick reference of program recommendations).
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
BACKGROUND
The Need for Affordable Housing in Jurupa Valley
Across California, cities are experiencing what is often referred to as a "housing crisis." The demand for housing continues to grow faster than supply, causing both homeowners and renters to be "housing cost- burdened" (spending more than 30% of their income on h ousing). High housing costs lead to overcrowding, economic instability, and homelessness, particularly among vulnerable groups such as seniors, farmworkers, lower income families, and persons with physical and mental disabilities. In Jurupa Valley, 20% to 40% of owner -occupied households and 40% to 60% of renter households are housing cost-burdened, according to data in the City's Housing Element update to the General Plan, approved by the City Council in December, 2021.
Under State law, the City must adopt plans, policies and programs that provide opportunities for, and do not unduly constrain, housing development, and demonstrate how the City’s share of regional growth will be accommodated. Through the State-mandated Regional Housing Needs Assessment ("RHNA") process, cities are allocated housing production targets, including for households with very low, low, and moderate incomes (defined by the percentage of area median income or "AMI") . The City of Jurupa Valley, like all cities, has to meet a significantly higher housing development target in the 6th RHNA cycle planning period from 2021 through 2029. Table 1 below shows the number of units by income category, and the percentage of the total, that Jurupa Valley has been allocated.
Table 1: Jurupa Valley 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation
Absent land use regulations, incentives and subsidies, the market will not provide affordable housing on its own. Either market rate developers must be required to provide it, or affordable developers must be subsidized by local, regional, State or Federal programs and, more often, all of the above. However, cities have limited means to incentivize or subsidize production of affordable housing, and are increasingly using a multi-pronged and integrated strategy to encourage the production of housing at all income levels.
An inclusionary housing ordinance with a fee in -lieu option can increase the production of affordable housing or increase funding that can be used to create housing opportunities.
Inclusionary Ordinance and In-lieu Fee - One Tool for Generating Affordable Housing
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Inclusionary housing ordinances are enacted by cities and counties to require, as a condition of approval, that residential development applications include a portion of the units constructed in a project to be set aside for purchase or rent by lower income households. Inclusionary policies attempt to capture some of the value of rising real estate prices to provide a community benefit , using local land use controls to ensure that much-needed affordable housing is produced along with market rate units. It is a flexible tool that can be tailored to local circumstances. There is no one model policy, but rather a number of best practices to consider when designing one. It is only one part of an affordable housing strategy and should not be viewed as the sole way to address the need, which may still require public subsidies and other programs and tools.
The typical target household income levels for affordable housing are defined as Very Low, Low, and Moderate Income, for households that earn less than 50, 80 or 120 percent of AMI for Riverside County, respectively, as determined by California's Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD"). "Affordable housing cost" is typically defined by HCD based on income limit categories and household size. Generally, total affordable housing costs cannot exceed 30 1 percent of household income. For renters, housing cost includes rent plus utilities. For home buyers, housing cost is generally mortgage principal and interest, plus taxes and insurance.
Affordable housing units are commonly restricted by covenants recorded on the property to ensure they remain affordable for a long duration, typically 55 years for rental and 45 years for ownership housing.
After that period, it is not uncommon for units to be rehabilitated and the covenants to be extended, often requiring public subsidies. In some cases, such as when a land trust or other public entity retains ownership of the land or units, they can remain affordable in perpetuity.
Inclusionary housing policies are typically enacted by ordinances passed by the legislative body . Over 170 such ordinances or policies have been enacted in California . Although prevalent in Los Angeles County, few cities in Riverside County have yet to adopt or consider such policies.
Inclusionary housing ordinances must contain alternative means of compliance, most commonly through payment of an in-lieu fee that is generally equivalent to the net development cost of providing affordable housing on -site. Many cities prefer the collection of fees in -lieu because these resources can be leveraged with other local, regional, State and Federal funds to produce a larger quantity of affordable housing. In addition, by combini ng these resources and making them available to affordable housing developers, cities can subsidize units at much deeper affordability levels than may be feasible within market-rate developments. In a typical leveraged financing program for affordable housing development, the local contribution may represent only 5% to 20% of the total cost.
Legal Authority for Inclusionary Housing Policies
In California, cities can regulate the use of buildings, structures, and land pursuant to Government Code Section 65850. This includes the type of land uses, height of buildings, parking requirements, and other improvements to property. In some cases, this can also include inclusionary housing requirements on residential and mixed-use projects.
1 With the exception of ownership housing sold to moderate income buyers, which can be 35 percent of household income.
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Inclusionary housing policies have been in place throughout California since the 1970s. However, cities temporarily lost their ability to apply inclusionary policies to rental housing in 2009, when an appellate court determined that inclusionary housing requirements on new ren tal housing was in violation of the Costa Hawkins Act, a state law that limits local rent control implementation. In 2017, AB 1505 (Bloom) reinstated cities’ ability to adopt and enforce inclusionary housing ordinances that apply to both rental and ownersh ip housing projects, thereby restoring a tool for cities to facilitate affordable housing development in their communities. Under Government Code Section 65850.01(a), HCD has the authority to review inclusionary housing ordinances adopted after September 2 017 that require more than 15 percent of the units to be affordable. The purpose of this review is to ascertain whether a jurisdiction is effectively impairing the production of market rate housing by requiring inclusionary units.
In 2015, in another case, the California Supreme Court ruled that inclusionary housing requirements are not an "exaction" that needs to be justified by the impact of a project, like traffic and other development impact fees. Inclusionary policies may be based on the existing and projected housing needs of the region and other factors related to the regional welfare, and not based on a demonstrated additional need for affordable housing generated by new residential development. This means that a "nexus study" is not required under Government Code Section 66000, aka the Mitigation Fee Act.
Regardless of the threshold of inclusionary housing required, Government Code Section 65850(g) requires that inclusionary housing ordinances contain alternative means for compliance, including but not limited to the payment of in-lieu fees, land dedication, off-site construction, and preservation of existing units. In our experience, most ordinances provide several such alternatives.
METHODOLOGY AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
To understand whether inclusionary housing is feasible, RSG first considered the cost of development, including land, construction, and a reasonable profit, as compared to what the market would pay for the improved property. RSG looked at three different types of residential development: single -family detached homes and townhomes for -sale, and multifamily rental properties. RSG review ed recent residential development in Jurupa Valley and the characteristics of the most common unit types (square feet, number of bedrooms and bath, garage) and extrapolated the data into average or prototype units.
Table 2 is a summary of the three development prototypes' characteristics and average costs.
Table 2: Development Prototypes
SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME APARTMENT
Average Unit Sq. Ft. 2,500 1,200 950
Bedrooms 4 2 2
Lot Sq. Ft. per Unit 7,200 2,771 2,746
Parking Type 2-car garage 2-car garage Surface & carport Total Cost per Sq. Ft. $212 $352 $278
Total Cost per Unit $529,805 $422,907 $264,010
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Next, RSG evaluated the amount that lower income households of various size and income levels could afford to pay for each of the three prototypes. RSG used HCD's income limits table of households by size and income level as shown in Table 3 below:
Table 3: HCD Income Limits by Household Size
Based on the three prototypes for residential development noted earlier, RSG focused its further analysis on a three-person household size for the two-bedroom apartments and townhomes, and a five- person household size for the four-bedroom single-family home, consistent with HCD standards for defining "affordable housing cost". Based on a cost limit of 30 percent of household income (35 percent for Moderate), Table 4 shows the amount that households of varying income levels could afford to pay for each prototype home:
Table 4: Supportable "Affordable Housing Cost" By Prototype and Income Level
Comparing the supportable "affordable housing cost" (the amount a lower income household can afford to pay) with the estimated market cost to develop each of the prototype homes, results in an affordable development cost gap per unit. This figure represents the approximate net cost a developer would need to absorb per unit if there were a requirement to include affordable units in a new development project at the various income levels, as shown below in Table 5:
Income Category % of AMI 1 2 3 4 5
Extremely Low 30% 16,600$ 19,000$ 21,960$ 26,500$ 31,040$ Very Low 50% 27,650$ 31,600$ 35,550$ 39,500$ 42,700$ Low 80% 44,250$ 50,600$ 56,900$ 63,200$ 68,300$ Median 100% 54,250$ 62,000$ 69,750$ 77,500$ 83,700$ Moderate 120% 65,100$ 74,400$ 83,700$ 93,000$ 100,450$ Household Size
SINGLE FAMILY
(Ownership)
TOWNHOME
(Ownership)
APARTMENT
(Rental)1
Household Size 5 3 3
Bedrooms 4 2 2
Very Low $74,092 $68,746 $30,459
Low $152,941 $134,454 $65,030
Moderate $382,919 $326,101 $237,889
1 represents the "capitalized value" based on net operating income and current market rate of return for investment in rental housing
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Table 5: Affordable Development Cost Gap
As indicated in Table 5, the cost to provide affordable housing is greater for single-family and townhome ownership units relative to apartment rentals. It is also significantly more expensive to provide homes at deeper affordability levels. The extremely low-income cost gap is not shown in Table 5 because those households are barely able to co ver any of the development costs. These relative costs should be considered in designing an inclusionary requirement, as well as in determining an appropriate in-lieu fee option.
INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM DESIGN OPTIONS AND BEST PRACTICES
A successful inclusionary housing program would need to define several key details, be structured to reasonably achieve its goals, and should be backed by data and research that establishes both need and feasibility. Following are a series of design element questions and a brief discussion of the options and best practices from the experience of other communities.
What is the purpose of an inclusionary housing ordinance and why is it important?
Inclusionary housing ordinances are enacted by cities and counties to require, as a condition of approval, that residential development applications include a portion of the units constructed in a project to be set aside for purchase or rent by lower incom e households. Without such a requirement or financial incentives, the market will not produce housing at below market rents or prices, leading many households to pay a disproportionate percentage of their income on housing costs . Inclusionary policies attempt to capture some of the value of rising real estate prices to provide affordable housing as a community benefit, using local land use controls to ensure that much-needed affordable housing is produced along with market rate uni ts. Because cities have limited means to incentivize or subsidize production of affordable housing, they are increasingly looking to a multi-pronged and integrated strategy to encourage the production of housing at all income levels. An inclusionary housing ordinance with a fee in-lieu option can increase the production of affordable housing or increase funding that can be used to create housing opportunities.
SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOME APARTMENT
Development Cost per Unit ($529,805) ($422,907) ($264,010) Very Low "Affordable Housing Cost" $74,092 $68,746 $30,459 Very Low Development Cost Gap ($455,713) ($354,161) ($233,551) Low "Affordable Housing Cost" $152,941 $134,454 $65,030 Low Development Cost Gap ($376,864) ($288,453) ($198,980) Moderate "Affordable Housing Cost" $382,919 $326,101 $237,889 Moderate Development Cost Gap ($146,886) ($96,806) ($26,121) Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
What percentage of affordable units should be included in a project?
Most inclusionary policies in California are generally in the range of 5 percent to 20 percent, with 15 percent the most common requirement. The percentage a community establishes is dependent on its affordable housing needs , local market conditions, financial incentives av ailable, and the mix of affordability required. Ultimately, the percentage should not be so high as to discourage development because the cost of providing the affordable units makes the entire project infeasible.
At what income levels should the inclusionary units be sold or rented at?
The inclusionary requirement is typically split between low- and very low-Income households (for example, if 15 percent of the total units are to be affordable, 10 percent would be low-income and 5 percent for very low-income households). Moderate-income units may be required in communities with very high cost and relatively higher incomes, but in many markets housing is already being produced that is affordable to moderate-income households. Some communities will also include a target for extremely low-income households, but housing at this level is better served by other programs and targeted funding sources.
Should the inclusionary percentage be fixed or flexible depending on the affordability level?
Some communities structure their policies on a sliding scale, providing incentives such as density bonuses for higher percentages of affordable units, or a lower percentage if units are provided at a deeper affordability. This also adds complexity and, if not tailored accurately, could undermine creation of housing at the income levels needed.
Which projects should be included and are there projects that should be exempt?
It may be tempting to carve out various exemptions, but the best practice is to apply the requirement to all housing types, sizes, and throughout the community. Many jurisdictions choose to exempt small projects under the rationale that they are not feasible . While well -intentioned, it frustrates the goa l of having all housing development contribute to meeting the affordable housing need, especially by encouraging projects to be built below a threshold size. A better practice is to provide an option to pay a fee in-lieu that is proportionate to the size of the project.
There are some residential development s, however, that sh ould be exempt from these requirements because they are contributing to meet affordable housing. These common exemptions include:
• Construction of units under an agreement with the City that restricts occupancy to lower -income households at an affordable cost for a period of 55 years for rental or 45 years for ownership. • Construction of homeless shelters, community care facilities, he alth care facilities, single room occupancy units.
• Construction of a dwelling unit to replace a previously existing dwelling unit on the same lot that was demolished or destroyed within the last five years. • Construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) which is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a single-family home. • Home remodels.
• Density bonus units.
• Projects built under a development agreement that provides alternative community benefits.
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
• Developments constructed under SB 9 as the City’s urgency ordinance requires that one of the units have an affordability covenant recorded against it. Should the City’s urgency ordinance expire without a permanent ordinance being adopted that contains an affordability requirement, then SB 9 units would be subject to the inclusionary housing requirement. Under this scenario, if a single-family lot is split to construct two homes, as is now permitted by Senate Bill 9, all the units constructed would be included under the inclusionary in-lieu fee. If one side of the split lot already contains a home, it would be exempt, even if a new dwelling unit was constructed to replace it.
Should for-sale and rental projects be treated differently?
The most defensible policy is to treat rental and for-sale equally since disparate treatment can have fair housing implications and could run counter to a goal of ensuring all neighborhoods and projects have a mix of housing for different income levels. Although the economics of single-family for sale and multifamily rental may be different , with the establishment of a similar standard the market will adjust to the cost implications.
What is the term of affordability?
For rental units, 55 years is the common affordability term for many affordable housing programs in California. The typical term with for-sale units is 45 years.
Should the requirement change over time?
Housing markets are constantly changing , both for rents and sale price s as well as construction and financing costs. Developer profitability rises and falls over time based on a variety of factors and the cost of compliance with an inclusionary policy may be a relatively minor consideration. A modest inclusionary requirement that is evaluated as feasible when adopted, should likely remain feasible over time. It is also possible that when profitability increases, a higher inclusionary requirement could be feasibly absorbed by the development community. P eriodic review can deter mine how feasibility is impacted by market changes. It can also allow the community to assess whether changes in the target income levels may be necessary to better meet housing targets. Every three to five years is a reasonable review period.
Coupling the review with the update of the local housing element is another good option.
Should alternative methods of compliance, like in-lieu fees, be provided?
In California, State law requires that alternative methods of compliance be provid ed to developers .
Common alternatives include in -lieu fees, off -site construction, land donation , and the acquisition and rehabilitation of existing units.
In-lieu fees are generally paid into a local affordable housing trust fund to finance construction of affordable housing at other locations in the community. The greatest advantage of in-lieu fees is they provide a local funding source that can be leveraged with State and Federal funds that otherwise would not be available, allowing even more affordable units to be b uilt than would be created as on -site inclusionary. These units are also typically at deeper affordability levels.
How can in-lieu fees be used?
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
The City can direct the in-lieu fees to support a variety of housing programs, including loans or grants to subsidize affordable housing development, acquisition of land, and program administration. In-lieu fees can also be used as a matching grant or be combined with other local, regional, State, or Federal funding sources to leverage local funds and expand the number of affordable units and deepen their level of affordability.
Can the City create and fund a land trust with in-lieu fees?
The City can use in-lieu fees to purchase land to be used for the development of affordable housing. A community land trust is a nonprofit, community -based organization designed to ensure community stewardship of land, in perpetuity. Community land trusts are primarily used to ensure long-term housing affordability. The trust acquires land and maintains own ership. Homeowners enter into a long -term, renewable lease of the land. When the homeowner sells their home, the family keeps part of the increased value and the remainder is kept by the trust. Separating the ownership of the land and housing insulates the housing held in trust from wild fluctuations in the price of housing by outside capital speculation and investors who often don't live in the communities affected by housing costs. Homeowners receive an affordable mortgage (30% of their income or less) and share the equity in their home with their community members. This guarantees that housing remains affordable for future generations and residents.
How should the amount of an in-lieu fee be set?
As a starting point, the in-lieu fee should reflect the true cost of producing on-site units. If the fee is lower, developers are very likely to pay it rather than include affordable units . Even at a comparable cost, developers are more likely to pay the f ee rather than manage the long-term affordability covenants associated with a small fraction of units. Some cities set the fee slightly higher than cost because collecting, aggregating, and disbursing fees to create affordable housing requires more time an d cost than the creation of an on-site affordable unit at the time of development. On the other hand, some cities prefer fees that are lower than cost so they can aggregate and leverage those funds to produce more units at deeper affordability, and not unnecessarily discourage market rate housing development.
The cost of providing an inclusionary unit will vary by what income level is required and the size and type of unit. A range of such costs was provided in Table 5 above using current market economi cs and prototypical development. A standard in-lieu fee can only approximate these costs based on the range of policy options being included.
The in-lieu fee will need to change over time to reflect changes in construction costs, inflation, and other market factors. While an inclusionary policy is usually adopted by an ordinance, the in -lieu fee is best adopted by resolution since amending the ordinance on a regular basis can be more costly and time - consuming.
In-lieu fees are often listed as the amount a developer would need to pay per market rate unit in a project, versus the cost amount per inclusionary unit that otherwise would be required to be built on-site. In other words, if there were an inclusionary requirement to have 10 percent of units affordable, the in-lieu fee per market rate unit multiplied by ten (10) should be approximately the cost of providing one inclusionary unit, on average. The in-lieu fee per market-rate unit is popular because it is easy to calculate and because developers evaluate projects in terms of cost per unit. The drawback with establishing a fee per market- Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
rate unit is that it does not adjust for the size of units. Therefore, a developer creating large multi-bedroom homes would pay the same fee per unit as a developer of small one-bedroom or studio units, even though the profit margins are much lower per unit. Best practice is to establish an in-lieu fee on a per square foot basis that can be multiplied by the average unit size of a project.
What is the process and standard for requesting a waiver or reduction of the requirement?
The inclusionary requirement should provide a clear and specific process for a developer to request a waiver or reduction, and the standards by which the request will be evaluated. The process should only be used in rare cases, and the developer must have to show economic hardship (the inability to achieve a profit) which can be verified by an independent third-party review.
What other communities in the region have inclusionary housing requirements?
RSG surveyed communities within a 50-mile range of Jurupa Valley that had an inclusionary requirement and found they varied by percentage , whether smaller projects were exempt, and if an in -lieu was calculated by unit or by square feet . The in-lieu fee amounts also varied considerably and were not necessarily in proportion to the true cost of the inclusionary percentage required. Table 6 s hows the findings of neighboring communities with inclusionary requirements:
Table 6: Regional Communities with Inclusionary Requirements and In-Lieu Fees
ANALYSIS OF INCLUSIONARY PROGRAM DESIGN OPTIONS
RSG evaluated seven permutations of a potential inclusionary program design in Jurupa Valley , as follows:
o Percentage of inclusionary units: 10 percent versus 15 percent o Income level targets: Weighted by RHNA targets versus a 50/50 split of Low and Mod Fee
Rental Ownership Rental Ownership Type Rental Ownership Rental Ownership Calimesa N/A 1 N/A 5% N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Fontana N/A 5 N/A 10% Unit $658 $1,350 $0.69 $0.54
Chino Hills N/A N/A N/A N/A Sq Ft $950 $2,500 $1.00 $1.00 Highland 1 1 15% 15% Unit $3,750 $3,750 $3.95 $1.50
Chino (The Preserve) N/A N/A N/A N/A Sq Ft $2,584 $6,800 $2.72 $2.72 Irvine 1 1 15% 15% Unit $12,471 $12,471 $13.13 $4.99
Tustin 1 1 12.5%-15% 12.5%-15% Unit $12,946 $12,946 $13.63 $5.18 Claremont 5 5 15% 15% Unit $23,500 $23,500 $24.74 $9.40 $2,413 $6,350 $2.54 $2.54
$34,010 $89,500 $35.80 $35.80
$29,545 $77,750 $31.10 $31.10
$69,179 $182,050 $72.82 $72.82
Brea 20 20 10% 10% N/A Varies Varies Varies Varies
Montclair 1 1 15% 15% N/A Varies Varies Varies Varies
City Minimum Units Inclusionary Req In-Lieu Fee per Unit In-Lieu Fee per Sq Ft Sq Ft
Pasadena 1 1 20% 20% Sq Ft
Huntington Beach 3 3 10% 10%
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
o Variable by prototype, variable by tenure (ownership versus rental), or fixed for all types
RSG used the Affordable Development Cost Gap figures from Table 5 and applied them to each of the seven design options, to determine the resultant equivalent in-lieu fee on a per square foot basis for each prototype. This was also translated into an in-lieu fee amount per market rate unit for each set of options, assuming the per square foot fee for each prototype home size. The results are shown below in Table 7:
Table 7: Summary Potential In-Lieu Fee Amounts by Design Option
Based on best practices discussed earlier, RSG would normally recommend adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance that required 10 precent of the units be affordable at a mix of income levels that approximates the City's RHNA targets ( 45% at Very Low, 28% at Low, and 27% at Moderate) and to provide the alternative of an in -lieu fee that is a fixed amount p er square foot. As indicated in Table 7, this would result in an in -lieu fee of $14 per square foot, which would also result in an in -lieu fee per market rate unit produced of $35,000, $16,800, and $13,300 for the prototypical size single -family, townhome, and rental apartment respectively.
RSG then considered the impact on development feasibility of the potential in -lieu fee. Table 8 below shows a pro forma development value, cost, and developer return for each of prototype units, before and after application of the fee at $14 per square foot.
Design Options:
15% vs 10%
RHNA vs Low/Mod
Variable, Own/Rent, Fixed
SINGLE
FAMILY
TOWN
HOME
APART
MENT
SINGLE
FAMILY
(2500 sf)
TOWN
HOME
(1200 sf)
APART
MENT
(950 sf)
15%, RHNA, Variable $21 $33 $26 52,500$ 39,600$ 24,700$ 15%, RHNA, Own/Rent $21 $21 $26 52,500$ 25,200$ 24,700$ 15%, RHNA, Fixed $21 $21 $21 52,500$ 25,200$ 19,950$
15%, 50/50, Variable $16 $24 $18 40,000$ 28,800$ 17,100$ 15%, 50/50, Own/Rent $16 $16 $18 40,000$ 19,200$ 17,100$ 15%, 50/50, Fixed $16 $16 $16 40,000$ 19,200$ 15,200$
10%, RHNA, Variable $14 $22 $18 35,000$ 26,400$ 17,100$ 10%, RHNA, Own/Rent $14 $14 $18 35,000$ 16,800$ 17,100$ 10%, RHNA, Fixed $14 $14 $14 35,000$ 16,800$ 13,300$
10%, 50/50, Variable $10 $16 $12 25,000$ 19,200$ 11,400$ 10%, 50/50, Own/Rent $10 $10 $12 25,000$ 12,000$ 11,400$ 10%, 50/50, Fixed $10 $10 $10 25,000$ 12,000$ 9,500$
Per Market Rate UnitPer Square Foot
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Table 8: Projected Impact on Feasibility Prototypes
As indicated in Table 8, although development is projected to remain feasible with the establishment of an in-lieu fee at this level, the added cost can be considered substantial, particularly in relation to the developer's return which would be reduced by one third or more.
The cost of inclusionary units and in-lieu fees should also be evaluated within the context of other permit fees charged by the City, County, and other agencies. These additional costs are not included above, but collectively they can reduce the developer's return even further.
At its Study Session on January 20, 2022, the City Council evaluated the potential impact of an in-lieu fee at these preliminary recommended levels, as well as the data on inclusionary policies adopted by communities in the region . The consensus among Council members was to move forward with consideration of an inclusionary housing policy, but to set the inclusionary percentage and in-lieu fee at a more modest level that more closely matches comparative cities at the lower end of the range for inclusionary fees in the region. Councilmembers also noted that many cities in the region have not adopted such policies to date.
RSG concluded that a 5% inclusionary percentage and an in-lieu fee amount of $2.00 per square foot of market-rate development would most closely align with the direction provided by the City Council to staff at the Study Session. In addition, the inclusionary percentage and in-lieu fee are roughly in balance so that developers may be likely to choose either method of compliance.
This proposed $2.00 per square foot in-lieu fee would result in in-lieu fee amounts per market rate unit for the prototype single-family, townhome, and apartment, respectively, used in the RSG analysis , as follows:
Prototype Size In-lieu fee
Single-family home 2,500 sf $5,000 per unit
Townhome 1,200 sf $2,400 per unit
Apartment 950 sf $1,900 per unit
SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME APARTMENT
Prototype Unit SF 2,500 sf 1,200 sf 950 sf
Unit Market Value $625,000 $474,000 $304,000
Total Cost per Unit $529,805 $422,907 $264,010
Developer Return $95,195 $51,093 $39,990
Return on Cost 18.0% 12.1% 15.1%
In-Lieu Fee per SF $14 $14 $14
Total In-Lieu Fee $35,000 $16,800 $13,300
Total Unit Cost w/Fee $564,805 $439,707 $277,310
% Reduction in Return 37% 33% 33%
Developer Return w/Fee $60,195 $34,293 $26,690
Return on Cost w/Fee 10.7% 7.8% 9.6%
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing analysis, best practices, and input from Council, RSG recommends that an inclusionary housing ordinance be prepared through the City Attorney's Office of the City of Jurupa Valley for consideration by the City Council, based on the following parameters:
On-site inclusionary
requirement:
5 percent of all units in all residential development shall be rented or sold at an "affordable cost" as defined by HCD.
For a fractional unit requirement of less than 0.5, the applicant will pay a fractional housing in-lieu fee. For a fractional unit requirement of 0.5 and above, the fraction will be rounded up to the next larger integer and treated as a whole unit.
Affordability Mix: 50 percent very low-income
25 percent low-income
25 percent moderate-income
The first whole unit required would be moderate-income, the second would be low-income, and the third and fourth would be very low-income.
Affordability term: Affordable units produced in compliance with the ordinance shall be restricted by covenants recorded with a term of 55 years for rental housing and 45 years for ownership housing.
Development standard: All inclusionary units shall be:
Reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project; Proportional, in number of bedrooms, and location, to the market rate units;
Comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of size, design, materials, finished quality, and appearance; and Permitted the same access to project amenities and recreational facilities, as are market rate units.
All inclusionary units in a project shall be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required i nclusionary units shall be provided within each phase of the residential project.
In-lieu fee alternative: At the applicant's option, all or a portion of whole units required may be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu fee. The City Council, by resolution, shall establish the amounts and calculation of the housing in-lieu fee.
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund (AHTF):
All housing in-lieu fees paid to the City shall be deposited into an Affordable Housing Trust Fund (AHTF) for use by the City to fund the development or preservation of housing situated within the City limits that is affordable to households of lower and moderate incomes, including, but not limited to:
the acquisition of property,
costs of construction or rehabilitation, including costs associated with planning, administration and design, as well as actual building or installation costs, and
program administration.
Housing assisted with housing in-lieu fees shall be subject to a minimum 55- year affordability agreement encumbering the site where the assisted housing is situated (a 45-year affordability period may be used for ownership housing).
Timing of in-lieu
payment:
Payment of an in-lieu fee shall be made prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the development project, regardless of phasing.
In-lieu fee amount: The in-lieu fee amount may be set or changed at any time by a Resolution of the City Council.
The recommended initial in-lieu fee amount would be $2.00 per square foot multiplied by the total square feet of all market-rate units in the development project.
In the case of a project that satisfies the requirement with a mix of on-site affordable units and an in-lieu fee, the fee per square foot would be multiplied by the market-rate units for which the on-site inclusionary requirement has not otherwise been met.
Alternative methods of
compliance:
Developers may propose , and staff may consider , alternative methods of compliance, including but not limited to:
Off-site construction of affordable units
Land dedication or donation
Conversion of market rate units to affordable units
Fewer units at deeper affordability
Alternative methods must be deemed equivalent or greater than the on-site or in-lieu fee options and must be approved by the City Manager , with an option of review and approval by City Council. The City has no obligation to consider or approve any alternative methods of compliance.
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
July 27, 2022
Exemptions: The following residential development would be exempt from these requirements:
Construction of units under an agreement with the City that restricts occupancy to lower - or moderate -income households at an affordable housing for a period of not less than 55 years (or 45 years for ownership units).
Construction of homeless shelters, community care facilities, health care facilities, single room occupancy units.
Construction of a dwelling unit to replace a previously existing dwelling unit on the same lot that was demolished or destroyed within the last five years.
Construction of an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) which is a smaller, independent residential dwelling unit located on the same lot as a stand-alone (i.e., detached) single-family home.
Home remodels.
Density bonus units.
Projects built under a development agreement approved by the City that provides alternative community benefits.
SB 9 projects so long as the City’s urgency ordinance, or a permanent ordinance, is in effect that requires one of units be affordable.
Waiver or reduction in
requirements:
Developers may request a waiver or reduction. This can be processed ministerially with City Manager approval , with the option of review and approval by City Council . However, the developer will be required to show economic hardship (the inability to achieve a profit) to be verified through an independent third-party review at the developer's cost. The third-party review would include a comparison of the developer's projected costs and rental/sale revenue assumptions with current market standards, including a market rate of return on cost.
Density bonus: Affordable housing provided on-site would qualify the project for any density bonus granted under State law.
Review period: The ordinance and its impacts shall be reviewed within three (3) years of adoption and thereafter in conjunction with preparation of the Housing Element.
The in-lieu fee amount may be amended at any time by the City Council.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, will conduct a public hearing at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue in said City of Jurupa Valley on Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. or thereafter to consider adoption of the following by the City Council:
(1) AN ORDINANCE ADDING CHAPTER 9.267 TO THE JURUPA VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH AN INCL USIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSI NG IN LIEU FEE; (2) A
RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING AND IN -LIEU
FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION ESTABLISHING INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING FEES; AND (3) A RESOLUTION ADOPTING AN INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING FEE
On June 22, 2022, t he above referenced ordinance and resolutions were considered by the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission. The Planning Commission voted 3-0, with two Commissioners absent, to adopt Resolution No. 2022-06-22-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the ab ove- referenced ordinance and resolutions, but deferred to the City Council to establish the percentage of units that must be made available at an affordable cost and the amount of the inclusionary housing fee.
Vice Chair Carmona recommended that inclusionary unit requirement be set at 10% and that the fee be set at $14 per square foot; Commissioner Pruitt recommended that the inclusionary unit requirement be set at 10% and that the fee be set at $5 per square foot; and Commissioner Schultz recommended that the inclusionary unit requirement be set at 7% and that the fee be set at $4 per square foot. The Planning Commission also recommended that the in lieu fee payment be imposed on any housing development project that has not been approved by the City on or before September 17, 2022.
City staff has determined that the adoption of the proposed ordinance and resolutions are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because the ordinance merely imposes an inclusionary housing requirement to require the inclusion of affordable housing in a housing development project or, alternatively, require the payment of in lieu fees. The ordinance and resolutions do not authorize the construction of any housing, but rather impose requirements on any housing project that is approved. As such, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question would have a significant effect on the environment. In addition, the adoption of the resolution establishing an in lieu fee is exempt pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, since it includes the amendment to government funding mechanisms and fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
AVAILABILITY OF MATERIALS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND RESOLUTIONS.
The City will make available to the public, at least ten (10) da ys prior to its public hearing data regarding the method of calculating inclusionary housing fees for residential development projects that is based on the “Inclusionary Housing and In-Lieu Fee Study and Recommendation” dated May 13, 2022 (“Nexus Report”). In addition, the City shall mail notice at least fourteen (14) days prior to this meeting to all interested parties that have requested notice of new fees. This data will be posted on the City’s website (https://jurupavalley.org) not less than ten (10 days) prior to the public hearing.
If you would like fu rther information about the proposed ordinance or resolutions, please contact Dianne Guevara at [email protected] or at (951) 332-6464.
JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Any petition for judicial review of a decision of the City Council shall be filed within the time required by, and controlled by, the California Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action or proceeding seeking judicial review of, which attacks or seeks to set aside, or void any decision of the City Council, shall be limited to those issues raised at the hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing described in this notice.
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Published: July 17, 2022
-1-
ORDINANCE NO. 2022-14
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ,
CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 9.267 TO TITLE 9 OF
THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING
REQUIREMENT AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN LIEU
FEE AND MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) At the January 20, 2022 regular City Council meeting, the City Council initiated an amendment to the Planning and Zoning Code to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance (“Ordinance”).
(b) On June 22, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the Ordinance, at which tim e all persons interested in the Ordinance had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. At the conclusion of the Planning Commission hearing and after due consideration of the testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-06-22-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the Ordinance. (c) On August 4 , 2022, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a duly noticed public hearing on the Ordinance, at which time all persons interested in the Ordinance had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters.
Following the receipt of public testimony the City Council closed the public hearing and duly considered the written and oral testimony received. (d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
Section 2. The Ordinance conforms with the goals, policies, programs and guidelines of elements of the General Plan. The Ordinance implements the following policies contained in the City’s Housing Element:
(a) Develop a program to encourage development of a range of creative and affordable housing types to accommodate homeless persons, seniors, disabled persons, and other low and extremely low-income populations.
(b) Conserve affordable housing stock in the City of Jurupa Valley. -2-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
(c) Collaborate with developers to identify vacant and underutilized properties as candidate sites for affordable or mixed market rate/affordable housing development and identify them in the Land Use Inventory.
Section 3. The Jurupa Valley City Council hereby amends Title 9 , Planning and Zoning, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to add a new Chapter 9.267 (Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee) to read as follows:
“Chapter 9.267. Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee.
Sections:
9.267.010 Purpose.
9.267.020 Definitions.
9.267.030 Applicability.
9.267.040 Inclusionary unit requirement.
9.267.050 Relationship to density bonus provisions.
9.267.060 In lieu fee option.
9.267.070 Alternative compliance.
9.267.080 Inclusionary housing plan and housing agreement.
9.267.090 Standards for inclusionary units.
9.267.100 Implementation and enforcement.
9.267.110 Petition for waiver or reduction.
9.267.120 Administration.
9.267.130 Affordable housing trust funds.
9.267.140 Administrative fees.
Section 9.267.010 Purpose.
The provisions of this Chapter establish standards and procedures that encourage the development of housing that is affordable to a range of households with varying income lev els.
The purpose of this Chapter is to encourage the development and availability of affordable housing by ensuring that the addition of affordable housing units is in proportion with the overall increase in new housing units and to provide standards and procedures for th e administration of the City's inclusionary housing program.
Section 9.267.020 Definitions.
As used in this Section, the following terms shall have the following meanings:
Affordability agreement means a legally binding, recorded, written agreement between an applicant and the City, in form and substance satisfactory to the city attorney, ensuring compliance with the requirements of this chapter.
Affordable housing cost means the maximum monthly amount allowed for an owner or renter to pay for an allocated unit in accordance with Sections 50052.5 and 50053 of the California Health and Safety Code, adjusted for household size and income level, less the appropriate allowance for utilities.
-3-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
Allocated unit or inclusionary unit means a newly constructed “for -rent” or “for -sale” dwelling unit which is: (1) provided (or caused to be provided) by an applicant under the provisions of this chapter; (2) to be made available and occupied by a very low-, low- or moderate- income household, as required under the provisions of this chapter; (3) subject to occupancy and affordable housing cost or sales price controls for a period of not less than 55 years for “for-rent” units and 45 years for “for -sale” units ; (4) compatible with the design of other units in the residential housing development of which it is part in terms of exterior appearance, materials and quality finish; and (5) a similar unit type and bedroom mix to the overall residential development.
Applicant means one or more person (s) or entity(ies) that applies for a residential development in the City, regardless of whether the person(s) or entity(ies) have an ownership or leasehold interest in the property on which the development is proposed.
Community care facility means a faci lity, place or building which is maintained and operated, subject to licensing by the California Department of Social Services, to provide nonmedical residential care, which may include home finding and other services, for children and/or adults, including: the physically handicapped; mentally impaired, mentally disordered, or incompetent; developmentally disabled; court wards and dependents; neglected or emotionally disturbed children; the addicted; the aged. Community care facility includes a continuing care and retirement community.
Development agreement means an agreement entered into between the city and a developer pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq.
Development standard means a site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, height limits, required setbacks, maximum floor area ratio, onsite open -space requirement, or required parking that applies to a residential development pursuant to any ordinance, General Plan, Specific Plan, or other local law, policy, resolution, or regulation. Without limiting the foregoing, the parking requirements set forth in Title 9 shall apply to any residential development subject to this Chapter 9.267.
Director means the Community Development Director of the City of Jurupa Valley.
Health care facility means a facility, place or building other than a hospital which is maintained and operated as a residence for patients and provides long-term medical care. Health care facility includes nursing homes, intermediate care facilities, extended care facilities, hospice homes, and similar facilities, which are licensed by the California State Department of Health Services, and defined in Health and Safety Code, Section 1200, et seq. Health care facility may include a lab, radiology, pharmacy, rehabilitation, and other similar services as accessory uses.
Housing in -lieu fee means a fee paid by an applicant as an alternative to providing an allocated unit or a fraction of an allocated unit.
Low-income household means a household whose gross income does not exceed 80 percent of the area median income for the County of Riverside, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Lower income household is a general term, which refers to households whose gross income, falls under the categories of very low or low income as those terms are defined in this Section. -4-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
Moderate-income household means a household whose gross income does not exceed 120 percent of the area median income for the County of Riverside, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housi ng and Community Development pursuant to Sections 50079.5 and 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Residential development means a project containing at least one residential unit, including mixed use developments. For the purposes of this chapter, “residential development” also includes projects defined in California Government Code Section 65915(i), including a subdivision or Common Interest Development, as defined in Section 4100 of the California Civil Code, approved by the City and consists of residential units or unimproved residential lots and either a project to substantially rehabilitate and convert an existing comme rcial building to residential use or the substantial rehabilitation of an existing multifamily dwelling, as defined in subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65863.4, where the result of the rehabilitation would be a net increase in available residential units.
Single room occupancy unit is a residential unit with living space with a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and a maximum of 400 square feet restricted to occupancy by no more than two persons. Kitchen and bathroom facilities may be wholly or partially included in each living space or may be fully shared.
Very low-income household means a household whose gross income does not exceed 50 percent of the area median income for the County of Riverside, adjusted for family size, as published and periodically updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code.
Section 9.267.030 Applicability.
A. This Section shall apply to all residential developments, as defined herein, where the lots or units will be offered for sale or for rent.
B. Notwithstanding subsection A, inclusionary units shall not be required for:
1. Projects that are not a residential development.
2. Any project for which the city enters into a development agreement pursuant to Government Code Section 65964 that provide s alternative community benefits or for any project that is otherwise exempt under state law.
3. Construction of units under an agreement with the City that r estricts occupancy to lower - or moderate-income households at an affordable housing for a perio d of not less than 55 years (or 45 years for ownership units).
4. Construction of homeless she lters, community care facilities, health care facilities, and single room occupancy units.
5. Construction of a dwelling unit to replace a previously existing dwelling unit on the same lot that was demolished or destroyed within the last five years.
-5-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
6. Construction of accessory dwelling units as defined by Government Code section 65852.2(j).
7. Home remodels and additions.
8. Density bonus units.
9. Units constructed pursuant to Government Code Section s 65852.21 and 66411.7 (“SB 9”) as the City’s SB 9 ordinance requires that one of the units have an affordability covenant recorded against it. Should the City’s urgency ordinance expire without a permanent ordinance being adopted that contains an affordability requirement, then SB 9 projects would be subject to the inclus ionary housing requ irement. Under this scenario, if a single - family lot is split to construct two homes, as is now permitted by S B 9, all the units constructed would be included under the inclusionary in -lieu fee.
If one side of the split lot already contains a home, it would be exempt, even if a new dwelling unit was constructed to replace it.
10. A residential project that was approved by the City before September 17, 2022. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this chapter shall apply to any residential project that applies to modify its project after it has been approved by the City, and the modification increases the density of the project. In that scenario, this Chapter shall only apply to the additional units created by the modification.
11. Mobile homes.
Section 9.267.040 Inclusionary unit requirements.
A. All residential or mixed -use development projects shall rent or sell ___ percent (___%) of the units at an affordable housing cost, as follows:
1. The first inclusionary unit shall be rented or sold at an affordable housing cost to a moderate-income household;
2. The second inclusionary unit shall be rented or sold to a low-income household;
3. The third and fourth inclusionary unit shall be rented or sold to a very low- income household; and
4. All subsequent inclusionary units would follow the same distribution as above such that 25% of inclusionary units shall be affordable to moderate- income households, 25% to low-income households, and 50% to very low- income households.
B. Fractional units that may result from the application of these requirements will be addressed as follows:
-6-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
1. For a fractional unit requirement of less than 0.5, the applicant will pay a fractional housing in-lieu fee.
2. For a fractional unit requirement of 0.5 and above, the fraction will be rounded up to the next larger integer and treated as a whole unit.
C. If a proposed residential development project would result in the elimination of existing deed restricted affordable housing units, the affordable units must be replaced on a one-for-one basis with equally affordable deed restricted units with a new affordability agreement recorded that results in resetting and making consistent the duration of affordability consistent with the requirements of this Section.
D. An applicant prop osing to provide on -site allocated units consistent with the inclusionary requirements of this section, shall be eligible to receive one or more incentives or concessions, pursuant to State density bonus law, or other benefits as negotiated with the City.
Section 9.267.050 Relationship to density bonus provisions.
An applicant proposing allocated units consistent with this Chapter 9.267 which also applies for a density bonus consistent with State law, may count units affordable to lower or moderate - income households toward both requirements. Additional units allowed by the density bonus shall not be included in the total project units when determining the proportion of required allocated units in a residential development.
Section 9.267.060 In lieu fee option.
Developing all of the required inclusionary units within the residential development, as required under Section 9.267.040, is preferred. However, as an al ternative, the requirements of Se ction
9.267.040 may be satisfied as follows:
A. The developer may propose to satisfy the inclusio nary housing unit requirements of Sections 9.267.040. through payment of an in -lieu fee. The amount of the in - lieu fee shall be calculated using the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council.
B. In accordance with this paragraph, the developer may propose to satisfy the inclusionary housing unit requirements of Section 9.267.040 by providing some of the required inclusionary units on -site and paying an in -lieu fee for any required inclusionary units that are not included in the project. The amount of the in -lieu shall be calculated by using the fee schedule established by resolution of the City Council.
C. The full in -lieu fee shall be paid to the City prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for the residential development project.
Section 9.267.070 Alternative Compliance.
Alternatives to provision of on -site allocated units or payment of the housing in -lieu fee include provision of allocated units off -site, directly by applicant or through an agreement with a third -7-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
party, dedication or conveyance of land, conversion of market rate units to affordable, preservation of at-risk housing, use of inclusionary credits, or other innovative approaches. All alternative compliance measures must produce at least the same number and affordability of units that would have been provided on-site, and are subject to review and approval by the City Manager, with the option of review and approval by the City Council.
A. Allocated Units Provided Off-Site. An applicant may provide (or may cause a third party to provide) allocated units off- site (“off-site units”).
1. Allocated units provided off -site must be located in the same general a rea of the City as the unallocated units of the development as determined by the Director of Community Development, unless the Director of Community Development makes a determination that locating the off -site units in a different area of the City would better serve the General Plan housing goals of the City.
2. As part of the application submittal materials, if the applicant itself will provide the allocated units off-site, the applicant shall submit evidence that the applicant owns, leases (pursuant to an executed ground lease of at least 55 years from the date offsite units would be produced), or has an irrevocable option to purchase, the site where the off-site allocated units are proposed to be located; alternatively, if applicant enters into an agreement with a third party to provide the allocated units off -site, then the applicant shall cause such third party to submit evidence that the third party owns, or has an irrevocable option to purchase, the site where the off -site allocated units are proposed to be located.
3. The City shall not issue a building permit for the residential development project until the allocated units off-site, whether they are to be constructed by the applicant or third party, are under construction. Any agreement entered into by t he applicant and a third party to construct allocated units off-site is subject to review and approval by the City and must contain a clause that allows the City to enforce the rights in the agreement.
B. Land Dedication or Conveyance Alternative. An applicant may offer to dedicate or convey land to the City, situated on-site or off-site.
1. Land offered under this section must be within the City’s boundaries.
2. The applicant shall provide an analysis which demonstrates that the land offered is free from environmental contamination.
3. The applicant shall also submit evidence that the applicant owns, or has an irrevocable option to purchase, the site proposed for dedication or conveyance.
4. Land shall be identified and offered for dedication or conveyance at the time of development application submittal. If the offer is accepted by the City -8-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
Council, the land must be donated to the City no later than the date of approval of the final subdivision map, parcel map or housing development application, and must have all the permits and approvals, other than building permits, necessary for development with the required number of affordable units.
5. The City Manager shall recommend to the City Council whether the dedication should be accepted.
C. Conversion of Market Rate Units to Affordable. An applicant may propose to convert existing market rate units within the City of Jurupa Valley to affordable units in an amount equal to or greater than the required on-site inclusionary housing requirement, including any needed reha bilitation to ensure compliance with building, health and safety standards.
D. Preservation of At -Risk Housing. An applicant may offer to purchase long term affordability covenants on an existing deed restricted affordable housing project at imminent risk of contract termination and conversion to market rate housing. The number of units preserved shall be equal to or greater than the required on -site inclusionary housing requirement.
E. Affordability Level Credit. The developer can construct fewer than the allocated units, if the units will be at a deeper affordability level.
F. Innovation Encouraged. Innovative alternatives to providing affordable hous ing not outlined in this chapter shall be evaluated by staff and considered on a case-by- case basis. Substitute programs shall be permitted provided, at the recommendation of staff and determination of the City Council , that the objectives of the inclusionary housing ordinance are being met with the alternate proposal.
Section 9.267.080 Inclusionary housing plan and housing agreement.
A. The applicant shall comply with the following requirements at the times and in compliance with the standards and procedures in the city's regulations for the implementation of this chapter.
1. Inclusionary Housing Plan. An applicant shall submit an inclusionary housing plan, in a form specified by the Director, detailing how the provisions of this chapter will be implemented for the proposed project. All inclusionary housing plans shall be subject to the approval of the Director with the option of review and approval by the City Council.
2. Affordability Agreement. An applicant shall execute and cause to be recorded an affordability agreement. The affordability agreement shall be a legally binding, recorded agreement between the applicant and the City, in a form and substance satisfactory to the director and the city attorney, and containing those provisions necessary to ensure that the requirements of this chapter are satisfied, whether through the provision of inclusionary -9-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
units or through an approved alternative method. Once the residential development including allocated units has received its final discretionary approval, the applicant shall file an application, including payment of any processing and monitoring fees, with the Community Development Department for approval and finalization of the affordability agreement.
B. An applicant for a project providing allocated units consistent with this chapter and affordable units consistent with the provisions of the density bonus shall enter into a single affordability agreement with the City.
C. Discretionary Approvals. No discretionary approval shall be issued for a project subject to this chapter until th e applicant has submitted an inclusionary housing plan.
D. Issuance of Building Permit. No building permit shall be issued for a project subject to t his chapter unless the Director has approved the inclusionary housing plan, and any required affordability agreement has been recorded encumbering the project site.
E. Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. A certificate of occupancy shall not be issued for a project subject to this chapter unless the approved inclusionary housing plan has been fully implemented.
Section 9.267.090 Standards for inclusionary units.
A. All inclusionary units shall be:
1. Reasonably dispersed throughout the residential project;
2. Proportional, in number of bedrooms, and location, to the market rate units;
3. Comparable to the market rate units included in the residential project in terms of size, design, materials, finished quality, and appearance; and
4. Permitted the same access to project amenities and recreational facilities, as are market rate units.
B. Timing of Construction. All inclusionary u nits in a project shall be constructed concurrent with, or before the construction of the market rate units. If the city approves a phased project, a proportional share of the required inclusionary units shall be provided within each phase of the residential project.
C. Accessory dwelling units shall not be counted towards meeting a project’s inclusionary requirements.
D. Units for Sale.
-10-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
1. Time Limit for Inclusionary Restrictions. A unit for sale shall be restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable hou sing cost for a minimum of forty-five (45) years.
2. Certification of Purchasers. The applicant and all subsequent owners of an inclusionary unit offered fo r sale shall certify, in form and content acceptable to the City, the income of the purchaser.
3. Resale Price Control. In order to maintain the availability of inclusionary units required by this chapter, the resale price of an owner -occupied inclusionary unit shall be limited to the lesser of the fair market value of the unit as established by a qualified appraiser selected by the Director based upon three comparable properties or the restricted resale price. For these purposes, the restricted resale price shall be the greater of either the applicable affordable housing cost or an amount equal to the sum of: a) the purchase price, b) an amount equal to ten percent of any increase in the applicable affordable housing cost since the previous sale of the unit, c) the adjusted amount of any capital improvements for which a building permit has been issued by the City and a certification of occupancy or similar final certification has been filed, or other improvements which adds assessed value to the unit, d) any applicable transaction fee charged by a real estate professional, and e) if the occupant has allowed the unit to deteriorate due to deferred maintenance, the restricted retail price shall be discounted in an amount equal to the costs necessary to bring th e unit into conformity with the City Municipal Code.
4. Disclosure of Affordability Restrictions. Prior to the close of escrow, t he seller of an inclusionary unit shall provide special written notice to the buyer of an inclusionary unit of the affordabilit y restrictions on the inclusionary unit, including but not limited to, the resale price controls, in a document written in plain language and approved in writing by the Director.
5. Inheritance of Inclusionary Units. Upon the death of an owner of an owner- occupied inclusionary unit, title in the property may transfer to the surviving joint tenant without respect to the income -eligibility of the household.
Upon the death of a sole owner or of all owners of an inclusionary unit and the inheritance of the property by one or more non-income eligible children or stepchildren of the deceased, the property shall be sold to an income eligible household within one year of the time when the deceased's estate is settled. Inheritance of an inclusionary unit by any other non-income eligible person or persons shall require the sale of the property to an income eligible person as soon as is feasible, but not more than one hundred eighty days after the deceased's estate is settled.
6. Forfeiture. If an inclusionary unit for sa le is sold for an amount in excess of the resale price controls required by this section, the buyer and the seller shall be jointly and severally liable to the City for the entire purchase price -11-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
of the unit. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the affordable housing trust funds. Notwithstanding the foregoing, upon written request for time to cure any violation given to the City by the buyer and seller, it shall be within the discretion of the city manager to allow the buyer and seller one hundred eighty days to cure any violation of the resale price controls.
E. Rental Units.
1. Time Limit for Inclusionary Restrictions. A rental unit shall remain restricted to the target income level group at the applicable affordable housing cost for fifty-five years.
2. Certification of Renters. The owner of any rental inclusionary units shall certify to the director, on a form provided by the City, the income of the tenant at the time of the initial rental and annually thereafter.
3. Forfeiture. Any lessor who leases an i nclusionary unit in violation of this chapter shall be required to forfeit to the City all money so obtained.
Recovered funds shall be deposited into the affordable housing trust fund.
4. The Director may require the execution and recording of whatever documents are necessary or helpful to ensure enforcement of this section; including but not limited to: promissory notes, deeds of trust, resale restrictions, rights of first refusal, options to purchase, and/or other documents, which shall be recorded against all inclusionary units.
5. Prior to the close of escrow of the sale of an inclusionary unit, the seller of an inclusionary unit shall provide special written notice to the buyer of an inclusionary unit of the affordability restrictions on the inclusionary unit , including but not limited to, the resale price controls, in a document written in plain language and approved in writing by the Director.
F. General Prohibitions.
1. No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit at a price or rent in excess of the applicable affordable housing cost placed on the unit in accordance with this chapter.
2. No person shall sell or rent an inclusionary unit to a person or persons that do not meet the income restrictions placed on the unit in accordance with this chapter.
3. No person s hall provide false or materially incomplete information to the city or to a seller or lessor of an inclusionary unit to obtain occupancy of housing for which that person is not eligible.
G. Principal Residency Requirement.
-12-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
1. The owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall reside in the unit as such person’s principal residence for at least ten out of every twelve consecutive months unless actively serving in the United States military.
Notwithstanding this requirement, an o wner or lessee may live elsewhere for a period up to six months every five years on account of hardships, including, but not limited to, medical reasons, the need to assist family member in crisis or medical need, and relocation for employment purposes, subject to verification by the Director.
2. No owner or lessee of an inclusionary unit shall lease or sublease, as applicable, an inclusionary unit without the prior permission of the director.
Section 9.267.100 Implementation and enforcement.
A. The City Council may adopt administrative guidelines to assist in implementing and administering this section.
B. Any violation of this Chapter constitutes a misdemeanor and may be subject to the penalties and remedial procedures set forth in Chapters 1.15, 1.16,1.20 and 1.25 of this Code.
C. The provisions of this section shall apply to all owners, developers, their agents, successors, and assigns that propose a residential development, occupy an inclusionary unit, or both. All inclusionary units shall be sold or rente d in accordance with this section and any regulations and administrative guidelines adopted pursuant to this section.
D. Any individual who sells or rents an inclusionary unit in violation of the provisions of this section, the guidelines, or the inclusionar y housing agreement shall be required to forfeit to the city all monetary amounts obtained in violation of those provisions. Recovered funds shall be deposited into the inclusionary housing trust fund.
E. The C ity Attorney may institute any appropriate lega l actions or proceedings necessary to ensure compliance with this section, including, but not limited to:
1. Actions to revoke, deny, or suspend any permit, including a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or discretionary approval; and
2. Actions for injunctive relief or damages.
F. In any action to enforce this section or an inclusionary housing agreement recorded hereunder, the prevailing party shall be entitled to recover its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Section 9.267.110 Petition for Waiver or Reduction.
An applicant may request a waiver or reduction in the requirements of this Chapter 9.267, provided that the applicant provides evidence of economic hardship, such as inability to achieve a reasonable -13-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
commercial profit, which must be verified by an independent third-party review at the applicant's sole cost. Such review would include a comparison of the applicant's projected costs and rental/sale revenue assumptions with current market standards, including a market rate of return on cost. The waiver or reduction request may be processed by the City Council.
Section 9.267.120 Administration.
A. The City Council, by resolution, may from time to time adopt procedures, policies, rules and requirements, including the adoption of processing and administrative fees, to implement, administer, and/or enforce the provisions of this chapter.
B. The Director or designee is authorized to determine the number of dwelling units contained within a particular residential development, if a determination is needed to resolve a disagreement. When a question arises regarding the meaning, or requires an interpretation of any provision of this chapter to any specific circumstances or situation, the Director is authorized to render a decision thereon in writing.
C. The City shall keep on file and available for public review a copy of the current income schedules and utility allowances.
Section 9.267.130 Periodic Review.
A. Within three years from the date the Ordinance is adopted , the Community Development Department shall prepare a report on the effectiveness of the inclusionary housing ordinance, which shall include the following:
1. By income category, the total number of on-site inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report.
2. By income category, the total number of off-site inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report.
3. By income category, the total number of inclusionary units converted from market rate during the time period covered by the report.
4. By income category, the total number of affordable units preserved as an alternative to fulfill an inclusionary requirement during the time period covered by the report.
5. By income category, the total number of additional inclusionary units issued building permits during the time period covered by the report, as well as those issued building permits in the preceding 9 years.
6. The amount of any housing in-lieu fees collected.
7. Any recommendations with regard to changes or revisions to the adopted program to improve its effectiveness and/or administration. -14-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
B. After the initial review, the inclusionary housing program shall be reviewed in connection with the preparation of the updated Housing Element.
Section 9.267.140 Affordable Housing Trust Funds.
Housing in-lieu fees collected by the City pursuant to this ordinance shall be deposited into an affordable housing trust fund maintained by the City for use in the site acquisition, development, rehabilitation, program administration, or preservation of affordable housing, either directly by the City or in partnership with a third-party affordable housing developer.
Section 9.267.150 Administrative Fees.
The council may by resolution establish reasonable fees and deposits for the administration of this chapter.”
Section 4. CEQA. This Ordinance was reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated thereunder and has been determined to be exempt from the CEQA pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, since it includes a government funding mechanisms and fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on th e environment.
Moreover, additional CEQA review would be required on a case -by-case basis prior to issuance of any approvals to construct units with the funds generated by the in-lieu fees.
Section 5. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 6. Effect of Ordinance . This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinance or resolution of the County o f Riverside adopted by reference by the City of Jurupa Valley in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance.
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
Section 8. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED , AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 18th day of August, 2022.
-15-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-16-
12774-0007\2683693v3.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2022-14 was duly introduced at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 4th day of August, 2022, and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of August, 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 18th day of August, 2022.
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
-1-
12774-0007\2681197v2.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-93
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING AND IN-LIEU FEE STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION
ESTABLISHING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING FEES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) There is a severe shortage of housing in Riverside County, and the region, that is affordable to extremely low, very low, low, and moderate income households; (b) The Housing Element determined that the City has the existing capacity needed to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation (“RHNA”) in the Moderate and Above-Moderate categories with a combined surplus of 1,558 units in those categories. However, there is an unmet need of 354 units in the low-income category and an unmet need of 529 units in the very low/extremely low-income Category;
(c) The City Council requested that staff analyze the feasibility of imposing an inclusionary housing requirement on housing development projects to ensure that affordable housing is either constructed in the City, or accounted for through the payment of in lieu fees; (d) RSG, Inc., a consulting firm commissioned by the City, prepared a study dated June 16, 2022 entitled “Inclusionary Housing and In-Lieu Fee Study and Recommendation” (“Fee Study”) addressing the gap between market rate sales prices and rents for housing units in the City and sales prices and rents affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.
The study also contained detailed analysis for the estimated development funding gap related to constructing the affordable units on site;
(e) On June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley adopted Resolution No. 2022-06-22-01 recommending that the City Council adopt the June 16, 2022 Fee Study prepared by RSG;
(f) On June 21, 2022 at least thirty days prior to the public hearing, notice was published in the Press Enterprise regarding the City Council’s consideration of the adoption of the Nexus Report;
(g) A public hearing was duly held on August 4, 2022 in the Jurupa Valley City Hall Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California. Notice of the time, date, and place and purpose of the aforesaid was duly given as required by law; (h) Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley at the aforesaid public hearing; -2-
12774-0007\2681197v2.doc
(i) After close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, the recommendations, and all other pertinent documents including the Nexus Report.
Section 2. Approval of Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee Analysis. The Ci ty Council has reviewed and hereby approves the Inclusionary Housing and In -Lieu Fee Study and Recommendation prepared by RSG, Inc., and finds that the analysis therein supports the in -lieu fees that will be established by separate resolution.
Section 3. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify this Resolution in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 4th day of August, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-3-
12774-0007\2681197v2.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-93 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 4th day of August, 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 4th day of August, 2022.
_
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-94
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A
FEE SCHEDULE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 9.267
(INCLUSIONARY HOUSING) OF T HE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals.
(a) On August 4, 2022, the City Council conducted a first reading of Ordinance No. 2022-15, which amends Title 9 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (the “Municipal Code”) to add a new Chapter 9.267 (“Inclusionary Housing and Affordable Housing in Lieu Fee ”), establishing the requirement for the payment of in lieu fees for housing development projects within the City. Chapter 9.267 requires developers of residential projects to provide housing units affordable to very low, low, or moderate income households within the residential development to ensure that affordable housing is constructed in the City; (b) Chapter 9.267 of the Municipal Code provides that the City’s inclusionary housing requirements may b e satisfied by payment of an in -lieu fee (instead of building the inclusionary units on-site or off-site in the City);
(c) Chapter 9.267 of the Municipal Code, provides that the City Council shall, by resolution, establish the amount of the inclusionary housing fee; (d) RSG, Inc., a consulting firm commissioned by the City, prepared a study dated June 16, 2022 entitled “Inclusionary Housing and In-Lieu Fee Study and Recommendation” (“Fee Study”) addressing the gap between market rate sales prices and rents for housing units in the City and sales prices and rents affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households.
The study also contained detailed analysis for the estimated development fu nding gap related to constructing the affordable units on site;
(e) On June 22, 2021, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley adopted Resolution No. 2022 -06-22-01 recommending that the City Council adopt a resolution establishing an affordable housing in lieu fee;
(f) On August 4 , 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2022 -93 approving the Nexus Study, and approving the in lieu fee calculation; (g) Chapter 9.267 provides that all monies collected by the City in -lieu of constructing affordable units on-site shall be deposited in the inclusionary housing trust fund; (h) A public hearing was duly held on August 4, 2022 at 7 p.m. in the Jurupa Valley City Hall Council Chamber. Notice of the time, date, and place and purpose of the aforesaid hearing was duly given;
-2-
(i) Evidence, both written and oral, was duly presented to and considered by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley at the aforesaid public hearing; (j) After close of the public hearing, the City Council considered all public comments received both before and during the public hearing, the presentation by City staff, the staff report, the recommendations, and all other pertinent documents and associated actions regarding the proposed ordinance amendment and fee update; and (k) The in-lieu fee schedule resolution was reviewed and considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as amended, and the CEQA Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The inclusionary housing in-lieu fee schedule res olution has been determined to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, since it in volves a government funding mechanisms and fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to a specific project that may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Moreover, additional CEQA review would be required on a case -by-case basis prior to issuance of any approvals to construct units with the funds generated by the in-lieu fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley as follows:
Section 1. The City Council has reviewed and approved the study prepared by RSG, Inc., and finds that the analysis therein supports the in-lieu fees established by this resolution.
Section 2. The City Council hereby adopts the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee amount stated in this resolution. To satisfy the inclusionary housing requirements of Jurupa Valley Municipal Chapter 9.267, the total amount of the in-lieu fee for a residential development shall be calculated by multiplying the total square feet of all market-rate units in the development project by $___ per square foot.
Section 3. Imposition of In Lieu Fee. The in lieu fee established herein shall be due and payable prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for any phase of the housing development project.
Section 4. Appeal of Fee Imposition. Any applicant who is subject to payment of the in lieu fees 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 5. 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 portion 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.
-3-
Section 6. Effective Date. The fees specified in this resolution shall take effect on September 17, 2022. Any residential development project that has not been approved by the City on or before September 17, 2022 shall be subject to the new fees set forth in this Resolution.
Section 7. 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 4th day August, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-4-
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-94 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 4th day of August, 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 4th day of August, 2022.
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 4, 2022
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 13.B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.
21347: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21013; CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) NO. 21015, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 266; SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) NO. 21115; AND SETBACK ADJUSTMENT (SBA) NO. 21003 ; PROJECT: “VERNOLA
MARKETPLACE APARTMENT COMMUNITY” (PHASE B) - DEVELOP
8.34 ACRES OF VACANT LAND INTO 20 8-UNIT APARTMENT
COMMUNITY; LOCATED SOUTH OF VERNOLA MARKETPLACE
SHOPPING CENTER, EAST OF I-15 FREEWAY AND WEST OF PATS
RANCH ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF 65
TH STREET (APN: 152-
640-005 and 006) ; (APPLICANT: ANTHONY P. VERNOLA TRUST U/T/D)
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2022-95, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21013, AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 266, SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO. 21003, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21115 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF 208 -UNIT APARTMENT COMMUNITY ON APPROXIMATELY 8.34 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY
LOCATED SOUTH OF VERNOLA MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER, EAST OF I -15 FREEWAY AND WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD AT THE
INTERSECTION OF 65TH STREET (APNS: 152-640-005, -006); AND 2) That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2022- 15, entitled:
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 8.34-ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT ON THE EAST SIDE OF INTERSTATE 15 (I -15) AND THE WEST SIDE OF PATS RANCH ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF 65
TH STREET. (APN:
152-640-005 AND 006). FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK (I -P) TO GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (R-3), AND MAKING FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project , Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community (VMAC) Phase B consists of a 208-unit market rate apartment community of 18 three-story buildings, with a mixture of one- , two -, and three- bedroom units on 8.34 acres of vacant land (“The Project”). See Exhibit 1 “ Project Site ” for the location of the project. The multi-family development will also include the following site improvements: community amenities , parking areas, street improvements, and landscaping.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING LAND USES
The project site consists of 8.3 4 acres of vacant land located east of the I -15 Freeway, south of Vernola Marketplace retail center (Lowe’s), west of Pats Ranch Road, and north of VMAC Phase A. Table 1 presents general information on the project site and surrounding land uses. Exhibit 1 shows the project location.
Table 1: Project Information and Surrounding Land Uses
Location
Current
Land Use
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning
Subject
Site
Vacant land LI (Light Industrial) I-P (Industrial Park) North Commercial and retail
(Vernola Marketplace)
CR - (Commercial Retail) C-P-S (Scenic
Highway Commercial)
South Vacant Land and
Apartment Construction
Project (VMAC Phase
A).
HHDR (Highest Density
Residential)
R-3 (Planned General
Residential)
East Immediately adjacent to
commercial and vacant
land followed by Pats
Ranch Road, Limonite
Meadows Park and
residential uses.
OS-R (Open Space,
Recreation)
PF (Public
Facilities/Institutional)
MDR- (Medium Density
Residential)
Industrial Park
A-2-10 (He avy
Agriculture)
R-1 (One Family
Dwellings)
West Interstate 15 (I-15)
Residential beyond I -15
(City of Eastvale)
Freeway
MDR (Medium Density
Residential)
Freeway
R-4 (Residential)
Page | 3
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT SITE
REQUIRED ENTITLEMENTS
The Project will require the following entitlements:
• General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21013:
o Change the land use designation from Light Industrial (LI) to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) to accommodate the 208 apartments and proposed density of 25 dwelling units per acre. HHDR allows for a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre.
o Remove project site from Specific Plan Overlay.
• Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 266: Remove the 8.34- acre project site from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266 to accommodate the residential use.
The Specific Plan currently designates this site as Industrial Park (I-P). • Change of Zone (CZ) No. 21015: Change the underlying zoning classification from Industrial Park (I-P) to General Residential (R-3) to accommodate the multi- family housing. The R-3 zone allows for multiple- family dwellings and apartment houses, subject to the development standards set forth in Section 9.240.545 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Page | 4
• Site Development Permit (SDP) No. 21115: Proposed construction of multi-family units in the R-3 zoning classification.
• Setback Adjustment (SBA) No. 21003: A request to reduce the minimum 50-foot setback requirement from any commercially zoned property to 20 feet.
BACKGROUND
Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase A.
Phase A of the Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community, located just south of the proposed Phase B project site, was approved in 2015 by the City Council, and is under construction and partially occupied. Phase A includes 397 multi -family dwelling units in 25 three-story buildings on 17.4 acres (22 dwelling units per acre).
Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase B
Planning Commission Study Session
On April 7, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a Study Session to review, discuss and provide feedback on the Applicant's initial submittal. Staff responses to the Planning Commission’s feedback are included within the July 13, 2022 Planning Commission staff report, provided as Attachment 4.
Planning Commission Public Hearing
On July 13, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed project. During the public hearing, no members of the public spoke on the item and one (1) comment was received in support of the project. The Planning Commission deliberated and discussed the following items:
1. Building setback adjacent to commercial property
: The Planning Commission
discussed the applicant/s request for a setback adjustment to allow for a reduced building setback for proposed residential buildings on the east edge of the project adjacent to the abutting commercial property from the required fifty (50) feet to twenty (20) feet. The Planning Commission expressed concerns over views from residential units of the adjacent commercial parking lot. In order to address those concerns the Planning Commission directed that a condition of approval be added that requires installation of tall, fast growing trees along the eastern landscape setback area abutting the commercial parking lot.
2. Affordable Housing: The Planning Commission discussed the possible application of any future inclusionary housing ordinance. During the public hearing, the applicant stated that the project will comply with the provisions of any such ordinance.
After the discussion, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution, on a 4- 1-0 vote, recommending that the City Council approve the project with the following additional condition of approval: The final on- site landscape plans shall include the installation of tall, fast growing trees along the eastern landscape setback area abutting the commercial parking lot ; refer to Condition No. 18 within the Conditions of Approval provided as Attachment 1d.
The July 13, 2022 Planning Commission staff report is provided as Attachment 4.
Page | 5
PROJECT DETAILS
A. Site Plan. The site plan propo ses 208 apartment units in 18 three-story apartment buildings, with a mixture of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The proposed density would be 25 dwelling units per acre (25 du/ac). There is a 4,544square foot clubhouse/fitness/leasing building and a fitness/cabana area to accompany a pool and spa. Additional site amenities include a dog park, picnic area, play structure and walking paths.
With an approved Setback Adjustment, t he Project would meet the development standards of the proposed R-3 zone as well as the Multiple Family Dwelling Development Standards . T he request ed Setback Adjustment is to reduce the minimum setback requirement adjacent to commercially zoned property from 50 feet to 20 feet. The Setback Adjustment is discussed in detail in the analysis section below. Exhibit 2 shows the conceptual site plan for the Project.
EXHIBIT 2: CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
B. Buffers and Walls. The site is designed to be graded lower than the I -15 freeway where possible, which will provide a natural graded sound barrier along the west property line, similar to the first phase of Vernola Marketplace Apartments to the south (Phase A). The residential buildings are setback 72 feet from the property line abutting the freeway. A 12- foot-high decorative masonry sound wall will be constructed along the freeway and every apartment unit will have an air filtration system and sound minimizing walls/window s to mitigate impacts from the freeway. Thirty-six inch box size screen trees are proposed to buffer the site from the freeway. The combination of extensive setbacks and building design, together with trees, decorative masonry walls , and existing berms along the freeway, significantly isolate the living areas from the noise and air quality impacts of the freeway and serve to mitigate these impacts to a level of non-significance.
As required by the Zoning Code Section 9.240.545 - Multi-Family Development Standards, a six -foot-high decorative masonry wall will be located along the
Page | 6
south property line abutting the VMAC Phase A site; and six to eight feet high decorative masonry walls will be located along the north and east property lines abutting the commercial shopping center property.
C. Access and Circulation. Primary access to the site will be taken from the signalized intersection at Pats Ranch Road and 65 th Street. The access is through an existing easement over the Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center drive aisle, south of Fitness 19. See Exhibit 3 Project ’s Access Points. The existing easement is 50 feet wide and it covers both travel lanes and a new 4 foot wide pedestrian path. The proposed pedestrian path will connect the subject property to Pats Ranch Road. Proposed street improvements to the intersection of Pats Ranch Road and 65 th Street may include installation of pedestrian push buttons, signal head readjus tment, curb ramp modifications, curb and gutter realignment, replacement of damaged detection loops, and signing and striping to be determined by the Engineering Department.
EXHIBIT 3: PROJECT ACCESS POINTS
An enhanced entry with decorative paving and landscaped median is located at the project ’s main entrance. There are two proposed emergency vehicle access (EVA) points equipped with a Knox Box for Fire Department access .
One EVA would be located in the southwest corner of the property, through the existing Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community – Phase A. Another EVA would be located at the northeast corner of the site that connects to an existing secondary access easement crossing the shopping center and connecting to
Page | 7
Pats Ranch Road. Wrought iron vehicular access gates would be located at the primary entrance and the EVAs.
Internal circulation will be provided f rom the primary entrance of the project, where residents and visitors can enter and exit through two interior entry gates and traverse the site by the internal drive aisles that circulate throughout the site. Various concrete paver pedestrian access paths are provided throughout the site connecting the residential buildings and the various site amenities.
D. Open Space Areas and Recreational Amenities. The Project would provide 82,503 square feet of common open space including a 3,557 square foot clubhouse building. The common open space area will include the following:
• Pool/spa area with barbeques, trellis, and pool furniture • Various enhanced paving areas with seating and shade trees • Two large common courtyards with decorative paving, benches and trees
• A tree alley with decorative paving and benches
• A picnic area with decorative paving, a trellis and seating tables • A terraced dog parking with multi-level areas, concrete seat walls and dog play elements
Exhibit 4 below illustrates the pool/spa area, the terraced dog park, and the common courtyard.
EXHIBIT 4: RECREATIONAL AMENTITIES
Pool and Spa Area Terraced Dog Park
Common Courtyard
Page | 8
Each of the 208 apartment units will have private open space consisting of a minimum 75 square foot balcony or patio. The Project meets the code required common and private open space area requirements.
E. Parking. A total of 394 parking spaces are provided on- site including: 145 garage spaces; 168 open spaces; 65 carport spaces; 9 electric vehicle spaces; and 7 apron spaces. Each residential unit will have either one garage or carport parking space. Additional residential parking spaces will be located in the open spaces. Seventy guest parking spaces are distributed throughout the open parking areas. The onsite parking averages 1.90 spaces per unit. A conceptual parking plan is included in the architectural set of plans.
The Project meets the code parking requirements as outlined in Table 2 below:
Table 2 - Parking Requirements
Unit Type Unit Count *Required
Parking
Total
1 Bedroom Units 90 1.25 per Unit 112.5
2 Bedroom Units 89 2.25 per Unit 200.2
3 Bedroom Units 29 2.75 per Units 79.7
TOTAL 208 393
Parking Provided
Parking Type Count %
Garage 145 36.7%
Open Stall 167
including
70 guest
spaces
42.0%
Carports 65 16.5%
Apron 7 1.8%
EV Stalls 9 2.3%
Postal Service 1 0.3%
TOTAL 394 1.90 spaces/du
F. Architecture and Building Design. The Project includes eighteen three-story buildings with a height of 40 feet . Tower elements on some of the buildings extend to a height of 46 feet and 10 inches. The Project meets the code required height requirements. The proposed architectural style is Spanish Colonial Revival similar and compatible with VMAC Phase A. Exhibit 5 shows the proposed building elevations . Exhibit 6 shows elevations that were approved for VMAC Phase A. Features of the proposed architectural style include red tile roofs, archways, white, beige, and brown colored stucco, decorative wrought iron railings and grills , faux wood shutters and corbels, Page | 9
decorative ceramic tile, and stone veneer elements. The clubhouse building will have a similar architectural style as the residential buildings.
EXHIBIT 5: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS FOR PHASE B
Page | 10
EXHIBIT 6: APPROVED ELEVATIONS FOR PHASE A
Unit Plans/Floor Area: The proposed 208 residential units will consist one-, two, and three-bedroom units as outlined in Table 3 below:
Table 3 Unit Count
Unit Type Unit
Count
Unit Floor
Area
A1 1bed/1bath 36 809 sf
A2 1bed/1bath 54 719 sf
Subtotal 90 43%
B1 2bed/2bath 44 1,139 sf
B2 2bed/2bath 45 1,144 sf
Subtotal 89 43%
C1 3bed/3bath 21 1,409 sf
B4 3bed/3bath 8 1,617 sf
Subtotal 29 14%
Total 208
G. Landscaping. Landscaping would include the following: a 20- to 22 -foot landscape setback along the east property line abutting the adjacent commercial parking lot; a 20- to 24- foot landscape setback along the southern property line abutting the Phase A project; an 18-foot landscape setback along the north property line abutting the Lowes parking area; and a 10- to 50- foot landscaped setback along the west property line abutting the freeway , which will include large screen trees and shrubs along the inside of the freeway screening wall. The landscape setback areas will include a variety of columnar, screen and accent trees ranging in size from 24-inch to 36-inch box (minimum code required size is 15-inch box); shrubs; and groundcovers. The courtyard, recreation areas, and pool area will include shade trees, accent trees, and shrubs and groundcover. The open parking areas will have shade trees and river rock cobble. All plants will be compliant with California Green Building requirements for water conservation and the California Invasive Plant Council requirements for non-invasive plants. In addition, the final landscape plan will
Page | 11
be required to comply with the water efficiency landscape design requirements of the zoning code. As recommended by the Planning Commission, a condition (#18d) has been added that requires installation of tall, fast growing trees along the eastern landscape setback area abutting the commercial parking lot.
H. Transit Facilities (Bus/Bicycles).
The new pedestrian access from the apartment complex along the existing easement through the adjacent shopping center site to Pats Ranch Road and 65 th Street will provide access to existing bus stops on Pats Ranch Road. In addition, as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), mitigation measure MM-VMT-2 will require the applicant to construct bicycle lanes connecting to the larger existing bicycle network in the City.
Details of the design of the bicycle lanes and connections will be determined by the Public Works Department during the plan check stage and prior to issuance of building permits.
ANALYSIS
I. GENERAL PLAN/ZONING DESIGNATION
A. Residential Land Use & Density. The Project will require amendments to the General Plan and I -15 Corridor Specific Plan to allow multi -family housing at this location.
• General Plan Land Use Designation. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Light Industrial (LI). The proposed land use designation is Highest Density Residential (HHDR). Light Industrial is undesirable and incompatible with the surrounding residential communities. Highest Density Residential allows for a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre. The proposed density is 25 dwelling units per acre. Please see Attachment 5 - General Plan Change Exhibit. • I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. Consistent with the General Plan, the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan designates this project site for industrial use. The site is in Planning Area 5 and it is planned for an Industrial Park within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan Amendment proposed, as part of the project application, requests to remove the 8.34-acre project site from the Specific Plan to accommodate the proposed residential use. The boundary of Planning Area 5 has been revised to remove a portion of this planning area, resulting in a reduction to industrial park and overall specific plan total acreage. Table IV-1, I-15 Corridor Specific Plan – Land Use Summary, Exhibit IV -1, Land Use Plan, and Section IV.B.5 – Planning Area 5, have been revised accordingly to reflect this adjustment. These exhibits are provided as Attachment No. 6. • Zoning Designation. The project site has a zoning designation of Industrial Park (I -P). The proposed zoning designation is General Residential (R -3) to accommodate the proposed multi-family housing and consistent with the proposed Highest Density Residential (HHDR) General Plan land use designation. Please see Attachment 7 - Change of Zone Exhibit.
Page | 12
The proposal to change the General Plan land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Residential and removal of the site from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan are consistent with City Council ’s approval of Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase A. For Phase A, the current land use designation is Highest Density Residential, the zoning is R -3, and the site has been excluded from I-15 Corridor Specific Plan.
This project will further transform this area, between the I-15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road, from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks ; it will reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road. The City ’s General Plan also indicates that additional housing to help meet the City ’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) may come from residential uses withi n the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan. The proposed project was also included in the City’s approved 6th cycle Housing Element as a potential housing site.
II. ZONING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The project is subject to the R -3 and Multi-Family Dwelling Development Standards of the zoning ordinance. Table 3 below outlines the project’s compliance with the zoning code development standards.
TABLE 3. ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standard Does the Project Comply?
Lot Size Minimum Size: 7,200
square-feet
Minimum Width: 60 feet
Minimum Depth: 100 feet
Yes, 8.24-acre lot size. Lot depth is
380 feet and lot width is 604 feet.
Setback Front: 50 Feet adjacent to
Commercial uses per the
Multi-Family Residential
development standards
Rear: 10 Feet plus 2 feet for
each foot of height above
35 feet
Side: 10 Feet plus 2 feet for
each foot of height above
35 feet
Yes, with an approved Setback
Adjustment. 20 feet proposed
adjacent to the commercial parking lot
to the east and nor th instead of 50
feet. Please see below for further
analysis.
Yes. Rear and side setbacks
Lot Coverage 50% maximum Yes. 30%
Floor Area
Ratio
2:1 Maximum Yes. 0.87:1
Height Maximum height: 50 feet. Yes, the buildings are 40 feet in height with some tower elements extending
to 46 feet – 10 inches.
Page | 13
TABLE 3. ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
On-site
Landscaping
Minimum 20 -foot wide
street facing property line
landscaped setbacks.
Yes. The project has no street
frontage but provides a minimum 20-
foot landscape setback at the front
(east) property line. In addition, 20- to
24- foot landscape setback along the
southern property line; an 18- foot
landscape setback along the north
property line; and a 10- to 50- foot
landscaped setback along the west
property line
TABLE 3. ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development Standard Does the Project Comply?
Parking 1-bedroom units 1.25
spaces
2-bedroom units 2.25
spaces
3-bedroom units 2.75 units
393 total spaces required
Yes. 394 spaces provided
Open Space Common Area: 150 sf per
unit = 31,200 sf
Private Area: 75 sf per unit
= 15,698 sf
Yes. 82,503 sf common open space
provided and 75 sf per unit private
open space provided
Laundry and
Storage
In-unit laundry facilities
required
35 cubic feet indoor and 60
cubic feet outdoor storage
required
Yes. Project meets required laundry
and storage requirements
**The project meets all other applicable zoning code development standards
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) Per Zoning Code Section 9.240.330(3) -Requirements for Approval, no Site Development Permit shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
A. “The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinance of the City of Jurupa Valley.”
The Project is consistent with the General Plan, zoning ordinance, and applicable S tate law. The proposed General Plan land use designation is Highest Density Residential (HHDR), and the proposed zoning classification is General Residential (R -3). The approval of the General Plan Amendment and the Change of Zone will accommodate the Page | 14
proposed 208-unit, 25 unit per acre multi-family residential project. The Project complies with all applicable development standards with the approval of a Setback Adjustment, and the imposition of conditions of approval.
B. “The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof.” The combination of the site design, building design, compliance with all applicable development standards, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval will ensure that the project as designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare.
The Project is consistent with the logical development of the land use and with the surrounding land uses. The proposal of changing the General Plan land use designation and zoning from Industrial to Residential and removal of the site from the I -15 Corridor Specific Plan is consistent with City Council’s approval of Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase A to the south. Further, the change to residential designati ons will further transform this area, between the I-15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road, from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks, and will be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road. It will eliminate the potential negative impacts from for industrial uses in a residential area.
The proposed site development plans consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion in that it includes public right-of-way improvements along Pats Ranch Road, and sufficient on-site pedestrian and vehicular access, and vehicular parking.
The proposed site development plans take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need f or dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof in that topographical and drainage conditions have been addressed through an approved Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and proposed Conditions of Approval recommended the City’s Engineering Department
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SETBACK ADJUSTMENT
Required Setback for Multiple Family Residential Projects . Multi-family dwelling development standards in the zoning ordinance (Section 9.240.545) require buffers from adjacent commercial, industrial, or institutional uses. Specifically, residential structures shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from any property line abutting property zoned for, or used for, commercial, industrial, or institutional activities or structures. As proposed, there are residential structures located approximately 20 feet from the shared property line with V ernola Marketplace Shopping Center , east of the site . In accordance with Section 9.240.360 (Setback Adjustments and Temporary Use of L and), a Setback Adjustment can be approved if there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not Page | 15
be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested.
The above findings can be made to support a recommendation for granting a setback adjustment as follows:
A. There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property:
• The subject property has approximately 850 linear feet of property line abutting the adjacent commercial property. The required 50-foot setback would render approximately 63,000 square feet of the site undevelopable for residential structures. The residential buildings along the north property line are adhering to the 50-foot setback. However, the Buildings 4-7, along the east property line, are setback 20 feet from the property line.
• The abutting commercial property is developed with the Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center. Buildings 4-7 are located approximately 230-270 feet from the nearest commercial building (Fitness 19). The only commercial use within 50 feet of the residential buildings is a customer parking lot.
The approval of the Setback Adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the subject site. The proposed Setback Adjustment will be mitigated by the proposed 20- foot landscape setback and walls between the residential and commercial uses.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City of Jurupa Valley has prepared and intends to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Project. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by an Initial Study that evaluated potential effects. The proposed MND determines t hat although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been required or revisions in the Project have been made or agreed to by the Applicant. The City's decision to prepare an MND should not be construed as a recommendation of either approval or denial of this Project. Additionally, Planning Condition No. 8 requires all the mitigation measures of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be included as conditions of approval.
Public Review Period
The public review period for the environmental document began on June 13 , 2022 and ended on July 5 , 2022. To date, the City has not received any comments. The IS/MND with MMRP and Appendices are available on the City ’s website at: MA21347--Vernola- Marketplace-IS-MND_6-10-22_ (jurupavalley.org)
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
The Community Development Department mailed notices to property owners within 1,000 feet of the boundaries of the project site. The radius map of the notified area is provided as Attachment 10. Additionally, legal advertisements were published in the Press Enterprise on July 25, 2022. To date, no comments have been received.
Page | 17
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 2022-95
a. Exhibit A: General Plan Amendment Exhibit
b. Exhibit B: I-15 Corridor Specific Plan Change Exhibit c. Exhibit C: Mitigated Negative Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) - (Available on the City's website page under Development Services/Planning/Environmental Reports at MA21347-- Vernola-Marketplace-IS-MND_6-10-22_ (jurupavalley.org)
d. Exhibit D: Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Ordinance No. 2022-15, approval of Change of Zone (CZ) No.21015 a. Exhibit A: Change of Zone Exhibit
3. Adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-07-13-01 (without exhibits as these are the same exhibits as the one attached to Resolution No. 2022-95)
4. Planning Commission Staff Report from July 13, 2022 with all attachments, except for Resolution No 2022-07-13-01 and Project Plans
5. Project Plan Set (Architectural, Civil, and Landscape Plans)
6. 1,000 Foot Radius Map with Extended Areas
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE D ECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORIN G AND REPORTING
PROGRAM, AND APPROVING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 21013, SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 266, SETBACK ADJ USTMENT NO. 21003, A ND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 21115 TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 208-UNIT APARTMENT
COMMUNITY ON APPROXIMATELY 8.34 ACRES OF
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF VERNOLA
MARKETPLACE SHOPPING CENTER, EAST OF I -15
FREEWAY AND WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD AT T HE
INTERSECTION OF 65TH STREET (APNS: 152-640-005, -
006)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project. Anthony P. Vernola Trust U/T/D (the “Applicant”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21013, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266, Change of Zone No. 21015, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 (collectively, Master Application No. 21347 or MA No. 21347) to permit the construction of a two hundred eight (208) unit apartment community consisting of eighteen (18) multiple-family residential buildings and including eighty-two thousand five hundred three (82,503) square feet of common open space and a three thousand five hundre d fifty-seven (3,557) square foot clubhouse building on approximately 8.34 acres of real property located south of Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center, east of Interstate 15 (I-15), and west of Pats Ranch Road at the intersection of 65th Street (APNs: 152-640-005, -006) in the Industrial Park (I -P) Zone and the I -5 Corridor Specific Plan area and designated Industrial Park (I-P) with a Specific Plan overlay (the “Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase B Project” or “Project”). General Plan Amendment No. 21013 , Specific Plan Amendment No. 266, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 are the subject of this Resolution.
Section 2. General Plan Amendment.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21013 to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject parcels (APNs: 152-640-005, -006) from Light Industrial (LI) to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) and remove the Specific Plan overlay, as depicted in Exhibit “A.”
(b) Section 9.30.010.A. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that any amendment to any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan, shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 65300 et seq. of the Government Code, as now written or hereafter amended, and Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
-2-
(c) Section 9.30.010.B. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the initiation of proceedings for the amendment of any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (d) Section 9.30.040.D. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the owner of real property, or a person authorized by th e owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property, shall have the right to apply for a General Plan amendment without having to request that the City Council adopt an order initiating proceeding s for an amendment as detailed in Sect ion 9.30.040. Instead, the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property may apply for a General Plan amendment through the Planning Department and pay the required fee.
Upon submittal of an application, the amendment shall be processed, heard and decided in accordance with Sections 9.30.010 and 9.30.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (e) Section 9.30.100.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amen d any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resol ution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (f) Section 9.30.100.(2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides th at after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(g) Section 9.30.100. (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
(h) Section 9.30.100.(4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time.
A decision to amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof, must be made by resolution, which resolution must be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the C ity Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any substantial -3-
modification of the Planning Commission’ s recommendation not previously considered by the Commission shall first be referred to the Commission for its recommendation. (i) Section 9.30.100.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a proposal to amend any part or element of the General Plan may not be approved by the City Council until all procedures re quired by the Jurupa Valley EQA implementing procedures to approve a matter have been completed.
Section 3. Specific Plan Amendment.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Specific Plan Amendment No. 266 to remove the 8.34-acre subject parcels (APNs: 152-640-005, -006) from within the boundaries of the I-5 Corridor Specific Plan area, as depicted in Exhibit “B.” (b) Section 9.30.080 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that specific plans, and amendments thereto, must be heard and adopted in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 et seq., as now written or hereafter amended, and in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.30.100. Further, Government Code Section 65453(a) provides that a specific plan shall be prepared, adopted, and amended in the same manner as a general plan, except that a specific plan may be adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body. (c) Section 9. 30.100.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 (a) provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (d) Section 9.30.100.(2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Co mmission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(e) Section 9.30.100. (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission. Further, Government Code Section 65355 provides that -4-
prior to adopting or amending a general plan, the legislative body shall hold at least one public hearing. Notice of the hearing must be given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090. (f) Section 9.30.100.(4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides tha t after closing the public hearing, the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time.
A decision to adopt or amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof, shall be made by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the City Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any substantial modification of the Plannin g Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Commission shall first be referred to the Com mission for its recommendation. Further, Government Code Section 65356 provides that the legislative body must adopt or amend a general plan by res olution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any. H owever, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning com mission for its recommendation.
(g) Section 9.30.100.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Muni cipal Code provides that a proposal to adopt or amend any part or element of the General Plan shall not be approved by the City Council until all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley EQA implementing procedures to approve a matter have been completed.
Section 4. Setback Adjustment.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Setback Adjustment No. 21003 to modify the minimum setback requirement of fifty (50) feet for multiple family dwellings erected in the R -3 Zone from any property line abutting property zoned for, or used for, commercial activities or structures, as set forth in Section 9.240.545.B.(8)(a) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, to permit a setback of twenty (20) feet from any property line abutting property zoned for, or used for, commercial activities or structures.
(b) Section 9.240.360.(1)(a) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Community Development Director may approve, conditionally approve or deny setback adjustments defined as modifications of the front, rear or side yard minimum setback requirements of the various zone classifications in Chapter 9.240 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (c) Section 9.240.360.(4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that no request for a setback adjustment shall be granted unless it is determined that the adjustment is consistent with the intent and purposes of Chapter 9.240 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code ; that there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surrounding s that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement, and that the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested.
-5-
(d) Section 9.240.360. (6) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that as a condition to approval of a setback adjustmen t, the performance of such conditions may be required as are determined to be necessary to assure that the granting of the adjustment or use will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for which the request is made incl uding the following conditions:
1) Regulations of points of vehicle ingress and egress to the property; 2) Require any necessary landscaping, fencing or walls; 3) Require the restoration of the property to a natural appearance, including, but not limited to filling, grading and leveling; and 4) Establish a time peri od within which the permission is to be used and required conditions are to be completed.
(e) Section 9.05.110 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, in the event that a project requires a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan amendment, development agreement or other legislative action in addition to the tentative subdivision map, site development permit, conditional use permit, variance or other quasi -judicial land use applications fo r the project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, modify or deny the applications for the legislative action for the project and a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny the quasi-judicial land use applications. The Council shall hear the applications for the legislative actions along with the applicable procedures of Section
9.05.100. The decision of the City Council shall be made by ordinance or resolution as required by law and shall require three (3) affirmative votes of the City Council. The purpose of this section is to enable the City Council to hear and decide all of the land use entitlements for a project in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.
Section 5. Site Development Permit.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Site Development Permit No. 21115 to develop approximately 8.34 acres of real property located south of Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center, east of Interstate 15 (I -15), and west of Pats Ranch Road at the i ntersection of 65th Street (APNs: 152-640-005, -006) with eighteen (18) multiple-family residential buildings consisting of a total of two hundred eight (208) units and including eighty -two thousand five hundred three (82,503) square feet of common open space and a three thousand five hundred fifty- seven (3,557) square foot clubhouse building.
(b) Section 9.80.020.A.(12) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that two-family dwellings, multiple -family dwellings, bungalow courts and apartment houses are permitted in the General Residential (R-3) Zone, subject to the development standards set forth in Section 9.240.545, and provided a Site Development Permit is approved pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.240.330 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. -6-
(c) Section 9.240.330. (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that no site development permit shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1) The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the City of Jurupa General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley.
2) The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for de dication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof. 3) All site development plans which permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel shall, in addition to all other requirements, be subject to a condition which prohibits the sale of any existing or subseque ntly constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley pursuant to Chapter
1.35 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code , in s uch a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
(d) Section 9.240.330.(4)(d)(i) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a site development permit application that requires the approval of a general plan amendment, a specific plan amendment, or a change of zone shall be heard in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.285.040, as discussed in Paragraphs (b)-(d) of Section 3 of this Resolution, and all of the procedural requirements and rights of appeal as set forth therein shall govern the hearing. (e) Section 9.05.110 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, in the event that a project requires a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan amendment, development agreement or other legislative action in addition to the tentative subdivision map, site development permit, conditional use permit, variance or other quasi -judicial land u se applications for the project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, modify or deny the applications for the legislative action for the project and a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve or deny the quasi-judicial land use applications. The Council shall hear the applications for the legislative actions along with the applicable procedures of Section
9.05.100. The decision of the City Council shall be made by ordinance or reso lution as required by law and shall require three (3) affirmative votes of the City Council. The purpose of this section is to enable the City Council to hear and decide all of the land use entitlements for a project in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.
Section 6. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
-7-
(a) The application for MA No. 21347 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On July 13, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21347, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. Following a discussion of the Project the Planning Commission voted 4-1-0 to recommend approval of MA No. 21347 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-07-13-01, a Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley Recommending that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Approve General Plan Amendment No. 21013, Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan No. 266, Change of Zone No. 21015, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 to Permit the Construction of 208 -Unit Apartment Community on Approximately 8.34 Acres of Real Property Located South of Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center, East of I -15 Freeway and West of Pats Ranch Road at the Intersection of 65th Street (APNS: 152-640-005, -006), subject to recommended conditions of approval. (c) On August 4, 2022, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21347, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the City Council on these matters . F ollowing the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing.
(d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Findings and Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Pr ogram. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby make the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(b) Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the MND as required by law. The public comment period commenced on June 13, 2022, and expired on July 5, 2022. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509 and the City’s website. The City did not receive any comments during the public review period. -8-
(c) The City Council has reviewed the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached as Exhibit “C,” and all comments received regarding the MND and, based on the whole record before it, finds that:
1) The MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
2) With the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) The MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
(d) Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the MND and MMRP for the Project.
(e) The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA.
Section 8. Findings for Approval of General Plan Amendment. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find and determine that General Plan Amendment No. 21013 should be adopted because:
(a) The density of the proposed Project (25 du/ac) is consistent with the proposed Highest Density Re sidential (HHDR) land use designation for the Project site, which permits twenty-five (25) dwelling units per acre (du/ac). (b) General Plan Amendment No. 21013 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 2.2 – Higher Density Residential of the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan because re- designating the Project site from Light Industrial (LI) to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) will further transform the area between the I -15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks, which will help reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and will be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road . Land Use Element Policy LUE 2.2 states “Accommodate higher density residential development in walkable, pedestrian oriented areas near major transportation corridors, concentrated employment areas, and community and town centers, and promote the development of high -quality apartme nts and condominiums that will encourage local investment and pride of ownership.” (c) The 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan provides that additional housing to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) may come from residential uses within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan area.
(d) General Plan Amendment No. 21013 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 2 .4. Housing Quality and Variety of the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan because redesignating the Project site from Light Industrial (LI) to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) will provide additional variety of housing types and density to the City. Land Use Element Policy LUE 2.4 states “ Accommodate the development of a variety of highest quality housing types, -9-
styles and densities that ar e accessible to and meet the needs of a range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels.”
Section 9. Findings for Approval of Specific Plan Amendment . The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find and determine that Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 266 should be adopted because:
(a) Specific Plan Amendment No. 266 is consistent with the 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 21013, including the goals and objectives thereof and each element thereof, in that removing the Project site from within the boundaries of the I-5 Corridor Specific Plan area where it is designated for light industrial land uses and changing the General Plan land use designation and zoning classification to accommodate high density residential development on the Project site will further transform the area between the I-15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks, which will help reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and will be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road.
(b) Specific Plan Amendment No. 266 is consistent with the I -5 Corridor Specific Plan in that it is consistent with the procedures for amending the I-5 Corridor Specific Plan as outlined in Section D.4 – “Specific Plan Amendments.” Section 10. Findings for Approval of Setback Adjustment. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find and determine that Setback Adjustment No. 21003 should be granted because:
(a) The adjustment is consistent with the intent and purposes of Chapter 9.240 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code in that Section 9.240.360 of Chapter 9.240 allows modifications of the front, rear or side yard minimum setback requirements of the various zone classifications in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code;
(b) There are special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requireme nt in that the subject property has approximately eight hundred fifty (850) linear feet of property line abutting adjacent commercial property. The required 50-foot setback would render approximately sixty-three thousand (63,000) square feet of the site undevelopable for residential structures. In addition, abutting commercial property is developed with the Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center. Proposed buildings 4-7 are located approximately two hundred thirty (230) to two hundred seventy (270) feet from the nearest commercial building.
The only commercial use within fifty (50) feet of the residential buildings is a customer parking lot; and
(c) The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety , and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for whi ch the adjustment is requested. The proposed adjustment will be mitigated by the proposed twenty (20) foot landscape setback and walls between the residential and commercial uses. -10-
Section 11. Findings for Approval of Site Development Permit. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find and determine that Site Development Permit No. 21115 should be approved because:
(a) The proposed use will conform to all the requirements of the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 21013. (b) The proposed use will conform to all applicable requirements of State law in that the Project will be designed to conform to all applicable requirements of State law as required by State law and conditions of approval.
(c) The proposed use will conform to all applicable requirements of the ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley. The Project site is currently zoned Industrial Park (I-P).
The Project includes an application for a Change of Zone from I-P to General Residential (R-3).
The proposed development of eighteen (18) multiple-family residential buildings is an allowed use in the R-3 Zone, subject to the development standards set forth in Section 9.240.545 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(d) The proposed overall development of the land , as demonstrated in the Project site plan(s), is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.
The combination of the site design, building design, compliance with all applicable development standards, mitigation measures, and conditions of approval will ensure that the proposed Project is designed for the protection of the public health, safety, and general welfare. (e) The proposed overall development of the land is designed to conform to the logical development of the land in that the proposed Project is consistent with the approved Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Phase A project located to the south of the Project site.
(f) The proposed overall development of the land is designed to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The proposed Project will further transform the area between the I-15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks, and will be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road.
(g) The proposed site development plans consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion, in that it includes public right -of-way improvements along Pats Ranch Road , and sufficient on-site pedestrian and vehicular access, and vehicular parking. (h) The proposed site development plans take into account topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof in that topographical and drainage conditions have been addressed through an approved Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan and the proposed conditions of approval recommended by the City’s Engineering Department.
-11-
(i) The proposed site development plans do not permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel. The proposed Project has been conditioned to prohibit the applicant from selling any cons tructed structures until the parcel on which the buildings are located is divided and a final map is recorded.
Section 12. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21013, Amendment No. 4 to the Specific Plan No. 266, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 with Conditions. Based on the foregoing , the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley approves General Plan Amendment No. 21013, Specific Plan Amendment No. 266, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 to permit the construction of a two hundred eight (208) unit apartment community consisting of eighteen (18) multi ple-family residential buildings and including eighty-two thousand five hundred three (82,503) square feet of common open space and a three thousand five hundred fifty-seven (3,557) square foot clubhouse building on approximately 8.34 acres of real property located south of Vernola Marketplace Shopping Center, east of Interstate 15 (I -15), and west of Pats Ranch Road at the intersection of 65th Stree t (APNs: 152-640-005, -006), subject to the recommended conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “D.” The City Council’s approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21013, Amendment No. 4 to Specific Plan No. 266, Setback Adjustment No. 21003, and Site Development Permit No. 21115 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 21015.
Section 13. 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 4th day of August, 2022.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-12-
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-95 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 4th day of August, 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 4th day of August, 2022.
___________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
LEGEND
WEBB
N
W E
S
EXHBIT A
MA21347 GPA21013
I-15 Corridor Specific Plan Amendment No. 3
5 Xx AC IP
EXHBIT B
MA21347
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Vernola Marketplace Apartments – Phase B Project
City of Jurupa Valley Master Application MA 21347
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21013
Change of Zone (CZ) No. 21015
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) 266
Site Development Permit (SPD) No. 21115
Setback Adjustment (SBA) No. 21003
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Contact: Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
(951) 332-6464 ext. 215
[email protected]
Applicant
Anthony P. Vernola Trust U/T/D
12080 Bellgrave Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
(951) 318-0600
June 10, 2022
EXHBIT C
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project ii
Table of Contents
1.0 Finding ............................................................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ............................................................... 2
2.2 Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation ....................................................................................... 2
2.3 Public Review of the Document ............................................................................................................ 3
3.0 Project Description/Environmental Setting ..................................................................................................... 4
3.1 Project Location .................................................................................................................................... 4
3.2 Project Description ................................................................................................................................ 4
3.3 Proposed Improvements ....................................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Construction and Operational Characteristics ...................................................................................... 5
3.5 Environmental Setting ........................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 Environmental Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 9
4.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................ 10
4.2 Agriculture Resources ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Air Quality ........................................................................................................................................... 15
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 25
4.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 31
4.6 Energy ................................................................................................................................................. 35
4.7 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................ 38
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................................. 45
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 49
4.10 Hydrology And Water Quality ............................................................................................................. 53
4.11 Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................ 59
4.12 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................................... 61
4.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................... 62
4.14 Population and Housing ...................................................................................................................... 71
4.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 72
4.16 Recreation ........................................................................................................................................... 76
4.17 Transportation .................................................................................................................................... 77
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................................... 81
4.19 Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................................... 86
4.20 Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................ 91
4.21 Mandatory Findings Of Significance .................................................................................................... 92
5.0 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ................................................................................................... 96
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project iii
Figures
Figure 3.1 Vicinity Location Map/Aerial Photo ................................................................................................. 6 Figure 3.2 Conceptual Site Plan ......................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4.13-1 Noise Measurement Locations ....................................................................................................... 64 Figure 4.19-1 Jurupa Community Services District Supply vs Maximum Day Demand, 2019-2024 ..................... 88
Tables
Table 2.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation ............................................................ 2 Table 3.1 Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications ................................ 8 Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds ........................ 16 Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin ......................................... 16 Table 4.3-3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Residential vs. Industrial Project ................................ 19 Table 4.3-4 Summary of Peak Construction Emissions ................................................................................... 21 Table 4.3-5 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions ..................................................................................... 21 Table 4.3-6 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds .......................................................................... 22 Table 4.3-7 Summary of Localized Significance Construction Emissions ........................................................ 23 Table 4.3-8 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes on I-15* ............................................................... 24 Table 4.4-1 MSHCP Consistency Analysis ........................................................................................................ 30 Table 4.8-1 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................................................. 46 Table 4.8-2 Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures ................................................................................ 48 Table 4.9-1 Summary of Site Reconnaissance ................................................................................................. 51 Table 4.13-1 24-Hour Ambient Noise Levels at Receiver Locations .................................................................. 63 Table 4.13-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels .............................................................................. 65 Table 4.13-3 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary ........................................................................... 66 Table 4.13-4 Roadway Traffic Count ................................................................................................................. 67 Table 4.13-5 Project Traffic Noise Impacts ........................................................................................................ 67 Table 4.13-6 Project Operational Noise Levels.................................................................................................. 68 Table 4.13-7 Operational Noise Level Compliance ............................................................................................ 68 Table 4.13-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .................................................................. 69 Table 4.13-9 Construction Vibration Levels....................................................................................................... 70 Table 4.17-1 VMT Reduction from Increased Residential Density 2040 ........................................................... 80 Table 4.19-1 Capacity of Landfills Serving Jurupa Valley ................................................................................... 89 Table 4.19-2 Project Waste Generation Compared to Landfill Daily Throughput ............................................. 90
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project iv
Appendices
(Available online at: ) https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68
Appendix A Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis for the Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community (VMAC) Phase B, Albert A. Webb Associates, February 18, 2022 Appendix B Vernola Marketplace Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment, Urban Crossroads, November 11, 2021
Appendix B-1 Vernola Marketplace Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment Memorandum, Urban Crossroads, May 11, 2022
Appendix C Biological Technical Report for, Vernola Market Place Apartments Project, Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc., dated: September 17, 2021
Appendix D Cultural Resources Assessment, Vernola Marketplace Apartments, LSA, dated July 2014.
Appendix E Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, GEO Tek, Inc., March 10, 2021 Appendix F Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Vernola Marketplace, GEO Tek, Inc., March 3, 2021 Appendix G Preliminary Drainage Study; Albert A. Webb, Associates; December 2021 Appendix H Preliminary WQMP, Albert A. Webb, Associates; December 2021 Appendix I Water and Sewer Will Serve Letter, Jurupa Community Services District, April 28, 2021 Appendix J Noise Impact Analysis, Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community, Urban Crossroads dated October 13, 2021
Appendix K Vernola Marketplace Apartment Phase B - VMT Analysis, Translutions Company, dated February 25, 2022
Appendix L Vernola Market Place Apartment Community Traffic Impact Analysis, Albert A. Webb Associates, dated September 2021
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-1
1.0 Finding
Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended for adoption.
I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project Applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended for adoption.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effect (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, pursuant to all applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required.
City of Jurupa Valley
Signature Agency
Joe Perez, Community Development Director June 10, 2022 Printed Name/Title Date
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-2
2.0 Introduction
2.1 Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that, for a project that is not exempt from CEQA, a preliminary analysis of the proposed project be conducted to determine whether a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project. This preliminary analysis is called an “Initial Study .” Based on the Initial Study prepared for this Project, the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this Project by the City Council. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a written statement by the City that the Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, but the Project is revised or mitigation measures are required to eliminate or mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.
2.2 Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Table 2.1 identifies the environmental impacts that require /mitigation. All other topics either have “No Impact” or a “Less than Significant Impact” as identified throughout this Initial Study.
Table 2.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation Environmental Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
4.4 (a) Biological Resources Grading and vegetation removal may impact Burrowing Owl and nesting
birds protected by the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
BIO-1: Burrowing Owl Protection. 30-day
preconstruction burrowing owl survey is
required.
BIO-2: Nesting Bird Protection. Vegetation
clearing and ground disturbance shall be
prohibited during the migratory bird nesting
season (February 1 through October 1),
unless a migratory bird nesting survey is
completed.
4.5 (b) Cultural Resources Sub-surface archaeological resources may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring is required.
CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan. If
resource is significant, an archaeological
treatment plan is required.
CR-2: Final Report.
4.7 (f) Geology and Soils Sub-surface paleontological resources may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
GEO-1: Paleontological Inadvertent
Discovery. Stop work and resource to be
evaluated by a Paleontologist.
GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan. If
resource is significant, a paleontological
treatment plan is required.
4.17 (b) Transportation Developments impact on increase VMT
VMT-1: Increase Residential Density.
VMT-2: Construct or Improve Bike Facility.
4.18 (b) Tribal Cultural
Resources
Sub-surface tribal cultural resources
may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
TCR-1 through TCR-3 requires monitoring
during ground disturbance and treatment
plan if significant resources are found.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-3
A more detailed description of the mitigation measures can be found in Section 5.0 , Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of this document.
2.3 Public Review of the Document
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the following entities for a 20-da y public review period.
1)
Organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Jurupa Valley;
2) Responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); and
3) The Riverside County Clerk.
The Notice of Intent also was noticed to the general public in the Riverside Press- Enterprise, which is a primary newspaper of circulation in the areas affected by the Project. According to CEQA Guidelines §15204(b), in reviewing this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the Project may have a significant effect, they should: 1) Identify the specific effect, 2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and 3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.
Comments are to be submitted to:
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Contact: Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
(951) 332-6464
[email protected]
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-4
3.0 Project Description/Environmental Setting
3.1 Project Location
The Project site is located on approximately 8.33 acres on the east side of Interstate 15 (I -15) and the west side of Pats Ranch Road at the intersection of 65th Street. (See Table 3.1 - Land Uses General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications). The Project site is also identified by the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 163 -400-001 and 163-400-052. (See Figure 3.1 - Vicinity Location Map and Aerial Photo and Figure 3.2 - Conceptual Site Plan ).
3.2 Project Description
General Plan Amendment (GPA) 21013 and Change of Zone (CZ) No. 21015 The Project proposes a general plan amendment (GPA) of 8.33 acres of land from Light Industrial (LI) to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) and a change of zone (CZ) from I -P (Industrial Park) to R- 3 (General Residential). The R- 3 zone allows for multiple -family dwellings and apartment houses, subject to the development standards set forth in Section 9.240.545 of the City’s Municipal Code.
Specific Plan Amendment (SPA) No. 21003
The Project proposes a specific plan amendment (SPA) to remove 8. 33 acre Project site from the I- 15 Corridor Specific Plan (SP) No. 266 to accommodate the proposed residential use. The SP currently designates the site as Industrial Park.
Site Development Permit (SPD) No. 21115
The Project will be located on approximately 8.33 acres, and includes 208 apartment units (25 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)), in 18 separate apartment buildings with maximum heights of 43’5” and a mixture of one -, two-, and three -bedroom units. The Project will include 4,544 square foot leasing office/fitness/mail room/, club house, along with a fitness/cabana, with a pool and spa.
Additional amenities include a dog park, BBQ/picnic areas, playground equipment, and/or a paracourse (fitness trail).
Setback Adjustment (SBA) No. 21003
A request to reduce the minimum setback requirement adjacent to commercially zoned property from 50 feet to 20 feet.
3.3 Proposed Improvements
Internal Streets
Proposed internal streets will be private roads. Dedication at entrance to accommodate public improvements will be required (i.e., curb ramps).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-5
Primary access to the site will be taken from a new west leg of the signalized intersection at Pats Ranch Road through an existing easement over the Vernola Mar ketplace Retail Center drive aisles.
A new pedestrian connection from the property to Pats Ranch Road is also proposed within the existing easement. Vehicular access gates will control access onto the property where onsite circulation to each apartment will be provided and allow access to onsite parking and garages. An emergency vehicle access driveway will be located in the southwest corner of the property that connects to the existing Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community – Phase A development just south of the site.
Water and Sewer Improvements
Water Service
The Project will connect to the existing water service available from the 18 -inch waterline in Pats Ranch Road. The waterline connection will occur within the paved right- of-way of 65 th Street adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project site.
Sewer Service
The Project will connect to the existing sewer service available from the 18 -inch and 15 -inch- diameter lines in Pats Ranch Road. The sewer line connection will occur within the paved right -of- way of 65th Street adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Project site.
Storm Drainage Improvements
The Project’s drainage plan includes a series of catch basins and drop inlets located at localized low points throughout the site. A network of underground storm drain pipes will convey these flows towards proposed Modular Wetlands System (MWS) located near the southwestern corner of the Project site.
3.4 Construction and Operational Characteristics
Construction
Construction of the Project is expected to take approximately 25 months (2 years).The natural topography of the Project site gently slopes from the northwest to the south-southeast and ranges in elevation from roughly 619 feet to 643 feet. Estimated earthwork includes approximately 49,000 cubic yards of soil export. (See Section 4.3, Air Quality, for additional details).
Operations
Typical operations include vehicle trips from residents, visitors, and service and delivery vehicles and the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, and maintenance equipment associated with residential neighborhoods.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-6
Figure 3.1 Vicinity Location Map/Aerial Photo
Site
Phase A
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-7
Figure 3.2 Conceptual Site Plan
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-8
3.5 Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “…the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced…” (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]). Because a Notice of Preparation was not required, the environmental setting for the Project is February 2022, which is the date that the Project’s environmental analysis commenced.
The Project s ite consists of regularly maintained vacant, undeveloped land that was previously graded with highly compacted soils. The Project site is relatively flat, and elevations on the site range from approximately 619 feet above mean seal level (MSL) to 643 feet above MSL from the northwest to the south-southeast The entire Project is disturbed and either unvegetated or dominated by non- native, ruderal species. The Project site contains approximately 4.56 acres of disturbed land and approximately 3.78 acres of ruderal vegetation as previously described. 1 O
nsite and adjacent land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning classifications are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications Location
Current
Land Use
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning
Site* Vacant land IL (Light Industrial) I-P (Industrial Park) North Commercial and retail (Vernola
Marketplace)
CR -(Commercial Retail) C-P-S (Scenic Highway
Commercial)
South Vacant Land and Apartment
Construction Project (Phase A).
HHDR (Highest Density Residential) R-3 (Planned General Residential)
East Immediately adjacent to commercial
and vacant land followed by Pats
Ranch Road, Limonite Meadows Park
and residential uses.
OS-R (Open Space, Recreation)
PF (Public Facilities/Institutional)
MDR-(Medium Density Residential)
Industrial Park
A-2-10 (Heavy Agriculture)
R-1 (One Family Dwellings)
West Interstate 15 (I-15)
Residential beyond I-15 (City of
Eastvale)
Freeway
MDR(Medium Density Residential)
Freeway
R-4 (Residential)
Source: Field inspection, City of Jurupa Valley-General Plan Land Use Map August 2020, Google Earth Pro. * Site is located within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan.
1 B iological Technical Report (Appendix C).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-9
4.0 Environmental Analysis
The Project is evaluated based on its potential effect on 21 environmental topics. Each topic is analyzed by responding to a series of questions pertaining to the impact of the Project on the particular topic. Based on the results of the Impact Analysis, t he effects of the Project are then placed in one of the following four categories, which are each followed by a summary to substantiate the factual reasons why the impact was placed in a certain category.
Potentially Significant or
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
Significant or potentially
significant impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated that
cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. An Environmental
Impact Report must therefore be
prepared.
Potentially significant impact(s)
have been identified or
anticipated, but mitigation is
possible to reduce the
impact(s) to a less than
significant category. Mitigation
measures must then be
identified.
No “significant”
impact(s) identified
or anticipated.
Therefore, no
mitigation is
necessary.
No impact(s) identified
or anticipated.
Therefore, no mitigation
is necessary.
Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study, reference is made to the following:
• Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) . These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place that effectively reduce environmental impacts. If applicable, they will be identified in the Impact Analysis section for each topic. • Mitigation Measures (MM). These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
If applicable to the analysis for a certain environmental topic, Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each issue area. Mitigation Measures were formulated only for those issue areas where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts. Both types of measures described above will be required to be implemented as part of the Project if so indicated in the analysis.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-10
4.1 Aesthetics
Threshold 4.1 (a).
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, and Programs
PPP 4.1-1 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.80.010 and Section 9.240.545, a development plan (R -3 Development Standards – Multiple family dwellings) that includes, but is not limited to, development standards for structures, pedestrian walks, recreation and other open areas, walls, landscaping, and plans and elevations of typical structures to indicate architectural type and construction standards applies to the Project.
PPP 4.1-2 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code S ection 7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this section.
The City’s General Plan defines scenic vistas as “points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes.” Specifically, the City identifies publ icly accessible vantage points of the Santa Ana River, the Jurupa Mountains, and the Pedley Hills as scenic vistas.
2 Fro
m the Project site, the Santa Ana River is located approximately 1 mile southeast, the Jurupa Mountains are located approximately 4.6 miles northeast, and the Pedley Hills are located approximately 5 miles east/northeast.
The Project site provides limited views of the Jurupa Mountains and the Pedley Hills in the distant horizon. PPP 4.1-1 and PPP 4.1.2 above will limit building height and provide building setbacks between structures that would serve to limit blocking the existing views. Views of the Santa Ana River are not available because of intervening development and topography. Based on the preceding analysis, public views of a scenic vista would not be significantly or permanently blocked with implementation of the Project.
2 General Plan pps. 1-17 to 1-19.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-11
Threshold 4.1 (b).
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Transportation, the Project site is not located along a state scenic highway.3 Additionally, no trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other kinds of scenic resources are located on the vacant Project site . As such, there is no impact. In addition, according to the General Plan, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to a scenic corridor or roadway.4
Threshold 4.1 (c).
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) If the project is in an Urbanized Area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Impact Analysis
According to Census 2010, the Project site is in the Riverside -San Bernardino, California Urbanized Area.5 As such, the Project is subject to the City’s applicable regulations governing scenic quality.
Plans, Policies, and Programs
The following apply to the Project and would help reduce impacts related to scenic quality. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.1-1 and PPP 4.1-2 shall apply.
The Planning Department has reviewed the Project and determined that all applicable design and development standards have been met. With implementation of PPP 4.1-1 and PPP 4.1-2, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Program, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap- landscape-architecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed March 30, 2022. 4 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure 4-23: Jurupa Valley scenic corridors and roadways.
5 United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban Area Reference Maps, https://www.census.gov/geographies/reference-maps/2010/geo/2010-census-urban-areas.html, accessed March 30, 2022.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-12
Threshold 4.1 (d).
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section
21099, would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, and Programs
The following apply to the Project and would help reduce impacts related to light and glare. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance.
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Outdoor Lighting and Glare
The Project would increase the amount of light in the area above what is being generated by the vacant site by directly adding new sources of illumination including security and decorative lighting for the proposed structures. With implementation of PP P 4.1-3 and compliance with the City of Jurupa Valley Design Guidelines, Section II.H, impacts relating to light and glare are less than significant.
Building Material Glare
The primary exterior of the future structures will be typical of multi-family apartment buildings and consist of non -reflective materials including stucco exterior and tile roofing materials. Therefore, potential glare from the proposed Project is considered to be less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-13
4.2 Agriculture Resources
Note: Because there are no forestry resources located in the City of Jurupa Valley, the topic of Forestry Resources is not addressed.
Threshold 4.2 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,
to non-agricultural use?
Impact Analysis
(Sources: California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program website, 2022)
The Project site is designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” and “Farm Land of Local Importance” by the State Department of Conservation
6. The Project site does not con tain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. In addition, no properties abutting the Project site are classified as Farmland. The City of Jurupa Valley’s General Plan considers agricultural land to be an appropriate use of land until such time as a property owner considers farming to be no longer economically viable which is why the General Plan designates agricultu ral land for eventual suburban and urban uses. The Project site is zoned for light industrial uses at present but the Project proposes to change the designation to high density residential. Both of these zoning designations are urban in nature. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of any Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, there are no impacts.
Threshold 4.2 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Impact Analysis
(Sources: City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Land Use Map, 2017; City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Map, 2018; Riverside County Land Information System (RCLIS) 2022; Riverside County General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report, 2003; CDC, Williamson Act Map, FY 2018-2019)
6 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, https://databasin.org/datasets/b83ea1952fea44ac9fc62c60dd57fe48 , accessed April 6, 2022.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-14
Agricultural Zoning
The current zoning classification for the site is I-P (Industrial Park) which is intended to promote and attract service-commercial, and related uses including warehousing/distribution, research and development, assembly and light manufacturing , repair facilities, and supporting retail uses and is not considered a primary agricultural zone. The Project is proposing a change of zone to R-3 (General Residential). The R-3 Zone is intended to allow development of subdivisions containing open areas that will be used for recreation purposes and is not considered a primary agriculture zone.
Therefore, the Project zone change would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
Williamson Act
A Williamson Act Contract enables private landowners to voluntarily enter contracts with local governments for the purpose of establishing agricultural preserves. According to the County of Riverside Map My County (RCIT), the site is not within an agricultural preserve.7
E
xisting surrounding uses include commercial development to the north, residential dev elopment to the south and east and Interstate 15 to the west. Since the Project site does not have any current agricultural use, and does not have any agricultural General Plan Land Use Plan designation, implementation of the proposed Project will not conv ert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Project therefore wil l have no impacts on existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Threshold 4.2 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located in an area largely characterized by a mix of residential and commercial, development. The Project site is currently zoned Industrial Park (IP) but the Project’s proposed Change of Zone seeks to change the IP zoning to General Residential (R -3) and is vacant and not being used for agricultural purposes. Additionally, there is no land being used primarily for agricultural purposes in the vicinity of the site; therefore, development of the site would not convert existing farmland to non-agricultural uses.
7 Riverside County Map My County (RCIT), Planning Layers Agricultural Preserves https://gis1.countyofriverside.us/Html5Viewer/?viewer=MMC_Public, accessed April 6, 2022.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-15
4.3 Air Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical documents:
• Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy for the Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community (VMAC) Phase B, Albert A. Webb Associates, dated February 18, 2022.
Appendix A to this Initial Study.
• Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment , Urban Crossroads, dated November 11, 2021. Appendix B to this Initial Study.
• Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment Memorandum , Urban Crossroads, dated May 11, 2022. Appendix B-1 to this Initial Study.
Background
Air Pollutants
Air Pollutants are the amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in adverse effects to humans, animals, vegetation and/or materials. The Air Pollutants regulated by the SCAQMD are described below.8 Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Over 80 percent of the CO emitted in urban areas is contributed by motor vehicles.
Nitrogen Dioxide ( NOx). Nitrogen dioxide (NO 2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx.
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 and PM10): One type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. Fine particles — less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair — pose a serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into the lungs. PM can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides.
Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). A strong smelling, colorless gas that is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. Power plants, which may use c oal or oil high in sulfur content, can be major sources of SO2.
Ozone: Ozone is formed when several gaseous pollutants react in the presence of sunlight.
Most of these gases are emitted from vehicle tailpipe emissions.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOCs often have an odor , and some examples include gasoline, alcohol and the solvents used in paints.
8 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-16
Federal and State Air Quality Standards
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes health - based air quality standards for the above -described air pollutants that all states must achieve. The California Clean Air Act also establishes requirements for cities and counties to meet.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Standards
South Coast Air Quality Management District ( SCAQMD) was created by the state legislature to facilitate compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and to implement the state air quality program.
Toward that end, South Coast AQMD develops regulations designed to achieve these public health standards by reducing emissions from business and industry . The City of Jurupa Valley is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin) , which is under the jurisdiction of the SC AQMD.
Table 4.3- 1 describes the regional significance thresholds established by the SC AQMD to meet national and state air quality standards.
Table 4.3-1 South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant
Emissions (Construction)
(pounds/day)
Emissions (Operational)
(pounds/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
SOx 150 150
CO 550 550
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Attainment Designation
An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that criteria pollutant concentrations did not exceed the established standard. In contrast to attainment, a “nonattainment” designation indicates that a criteria pollutant concentration has exceeded the established standard. Table 4.3-2 shows the attainment status of criteria pollutants in the Basin.
Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone – 1-hour standard Nonattainment No Standard
Ozone – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (N0x) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified /Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-17
Threshold 4.3 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB or Basin). The SCAB encompasses approximately 6,745 square miles and includes Orange County and the non- desert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino counties. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required to produce air quality management plans directing how the Basin’s air quality will be brought into attainment with the national and state ambient air quality standards. The most recent air quality management plan is the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan 9 and it is applicable
to City of Jurupa Valley. The purpose of the plan is to achieve and maintain both the national and state ambient air quality standards described above.
To
determine if a project is consistent with the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan, the SC AQMD has established consistency criterion that are defined in Chapter 12, Sections 12.2 and 12.3 of the SCAQMD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook and are discussed below.
Consistency Criterion No. 1: The proposed project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, or delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the 2012 Air Quality Management Plan.
Consistency Criterion No. 1 refers to violations of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). As evaluated under Thresholds 4.3(b), (c), and (d) below, the Project would not exceed regional or localized significance thresholds for any criteria pollutant during construction or during long
-te
rm operation. Accordingly, the Project is determined
to be consistent with the first criterion.
Consistency Criterion No. 2: The proposed project will not exceed the assumptions in the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan.
The SCAQMD adopted the 2016 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) in March 2017. The growth assumptions used in the AQMP to project future air quality emissions levels are based on the projections of the Regional Transportation Model utilized by the Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG), which incorporates land use data provided by lead agency general plan documentation, as well as assumptions regarding population number, location of population growth, and a regional housing needs assessment. When the 2016 RTP/SCS and the 2016 AQMP
9 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-18
were prepared, the General Plan Land Use designation for the Project site was Light Industr ial (LI), and this was the land use incorporated into the 2016 AQMP.
This second AQMP consistency criterion requires that the proposed Project does not exceed the growth assumptions in the AQMP.
The Project site is currently designated in the City General Plan, the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, and City zoning as Industrial Park (IP). This designation allows a variety of industrial and related uses that would generate employment but would not directly generate any housing or population growth. A General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone are being proposed to change the land use/zoning designations of this property to Highest Density Residential (HHDR ), which would allow for development of multi-family uses at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Current forecasts indicate that th e SCAG region will experience a population growth of 7 percent between 2012 and 2023, with a 7 percent increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and a population growth of 12 percent by the year 2031 with an 8 percent increase in VMT. 10 Consistency with Forecasted Emissions
Air emissions are categorized into the following categories:
• Stationary Sources: Stationary sources can be divided into two major subcategories:
Point and Area sources. Point sources primarily consist of permitted facilities with one or more emission sources at an identified location (e.g., power plants, refineries). Area sources consist of many small emission sources (e.g., reside ntial water heaters, architectural coatings, consumer products and permitted sources that are smaller than the above thresholds) which are distributed across the region and are not required to individually report their emissions. Typical stationary emissio ns sources result primarily from the combustion of fuels, evaporation of solvents or fuels, and processing of materials. Hence, stationary sources are grouped under fuel combustion, waste disposal, cleaning and surface coatings, petroleum production and marketing, industrial processes, solvent evaporation, and other miscellaneous processes. • Mobile Sources: Mobile sources consist of two subcategories: on- road sources and off- road sources. On-road sources are primarily passenger cars, trucks, and buses. Off -road sources are locomotives, ocean going vessels, commercial harbor craft, pleasure craft and off-highway Recreational Vehicles, cargo handling equipment, farm equipment and aircraft.
11. U
nder the current land use designation of Light Industrial, the prim ary emissions sources would be a mix of stationary sources related to light industrial uses and passenger car and truck traffic. Under the proposed land use of Highest -Density Residential, the emissions sources would be primarily from passenger cars.
10 P 3-18
11 2016 AQMP, p. 3-2, 3-6.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-19
With respect to air emissions, an industrial development would have less overall emissions because it would generate fewer passenger car vehicle trips, which are a major source of emissions. For example, 208 multiple -family dwelling units would generate a total of 1,537 average daily trips compared to 857 average daily trips with a 218,000-square-foot industrial building used for general light manufacturing.12 Even though the change in land use would increase the air emissions, none of the S outh Coast AQMD thresholds are exceeded. As such, the Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the Final 2016 AQMP.
T
able 4.3-3 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions Residential vs. Industrial Project Source
Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC/ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Residential Project 12.76 8.30 69.24 0.13 12.48 3.51
Industrial Project 7.24 2.82 25.31 0.05 6.21 1.69
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).
In addition, because the Project does not exceed any of the SCAQMD numerical thresholds (regional and LST) for both construction and operation, the proposed Project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations, delay the timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emissions reductions specified in the Final 2016 AQMP. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the AQMP emission projections for the near -term period of the project buildout. As such, the Project would be consistent with the AQMP, and impacts would be less than significant.
Threshold 4.3 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Regional Air Quality Impacts
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) – Construction-Related Impacts The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to construction- related air quality impacts. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitorin g and Reporting Program to ensure compliance.
12 ITE Land Use Code 140-Manufacturing.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-20
PPP 4.3-1 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “ Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measure s during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.
PPP 4.3-2 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 431.2, “ Sulphur Content and Liquid Fuels.” The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and enabling the use of add- on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
PPP 4.3-3 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings.” Rule 1113 limits the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere during painting and application of other surface coatings.
PPP 4.3-4 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less‐Polluting Street Sweepers.” Adherence to Rule 1186 and Rule 1186.1 reduces the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction.
Impact Analysis
The Project has the potential to generate pollutant concentrations during both construction activities and long
-t
erm operation. Both construction and operational emissions for the Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod 2020.4.0) , which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and is authorized for use by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
C
onstruction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOx, SOx, CO, PM10, and PM 2.5. Construction- related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-21
Construction is expected to last approximately 25 months. Table 4.3- 4 summarizes the maximum daily emissions for construction with highest calculate values from summer or winter modeling considering the application of PPP 4.3-1 through PPP 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-4 Summary of Peak Construction Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions
Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC/ROG NOx CO SOx PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 8.65 37.56 51.49 0.11 5.41 2.64 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4.3- 4, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, impacts are less than significant.
Long-Term Regional Operation Related Impacts
Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile, truck, and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the Project site. Area source emissions are the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape mainte nance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of the proposed commercial facility. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. The results of the CalEEMod model for operation of the Project site are summarized in Table
4.3-5.
Table 4.3-5 Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Maximum Daily Emissions
Emissions
(pounds/day)
VOC/ROG NOx CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 12.76 8.30 69.24 0.13 12.48 3.51 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4.3-5, Project-related air emissions do not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Therefore, long-term operational emissions from the Project are less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-22
Threshold 4.3 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
(Refer to PPP 4.3.1 through PPP 4.3-4 under Threshold 4.3(b) above).
Localized Air Quality Impacts
The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has established Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) which are used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts from construction. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be to be a receptor such as residence, hospital, convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours If the calculated emissions for the proposed construction are below the LST emission thresholds then the proposed construction activity is not significant for air quality. For purposes of this analysis, as the closest sensitive receptor locations in the proposed project are located to the east across Pats Ranch Road and the Vernola Marketplace Apartments Phase A south of the Project site, a receptor location of 25 meters was used for emissions assessment to ensure a conservative analysis.
Table 4.3-6 identifies the maximum daily localized emissions t hresholds that are applicable to the Project.
Table 4.3-6 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction
NOx 170
CO 883
PM10 7
PM2.5 4
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
Localized Construction Emissions
Construction is expected to last approximately 25 months. Table 4.3- 7 summarizes the localized construction emissions considering the application of PPP 4.3-1 through PPP 4.3-4. As shown in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-23
Table 4.3- 7, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for construction activities.
Table 4.3-7 Summary of Localized Significance Construction Emissions Grading Emissions
Emissions
(pounds/day)
NOx CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 33.75 39.37 3.81 2.22
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 170 883 7 4
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).
Localized Onsite Operational Emissions
This Project involves the construction of a residential development. According to SCAQMD LST methodology, LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project, if the project includes stationary sources, or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site, such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed Project does not include such uses.
Therefore, due to the lack of stationary source emissions or onsite mobile equipment, no long-term LST analysis is needed
.
CO Hot Spot Analysis
CO Hot Spots are typically associated with idling vehicles at extremely busy intersections (i.e., intersections with an excess of 100,000 vehicle trips per day). There are no intersections in the vicinity of the Project site that exceed the 100,000 vehicl e per day threshold typically associated with CO Hot Spots. In addition, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated as an attainment area for CO since 2007. Therefore, Project
-re
lated vehicular emissions would not create a Hot Spot and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO Hot Spot.
Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)
Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478) , a CEQA environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project. Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential toxic air emissions effects to the future residents of the apartment homes from I-15.
However, where a project will exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large.
While California has the strictest auto-emissions standards in the U.S., the state is also known for its freeways and heavy traffic. Traffic is a significant source of air pollution, particularly in urban areas, where more than 50% of particulate emissions come from traffic. Exhaust from vehicles contains a large number of toxic chemicals, including nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and benzene. Traffic exhaust also plays a role in the formation of photochemical smog. Health effects of concern from Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-24
these po llutants include heart and lung disease, cancer, and increased mortality .13 The primary source of TAC emissions related to the Project site is likely diesel particulate matter (DPM) resulting from freeway traffic on I-15. As shown above in Table 4.3-8, the amount of vehicle traffic (especially heavy-duty diesel trucks) is a major contributor to TAC emissions in the Project area.
T
able 4.3-8 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT) Volumes on I-15* Location
Average Annual Daily Traffic
(AADT)
Truck Traffic (2 to 4 axles)
(AADT
Interstate 15 @ Limonite Avenue 137,000 N/A
Interstate 15 between SR-60 and CA-91 N/A 11,025 to 16,154 Source: Caltrans Traffic Census Program.
*Caltrans Traffic Census Program, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/census
As detailed in the Vernola Market Place Apartment Community, Traffic Impact Analysis (Webb, 2022) Appendix L, the Project is forecast to generate 1,537 daily trips. The Project is not expected to exacerbate the existing TAC emissions that are generated by heavy duty truck traffic from I -15, because apartment homes do not generate heavy -duty truck traffic. The Vernola Marketplace Air Toxic and Criteria Pollutant Health Risk Assessment Memorandum (Ap pendix B-1) found that the Project’s total daily trips represents approximately 1 percent of the total volume of traffic that is expected to traverse the 1 -15 freeway. As such, the Project would not substantially contribute to cumulative air quality hazards or exacerbate an existing environmental hazard. Impacts are less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
IMPORTANT NOTE: Although air emissions from the I -15 to the future residents of the Project site are not a CEQA related impact, the issue will be evaluated as part of the Site Development Permit and Conditions of Approval that may include air filtration units and landscaped barriers imposed similar to what was required for the development of Phase A in 2015.
Threshold 4.3 (d).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
Impact Analysis
According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not propose any of the above-described uses.
13 CalEnviroScreen 4.0, Traffic Impacts, October
2021,https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf, p. 98.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-25
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational uses.
The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short- term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction, and the impact is thus considered less than significant. Furthermore, standard construction practices would minimize odor emissions and their associated impacts , and construction activities would be required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 402, which prohibits the discharge of odorous emissions that would create a public nuisance. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
4.4 Biological Resources
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical reports:
Biological Technical Report for Vernola Market Place Apartment Project, Glen Lukos Associates, Inc., September 17, 2021 and is included as Technical Appendix C to this Initial Study.
Threshold 4.4 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts related to candidate, sensitive , or special status species. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to pay mitigation fees pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) as required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.80.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-26
Existing Conditions
The topography of the Project site is relatively flat with elevations on the site ranging from approximately 619 feet above mean seal level (MSL) to 643 feet above MSL. The Project site contains small debris piles and ruderal vegetation along the west, north, and eastern perimeters with a storm water basin southwest and adjacent to the Project site. Land use in the surrounding area varies between commercial, single family residential, and vacant land.
The vegetation community within the Project site is characterized by disturbed/developed land, that is either unvegetated or dominated by non- native ruderal species, including Russian thistle, five - hook bassia, short podded mustard, and white sweetclover. Typical wildlife includes songbirds, raptoral bird, small mammals, and reptile species tolerant of human activity.
Sensitive Plant Communities/Species
The Project s ite is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Burrowing Owl Survey Area and Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). The Project site does not occur within a Criteria Cell and/or Cell Group, Core and/or Linkage Area, Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), Mammal Survey Area, Invertebrate/Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Survey Area, or Amphibian Survey Area.
Narrow Endemic Plants
The Project site is located within NEPSSA 7, which identifies the following target species: San Miguel savory, San Diego ambrosia, and Brand’s phacelia. The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species, and therefore the Project will not impact the Narrow Endemic Plants. 14 Sensitive Wildlife Species
The Project site occurs within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) Survey Area, which is classified as a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Burrowing Owl was confirmed absent from the Project site during the 2014 and 2021 focused surveys. No Burrowing Owl were observed within the Project site, and no Burrowing Owl sign was detected in association with burrows. No other habitat supporting species that are classified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species was present on the Project site. 14 The Project site contains suitable habitat for burrowing owls, and as such a pre -construction Burrowing Owl Survey will be required as indicated in Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
The Project site contains vegetation with the potential to support native nesting birds. As discussed above, the California Fish and Game Code prohibits mortality of native birds, including eggs. The following measure is recommended to avoid take of nesting birds. Potential impacts to native birds were not considered a biologically significant impact under CEQA; however, to comply with state law, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 is required.
14 Biological Technical Report, Appendix C
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-27
Mitigation Measures
The following measures are required to be performed prior to clearing and grubbing within the Project site (Impact Site) to avoid impacts to nesting birds and burrowing owls.
BIO-1: Pre -Construction Burrowing Owl Survey / Burrowing Owl Protection . A 30- day pre - construction survey for burrowing owls is required prior to future ground-disturbing activities (e.g., vegetation clearing, clearing and grubbing, tree removal, site watering, equipment staging) to ensure that no owls have colonized the site in the days or weeks preceding the ground-disturbing activities. If burrowing owls have colonized the project site prior to the initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the Project proponent will immediately inform the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) and the Wildlife Agencies and will need to coordinate in the future with the RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, including the possibility of preparing a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to initiating ground disturbance. If ground- disturbing activities occur, but the site is left undisturbed for more than 30 days, a pre -construction survey will again be necessary to ensure that burrowing owl s have not colonized the site since it was last disturbed. If burrowing owls are found, the same coordination described above will be necessary.
BIO-2: Nesting Bird Protection. As feasible, vegetation clearing should be conducted outside of the nesting season, which is generally identified as February 1 through August 31. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within 3 days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.
Threshold 4.4 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Impact Analysis
The Biological Technical Report concluded that the Project site does not contain any native vegetation communities, including special- status vegetation communities, or riparian habitat. The site also does not contain jurisdictional wetlands or natural drainage features that would fall under the jurisdiction of state or federal regulatory agencies. As noted in Threshold 4.4(a) above, the entire property is disturbed, with vegetated areas dominated by non- native, ruderal species. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts on special -status vegetation communities or riparian habitat.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-28
Threshold 4.4 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Impact Analysis
The Biological Technical Report concluded that the Project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal).
Additionally, the Project site does not contain jurisdictional wate rs. As noted in Threshold 4.4(a) above, the entire property is disturbed, with vegetated areas dominated by non- native, ruderal species. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands.
15 Threshold 4.4 (d).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Impact Analysis
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. The Project Site area proposed for development does not represent a wildlife travel route, crossing, or regional movement corridor between large open space habitats. The Project site is bordered by Interstate 15 (I-15), existing roads, residential development, and commercial development. As such, the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.
The site supports nesting opportunities for common migratory bird species. All migratory bird species, whether listed or not, also receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918.
16 The MBTA prohibits individuals to kill, take, possess, or sell any migratory bird, bird parts (including nests and eggs) except per regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Department (16 U. S. Code 7034).
15 Biological Technical Report: Appendix C
16 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, August 8, 2017, Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-29
Therefore, if vegetation is to be removed during the nesting season, a pre-c onstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted, and avoidance measures taken to ensure that no take of birds or their nests will occur per Mitigation Measure BIO-2.
Threshold 4.4 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Impact Analysis
The City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and City of Jurupa Valley Code of Ordinances contain policies protecting significant trees, other significant vegetation, and trees within the City’s right of way of any City highway. According to the General Plan Policy COS 1.2 – Protection of Significant Trees and Policy COS 1.3 – Other Significant Vegetation, “significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. In particular, California native trees should be protected”. 17 According to the General Plan, other
significant vegetation includes agricultural wind screen plantings, street trees, stands of mature native and non-native trees, and other features of ecological, aesthetic, and conservation value . 18 Section 13.10.050 - Tree removal of the City of Jurupa Valley Code of Ordinances regulates the trimming and removal of trees planted within the City’s right of way of any City highway.
T
he entire proposed Project s ite is disturbed, with vegetated areas dominated by non- native, ruderal species. There are no trees, including street trees, California native trees, or stands of mature native and non-native trees within the Project site. Therefore, there are no protected trees or significant vegetation on the Project site and the Project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
17 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy COS-1.2. 18 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy COS-1.3.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-30
Threshold 4.4 (f).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).
-
19 The plan provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species.
Th
e conclusions and recommendations from the MSHCP Consistency Analysis that was part of the Biological Technical Report, prepared for the Project (Appendix C) are listed in Table 4.4-1:
Table 4.4-1 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
MSHCP Element/Requirements Project Site Status
Criteria Cell/Cell Group The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area or Criteria Cell Group.
Area Plan Subunit The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Area Plan Subunit.
Habitat Management Unit The Project site is located within a Habitat Management Unit. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to MSHCP Conserved Lands.
MSHCP Conservation Areas The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Conservation Area.
Public/Quasi Public (PQP) Conservation Land The Project site is not located within Public/Quasi Public Conservation Land.
Narrow Endemic Plants (MSHCP Section 6.1.3) The Project site is located within NEPSSA 7, which identifies the following target species: San Miguel savory, San Diego ambrosia, and Brand’s phacelia. The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for these species, and therefore, will not impact narrow endemic plants.
Additional Species Surveys
(including Burrowing Owl, Criteria Area
Species, Amphibians, and Mammals)
[MSHCP Section 6.3.2]
The Project site is located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
The Burrowing Owl noted no burrowing owl presence. However, due to the presence of suitable burrowing owl habitat within the Impact Site and proximity to the Burrowing Owl Survey Area, a 30- day pre-construction burrowing owl survey will be required to be conducted prior to construction activities. No other additional species surveys are required per the MSHCP.
Riparian/Riverine Resources
(MSHCP Section 6.1.2)
Riparian/riverine resources are not present within the Project Site.
No changes in hydrology are expected as a result of this Project.
Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) No vernal pools or seasonal depressions are present onsite. No vernal pools were identified within the immediate vicinity of the
19 Regional Conservation Authority, Western Riverside County, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, June 17, 2003.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-31
MSHCP Element/Requirements Project Site Status
Project and therefore no indirect impacts to vernal pools are anticipated.
Fairy Shrimp (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) Due to the lack of suitable habitat on the Project site, no impacts to fairy shrimp are anticipated.
Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly Delhi Soil Series are not mapped within the Project site and therefore the site lacks suitable Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly habitat. No impacts to Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly are anticipated.
Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/ Wildlands
Interface (MSHCP Section 6.1.4)
The proposed Project is not located in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area or other native habitats. As such, the Project will not result in significant indirect effects to biological resources.
Furthermore, the Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines do not apply to the proposed Project.
Source: Biological Technical Report, Appendix C.
4.5 Cultural Resources
The analysis in this section is based in part on the following technical report.
Cultural Resources Assessment, Vernola Marketplace Apartments, LSA, dated July 2014. and is included as Technical Appendix D to this Initial Study.
Threshold 4.5 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
§15064.5?
Impact Analysis
Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damaging or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource.
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) clarifies that historical resources include the following:
1. A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements [of] section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code.
3. Any obj ect, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-32
engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
Historic Setting
The Project site is located in a general location associated with Native American occupation and/or use during prehistoric and protohistoric periods. It is also an area associated with historic Mexican period rancho activity, American period ranching and farming activity, and, more recently, recreational activity.
The Project area was originally agricultural uses and had been subject to dumping and bulldozing.
There are no structures on the site; however, development is taking place to the south, with existing development to the north and east and Interstate 15 to the west.
Research and Conclusions
A record search was conducted at the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center, Riverside, for the Project site. This search included a review of all recorded historic and prehistoric archaeological sites within a 1- mile radius of the Project site. In addition, the California Points of Historical Interest (PHI), the list of California Historical Landmarks (CHL), the California Register of Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) were checked. Historic maps were also reviewed.
Results of the record search indicated that the P roject area had been previously surveyed in its entirety (Drover 1989) and that no cultural resources sites are recorded within the Project area. The records search also determined that no properties on the various registers and inventories that were searched are within the current Project area.
The records search indicates that five areas adjacent to the P roject area have also been surveyed.
The area northeast of the current property was surveyed by Wilke and Hammond (1 973); the area on the east side of the parcel was surveyed by Hoover and Blevins (2003); while the area south of the property was surveyed by White (1994), McKenna (2003), and Tang et al. (2006). Within 1.0 mile of the current project area, an additional 1 8 surveys have been conducted. These surveys are identified in the EIC record search results letter appended to the Cultural Report.
Eight cultural resources are recorded within 1.0 mile of the project area. These resources include six houses, one farm/ranch, and one historic power line. The houses, all farther than 0.25 mile from the project area, are all wood -framed, ranch -style houses except P -33-014880, which is an adobe structure thought to date pre -1900 and recorded as possibly the oldest existing adobe in the Mira Loma area. The closest resource to the current Project area is the power line, P -33-16681, which originally ran along the north side of 68
th Street west and south of the Project area, then turned north to run through the current project area.
The property is located approximately 1 mile north of the Santa Ana River and has been used for agricultural purposes for over 80 years. Extensive mechanized ground disturbance has occurred along the west side of the project from construction of I -15, along the northern boundary of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-33
project area due to construction of an elevated dirt road, in the southeastern portion of the Project area from dozing and dumping, and throughout the remainder of the P roject area due to historic agricultural use of the land, as well as from recent disking. The property contains no known cultural resources. Therefore, it is recommended that no further cultural resources management (e.g., monitoring) of the project area is necessary.
Threshold 4.5 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines §15064.5?
Impact Analysis
Archaeological Setting
Archaeological sites are locations that contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations, and/or discoloration or accumulation of soil or food remains. A summary of previous findings cited in the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix D) relating to the archaeological setting are summarized below.
• No significant archaeological or cultural resources were identified during the research and site survey. Results of the record search indicated that the project area had been previously surveyed in its entirety (Drover 1989) and that no cultural resource sites are recorded within the project area. The records search also determined that no propertie s on the various registers and inventories that were searched are within the current project area. • The records search indicates that five areas adjacent to the project area have also been surveyed. The area northeast of the current property was surveyed by Wilke and Hammond (1973); the area on the east side of the parcel was surveyed by Hoover and Blevins (2003); while the area south of the property was surveyed by White (1994), McKenna (2003), and Tang et al. (2006). Within 1.0 mile of the current project area, an additional 18 surveys have also been conducted.
Research and Conclusions
A standard archaeological records check was completed through the University of California, Riverside, Eastern Information Center. This research was designed to compile data on previous studies, the identification of nearby architectural resources, and to place the Project site in a context for assessing the sensitivity of the Project site to yield evidence of archaeological resources.
The intensive survey of the property fai led to yield any evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological resources. While there is always a potential for buried resources, the potential is relatively low and, with no evidence of bedrock outcroppings and the extensive farming conducted Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-34
over decades, it is unlikely buried resources will be identified within the Project site. However, since the area is still considered slightly sensitive (resources have been recorded within 1 mile), if any evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources is encountered during grading activities, the following mitigation measures are required:
Mitigation Measure(s)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes shall be placed on the grading plan:
CR-1
: Archaeological Monitoring Program. Prior to issuance of grading permits the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource s Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to implement a Cultural Resource s Monitoring Program (CRMP). A Cultural Resource Monitoring Program shall be developed in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s) [defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code § 21080.3.2(b)(1)] that addresses the details of all ground disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts to cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant. A fully executed copy of the CRMP shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. The Professional Archaeologist may submit a detailed letter to the C ity of Jurupa Valley during grading requesting a modification to the CRMP. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR
-2
shall apply.
CR-2
: Archeological Treatment Plan . A treatment plan shall be prepared and implemented by the Project Archaeologist to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan shall be in accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code §21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementation of archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource along with subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR -s of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21347.
CR-3: Final Report. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department and the Eastern Informa tion Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR -s of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21347.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-35
Threshold 4.5 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to disturbing human remains.
This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.5-1 The Project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et seq.
The Project site does not contain a cemetery , and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et seq. California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code §5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code §5097.98.
4.6 Energy
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical memo:
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis for the Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community (VMAC) Phase B, Albert A. Webb Associates, February 18, 2022, Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-36
Threshold 4.6 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or
operation?
Impact Analysis
Construction Energy Analysis
Construction of the Project would require the use of fuel - and electric -powered equipment and vehicles for construction activities. The majority of activities would use fuel -powered equipment and vehicles that would consume gasoline or diesel fuel. Heavy construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, backhoes, dump trucks) would be diesel powered, while smaller construction vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and personal vehicles used by workers, would be gasoline powered.
The majority of electricity use would be for power tools. The anticipated construction schedule assumes the Project would be built in approximately 25 months with off- road equipment and on- road trips (e.g., workers, vendors, haul trips) consuming approximately 150,904 gallons of diesel fuel and approximately 222,644 gallons of gasoline. The consumption of energy would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on available supplies. There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of fuel or electricity that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or state.
Starting in 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the nation's first regulation aimed at cleaning up off -road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes.
These requirements ensure fleets gradually turn over the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards as fuel efficiencies gradually rise. It should also be noted that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction proces ses that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
In addition, as required by state law ,
20 idling times of construction vehicles is limited to no more than 5 minutes, thereby minimizing, or eliminating un necessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
20 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-37
Operation Energy Analysis
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands and operational energy demands.
Transportation Energy Demands
Energy that would be consumed by Project -g enerated traffic is a function of total vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. The Project will result in 5,180,480 VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 160,693 gallons of gasoline and 25,860 gallons of diesel fuel.
21 E
nhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Operational Energy Demands
Occupancy of the single -family residences would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity. Energy demands are estimated at 3,146,190 kBTU/year of natural gas and 1 ,157,300 kWh/year of electricity. 22 Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCalGas, and electricity would be supplied by Southern California Edison (SCE). The Project proposes multi-family residential homes reflectin g contemporary energy efficient/energy- conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive , and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other multi- family land use projects of simil ar scale and configuration. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
I
n summary, as supported by the preceding analyses, neither construction nor operation of the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources. Impacts will therefore be less than significant.
21 Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis. 22 Appendix A, Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-38
Threshold 4.6 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Impact Analysis
The California Energy Commission provides oversight for the preparation of rules and regulations for the conservation of energy such as Appliance Energy Efficiency, Building Energy Efficiency, Energy Supplier Reporting, and State Energy Management. The regulations directly applicable to the Project are Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6, and CALGreen Title 24, Part 11.
These regulations include, but are not limited to , the use of energy -efficient heating and cooling systems, water-conserving plumbing, and water-efficient irrigation systems. The Project is required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations as part of the building permit and inspection process.
4.7 Geology and Soils
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.
Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, GEO Tek, Inc., March 10, 2021 and is included as Technical Appendix E to this Initial Study.
N
ote: There are no Alquist ‐P
riolo earthquake fault zones located in Jurupa Valley, therefore, this topic is not addressed in the Initial Study.
Threshold 4.7 (a).
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to seismic ground shaking.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.7-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010, the Project shall comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code , which requires the Project to comply with the approved recommended seismic design requirements contained in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation, GEO Tek, Inc. (2021), and be incorporated in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-39
the construction of each structure , to prec lude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
The Project site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not c onsidered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to construct proposed structures in accordance with the California Building Standards Code (CBSC), also known as California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 24 and the City Building Code. The CBSC and the City Building Code are designed to preclude significant adverse effects associated with strong seismic - ground shaking. In addition, the Project would be conditioned to comply with the site -specific ground preparation and construction recommendations contained in the Project’s Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the Project (see PPP 4.7-1 ) (Appendix D). With mandatory compliance with these standards and site -specific design and construction measures, potential adverse impacts associated with seismically induced ground shaking would be reduced to less than significant.
Threshold 4.7 (a).
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to seismic ground shaking.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
According to the General Plan
23 the Project site has a moderate to high potential for liquefaction.
According to the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the Project, a liquefaction analyses for the subject property was performed. Results from the evaluation indicate the site soils are not susceptible to liquefaction upon application of the design earthquake event (p. 8, Geotek 2021).
T
he Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that the soil deposits underlying the property are not susceptible to liquefaction; however, the soils above the perched water table are potentially susceptible to dry settlement (dynamic densification) as a result of seismic ground shaking. The geotechnical analysis indicates a potential ground surface settlement of about 1.37 inches. A differential seismic settlement of about two-thirds inch over a 30-foot span is estimated. Based on these magnitudes of seismic settlement, ground modification and/or special foundation design are not considered necessary.
23 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8‐5: L iquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-40
Per PPP 4.7 -1 as a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the Project (Appendix E).
Threshold 4.7 (a).
Would the Project directly or indirectly cause
potential substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
iv) Landslides?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is relatively flat with no adjacent or nearby uplands that could cause landsliding. The Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the Project site found that evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities was not observed during the investigation. Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible for design purposes (p. 8, Geotek, 2021).
Per PPP 4.7 -1 as a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the Project (Appendix E).
Threshold 4.7 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Impact Analysis
Construction
Grading and construction activities would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. The Municipal Code requires the preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan to address site -specific conditions related to these activities . 24 The plan will identify potential
sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, and identify erosion control measures to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, and hydroseeding.
24 City of Jurupa Valley, Municipal Code, Chapter 6.05.010, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-41
Through compliance with the Municipal Code, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping throughout the Project site , and areas of loose topsoil that could erode by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the Project. In the proposed condition, storm water will flow to the internal street system and be conveyed to the southwest across the Project site towards the water quality and detention basins. The use of detention basins reduces the potential for storm water to erode topsoil downstream.
Threshold 4.7 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the Project, and
potentially result in on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to an unstable geologic unit.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
Landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse as a result of an earthquake are largely dependent on the underlying geologic conditions (e.g., bedrock, type of soil, and the depth of the water table). The site is composed of older alluvium consisting of very dense silty sand and medium stiff to stiff sandy clay. The water table is at a depth of 45 to 100 feet below ground surface (bgs).
Landslides: The Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation for the Project site states that evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities was not observed during the investigation.
Thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible for design purposes.
Lateral Spreading: When subsurface sand layers lose strength because of liquefaction, lateral spreading and can occur in overlying sediments allowing them to move down even the gentlest slopes. The potential for and magnitude of lateral spreading is dependent upon many conditions, including the presence of a relatively thick, continuous, potentially liquefiable sand layer and high slopes. Subsurface information obtained for the Ge otechnical and Infiltration Evaluation indicate that the soil deposits underlying the property are not susceptible to liquefaction; however, there is a potential to be susceptible to dry settlement (dynamic densification) as a result of seismic ground shaking. The Geotechnical Evaluation indicates a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-42
potential ground surface settlement of about 1.37 inches. A differential seismic settlement of about two-thirds inch over a 30-foot span is estimated. Based on these magnitudes of seismic settlement, ground modification and/or special foundation design are not considered necessary. Based on currently available procedures, the site does not appear to be susceptible to (lateral spread) ground surface disruption during a moderate seismic event.
Subsidence/Collapse: Land subsidence can occur in various ways during an earthquake. Large areas of land can subside drastically during an earthquake because of offset along fault lines.
Land subsidence can also occur as a result of settling and compacting of unconsolidated sediment from the shaking of an earthquake. Cohesive soils such as clay and silt are particularly likely to cause subsidence since they shrink and swell depending on their moisture content. According to the USGS Land Subsidence in California Map, the Project site is not located in an area where subsidence has occurred.25
Liquefaction: The occurrence of liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily in areas with recently deposited sands and silts (usually less than 10,000 years old) with high ground- water levels. It is most common where the water table is at a depth of less than 30 -feet. As noted in the response to Threshold 4.7 (a2), according to the General Plan,26 the Project site has a high potential for liquefaction.
The Geotechnical Evaluation indicates that the soil deposits underlying the property are not susceptible to liquefaction.
As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the Project (Appendix E).
Threshold 4.7 (d).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, and Programs
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to expansive soils. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
25 USGS Land Subsidence in California: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html 26 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8-5: Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-43
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.
The expansion index, EI, value is used by engineers and other professionals as an indicator of the soil’s swelling potential. According to the American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) Standard D4829, soil having an expansion potential of greater than 91 is considered to be expansive soil.
Based on laboratory testing, the materials present near the ground surface have an Expansion Index EI=1, which is less than an Expansion Index of greater than 91. As such, risks from expansive soils are considered to be low. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation prepared for the project (Appendix E).
Threshold 4.7 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
Impact Analysis
The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project would install domestic sewer infrastructure and connect to the Jurupa Community Service District’s existing sewer conveyance and treatment system.
Threshold 4.7 (f).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.
Cultural Resources Assessment, Vernola Marketplace Apartments, LSA, dated July 2014, and is included as Technical Appendix E to this Initial Study.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-44
Impact Analysis
General Plan Figure 4 -18 - Paleontological Sensitivity, indicates that the site has a high sensitivity (Ha) designation for finding paleontological resources.27 An assessment of paleontological resources was conducted by LSA in 2014 for both the Phase A and B sites together. The search conducted by LSA at the San Bernardino County Museum in May 2014 indicated that there are no known paleontological resources within an approximate 1-mile radius around the current project area, and no paleontological resources were observed during the field survey.
T
he LSA report concluded there was a potential to encounter paleontological resources during ground-disturbing activities in the northwestern portion of the Project site (Phase B) beginning at the surface, as well as in the southern portion of the Project site below a depth of 5 feet. The report recommended monitoring of grading in these areas in case paleontological resources were found.
Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 are required. With implementation of GEO-1 and GEO-2 impacts will be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
GEO-1: Paleontological Inadvertent Discovery. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to con duct monitoring as necessary during ground- disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre -grade conference and shall establish a schedule for paleontol ogical resource surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Paleontologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the Paleontologist /Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe ground- disturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium. The Paleontologist will attend the pre-grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for paleontological monitoring and to temporarily halt ground -disturbing activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the uppermost layers (more than 3 feet below surface) should be monitored. Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the small -fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
27 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure 4-18, Paleontological Sensitivity.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-45
Unique Geologic Feature
The Project site is relatively flat. The site soils generally consist of alluvial soils consisting of silty sand with bedrock at depths of 7 to 15 feet. The granular earth materials are very loose to very de nse.
These features are common in the area. As such, the Project does not contain a geologic feature that is unique or exclusive locally or regionally.
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical memo.
Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis for the Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community (VMAC) Phase, Albert A. Webb Associates, February 18, 2022, Appendix A to this Initial Study.
Threshold 4.8 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with the most recently adopted edition of the applicable California Energy Code, (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
PPP 4.8-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements, prior to the approval of landscaping plans, the Project proponent shall prepare and submit landscape plans that demonstrate compliance with this section.
No single land use project could generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to notic eably change the global average temperature. Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the primary goal in adopting GHG significance thresholds, analytical methodologies, and mitigation measures is to ensure new land use development provides its fair share of the GHG reductions needed to address cumulative environmental impacts from those emissions.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-46
Thresholds of Significance
A final numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin has not been established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). General Plan Policy AQ 9.5 requires the City to utilize the SCAQMD Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City has determined that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e per year is appropriate for residential land use development projects. The 3,000 MTCO 2e threshold is based on the SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for non-industrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. This threshold is also consistent with the SCAQMD’s draft interim threshold Tier 3.
A s
ummary of the projected annual operational green house gas emissions, including amortized construction
-r
elated emissions associated with the development of the Project is provided in Table
4.8-1.
T
able 4.8-1 Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emissions Source
Total Emissions
(MTCO2e per year)
Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 72.18 Vegetation (4.77)
Area Source 3.60
Energy Source 3.40.37
Mobile Source 1,732.22
Waste 32.54
Water Usage 53.37
Total CO2E (All Sources) 2,229.51
Screening Threshold (CO2E) 3,000
Threshold Exceeded No
Source: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas (GHG)/Energy Analysis (Appendix A).
As shown on Table 4.8-1, the Project has the potential to generate approximately 2,229.51 MTCO 2e
per year. As such, the Project would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO 2e.
Thus, Project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions that could impact climate change, and no mitigation or further analysis is required.
Threshold 4.8 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-47
Impact Analysis
Determining a project’s consistency with plans, policies , or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions plans presents unique challenges because the impact is global and solutions require global, federal, state, and local action. The following are the primary plans adopted at the state level to reduce GHG emissions:
• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan is the state’s overall strategy in the form of measures that apply to emission sectors that comprise the state’s greenhouse gas emission inventory. The state’s implementation strategy primarily takes the form of source -specific regulations for energy producers fuel suppliers, and vehicle manufacturers. For example, California Light -Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Scoping Plan envisions a limited role for local government in implementing the state’s GHG reduction strategy, focusing on local government’s authority over land use and some transportation projects. • The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) supports the s tate's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. To this end, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has adopted the Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy, which charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.
Implementation of Connect SoCal depends on partnerships with local jurisdictions and County Transportation Commissions (CTCs). The land use strategies in Connect SoCal are based on a growth vision that was developed through extensive consultation with local communities, which proposes multiple different types of Priority Growth Areas, as well as identifying regional growth constraints. SCAG provides resources to help local jurisdictions align local plans and programs with the regional growth vision through a series of technical assistance and funding programs.
Certain measures of the Scoping Plan and Connect SoCal are supported by the Project, such as energy conservation and energy efficiency measures. Other measures, while not directly applicable, would not be obstructed or impeded by Project implementation.
The City is in the process of preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in conjunction with WRCOG which will identify specific policies and regulations that are directed at the project level. Until such time that the City adopts a CAP, the Project is evaluated for consistency with the following plans, policies, or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as shown in Table 4.8.2, Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-48
Table 4.8-2 Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measure Consistency Analysis
General Plan
AQ 9.5 GHG Thresholds. Utilize the SCAQMD
Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development
proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action
Plan (CAP).
The City has determined that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is appropriate for this Project. GHG emissions are 2,229.51 MTCO2e which is less than the 3,000 MTCO2e threshold.
CSSF 2.44 Drought-Tolerant Landscaping.
Require the use of drought-tolerant
landscaping in all new development.
The Project is required to comply with Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
LUE 11.6 Energy Efficiency. Require
development projects to use energy efficient
design features in their site planning, building
design and orientation, and landscape design
that meet or exceed state energy standards.
The Project is required to submit building plans and is required to meet CALGreen Codes, CA Title 24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and City’s water efficient landscape requirements; therefore, the Project is determined to be consistent with General Plan Policy LUE 11.6.
ME 3.9 Pedestrian Facilities. Public streets
shall provide pedestrian facilities in accordance
with adopted City standards. Sidewalks shall be
separated from the roadway by a landscaped
parkway, except where the Planning Director
determines that attached sidewalks are
appropriate due to existing sidewalk location,
design, or other conditions.
The municipal code requires pedestrian access between the public sidewalk and the onsite walkways that provide access to the dwelling units. The applicant will be required to provide ADA compliant connection along the primary access drive aisle to Pats Ranch Road. This connection will use an existing access easement through the shopping center that will be modified to include pedestrians.
Landscaped open areas and walking paths, per code are included as community amenities.
A second pedestrian access route is located along the secondary emergency vehicle access drive aisle and secondary access easement.
ME 3.36 Bicycle Improvements Conditionally
Required. Require the construction or
rehabilitation of bicycle facilities and “bicycle-
friendly” improvements as a condition of
approving new development, following Zoning
Ordinance standards
The Project is providing a network of internal roads and sidewalks within the community which will allow for biking, walking, and pedestrian use.
Municipal Code
Energy Efficiency As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010(7), California Energy Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with this section.
Green Buildings As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010 (8), California Green Building Standards Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project proponent shall submit plans in compliance with this code section.
Water Conservation The Project will comply with Chapter 9.283. - Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements.
Solid Waste Reduction The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste
management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-49
Based on analysis above, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy , or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and impacts will be less than significant.
4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical reports:
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Vernola Marketplace, GEO Tek, Inc., March 3, 2021 and is included as Appendix F to this Initial Study.
Threshold 4.9 (a-b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
The subject site is currently vacant and undeveloped land with the southern portion of the site being used as a storage area for construction of adjacent property to the south. No pits, ponds, swamps, dry wells, or lagoons were observed on the subject property. The Phase I ESA did not find any environmental concerns or problematic sites listed in governmental databases on the Project site or in the surrounding area.
Construction Activities
Heavy equipment that would be used during construction of the proposed Project would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. Th e potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonably consequence of the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site.
Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-50
Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, the South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. As such, impacts due to construction activities would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. A less than significant impact would occur.
Operational Activities
The Project site would be developed with residential land uses , which is a land use not typically associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Although residential land uses may utilize household products that contain toxic substances, such as cleansers, paints, adhesives, and solvents, these products are usually in low concentration and small in amount and would not pose a significant risk to humans or the environment during transport to/from or use at the Project site.
Pursuant to state law and local regulations, residents would be required to dispose of household hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, old paint) at a permitted household hazardous waste collection facility. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or the environment to significant hazards associated with the disposal of hazardous materials at the Project site. Long-term operation of the Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Threshold 4.9 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is not located within one-quarter (0.25) mile of an existing or proposed school. From the Project site, the nearest school is VanderMolen Elementary School located approximately 0.4 miles southeast. In addition, as discussed in the responses to Thresholds 4.9(a) and 4.9(b) above, all hazardous or potenti ally hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, state, and local agencies and regulations with respect to hazardous materials. Therefore, regardless of the proximity of planned or proposed schools, the Project will not impact schools.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-51
Threshold 4.9 (d).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code §65962.5, and, as a result, would it
create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
Impact Analysis
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the state and local agencies to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials rele ase sites pursuant to Government Code §65962.5. Below are the data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements.
• List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
• List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.
• List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit. • List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board.
• List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to §25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
Based on a review of the Cortese List maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency there were no open cases on the Project site or within one mile. 28 T
he results of the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the Project (Appendix F), are summarized in Table 4.9-1 below:
Table 4.9-1 Summary of Site Reconnaissance
Item Concerns Comments
General Housekeeping No No concerns observed.
Surface Spills No No concerns observed.
Stained Surfaces No No concerns observed.
Pits/Ponds/Lagoons No No concerns observed.
Surface Impoundments No No concerns observed.
ASTs/USTs No No concerns observed.
Distressed Vegetation No No concerns observed.
Wetlands No No concerns observed.
28 California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources, https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/ , accessed April 5, 2022. Phase 1 ESA p. 6.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-52
Item Concerns Comments
Electrical Substations No No concerns observed.
Areas of Dumping No No concerns observed.
Transformers Waste/Scrap Storage No No concerns observed.
Chemical Use/Storage No No concerns observed.
Transformers Waste/Scrap Storage No No concerns observed.
Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Geotek, 2021.
Recognized Environmental Conditions
Based on the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment , no visual indication of conditions of concern (e.g., water wells, drywells, cesspools) that would indicate a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC) was observed during the site reconnaissance.
Threshold 4.9 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two
miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Impact Analysis
Airport Land Use Compatibility
The nearest airport is Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 5.40 miles southeast of the Project site. According to Map RI -1, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is not located within the airport compatibility zones.29 Therefore, there will be no impact on airport land use planning.
Airport Noise
The Project consists of multi-family residences and will not expose people to excessive aircraft noise.
The nearest airport is Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 5.40 miles southeast of the Project site. According to Map RI-3, Noise Compatibility Contours Riverside Municipal Airport, Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located outside the 55 CNEL to 60 CNEL Noise Impact Zone and thereby would not expose residents of the Project to excessive noise levels . Standard building design and construction methods would provide adequate noise attenuation to comply with the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL and thereby would not expose residents of the Project to excessive noise levels.
29 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2004. Available at: http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/20- %20Vol.%201%20Riverside%20Municipal.pdf
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-53
Threshold 4.9 (f).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
Impact Analysis
Access to the Project site is proposed from Pats Ranch Road and 65 th Street. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long -te
rm operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles.
Threshold 4.9 (g).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan,30 the Project site is not located within a high wildfire hazard area. (Also refer to analysis under Issue 4.20, Wildfire).
4.10 Hydrology And Water Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical reports. • Preliminary Drainage Study; Albert A. Webb, Associates; December 2021 (Appendix G). • Preliminary WQMP, Albert A. Webb, Associates; December 2021 (Appendix H). • Water and Sewer Will Serve Letter , Jurupa Community Services District, April 28, 2021 (Appendix I).
30 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8-10: Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-54
Threshold 4.10 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to water quality and waste discharge requirements. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.10-1 As requir ed by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter, and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the best management practices ( BMPs) that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.
PPP 4.10-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009- 0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non- compliant construction site per the General Permit.
PPP 4.10-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section C, new development, or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water.
PPP 4.10-4 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section E , any person, or entity that owns or operates a commercial and/or industrial facility(s) s hall comply with the provisions of this chapter. All such facilities shall be subject to a regular program of inspection as required by this chapter, any NPDES permit issued by the State Water Resource Control Board, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act ( Water Code §13000 et seq.), Title 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq. (Clean Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-55
Water Act), any applicable state or federal regulations promulgated thereto, and any related administrative orders or permits issued in connection therewith.
Water Quality Standards
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act31 defines water quality objectives (i.e., standards) as “…the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area” [(§13050 (h)].32
Construction Impacts (Water Quality Standards)
Construction of the Project would involve clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, bui lding construction, and the installation of landscaping, which would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short
-te
rm water quality impacts have the potential to
occur during construction activities in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.
T
he Municipal Code requires the Project to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities.33 The permit is required for all projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area.
C
ompliance with the pe rmit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction
-r
elated activities, including grading. The plan would
specify the measures that would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the site.
Operational Impacts (Water Quality Requirements)
Storm water pollutants commonly associated with the ty pes of land uses that could occupy the proposed structures include sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, and pesticides. Pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code, 33 a Water Quality
Management Plan (WQMP) is required for managing the quality of storm water or urban runoff that flows from a developed site after construction is completed and the facilities or structures are occupied and/or operational. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the Project (Appendix H), proposes to divert flows that will be captured by a series of catch basins and drop inlets located at
31 California Water Boards, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, January 2019. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf 32 Califor nia Water Boards, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, January 2019. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf 33 City of Jurupa Valley, Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls. Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/codes/municipal_code?nodeId=TIT6HESA_CH6.05STWAURRUMA DICO_S6.05.050REPOSTWA
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-56
localized low points throughout the site. A network of underground storm drain pipes will convey these flows towards proposed Modular Wetlands System (MWS) located near the southwestern corner of the project site.
Private development projects are required to prepare a WQMP and SWPPP and implement appropriate BMPs to comply with the County’s MS4 Permit. These requirements a re specified in PPP 4.10-1 through PPP 4.10-4. These water quality requirements are considered regulatory compliance and not project specific mitigation under CEQA. With regulatory compliance, the proposed Project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality. Impacts will be less than significant.
Waste Discharge Requirements
Waste Discharge Requirements are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Board under the provisions of the California Water Code, Division 7 “Water Quality,” Article 4 “Waste Discharge Requirements.”34 These requirements regulate the discharge of wastes that are not made to surface waters, but that may impact the region’s water quality by affectin g underlying groundwater basins. Discharge requirements are issued for Publicly Owned Treatment Works’ wastewater reclamation operations, discharges of wastes from industries, subsurface waste discharges such as septic systems, sanitary landfills, dairies, and a variety of other activities that can affect water quality.
Operational Impacts (Waste Discharge Requirements)
To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, the Jurupa Community Services District has adopted Sewer System Man agement Plan WDID 8SSO10582 35 (SSMP), which
includes provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems. Additionally, the SSMP contains a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to a sanitary sewer overflow in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions. By connecting to the Jurupa Community Services District sewer system, the Project will not violate any waste discharge requirements.
34 California Water Boards, Waste Discharge Requirements Program, July 3, 2020. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/waste_discharge_requirements/ 35 https://www.jcsd.us/home/showdocument?id=1564.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-57
Threshold 4.10 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the
project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
Impact Analysis
Groundwater Supplies
According to the Water and Sewer Availability Letter issued for the Project (Appendix I), water service will be provided to the Project by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD). The district’s wells are located within the Chino Ground Water Basin. The Basin is adjudicated, which means if JCSD extracts water that exceeds the safe yield (i.e., the rate at which groundwater can be withdrawn without causing long -term decline of water levels), JCSD may incur a replenishment obligation, which is used by t he Watermaster to recharge the ground water basin with State Water Project water. The Basin has been maintained by the Watermaster in a safe yield condition under this method of operation. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to contribute to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies.
Sustainable Groundwater Management
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. The act requires the prioritization of basins and subbasins based on a variety of factors such as population and number of water wells in a basin. Basins are ranked from very-low to high- priority. Basins ranking high or medium priority are required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage basins sustainably and requires those agencies to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans.
As noted above, the Project’s groundwater supplies come from an adjudicated basin. Adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court -ordered managemen t plan to ensure the long -term sustainability of the Basin. No component of the Project would obstruct or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-58
Threshold 4.10 (c).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite?
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Impact Analysis
Existing Condition
In the existing condition, site drainage sheet flows across the property from the northwest to the southeast corner of the property. There are no stream courses or other established natural surface drainages within or adjacent to the Project site.
Proposed Condition
In the proposed condition, flows will be captured by a series of catch basins and drop inlets located at localized low points throughout the site. A network of underground storm drain pipes will convey these flows towards proposed Modular Wetlands System (MWS) located near the southwestern corner of the project site. During construction, the Project is also required to implement a Stormwater Pollution Control Plan per PPP 4.10-1.
As proposed, the design of the storm drain system will not result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding onsite or offsite; create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-59
Threshold 4.10 (d).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan,36 the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone. According to the California Department of Conservation, California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps ,37 the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone. In addition, the Project would not be at risk from seiche because there is no water body in the area of the Project site capable of producing a seiche. Therefore, there are no impacts regarding these water-related concerns.
Threshold 4.10 (e).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management
plan?
Impact Analysis
As discussed under Threshold 4.10 (a) and 4.10 (c), with implementation of the drainage system improvements and features as described, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. As discussed under Threshold 4.10 (b) , the Project site is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Management program and will not substantially impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin. Therefore, there are no impacts regarding these water-related concerns.
4.11 Land Use and Planning
Threshold 4.11 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Physically divide a community?
Impact Analysis
An example of a Project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The Project is in
36 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Figure 8-9: Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 37 California Department of Conservation, California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps#:~:text=Coordinated%20by%20Cal%20OES%2C%20Californi a,considered%20tsunamis%20for%20each%20area., accessed April 9, 2022.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-60
an area largely characterized by residential and commercial developments. The Project site is approximately 8.3 acres and is bordered by Pats Ranch Road to the east and Interstate 15 (I -15) to the west. As such, the Project will not divide an established community.
Threshold 4.11 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
Impact Analysis
A General Plan Amendment (GPA) is being proposed to change the designation of this property to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) which would allow for development of multi -family uses at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre. A corresponding change of zone (CZ) is also proposed to reclassify the site as R -3 General Residential. The proposed Project would implement these new designations through a development plan that consists of an apartment complex with 208 apartment units on 8.3 acres (25 units/acre) as shown in the proposed site plan (see previous Figure 3.2, Conceptual Site Plan).
It should be noted that the property just south of the proposed Project processed a similar General Plan Amendment ( GPA) and Change of Zone ( CZ) in 2016. That GPA/C Z and the proposed similar changes will transform this area between the I -15 Freeway and Pats Ranch Road from future light industrial uses to a residential community that is proximate to commercial uses, schools, and parks, which will help reduce regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and will be more compatible with the existing residential uses along the east side of Pats Ranch Road. The City’s 2017 General Plan also indicates that additional housing to help meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) may come from residential uses within the I -15 Corridor Specific Plan (Table 5.33, Progress in Meeting RHNA, p. 5-55, General Plan Housing Element, 2017).
The applicable plans and policies relating to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are summarized below.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Refer to Threshold 4.3 (a) in Section 4.2, Air Quality.
• Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Refer to Threshold 4.4 (f) in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. • California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan . Refer to Threshold 4.8(b) in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-61
• Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal – The 2020- 2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy . Refer to Threshold
4.8 (b) in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
• Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program . Refer to Threshold 4.10(e) in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, including but not limited to the General Plan, or the with implementation of the PPPs and Mitigation Measures throughout this Initial Study.
4.12 Mineral Resources
Threshold 4.12 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan ,38 the Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which is defined as “Areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resources significance.” However, no mineral resource extraction activity is known to hav e ever occurred on the Project site. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California.
Threshold 4.12 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Impact Analysis
The General Plan Open Space, Mineral Resources (OS- MIN) land use designation is intended for mineral extraction and processing and i ncludes areas held in reserve for future mineral extraction and processing. 39 The Project site is delineated as Manufacturing -Service Commercial (M -SC).
38 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Figure 4-16: Jurupa Valley Mineral Resources. 39 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Land Use Element, p.2-28.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-62
Therefore, the Project is not delineated on the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
4.13 Noise
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report.
Noise Impact Analysis, Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community, Urban Crossroads dated October 13, 2021 and is included as Technical Appendix J to this Initial Study.
NOTE: Under the California Supreme Court’s decision in Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (2015) 62 Cal.4th 369 (Case No. S213478) , a CEQA environmental evaluation is to identify the significant effects of the proposed project on the environment, not the significant effects of the environment on the proposed project . Thus, CEQA does not require analysis of the potential noise impacts to the future residents of the apartment homes from I-15.
However, where a project will exacerbate an existing environmental hazard, CEQA requires an analysis of the worsened condition on future project residents and the public at large. Although noise impacts from the I-15 to the future residents of the Project site is not a CEQA related impact, the issue will be evaluated as part of the Site Development Permit and Conditions of Approval that landscaped barriers imposed similar to what was required for the development of Phase A in 2015.
Threshold 4.13 (a).
Would the Project result in:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Impact Analysis
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The primary source of noise in the area is from vehicle traffic from Interstate 15 (I -15) to the west and to a lesser degree traffic from Pats Ranch Road to the east.
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24 -hour noise level measurements were t aken at five locations in the Project study area as shown in Figure 4.13-1. Table 4.13-1 provides the (energy average) noise levels used to describe the daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytime and nighttime energy average noise levels represent the average of all hourly noise levels observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Table 4.13 -1 demonstrates ambient noise levels in the Project area range from 52.9 -68.7 dBA during the daytime and 51.3 -63.3 dBA during the nighttime.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-63
Noise Receiver Locations
Table 4.13-1 24-Hour Ambient Noise Levels at Receiver Locations Location Description
Average Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located northwest of the Project Site near single-family residence at 12334 Constellation St.
52.9 51.3
L2 Located east of the Project Site on Pats Ranch Road near single-family residence at 6491 Tigers Eye Ct.
68.6 62.9
L3 Located east of the Project Site on Pats Ranch Road near single-family residence at 12013 65th St.
68.7 63.3
L4 Located east of the Project Site on Pats Ranch Road near Limonite Meadows Park at 6596 Meander Way.
61.5 56.7
L5 Located southwest of the Project Site near single-family residence at 6770 Leanne St.
62.3 60.8
Source: Noise Impact Analysis (Appendix J).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-64
Figure 4.13-1 Noise Measurement Locations
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-65
Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different types of construction equipment. Table 4.13-2 identifies the level of noise generated by construction equipment.
Table 4.13-2 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity*
Reference Noise Level
@ 50 feet (dBA Leq)
Combined Noise
Level (dBA Leq)
Site Preparation Crawler Tractors 71 79
Hauling Trucks 71
Rubber Tired Dozers 71
Grading Graders 79 79
Compactors 67
Excavators 64
Building Construction Tractors 72 74
Cranes 67
Welders 65
Paving Pavers 70 74
Paving Equipment 69
Rollers 69
Architectural Coatings Cranes 67 72
Air Compressors 67
Generator Sets 67
Source: Table 10-1, Urban Crossroads 2021
* Update of Noise Database for Prediction of Noise on Construction and Open Sites by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) expressed in hourly average Leq based on estimated usage factors from the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM).
Note: Represents the combined noise level for all equipment assuming they operate at the same time consistent with FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment guidance for general construction noise assessment.
The City’s criteria for determining if construction noise results in a significant CEQA impact is as follows:
1) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5: Construction Noise which states: “Limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high- noise- generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.”
The closest residences to the Project property line range from 353 to 481 feet from the property line. Therefore, the Project is compliant with General Plan Policy NE 3.5 and no mitigation is required.
2) Construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-66
followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during the site preparation phase.
Table 4.13-3 Construction Equipment Noise Level Summary Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Site
Preparation Grading
Building
Construction Paving
Architectural
Coatings
Highest
Levels2
R1 64.2 64.2 59.2 59.2 57.2 64.2
R2 66.5 66.5 61.5 61.5 59.5 66.5
R3 66.7 66.7 61.7 61.7 59.7 66.7
R4 63.9 63.9 58.9 58.9 56.9 63.9
R5 66.2 66.2 61.2 61.2 59.2 66.2
Source: Table 10-2, Urban Crossroads 2021
1 Noise receptor locations shown in Figure 4.13-1.
2 Calculations based on distance from the construction activity, which is measured from the Project site boundary to the nearest receiver location.
The closest residence to the Project property line ranges from 353 to 481 feet from the property line. The construction noise leve ls at these receiver locations are expected to range from 63.9 to
66.7 dBA. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold established by the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Offsite Operational Traffic Noise Impacts
According to Caltrans, the human ear is able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 decibels (dB) in typical noisy environments.
40 A doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dBA increase in sound would generally be barely detectable.
T
he Project expects to generate a maximum of 1,537 daily trips at full occupancy. It takes a doubling of traffic to create a +3 dBA noise impact.41 Primary site access is via Van Buren Boulevard and Pats Ranch Road, Limonite Avenue, and 68 th Street, which are substantially trafficked roads with a current daily traffic count presented in Table 4.13 -4. The addition of 1,537 trips would create a minimal noise increase of less than 0.5 dBA CNEL. Existing and Project contribution to traffic noise levels is shown in Table 4.13 -5 and indicates the project contribution of 0.0 to 0.5 dBA CNEL is less than the 1 dBA significance threshold.
40 Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020, p. 7-1. 41 Caltrans Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013, Table 2-10.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-67
Table 4.13-4 Roadway Traffic Count
ID Roadway Segment
Average Daily Traffic Volumes*
Existing (2021) Opening Day (2023) Horizon Year (2035)
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
Without
Project
With
Project
1 Pats Ranch Rd. s/o Limonite Ave. 9,770 10,770 11,280 12,280 14,810 15,810 2 Pats Ranch Rd. n/o 65th St. 7,460 8,460 7,740 8,740 13,320 14,320 3 Pats Ranch Rd. s/o 65th St. 7,480 7,660 7,920 8,100 13,610 13,790 4 Limonite Ave. w/o Pats Ranch Rd. 30,320 31,210 33,380 34,270 41,680 42,570 5 Limonite Ave. e/o Pats Ranch Rd. 25,800 25,910 28,740 28,850 35,470 35,580 6 68th St. w/o Pats Ranch Rd. 10,250 10,430 12,210 12,390 18,490 18,670 *Vernola Marketplace Apartment Community Traffic Impact Analysis, Albert A. Webb Associates.
Table 4.13-5 Project Traffic Noise Impacts
Road Segment
CNEL at Receptor (dBA)1 Exterior
Noise
Standard
Incremental Noise
Level Increase
Threshold2
No
Project
With
Project
Project
Addition
Limit
(dBA) Exceeded?
Existing (2021) With Project
Pats Ranch Rd. South of Limonite Ave. 67.9 68.4 0.4 65 3 No Pats Ranch Rd. North of 65th St. 66.8 67.3 0.5 65 3 No
Pats Ranch Rd. South of 65th St. 66.8 66.9 0.1 65 3 No
Limonite Ave. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 70.6 70.8 0.1 70 3 No Limonite Ave. East of Pats Ranch Rd. 66.9 69.9 0.0 65 3 No 68th St. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 68.2 68.2 0.1 65 3 No
Opening Day (2023) With Project
Pats Ranch Rd. South of Limonite Ave. 68.6 68.9 0.4 65 3 No Pats Ranch Rd. North of 65th St. 66.9 67.5 0.5 65 3 No
Pats Ranch Rd. South of 65th St. 67.0 67.1 0.1 65 3 No
Limonite Ave. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 71.1 71.2 0.1 70 3 No Limonite Ave. East of Pats Ranch Rd. 70.4 70.4 0.0 65 3 No 68th St. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 68.9 69.9 0.1 65 3 No
Horizon Year (2035) With Project
Pats Ranch Rd. South of Limonite Ave. 69.7 70.0 0.3 65 3 No Pats Ranch Rd. North of 65th St. 69.3 69.6 0.3 65 3 No
Pats Ranch Rd. South of 65th St. 69.4 69.4 0.1 65 3 No
Limonite Ave. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 72.0 72.1 0.1 70 3 No Limonite Ave. East of Pats Ranch Rd. 71.3 71.3 0.0 65 3 No 68th St. West of Pats Ranch Rd. 70.7 70.7 0.0 65 3 No
Source: Tables 7-7 through 7-9, Urban Crossroads, 2021
1 All Receptor Sites are noise sensitive uses (existing residential) except for Limonite Ave. west of Pats Ranch Road (commercial) 2 Does the Project create an incremental noise level increase exceeding the significance criteria?
Stationary Source Noise Impacts
This analysis describes noise level impacts associated with the expected typical of daytime and nighttime activities at the Project site. To present the potential worst -case noise conditions, this analysis assumes the Project would be operational 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. The onsite Project-related noise sources include air conditioning units, trash enclosure activity, pool/spa Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-68
activity and parking lot vehicle movements. Using reference noise levels to represent the proposed Project operations, the Noise Study calculated the operational source noise levels that are expected to be generated at the Project site and the Project- related noise level increases that would be experienced at each of the sensitive receiver locations. Table 4.13 -6 shows the Project operational noise levels during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the nighttime hours 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. The daytime hourly noise levels at the offsite receiver locations are expected to range from 40.6 to 44.3 dBA Leq while the nighttime hourly noise levels at the offsite receivers are expected to range from 35.5 to 38.5 dBA Leq.
Table 4.13-6 Project Operational Noise Levels
Noise Source
Operational Noise Levels by Receiver Location (dBA Leq) R1 R2 R3 R4 R5
Daytime Operational Noise Levels
Air Conditioning Units 33.7 36.8 37.1 34.3 36.0
Trash Enclosure Activities 34.0 36.4 36.5 33.6 37.1
Pool/Spa Activities 38.8 41.8 42.1 37.8 40.4
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 28.2 30.5 30.8 27.6 30.7
Total (all sources) 41.2 44.0 44.3 40.6 43.3
Nighttime Operational Noise Levels
Air Conditioning Units 33.7 36.8 37.1 34.3 36.0
Trash Enclosure Activities 26.2 28.6 28.7 25.8 29.3
Pool/Spa Activities 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Parking Lot Vehicle Movements 28.2 30.6 30.5 27.6 30.7
Total (all sources) 35.3 38.2 38.5 35.6 37.8
Source: Tables 9-2 and 9-3, Urban Crossroads 2021
Table 4.13-7 Operational Noise Level Compliance
Receiver
Location1
Project Operational Noise
Levels
(dBA Leq)2
Noise Level Standards
(dBA Leq)3
Noise Level Standards
Exceeded?4
Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime Daytime Nighttime
R1 41.2 35.3 65 45 No No
R2 44.0 38.2 65 45 No No
R3 44.3 38.5 65 45 No No
R4 40.6 35.6 65 45 No No
R5 43.3 37.8 65 45 No No
Source: Table 9-4, Urban Crossroads 2021
1 See Exhibit 4.13-2 for the receiver locations.
2 Proposed Project operational noise levels as shown on Tables 9-2 and 9-3. 3 Exterior noise level standards for source (commercial) land use, as shown on Table 4-1. 4 Do the estimated Project operational noise source activities exceed the noise level standards? "Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.
To determine if the Project’s operational noise levels are in compliance with City Standards, the Project’s operational noise levels are compared with the daytime and nighttime standards as shown in Table 4.13 -7, Operational Noise Level Compliance . Project-related operational noise levels are below the City’s operational noise criteria. Therefore, the Project operational noise level increases are considered to be less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-69
Conclusion
The Project’s noise impacts will not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Threshold 4.13 (b).
Would the Project result in:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
Impact Analysis
This analysis focuses on the potential groundborne vibration associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Groundborne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of groundborne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic -induced groundborne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right- of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.13-8.
Table 4.13-8 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.
The closest residence to the Project property line ranges from 353 to 481 feet from the property line. The estimated construction vibration level from a large bulldozer (worst case scenario) measured at the closest receiver would create a vibration level of 0.002 in/sec , which does not exceed the 0.2 in/sec threshold. Table 4- 13-9 indicates the construction vibration levels estimated at the closest receives to the Project site.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-70
Table 4.13-9 Construction Vibration Levels
Receiver1
Distance
to Const.
Activity
(Feet)2
Typical Construction Vibration Levels PPV (in/sec)3
Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)4
Thresholds
Exceeded?5
Small
Bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Large
Bulldozer
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 410 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.2 No
R2 387 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.2 No
R3 380 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.2 No
R4 481 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.2 No
R5 353 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.2 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 10-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-4). 4 Based on guidance from the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department. 5 Does the peak vibration exceed the acceptable vibration thresholds? "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
Based on City of Jurupa Valley maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.2 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will satisfy the vibration thresholds at all receiver locations. In addition, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries; therefore, vibration impacts will be less than significant.
Threshold 4.13 (c).
Would the Project result in:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Impact Analysis
The Project consists of multi -family apartment residences and will not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. The nearest airport is Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 5.40 miles southeast of the Project site. According to Map R I-3, Noise Compatibility Contours Riverside Municipal Airport, Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located outside the 55 CNEL to 60 CNEL Noise Impact Zone and thereby not expose residents of the Project to excessive noise levels. 42 42 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Noise Compatibility Contours, December 2004. Available at:
http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/20-%20Vol.%201%20Riverside%20Municipal.pdf Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-71
4.14 Population and Housing
Threshold 4.14 (a).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located in a developed area of the City and is served by existing water and sewer facilities, gas and electric utilities, and improved roadways. No additional infrastructure will be needed to serve the Project other than connection to infrastructure adjacent to the site.
The Project site is currently designated in the City General Plan, the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan, and City zoning as Industrial Park (IP). This designation allows a variety of industrial and related uses that would generate employment but would not directly generate any housing or population g rowth. A General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone are being proposed to change the land use/zoning designations of this property to Highest Density Residential (HHDR) which would allow for development of multi-family uses at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Based on the California Department of Finance, E- 5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2020 -2022, the City’s population as of January 1, 2022 is 105,383 with a ratio of persons per household of 3.71.
43 Based on the number of units times 3.75 persons per
dwelling unit, the proposed Project would increase the City’s population by approximately 780 persons. (3.751 persons/du with 208 units). An increase of 780 in relation to the current population of 105,384 represents an increase of 0.7 % and would not induce substantial population growth.
B
ased on the discussion above, the proposed Project will not result in an inconsistency with the AQMP. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, and therefore the Project would have less than a significant impact on the implementation of the air quality plan.
43 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-for-cities- counties-and-the-state-2020-2022/
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-72
Threshold 4.14 (b).
Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere?
Impact Analysis
The Project site consists of undeveloped vacant land. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
4.15 Public Services
Threshold 4.15 (a).
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection?
2) Police protection?
3) Schools?
4) Parks?
5) Other public facilities?
Impact Analysis
Fire Protection
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to fire protection. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible constructio n, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Vernola Marketplace Project Page M-73
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Project area. The Project would be primarily served by the Jurupa Valley Fire Station No. 18 located approximately 1.8 miles east of the Project site at 7545 Mission Boulevard and the Riverside County Eastvale Fire Station No. 27 located approximately 1.5 roadway miles east of the Project site at 7067 Hammer Avenue, Eastvale, California.
Development of the Project would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing fire protection resources if its resources are not augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with s tate and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes.
In addition, as required by the City’s Inter-Agency Project Review Request process, the Project plans were routed to the Fire Department for review and comment on the impacts to providing fire protection services. The Fire Department did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times , or other performance objectives.
Furthermore, the Municipal Code requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing for fire pr otection services.
44 Payment of the Development Impact Fee would
ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project.