Page - 1 -
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, February 16, 2023
Closed Session: 5:30 p.m.
Regular Meeting: 7:00 p.m.
City Council Chamber
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
1. 5:30 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR CLOSED SESSION ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member
2. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION
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 email or via telephone prior to the Mayor calling the item. Email comment shall be sent to:
[email protected]. Telephone comments may be made by calling (951) 332- 6464, Ext. 140. Email and telephone comments are subject to the same rules as in-person comments.
D. Members of the public who wish to comment on the CONSENT CALENDAR may do so during the Public Comment portion of the Agenda prior to the adoption of the Consent Calendar.
E. As a courtesy to others and to assure that each person wishing to be heard has an opportunity to speak, please limit your comments to 3 minutes.
Page - 2 -
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEM
B. CITY MANAGER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Government 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. Pursuant to Government Code Section 94957.6 , the Council will also meet with its designated representatives, Mayor Chris Barajas and City Attorney Peter Thorson, to provide direction to the designated representatives concerning the negotiation of salary, compensation and/or benefits for the unrepresented employee position of City Manager. Any changes to the City Manager’s Employment Agreement can only be taken at a regularly scheduled open and public meeting of the City Council.
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS I N CLOSED
SESSION
4. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member
5. INVOCATION
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
8. PRESENTATIONS
A. STATE OF THE GLEN AVON AND LOUIS ROBIDOUX LIBRARIES –
PRESENTED BY MICHAEL PEREZ AND KURT GALLY
B. UPDATE ON SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL GRANT AWARDS –
PRESENTED BY OCTAVIO DURAN, ASSISTANT CITY ENGINEER
9. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
Page - 3 -
10. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
11. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. UPDATE ON THE WESTER N RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 6, 2023
2. UPDATE ON THE WESTER N RIVERSIDE COUNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS – ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2023
B. MAYOR PRO TEM GUILLERMO SILVA
1. UPDATE ON THE NORTHW EST MOSQUITO AND VEC TOR
CONTROL DISTRICT MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2023
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION ANNUAL COMMISSION WO RKSHOP OF
FEBRUARY 2-3, 2023
2. UPDATE ON THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 8, 2023
3. UPDATE ON THE NORTHWE ST TRANSPORTATION NO W
COALITION MEETING OF FEBRUARY 9, 2023
Persons wishing to address the City Council on subjects other than those listed on the Agenda are requested to do so at this time. A member of the public who wishes to speak under Public Appearance/Comments OR the Consent Calendar must fill out a “Speaker Card” and submit it to the City Clerk BEFORE the Mayor calls for Public Comments on an agenda item. When addressing the City Council, please come to the podium and state your name and address for the record. While listing your name and address is not required, it helps us to provide follow -up information to you if needed. In order to conduct a timely meeting, we ask that you keep your comments to 3 minutes. Government Code Section 54954.2 prohibits the City Council from taking action on a specific item until it appears on an agenda.
Page - 4 -
4. UPDATE ON THE METROLINK / SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY – AUDIT AND FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 10, 2023
5. UPDATE ON THE MOBI LE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION
REDUCTION REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING OF FE BRUARY
16, 2023
12. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. FEBRUARY 2, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
14. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TITLE AND TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of e ach ordinance is included on the published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City’s website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance.
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. 202 3-16, 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
Page - 5 -
C. ORDINANCE NO. 2023-04
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023 -04, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY REPEALING
CHAPTER 15.80 OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE,
ELECTRICAL UTILITIES, COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
D. MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Mid- Year Budget Amendments to the City’s Budget as presented in the exhibit attached to the staff report.
E. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY AUTHORIZING PERSONS HOLDING CERTAIN
DESIGNATED POSITIONS TO EXECUTE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT DOCUMENTS
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-17, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF J URUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PERSONS HOLDING
CERTAIN DESIGNATED POSITIONS TO EXECUTE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT DOCUMENTS FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OBTAINING CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AND/OR STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022/23, 2023/24 AND 2024/25
F. APPROVAL OF A DEPOSI T AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY AND HIGHPOINTE EMERALD R IDGE, LLC OF
CALIFORNIA FOR TRACT 36947 (NORTH OF CAN AL STREET AND
THE UNION P ACIFIC RAILROAD LINE , EAST OF LA CANADA DR, WEST OF 28 TH STREET, AND SOUTH O F THE RIO VISTA SPEC IFIC PLAN
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-18, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, APPROVING A DEPOSIT AGREEMENT WITH THE
DEVELOPER OF TRACT 36947 WITH RESPECT TO THE RAILROAD
CROSSING IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
TRACT 36947 AND FINDING THAT THIS APPROVAL IS EXEMPT
FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
Page - 6 -
SECTIONS 15061(B )(3) AND 15304 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
15. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. CITYWIDE CORRIDORS PLAN
1. Requested Action: That the City Council receive and file the Citywide Corridors Plan; and
2. That the City Council direct staff to p repare a funding plan and appropriation recommendation for future City Council consideration.
B. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) COMPLIANCE
UPDATE
Requested Action: That the City Council receive and file a report on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) compliance update.
C. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-19, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING THE RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
18. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
19. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
20. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
21. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of March 2, 2023 at 7:00 p.m. at the City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Government Code Section 54954.2, if you need special assistance to participate in a meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council or other services, please contact Jurupa Valley City Hall at (951) 332 -6464. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting or Page - 7 -
time when services are needed will assist st aff 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 J urupa 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. 13.A
-1-
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
February 2, 2023
The meeting was held at the Jurupa Valley City Council Chamber, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA
1. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR MEETING ● Chris Barajas, Mayor
● Guillermo Silva, Mayor Pro Tem
● Leslie Altamirano, Council Member
● Brian Berkson, Council Member
● Armando Carmona, Council Member
Mayor Chris Barajas called the regular meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. Council Member Brian Berkson participated via teleconference.
2. INVOCATION was given by Imam Shaw, Islamic Center of Jurupa Valley.
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva.
4. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to approve the Agenda.
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
5. PRESENTATIONS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SERVICES -
INTRODUCTION OF “PET OF THE MONTH”
The City’s Pet of the Month for February, a two-year old Beagle mix named “Potato” was introduced to the Council. Anyone interested in giving this available pet a home is invited to contact the City’s Animal Control Services Department at https://www.rcdas.org.
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
6. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
Max Ahmadi, representing Four Star Development voiced concern that the City has spent a substantial amount of legal fees fighting his development at 1 001 Limonite Avenue, which has been pending since 2018. He encouraged the Council to reconsider this mobile home project in a fair way as they are only trying to bring housing to the City. He added that he will be asking for a copy of the City Attorney’s fees related to this project.
Mike Koopman stated that he is the applicant for the mobile home project that Mr. Ahmadi referenced. He discussed his efforts to develop this project since 2018. He encouraged the Council to read the judge’s ruling as they won the Writ of Mandate in October, 2022. He stated that he is fighting for affordable housing and this project will give people more housing choices.
Tom Elder discussed the City’s Attorney fees. He stated that Jurupa Valley already has more low-income housing than neighboring cities, which he believes is a waste. He asked if the grade separation project could be escalated as the construction project seems to have stalled. He asked if the bridge on Van Buren could be made wider to accommodate more traffic.
Anthony Kelly, Jr. stated that February is Black History Month and he is proud to have shaped the history of the city by being the City’s first black mayor. He asked that the speed limit on Wallace Street be reduced to 25 mph as the current 40 mph limit contributes to speeding.
7. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Chris Barajas provided an update on the Van Buren Bridge Project that will allocate approximately $6 million to rehabilitate and widen the bridge to three lanes. He offered to discuss the speed limit on Wallace Street with Mr. Kelly. He noted that on Agate Street and Red Mesa Drive, City staff will be putting in a temporary roundabout to determine if it slows the traffic down. This will be replicated if it proves successful in mitigat ing speeding motorists.
8. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Interagency Coordinating Council meeting held January 27, 2023.
-3-
B. MAYOR PRO TEM GUILLERMO SILVA
1. Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva announced that he was unable to attend the Western Riverside County - Regional Conservation Authority meeting of January 9, 2023.
2. Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva gave an update on the Northwest Mosquito and Vector Control District meeting of January 19, 2023.
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside County Transportation Commission – Western Riverside County Programs and Projects Committee meeting of January 23, 2023.
2. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Riverside Transit Agency Board of Directors meeting of January 26, 2023.
3. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Metrolink / Southern California Regional Rail Authority meeting of January 27, 2023.
9. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Rod Butler announced that the City was recently awarded the following three grants that total more than $ 8 million: 1) the Mira Loma Safe Routes to School Sidew alk Gap Closure Project; 2) the Safe Routes to School Sidewalk Gap Closure at Granite Hill; and 3) the Jurupa Valley Agate Street Complete Streets Project. He congratulated Public Works Director Paul Toor and his staff on this great news. He announced that the Flock Camera System is being installed at eight major intersections in Jurupa Valley, which will provide an important new tool in reducing crime . He announced that Mira Loma neighborhood residents are invited to a meeting on Thursday, February 9 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Mira Loma Middle School to discuss the upcoming pavement rehabilitation project.
10. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT UPDATE
Chief Jason Sexton highlighted the City’s special enforcement teams who are comprised of specially trained and highly dedicated sworn personnel. He introduced Sergeant Bodner, whom he recently promoted based on his work ethic, skills and knowledge . Sergeant Bodner introduced the members of the Problem Oriented Policing Team who are responsible for quality of life issues and the Special Enforcement Team, who are responsible for crime enforcement, narcotics, and violent crimes. Sergeant Bodner highlighted the special enforcement team’s recent investigations and activities.
-4-
11. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. JANUARY 13, 2023 SPECIAL MEETING
B. JANUARY 19, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Leslie Altamirano , to approve the Minutes of the January 13, 2023 Special meeting and the January 19, 2023 Regular meeting.
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
12. CONSENT CALENDAR
A. COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A MOTION TO WAIVE THE READING OF
THE TITLE AND TEXT OF ALL ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS
INCLUDED IN THE AGENDA
Requested Action: That the City Council waive the reading of the title and text of all ordinances and resolutions included in the agenda. In accordance with Government Code Section 34934, the title of each ordinance is included on the published agenda and a copy of the full ordinance has been available to the public online on the City’s website and will be available in print at the meeting prior to the introduction or passage of the ordinance.
B. CONSIDERATION OF CHECK REGISTER IN THE AMOUNT OF
$2,998,215.03
Requested Action: That the City Council ratify the check registers dated January 4, 12, and 19, 2023 as well as the payroll registers dated January 6 and 20, 2023
C. ORDINANCE NO. 2023-01
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-01, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACI TY AS THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLE Y COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. PS 2022 -005 (PUB LIC SAFETY,
-5-
GOLDENWEST) AUTHORIZ ING TH E LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX
THEREIN
D. ORDINANCE NO. 2023-02
Requested Action: That the City Co uncil conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-02, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 22009
FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) NO. 2 TO PUD -03, FOR THE PROPERTY L OCATED NORTH OF SR -60, WEST OF CANAL
STREET, SOUTH OF 28TH STREET, AND EAST OF THE RIO VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN (APNS: 179-060-002, 178-070-004, -006, -007, 178-120-001, AND -002)
E. ORDINANCE NO 2023-03
Requested Action: That the City Council conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2023-03, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2021 -001 (GOLDENWEST) AUTHORIZING
THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX THEREIN
F. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY TREE POLICY – REMOVED FROM THE CON SENT CALENDAR FOR
FURTHER DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-13, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A CITY TREE POLICY AND
FINDING THE POLICY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15301, EXISTING FACILITIES
G. TERMINATION OF WESTERN COMMUNITY ENERGY JOINT
POWERS AUTHORITY AGREEMENT
1. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-14, entitled:
-6-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
“TERMINATION AGREEMENT REGARDI NG WESTERN
COMMUNITY ENERGY”
2. That the City Council conduct a first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2023-04, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 15.80 OF THE JURUPA
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, ELECTRICAL UTILITIES,
COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
H. FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND KIMLEY-
HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
INSTALLATION, PEDLEY AND JURUPA PROJECT, CIP PROJECT NO. 16-C.2
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the “Fourth Amendment to Professional Consultant Services” between the City of Jurupa Valley and Kimley - Horn and Associates, Inc. and authorize the City Manager to execute the Amendment in substantially the form attached to the staff report and in such final form as approved by the City Attorney.
I. APPROVAL OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
SECURITY SERVICES WITH ALL AMERICAN PRIVATE SECURITY,
LLC
Requested Action: That the City Council ap prove the Third Amendment to the Agreement for Security Services between the City of Jurupa Valley and All American Private Security, LLC and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff rep ort as approved by the City Attorney.
J. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND
STATEWIDE EMERGENCY SERVICES INC., FOR ON -CALL
HAZARDOUS WASTE CLEAN-UP SERVICES
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Statewide Emergency Services, Inc. (“Statewide”) for On - Call Hazardous Waste Clean-Up Services for an amount not to exceed $80,000 per each fiscal year thr ough the initial term of the agreement, 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.
-7-
K. AGREEMENT BETWEEN TH E CITY OF JURUPA VAL LEY AND
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY FOR INSTALLATION OF
UNDERGROUND GAS LINE TO SERVE THE STANDBY GENERATOR AT
THE JURUPA ROAD GRADE SEPARATION PROJECT
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Southern California Gas Company in the amount not to exceed $63,168.27 for the installation of the new underground gas line to serve the standby generator for the Jurupa Road Grade Separation Project, and authorize the City Manager to execute the A greement in substantially the form attached to the staff report and in such final form as approved by the City Attorney.
A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Sil va, to approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of 12.F, which was removed for further discussion.
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
13. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
12.F CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A CITY TREE POLICY
Council Member Armando Carmona requested that Item 12.F be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
Paul Toor, Director of Public Works provided add itional information and responded to Council’s questions.
Further discussion followed.
A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Council Member Armando Carmona , to adopt Resolution No. 2023 -13, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A CITY TREE POLICY AND
FINDING THE POLICY EXEMPT FROM CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15301, EXISTING FACILITIES
-8-
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
14. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 22298: A THREE-YEAR EXTENSION FOR RUBIDOUX GATEWAY SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 16043 (SDP16043EOT1) TO EXTEND THE EXPIRATION DATE TO OCTOBER 29, 2025, AND DETERMINE THAT
NO FURTHER CEQA REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15162; LOCATION: NORTHEAST CORNER OF MISSION BOULEV ARD AND CRESTMORE ROAD (APNS: 179-330-002, 003, 004, 005 & 006); (APPLICAN T: NORTHTOWN HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)
Staff Report presented by Roberto Gonzalez, Senior Planner. Mr. Gonzalez highlighted the project site, zoning classification, and the required entitlements. He reported that the property was a former mobile home park, which has been vacant since 2010. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on their staffing levels, the applicant is requesting a 3-year time extension for the Site Development Permit.
Further discussion followed regarding the affordability of the project and the categories for affordable units.
Darrell Brown, representing Northtown Housing Development Corporation, (applicant) explained the cost of the market rate rent which will create the affordability of the project. He highlighted the commercial aspect of the project and community outreach programs that will be available to residents.
Council Member Brian Berkson suggested that a two-year extension would ensure the project’s progress.
Mayor Chris Barajas opened the public hearing and called for any public comments.
Anthony Kelly, Jr., stated that this project came forward when he was mayor in 2020. He encouraged the Council to visit the applicant’s other affordable housing projects in Rancho Cucamonga.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Following discussion, Council Member Armando Carmona suggested continuing the public hearing to a later date to get a better understanding of how this project will impact the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.
-9-
A motion was made by Council Member Leslie Altamirano , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to adopt Resolution No. 2023-15, as amended to allow for a two -year time extension for the Site Development Permit, with the option of an additional one-year extension, if necessary:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TWO-YEAR EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR SITE DEVELO PMENT PERMIT NO. 160 43 FOR A MIXED -
USE DEVELOPMENT PROJ ECT LOCATED ON THE N ORTHEAST
CORNER OF MISSION BOULEVARD AND CRESTMORE ROAD (APNS:
179-330-002, -003, -004, -005, AND -006) EXTENDING THE EXPIRATION DATE TO OCTOBER 29, 202 4, AN D DETERMINING NO FUR THER
CEQA REVIEW IS REQUI RED PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15162
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstained: A. Carmona
15. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. APPOINTMENT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Staff Report presented by City Clerk Victoria Wasko. Ms. Wasko reported that she received two letters of interest and those individuals were invited to attend tonight’s Council meeting.
Mayor Chris Barajas invited James Thacker to address the City Council. (Uriel De La Torre) was unable to attend.
Mayor Chris Barajas noted that Mr. Hugo Bustamante indicated his desire to be re- appointed to the Public Works Advisory Committee.
A motion was made by Council Member Armando Carmona , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva , to appoint Uriel De La Torre to the Public Works Advisory Committee, which shall expire in December 2026.
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
-10-
B. APPOINTMENT OF AN AD HOC COMMITTEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REVIEWING THE PROPOS ED 2023 SOLID WASTE RATES AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF CITYWIDE ORGANIC WASTE COLLECTION
SERVICES FOR ALL COM MERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY , AND
RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS WITHIN CITY LIMITS
Staff Report presented by Paul Toor, Director of Public Works. Mr. Toor provided an overview of the purpose and responsibilities of the new ad hoc committee.
Further discussion followed.
A motion was made by Mayor Chris Barajas , seconded by Council Member Leslie Altamirano , to approve the formation of an Ad Hoc Committee appointing Council Member Brian Berkson and Council Member Armando Carmona to assist staff regarding the City’s 2023 solid waste rates and implementation of Citywide organic waste collection services.
Roll Call:
Ayes: L. Altamirano, C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva Noes: None
Absent: None
16. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Armando Carmona stated that due to various animal rights groups, the Mexican rodeos, called charreadas are being threatened by new legislation and other challenges. He asked that the Council show their commitment by bringing back a resolution of support for the traditional American Rodeo as a practice in Jurupa Valley.
17. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Peter Thorson had no report.
18. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva invited members of the Mira Loma community to attend the Neighborhood Meeting on Thursday, February 9 from 6:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. at Mira Loma Middle School to discuss the pavement rehabilitation project and infrastructure with City staff.
Council Member Armando Carmona encouraged residents to attend the Neighborhood Meeting in order to learn more about future infrastructure projects. He noted that he has been collaborating with representatives from the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District to address some of the flooding issues in Mira Loma. An additional community meeting will be held with the County Flood Control District on
-11-
March 7, 2023 at 6:00 p.m. Additional information will be shared once a location has been confirmed.
City Manager Rod Butler reported that the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District will be giving a presentation at the March 16, 2023 Council meeting.
Mayor Chris Barajas stated that the two gentlemen wh o made public comments about a housing project was for a proposed mobile home park or apartment project on Limonite Avenue in front of the former Wineville chicken ranch.
19. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas adjourned the meeting at 8:59 p.m.
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held February 16, 2023 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
S
TAFF REPORT
DAT
E: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.B
REAF
FIRM 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
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023- 16, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY
COUNCIL TO BE HELD WITH A TELECONFERENCE OPTION FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC DUE TO THE
GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF EMERGENCY AND THE CITY
COUNCIL’S DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e), AND MAKING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE SAME
BACKGROUND
At the beginning of the COVID -19 Pandemic, the Governor issued an Executive Order allowing the City Council and other City legislative bodies to conduct their meetings, in whole or in part, by telephone or other electronic means. This Executive Order expired but the Legislature adopted Chapter 165 of 2021 (AB 361) that allows meetings of a legislative body such as the City Council or commissions to be conducted by telephone or other electronic means if certain findings are made concerning an emergency and certain procedures providing for public comment are followed.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 3
Attachment:
1. Proposed Resolution No. 2023-16
-1-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-16
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY , CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO BE
HELD WITH A T ELECONFERENCE OPTION FOR
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PUBLIC
DUE TO THE GOVERNOR’S DECLARATION OF
EMERGENCY AND THE CITY COUNCIL’S
DECLARATION OF LOCAL EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953(e ), AND MAKING
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING THE
SAME
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(A) City Council is committed to public access and participation in its meetings and the meetings of all City legislative bodies while balancing the need to conduct public meetings in a manner that r educes the likelihood of exposure to COVID -19 and to support physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
(B) All meetings of the City Council and other City legislative bodies are open and public, as required by the Ralph M. Brown Act (Cal. Gov. Code, § 54950 et seq.), so that any member of the public may attend, participate, and watch the City Council and other City legislative bodies conduct their business.
(C) Pursuant to Chapter 165 of the Statutes of 2021 ( Assembly Bill 361 ) legislative bodies of local agencies may hold public meetings via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e), without complying with the requirements of Government Code Section 54953(b)(3), if the legislative body complies with certain enumerated requirements in any of the following circumstances:
1) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing.
2) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. 3) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. -2-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
(d) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention c ontinue to advise that COVID-19 spreads more easily indoors than outdoors and that people are more likely to be exposed to COVID-19 when they are closer than six feet apart from others for longer periods of time;
(e) Due to the ongoing COVID -19 pandemic and th e need to promote social distancing to reduce the likelihood of exposure to COVID -19, the City Council intend s to hold public meetings with an option for members of those bodies and the public to attend by teleconference pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e) based on the following findings:
1) The declared emergency is still in effect. On March 4, 2020, the Governor declared a State of Emergency in California related to the COVID -19 pandemic (the “Emergency”) and this State of Emergency has not been re pealed. On March 20, 2020, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2020-10 declaring a Local Emergency related to the COVID -19 Pandemic, which Local Emergency has been reaffirmed since that time, including the adoption of Resolution No. 2022-07 on January 20, 2022.
2) California State Department of Public Health and Riverside County have each recommended measures to promote social distancing. Thus, the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health still requires that employers provide for physical and social distancing in the workplace. Additionally, the Riverside County Department of Public Health still encourages people at risk for severe illness or death from COVID -19 to take protective measures such as social distancing and, for those not yet fully vaccinated, to physically distance from others whose vaccination status is unknown. The County Health Department also continues to recommend that employers take steps to support physical distancing. 3) The City Council reaffirms the findings made in Res olution No. 2022-08 adopted on January 20, 2022. Staff will also present these findings on a monthly basis in the manner provided by Government Code Section 54953(e) thereafter should the above - mentioned conditions continue.
Section 2. The City Council will continue to hold in person public meetings during the Emergency with required social distancing to the extent practicable. The City Council shall have the option to conduct their meetings in whole or in part via teleconferencing pursuant to Government Code Section 54953(e).
Section 3. Staff is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution including, conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code Section 54953(e) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
Section 4. The City Council will reconsider the above findings within thirty days of adoption of this Resolution.
-3-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
Section 5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 16th day of February, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-4-
12774-0001\2619973v1.doc
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko , City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby cert ify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-16 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 16th day of February, 2023, by the following votes, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 16th day of February, 2023.
___________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.C
-1-
12774-0168\2762912v1.doc
ORDINANCE NO. 2023-04
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA REPEALING CHAPTER 15.80 OF THE
JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE, ELECTRICAL
UTILITIES, COMMUNITY CHOICE AGGREGATION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The Western Community Energy Authority was formed by the Member Agencies pursuant to the authority granted under that certain Joint Powers Agreement dated August 23, 2018, as amended b y that certain First Amendment dated September 19, 2018 (“JPA Agreement”).
(b) The Authority thereafter launched the community choice aggregation program known as “WCE”, which provided power to customers within the boundaries of the Member Agencies (excluding the City of Canyon Lake, which did not participate in the program). (c) On May 24, 2021, the Authority filed for Chapter 9 Bankruptcy (“Bankruptcy Proceeding”). On June 14, 2021, all customers of the Authority were transitioned to Southern California Edison (“SCE”) for service.
(d) On August 16, 2022, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order (“Bankruptcy Order”) confirming the Authority’s plan for the adjustment of debts and the Authority concluded settlements consistent with the plan with all outstanding creditors. The Bankruptcy Order includes a discharge of all debts owed by the Authority, an exculpation clause enjoining actions against individuals and e ntities that assisted the Authority with the Bankruptcy Proceeding, and an injunction preventing the instit ution of any action to collect any debt of the Authority from Member Agencies and other “partners” of the Authority. The Bankruptcy Proceeding has now been concluded and the plan is final.
(e) On October 12, 2022, the Board of Directors of the Authority made a recommendation to the Member Agencies that the Authority be dissolved following a six-month period to orderly wind down the Authority’s affairs.
(f) On October 21, 2022, Authority gave notice of termination of the Management Services Agreement with the Weste rn Riverside Council of Governments (“WRCOG”) effective April 21, 2022.
(g) There being no reason to continue the existence and operation of the Authority, the Member Agencies desire to terminate the JPA Agreement and dissolve the Authority upon the terms and conditions set forth herein.
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
12774-0168\2762912v1.doc
Section 2. Chapter 15.80, Electrical Utilities, Community Choice Aggregation, of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
Section 3. 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 4. 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 16th day of February, 2023.
_____________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-3-
12774-0168\2762912v1.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. 2023 -04 was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of February, 2023 and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of February, 2023, 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 16th day of February, 2023.
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: CONNIE CARDENAS, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.D
MID-YEAR
BUDGET AMENDMENTS FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023
RECO
MMENDATION
That
the City Council approve the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Mid-Year Budget Amendments to the City’s Budget as presented in the attached exhibit.
ANAL
YSIS
The FY
2022-23 Budget was adopted on June 16 , 2022. Revenue projections updated since this budget was approved have given the City the ability to amend the City Budget.
Expenditures are initially budgeted based upon the anticipated level of activity. However, it is often the case that as the fiscal year progresses some activities need to be increased or decreased to reflect changing circumstances. Consequently, most cities evaluate financial activities at or shortly after the midpoint of the budget year to determine if changes in resource allocation are necessary to meet these changing circumstances.
I
n order to properly provide for continuing FY 2022-23 activity, staff believes some budgets should be adjusted at this time. The attached exhibit identifies the proposed amendments. In some cases, appropriations for certain expenditures are no longer necessary at previously approved levels. In other instances, additional appropriations are requested to offset anticipated expenditures for the year.
O
THER INFORMATION
N
one.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Expenditure GL
Account Description Department Increase Decrease Description 100.1110.54147 Community Promotion City Council 7,500 2 additional Animal clinics, JV Chamber Sponsorship 07/2022 100.1130.51110 Salary City Manager (25,000) Decrease 100.1130.51120 Overtime City Manager (10,000) Decrease 100.1140.54220 Public Notices City Clerk 14,730 Increase in newspaper public notices for trash lines 100.1150.51110 Salary Admin. Services (12,000) Decrease 100.1150.51120 Overtime Admin. Services 12,000 Increase 100.1150.54110 Professional Services Admin. Services (300,000) Decrease HdL quarterly agreement charges 100.1150.54111 Audit Services Admin. Services 10,000 Increase in costs 100.1190.56580 Membership Non-Dept. 6,567 County LAFCO Annual membership 100.1190.62300 Furniture & Equipment Non-Dept. 71,156 3 NEW Sharp printers, Purchase 1 Ricoh currently under lease 100.1220.51120 Overtime Comm. Dev. (30,000) Decrease 100.1220.54140 Consulting Services Comm. Dev. (112,000) Decrease Comm. Dev. GIS in IT budget 100.1230.62400 Vehicles Building 36,725 Purchase of Gas RAV-4, not AQMD eligible 100.1240.51110 Salary Code 47,000 Increase
100.1240.51120 Overtime Code 10,000 Increase
100.1240.53012 Books & Subscriptions Code (7,980) Decrease 100.1240.56145 Cell Phones Code (7,980) Decrease
100.1240.56540 Meetings/Conferences Code (500) Decrease 100.1310.51110 Salary PW-Operations (200,000) Decrease, savings in unfilled positions 100.1310.54110 Professional Services PW-Operations 45,700 Increased for cleaning services Sr. Center approved by City Council 100.1310.54140 Consulting Services PW-Operations 477,664 Catch Basin Cleaning Services, Hazardous cleanup, HR Green 100.1310.52270 Other Employee Costs PW-Operations 5,174 Increase 100.1310.54142 Contract NPDES PW-Operations 85,000 Increase 100.1310.54210 Repairs & Maintenance PW-Operations (18,000) Decrease 100.1310.56240 Water & Sewer PW-Operations 7,000 City Hall Water & Sewer 100.1310.56210 Electricity/Natural Gas PW-Operations 100,000 City Hall Electricity 100.1310.56590 NPDES-Permit PW-Operations 75,000 Increase 100.1310.56801 JVOC Bldg-Utilites PW-Operations (130,000) Decrease from JVOC 100.1310.62300 Furniture & Equipment PW-Operations 18,000 Skid Steer Trailer & Sweeper Attachment 100.1320.54140 Consulting Services PW-Eng. (987,022) Decrease in HR Green consulting services 720.7200.62100 Software Inf. Services 80,000 Increase agreement/NeoGov to be taken to City Council for approval 100.1410.54408 Public Safety Sheriff 31,266 Extra Deputy services for 4th of July, City Council, & some Comm. Dev. 100.1410.56595 Public Safety Fire 200,000 Annual Station #18 Winter Staff Coverage; Staffed by State CAL FIRE Total: 1,340,482 (1,840,482)
500,000
REVENUES
100-42510 Engineering Fees PW-Engineering (500,000) Revenue decrease Expenditures and Revenues offset 500,000 (500,000) Overall no financial impact to the General Fund 200.2000.51120 Overtime 10,000 Gas Tax
200.2000.54110 Professional Services $35,280 Gas Tax
200.2000.54140 Consulting Engineering $28,188 Gas Tax
200.2000.54148 Tree Trimming $25,000 Gas Tax
200.2000.54150 Contract St. Materials $20,000 Gas Tax
200.2000.54151 Street Striping ($50,000) Gas Tax
200.2000.54211 Sidewalk Maintenance $15,000 Gas Tax
200.2000.56230 Street Lighting $25,532 Gas Tax
200.2000.71300 Capital Projects ($109,000) Gas Tax
-$
Expenditure Decrease
Mid Year Other Funds Budget Adjustment
No Financial Impact
Mid Year Other Funds Budget Adjustment
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
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. 14.E
A RESO
LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CIT Y OF JURUPA
VALLEY AUTHORIZING PERSONS HOLDING CERTAIN DESIGNATED
POSITIONS TO EXECUTE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANT DOCUMENTS
RECO
MMENDATION
1. That
the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-17, entitled:
A RESO
LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, AUTHORIZING PERSONS HOLDING CERTAIN DESIGNATED
POSITIONS TO EXECUTE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOMELAND
SECURITY GRANT DOCUMENTS FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING CERTAIN
FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE AND/OR STATE FINANCI AL
ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022/23, 2023/24, AND 2024/25 BAC
KGROUND
The C
ity of Jurupa Valley wishes to retain the ability to apply for Emergency Management and Department of Homeland Security Grants (“Eligible Grants”) from the Federal Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), which are administered by the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (“Cal OES”), including but not limited to the Emergency Management Performance Grant (“EMPG”), Urban Area Security Initiative (“UASI”) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (“SHSGP”) grants.
ANAL
YSIS
A
s federal disasters are declared, or state disasters are proclaimed, authorized staff should submit documentation to Cal OES and FEMA regarding expenses and losses incurred by the City. Proposed Resolution No. 2023-17 ensures the City is eligible to apply
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
for Eligible Grants and disaster assistance. In addition to adopting Resolution No. 2023- 17, Cal OES also requires that the City submit written authorization from the City Council providing specific standard assurances, referred to as “Standard Grant Assurances.” The assurances being that the City Council agrees to provide all matching funds required for grant applications and that any cash match will be appropriated as required. Liability arising out of the performance of the grant agreement shall be the responsibility of the City, grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council, and finally, that the City official executing the grant agreement is authorized to do so.
Per the proposed resolution, the following officials are authorized to act on behalf of the City: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Director of Administrative Services.
This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters and grants through Fiscal Year 2024/25.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact with the adoption of Resolution No. 2023-17.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Elect not to move forward with Resolution No. 2023-17
2. Provide alternate direction to Staff
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING PERSONS HOLDING
CERTAIN DESIGNATED POSITIONS TO EXECUTE EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT DOCUMENTS FOR
AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OBTAINING CERTAIN FEDERAL FINANCIAL
ASSISTANCE AND/OR STATE FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022/23, 2023/24 AND 2024/25
WHEREAS, the City of Jurupa Valley (the "City") regularly applies for Emergency Management and Department of Homeland Security Grants (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Eligible Grants”) from the Federal Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”), which are administered by the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (“Cal OES”), including but not limited to the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), Urban Area Security Initiative (“UASI”) and State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) grants; and
WHEREAS, as federal disasters are declared, or state disasters are proclaimed, authorized staff submits documentation to Cal OES and FEMA regarding expenses and losses incurred by the City during a disaster. A current agent resolution maintains the City’s eligibility to apply for Eligible Grants and disaster assistance.
WHEREAS, as part of such applications for Eligible Grants, Cal OES requires that the City submit written authorization from the City Council providing specific standard assurances that the City Council, on behalf of the City, agrees (a) to provide all matching funds required for the project specified in the grant application and that any cash match will be appropriated as required, (b) that any liability arising out of the performance of the grant agreement shall be the responsibility of the City, (c) that the grant funds shall not be used to supplant expenditures controlled by the City Council, and (d) that the City official executing the grant agreement is authorized to do so (collectively, the “Standard Grant Assurances”); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley (“City Council”) h ereby designates and authorizes certain officials, named below, as the City of Jurupa Valley’s (“City”) agents for purposes of applying and obt aining said Eligible Grants, executing grant agreements and other required documents, and taking any actions necessary to implement such grant agreements and other required documents:
City Manager
Assistant City Manager
Director of Administrative Services
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley as follows:
-2-
1. The following City officials are the City's agents for purposes of applying and obtaining Eligible Grants, executing grant agreements and other required documents, and taking any actions necessary to implement such grant agreements and other required documents: City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Director of Administrative Services.
2. This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters and grants up to three (3) years following the date of approval below.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED on this 16th day of February, 2023.
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-3-
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-17 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 16th day of February, 2023, 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 16th day of February, 2023.
________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
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. 14.F
APP
ROVAL OF A DEPOSIT AGREEMENT BETWEEN CITY AND
HIGHPOINTE EMERALD RIDGE LLC OF CALIFORNIA FOR TRACT
36947 (NORTH OF CANAL STREET AND THE UNION PACIFIC
RAILROAD LINE, EAST OF LA CANADA DR, WEST OF 28TH
ST
REET, AND SOUTH OF THE RIO VISTA SPECIFIC PLAN
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That
the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-18, entitled:
A RESO
LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING A DEPOSIT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER OF TRACT 36947 WITH RESPECT TO THE RAILROAD CROSSING
IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR TRACT 36947 AND
FINDING THAT THIS APPROVAL IS EXEMPT FROM FURTHER
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15304 OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
GUIDELINES
BAC
KGROUND
On January 19, 2023, the City Council approved MA 21060 and Tentative Tract Map 36947, subject to Resolution No. 2023- 09. The tract located to the west of Canal Street includes 184 single family detached homes on 44 acres (Emerald Ridge North).
The c
onditions of approval for this project require that the Developer (Highpointe Emerald Ridge LLC) design and construct necessary improvements to the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) crossing the intersection of Canal Street and 28 th Street. The crossing improvements are required to be installed prior to the final inspection or occupancy of the 26th residential unit in the project.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
ANALYSIS
The condition of approval to construct the crossing improvements requires review and approval by UPRR. The developer has been working with UPRR to obtain approvals for the crossing improvements and satisfy the project conditions of approval . City staff and the Developer have determined UPRR’s approval process processing for approval will take longer than anticipated.
The proposed deposit Agreement between the City and Developer will ensure that the conditions of approval to build the crossing improvements can be addressed without interrupting construction of the project. Developer and City staff have negotiated an agreement to provide a mechanism through which the conditions of approval to build the crossing improvements can be addressed. If approved, Developer will continue working with UPRR staff for necessary approvals and provide the City with a deposit for the construction of the crossing improvements pursuant to the attached deposit Agreement.
Developer will also be required to implement interim improvements on 28 th street to
optimize the use of the existing crossing at the intersection of 28th Street and Canal Street.
If the crossing improvements set forth in the conditions of approval are not completed by Developer, the City may use the deposit funds to construct the crossing improvements or other t raffic improvements necessary to mitigate the traffic impacts, with an intent to address the project impacts.
OTHER INFORMATION
The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Agreement as to form.
Recent Actions:
• December 14, 2022: Planning Commission recommended approval of project MA 21060 to the City Council by a vote of 4-0.
• January 19, 2023: City Council approved MA 21060 and TTM 39647
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff time to process the project will be recovered by the developer’s deposits as part of this agreement and no net cost to the City’s General Fund is anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Take no action.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
-1-
12774-0009\2777847v1.doc
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-18
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEPOSIT AGREEMENT WITH
THE DEVELOPER OF TRACT 36947 WITH RESPECT TO THE
RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR TRACT 36947 AND FINDING THAT THIS APPROVAL IS EXEMPT
FROM FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PURSUANT TO
SECTIONS 15061(B)(3) AND 15304 OF THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Findings. The City Council does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) Highpointe Emerald Ridge LLC, a California limited liability company (“Developer”) intends to construct an approximately 184 lot residential subdivision commonly known as Tract No. 36947 (the "Project") upon certain real propert y within the City commonly identified as APN's 178 -070-007-2, 178 -070-006-1, 178 -120-001-0, 179 -060-002-3, 178 -070- 004-9 and 178-120-002-1 (''Property'').
(b) To allow development of the Project, on January, 19, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 20 23-09, approving Minor Change No. 2 to Tentative Tract Map No. 36947, subject to certain written conditions of approval attached thereto (''Project Conditions'') and on February 2, 2023, adopted Ordinance No. 2023-002 approving the PUD 3 Zone for the for the Property. (c) Among the Project Conditions, Condition No. 31.3.1 (the "Railroad Crossings COAs") provides as follows:
31.3.1. Prior to the issuance of the twenty sixth (26th) Certificate of Occupancy of Final Map(s) of TTM36947
(Emerald Ridge North), the Developer shall complete the design and construction of the following:
31.3.1.1. Street A and the portions of Street I, Street J and 28th Street connecting throu gh the Canal Street
intersection;
31.3.1.2. The Developer shall complete the design and
construction, at no expense to the City, one at -grade
railroad crossing at Canal Street and 28th Street as an official “Quiet Zone Crossing”, as regulated by the U.S.
DOT, Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). The at -
grade crossing shall be designed and constructed as to be -2-
12774-0009\2777847v1.doc
accepted as an official Quiet Zone Crossing, even if the designation is not applied for during this project.
The railroad crossing improvements described in the Railroad Crossings COAs are generally depicted on Exhibit "A" to the Deposit Agreement.
(d) The subject railroad crossing referenced in the Railroad Crossings COAs is an existing public crossing located at the intersection of Canal Street and 28th Street. The Project Conditions require that the crossing improvements be at -grade and include a warning system, crossing gates, and widening to accommodate two traffic lanes and pedestrian/trail facilities. (e) Developer has been negotiating in good fai th with Union Pacific Railroad ("UPRR") to obtain UPRR's support and consent for the required at-grade crossing improvements in order to satisfy the Railroad Crossings COAs. UPRR is not cooperating to support the proposed improvements and both City and Developer acknowledge that the necessary approvals will likely not be granted by UPRR in a timely manner.
(f) Accordingly, because compliance with the Railroad Crossings COAs is not feasible at this time and in order to provide the maximum possible opportunity to the Developer to complete the Railroad Crossings COAs, the City and Developer wish to enter into the Deposit Agreement to provide a mechanism through which, to the mutual benefit of the Parties, the Railroad Crossings COAs can be addressed, while continuing construction of the Project. (g) The Deposit Agreement is in the best interests of the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the City of Jurupa Valley and is authorized by law, including but not limited to the California Subdivision Map Act.
(h) The approval of the Deposit Agreement is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15304 because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed actions, will have a significant effect on the environment. The completion of the Railroad Crossings COAs are not possible and the Deposit Agreement provides for an extension of time within which to comply with the Railroad Crossings COAs or for alternate measures to address traffic in the area of the project, thus accomplishing the purposes of the Railroad Crossings COAs and within the scope of the original approvals and environmental reviews.
Section 2. Approval of Depos it Agreement. The City Council hereby approves that certain Deposit Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Highpointe Emerald Ridge LLC, a California limited liability company, in substantially the form presented to the City Council. The Mayor is authorized to execute said Deposit Agreement on behalf of the City. The City Manager is authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement and to enter into such additional agreements or amendments, approve such documents as may be necessary and convenient to implement the Agreement.
-3-
12774-0009\2777847v1.doc
Section 3. 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 16th day of February 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-4-
12774-0009\2777847v1.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. 2023 -18, was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 16th day of February, 2023 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 16th day of February, 2023.
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.A
CI
TYWIDE CORRIDORS PLAN
______________________________________________________________________ RECO
MMENDATION
1) That the City Council receive and file the Citywide Corridors Plan; and 2) That
the City Council direct staff to p repare a funding plan and appropriation recommendation for future City Council consideration.
BAC
KGROUND
To date, most of the City’s major corridors are arterial or major collector streets or expressways that are built to Riverside County standards, whose primary function is to move traffic. Under the County, the design of these roadways did not necessarily consider how streets that pass through the various communities and centers within the City should function. Accordingly, over the past several decades, the appearance and function of these roadways are increasingly stripping away original rural character and unique identities of the places they serve. In a few cases, stretches of some corridors have been improved or still retain their original rural country road character that reflect Jurupa Valley’s identity as a “semi-rural community of communities” as envisioned in the General Plan. However, the City has yet to define its own street standards. Furthermore, much of the City’s existing street network (built before City incorporation) is pavement, with little consideration for aesthetics or functions of the network other than for moving traffic.
The 2017 General Plan took the first step towards creating more appropriate C ity street standards by classifying the City’s major streets as various types of “Mobility Corridors.” Mobility Corridors, as defined in the General Plan, are intended to be multi -modal and include a range of transportation uses possible in the entire right -of-way, not just the paved roadway and travel lanes. The Mobility Corridor policies in the General Plan provide design guidance and are intended to work with the conventional roadway cross
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
sections, which are the Riverside County standards that are incorporated into the General Plan. The General Plan allows for more flexibility in deviating from the County standards so that future roadway improvements focus more on complete streets and do not adversely impact the rural community character.
The General Plan includes a program to prepare a corridor master plan with more detailed street design guidance. This proposed Citywide Corridors Plan will create typical street standards for the City, as well as focus on a full palette of streetscape improvements at focused locations to implement the City’s beautification goals.
In recent months, the City has been the recipient of new funding sources that are eligible to be used to address the appearance and function of its major transportation corridors.
This presents a timely opportunity to prepare a City wide Corridors Plan that includes schematic designs for these primary public spaces of Jurupa Valley, which will improve not only the appearance of the City’s corridors, but will also improve their safety and performance for the full range of mobility modes and users . In addition, it will help to attract new economic development and advance the General Plan’s vision of Jurupa Valley as a semi-rural community of distinct communities.
The intent of this planning effort is to take a holistic approach that considers the ultimate configuration of the roadways and all of the improvements that will be needed, inc luding street trees and signage. This initiative would also focus and target the investments needed to have maximum influence on the overall appearance of the City. The Citywide Corridors Plan will define streetscape and beautification plans for several major corridors, including landscape and street furnishing designs, as well as branding, identity, and wayfinding systems that reflect the unique identity of Jurupa Valley and each of its constituent communities.
ANALYSIS
Redefining How We Measure the Success of Streets
The Citywide Corridors Plan presents an opportunity to address the functional and aesthetic characteristics of the City’s major corridors, rather than view ing our streets solely as transportation infrastructure that moves cars around. Preparing a long- range plan for the City’s major corridors will provide customized Jurupa Valley Street Standards that can accommodate the necessary vehicular traffic while also supporting pedestrian, transit, bicycle, and equestrian modes, and reflect the community`s semi-rural character.
The intent of this plan is to go beyond simply adding landscaping and signage to the existing wide, high- speed suburban arterial streets . R ather, this Plan offers the opportunity to consider how targeted adjustments to the lane configurations, medians, sidewalks, stormwater management facilities, and tree canopies of selected segments of these streets might significantly improve the safety and comfort of all users of the street, and contribute to the making of places where people want to spend time with friends and family. Additionally, the timing of starting such a plan , while the City is preparing the Pedley Town Center Area Plan, will allow for synergistic thinking about how the major
Page | 3
corridors function as they pass through the City’s Town Centers, residential neighborhoods, industrial and commercial districts, and rural open space areas.
With this Plan, there is opportunity to redefine how the City measures the success of a public roadway. With Complete Streets and more recent shifts in transportation planning, we are no longer designing streets solely to move large numbers of vehicles as efficiently as possible, in isolation from the land uses on either sid e of the street. Rather, cities are rediscovering the benefits of designing safe and livable streets that balance the needs of all users and provide other benefits such as:
• Public Safety: Street design needs to promote safe environments for all users and the design can offer healthy choices that facilitate active transportation, such as walking, cycling, and using public transit. Streets can encourage social interaction and designs that offer natural surveillance and help build stronger, safer communities.
• Healthy Living: How streets are designed can also facilitate walking and outdoor activities, improve equitable access to healthy food options, mitigate noise levels, and provide landscaping and trees that improve air and water quality. • Quality of Life: The visual appeal of the street contributes to overall quality of life and great streets attract people and business.
• Economic Sustainability: Street improvements that increase safety, improve public realm quality, and welcome multimodal use have positive economic effects such as higher retail sales and increased property values. Investment in streets has long-term economic benefits.
• Environmental Sustainability: How streets are designed can have environmental benefits. Promoting sustainable transportation modes through well- designed streets can lower carbon emissions and improve overall air quality.
Incorporating trees and landscaping can improve water management, foster biodiversity, and increase access to the natural environment. • Social Equity: Streets ar e the largest area of public space in most cities, and serve all members of the community. Well-designed streets that serve a variety of modes increases equitable access to jobs and schools, increases healthy living choices, and encourages strong communities.
This proposed plan would address all of these facets of our public streets in Jurupa Valley.
Process and Team
To realize street and streetscape design and implementation for the City’s major transportation corridors, the following three-phased approach is recommended:
• Phase 1: Citywide Corridors Plan
• Phase 2: Construction Documents
• Phase 3: Construction Administration
The focus of this project is the Phase 1, Citywide Corridors Plan; however, the team we have assembled would be able to see the process through all three phases if desired.
Page | 4
This approach to first prepare a comprehensive plan at a citywide scale will not only implement a General Plan policy, but will ensure the C ity targets its investments and makes the best use of its potential funding sources. The installation of street trees or other beautification improvements on their own, in the absence of a more comprehensive plan could have the undesired effect of having the initial investment be short -lived when the improvements need to be removed to accommodate street widening, other infrastructure, or other improvements. Rather, a more holistic approach is propos ed that considers the ultimate configuration of the roadways and all of the improvements that will be needed.
We have assembled a multi -disciplinary team of specialists in planning, transportation, landscape design, signage and branding, civil engineering, sustainable infrastructure, and community engagement. Our proposed team is as follows:
• Civic Solutions, Inc. as contract planning staff for the City of Jurupa Valley will be responsible for project management, coordination with City staff, lead planners, and community outreach and engagement.
• Sargent Town Planning will lead the town planning and design work, and the preparation of the Corridors Plan document.
• Fong Hart Schneider + Partners is a landscape architecture firm that has been collaborating with Sargent Town Planning for over a decade on streetscape and urban design projects of many types. They will collaborate with the team to define an appropriate palette of landscape materials, designs, and themes that express the City`s semi-rural town character.
• Fehr & Peers will provide transportation and mobility consulting services, working with the team to identify opportunities, constraints, strategies, and designs for a street and trail network that meets the functional and community design character requirements of an all-mode backbone mobility network for the entire city. • Graphic Solutions will take the lead in crafting a comprehensive graphic program that includes branding, identity, and wayfinding for the identified major corridors, gateways, and centers throughout the City. They will prepare a complete conceptual design package, along with conceptual cost estimates for each type of signage element. They can also contribute cost information to capital projects cost estimates.
• Proactive Engineering Consultants is a civil engineering firm that will work with the team in understanding the nature and cost of any street improvement work that is recommended as part of the project. Based in Corona, they are experienced in all aspects of street and infrastruc ture design, and will assist the team in defining the scope and probable construction costs of potential capital improvement projects that may be associated with Corridor Plan implementation. The team also includes engineering input from Paul Crabtree, a c ivil engineer who collaborates with our team regularly, and who specializes in authentic rural infrastructure.
Page | 5
The consultant team would work together with City staff , including the City Manager’s Office, Community Development, and Public Works/Engineering. See Attachment 1 for qualifications of each consulting firm/team member.
Scope of Work
This scope of work for Phase 1, preparation of a master plan for the City’s major corridors, is outlined below , described in detail in the attached proposal (Attachment 1) , and is estimated to take approximately 12 months.
The Citywide Corridors Plan will address and provide recommendations for corridor transformation from suburban to semi-rural and town center environments to better reflect the character of Jurupa Valley . The plan will include street cross -sections, plan view designs for focus areas, and 3D renderings of key locations to illustrate the transformation. The cross sections for each corridor segment will be typical, for purposes of establishing a comprehensive program of design solutions appropriate to the project, as well as “Special Designs” for key nodes, intersections, and gateways. Within the areas of focus, likely the Town Centers, 20% schematic design in plan-view will be included.
The Citywide Corridors Plan proposes to address the following major streets (note: these may be refined following discussions with City staff once work begins on identifying existing roadway conditions):
• Mission Boulevard: Significant community identity, place- making, and multimodal improvement opportunities in Rubidoux, Glen Avon, and potentially at other nodes as well.
• Limonite Avenue: Similar opportunities to Mission Boulevard in Rubidoux and Pedley, along with the potential to contribute to new places west of Pedley , from Etiwanda Avenue to the I-15 freeway.
• Van Buren Boulevard: Opportunities for aesthetic improvements, but perhaps fewer for multimodal mobility or integration with surrounding land uses due to its
Page | 6
design and role as a highway of almost freeway -like character. It is nonetheless an important through route for motorists and train passengers, and as such could contribute to a distinct and memorable image for Jurupa Valley. • Bellegrave Avenue: An important through route, with some potential for community act ivity centers at Bush Street, Etiwanda Avenue, and Wineville Avenue.
• Etiwanda Avenue: Is an important north-south regional thoroughfare, connecting the San Bernardino Mountain foothills in Rancho Cucamonga southward along the easterly edge of Ontario, and through Jurupa Valley terminating on the north bank of the Santa Ana River. Existing and potentially significant centers of community activity at various scales are located at its intersections with Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, Bellegrave Avenue, Jurupa Road, 58
th Street, Limonite Avenue, and of
course the Santa Ana River.
• Jurupa Road: Runs through the center of town and represents one of the few opportunities in Jurupa Valley to conserve an authentic country road as such, and to provide for smaller scale com munity-serving retail, recreational, and civic uses and amenities.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
In approving the General Plan in 2017, the City Council certified the Jurupa Valley 2017 General Plan Programmatic Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (SCH No. 2016021025) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) .
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164, the City would need to review the Citywide Corridors Plan against the 2017 EIR and determine if the EIR adequately addresses all the environmental issues associated with the project. If it is determined that the proposed project would not result in any new significant impacts on the environment based upon the analysis and conclusions presented in the 2017 EIR , and that previously identified significant impacts would not be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, staff would likely prepare an EIR Addendum for the Citywide Corridors Plan. Unlike an EIR, an Addendum is not required to be circulated for public review.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The preparation and implementation of a Citywide Corridors Plan, and its associated infrastructure and streetscape improvements, is a significant investment. The cost associated with Community Development Department staff time and consultant team time to prepare the Citywide Corridors Plan is estimated at $550,000- $650,000, including contingency.
SUMMARY
Preparation of a comprehensive Citywide Corridors Plan will:
• Implement General Plan Mobility Element Program 1.1.1 to prepare a Corridors Master Plan with detailed design guidance.
Jurupa Valley
Citywide Corridors Plan
Initial Proposal for Discussion
October 19, 2022
Civic Solutions (as contract staff for the City of Jurupa Valley) Sargent Town Planning
Fong Hart Schneider + Partners
Fehr & Peers
Graphic Solutions
Proactive Engineering
27362 Calle Arroyo
San Juan Capistrano, CA
949/489-1442
949/489-2408 FAX
www.civicsolutions.com
Cover Letter
October 19, 2022
Rod Butler, City Manager
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion Dear Rod,
Per your request and as a follow up to our discussion about the opportunity to beautify and improve the functionality of the City’s major arterial roadway corridors, we are pleased to submit this scope and budget to prepare a Citywide Corridors Plan for Jurupa Valley.
We understand that the City has received American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, which can be used to address the appearance and function of the City’s major transportation corridors. As we discussed in our meeting with you last April, the installation of street trees or other beautification improvements on their own, in the absence of a more comprehensive plan, could have the undesired effect of having the initial investment be short lived when the improvements need to be removed to accommodate street widenings, other infrastructure, or other improvements. Rather, a more holistic approach is needed that considers the ultimate configuration of the roadways and all of the improvements that will be needed, including street trees and signage, and also focuses and targets the investments to have maximum influence on the overall appearance of the City. This presents a timely opportunity to prepare a Citywide Corridors Plan that includes schematic designs for these primary public spaces of Jurupa Valley to help direct and guide the best use of these funds in a way that makes the greatest overall impact community-wide.
Beyond simply adding landscaping and signage to the existing wide, high-speed suburban arterial streets, this Plan offers the opportunity to consider how targeted adjustments to the lane configurations, medians, sidewalks, stormwater management facilities, and tree canopies of selected segments of these streets might significantly improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians, and contribute to the making of places where people want to spend time – and money – with friends and family. This plan aims to go beyond just beautification of the City’s corridors, and will also plan for function, multimodal circulation, and a holistic approach to the public realm in the City’s town centers, gateways, and rural areas.
Additionally, the timing of starting such a plan while we are working with City staff and the community on the Pedley Town Center Plan will allow for synergistic thinking about how the major corridors function as they pass through the City’s historic Town Centers, residential neighborhoods, industrial and commercial districts, and rural open space areas.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page iii Furthermore, there is the potential to leverage additional grant funds, such as REAP 2.0, to pay for planning and implementation, and we are engaging in discussions with Community Development staff to explore these opportunities.
We are excited to collaborate with you, City staff, decision makers, and the community in defining a visionary and practical plan for the future. We have assembled a multi-disciplinary team of specialists in planning, transportation, landscape design, signage and branding, civil engineering, sustainable infrastructure, and community engagement.
Outlined below is our current understanding of the opportunities, challenges, and key objectives for a Citywide Corridors Plan, followed by our proposed scope of work and high- level estimated budget per phase. We hope this provides you with a good starting point for framing this important effort, and anticipate discussing and refining this plan with you to ensure it best meets the needs of the City.
Please let us know if you have any questions or refinements to the scope of work. We look forward to our continued working relationship with you, and the opportunity to participate in this important effort for Jurupa Valley.
Sincerely,
Jean Ward, AICP Thomas G. Merrell
Community Planning Services Manager President
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page iv Contents
Cover Letter .......................................................................................................................................... ii Project Understanding .......................................................................................................................... 1 Proposed Consultant Team ................................................................................................................... 4 Proposed Scope of Services for Phase 1: Citywide Corridors Plan ..................................................... 10 Initial Cost Estimate ............................................................................................................................ 17 Project Team Qualifications ................................................................................................................ 19
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 1 Project Understanding
We understand that the City has received American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, which can be used to address the appearance and function of its major transportation corridors. This presents a timely opportunity to prepare a Citywide Corridors Plan that includes schematic designs for these primary public spaces of Jurupa Valley, which will improve not only the appearance of the City’s corridors, but will also improve their safety and performance for the full range of mobility modes and users, help to attract new economic development, and advance the General Plan’s vision of Jurupa Valley as a semi-rural community of distinct communities.
The core goal of this work will be to define streetscape and beautification plans for several major corridors, including landscape and street furnishing designs, as well as branding, identity, and wayfinding systems that reflect the unique identity of Jurupa Valley and each of its constituent communities. Below is a conceptual map of the city that highlights those major corridors, as well as potential “centers” of community activity – some of which have been previously identified in the General Plan, and several additional areas due to their being largely undeveloped and strategically located along, or at the intersections of, major crosstown corridors. We provide this map as a starting point for discussion and analysis with you and other City staff and officials.
To date, most of the City’s major corridors are arterial streets or highways, and are built to Riverside County standards. Accordingly, over the past several decades, the appearance and function of these roadways are increasingly stripping away original rural character and unique identities of the places they serve. In a few cases, stretches of some corridors still retain their original rural country road character that we believe reflects Jurupa Valley’s identity as a “semi-rural community of communities” as envisioned in the General Plan.
As mentioned in our kickoff meeting for the Pedley Town Center Plan on August 25, 2022, the City has yet to define its own street standards, and we believe this Corridors Plan presents a timely opportunity for the City to consider how such customized Jurupa Valley Street Standards might accommodate the necessary vehicular traffic while also supporting pedestrian, bicycle, and equestrian modes, and also reflecting the communities’ envisioned “semi-rural character.” We believe that certain stretches of selected corridors that have not yet been built to County standards represent key opportunities to use capital improvement funds to make these areas “look more like Jurupa Valley,” rather than less. The Corridors Plan offers a vehicle and process whereby the City can make informed decisions regarding its very own street standards.
Such street standards can, and we believe should, be varied corridor by corridor, so that Limonite Avenue, Mission Boulevard, Jurupa Road, and Etiwanda Avenue each have their own distinct appearance so that the pedestrian environment, commercial frontages, and vehicular speeds within the “town centers” may be different from the “country road” segments in between Jurupa Valley’s several “communities.” The major corridors to be addressed by the Plan will be discussed and revised as appropriate with City staff.
Our initial recommendations include the following, for which we briefly identify our initial impressions of the types of opportunities for improvements.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 2 • Mission Boulevard: Significant community identity, place-making, and multimodal improvement opportunities in Rubidoux, Glen Avon, and potentially at other nodes as well. • Limonite Avenue: Similar opportunities to Mission Boulevard in Rubidoux and Pedley, along with the potential to contribute to new places west of Pedley, from Etiwanda Avenue to the I-15 freeway.
• Van Buren Boulevard: Opportunities for aesthetic improvements, but perhaps fewer for multimodal mobility or integration with surrounding land uses due to its design and role as a highway of almost freeway-like character. It is nonetheless an important through route for motorists and train passengers, and as such could contribute to a distinct and memorable image for Jurupa Valley.
• Bellegrave Avenue: Is likewise an important through route, with some potential for community activity centers at Bush Street, Etiwanda Avenue, and Wineville Avenue. • Etiwanda Avenue: Is an important north-south regional thoroughfare, connecting the San Bernardino Mountain foothills in Rancho Cucamonga southward along the easterly edge of Ontario, and through Jurupa Valley terminating on the north bank of the Santa Ana River.
Existing and potentially significant centers of community activity at various scales are located at its intersections with Cantu Galleano Ranch Road, Bellegrave Avenue, Jurupa Road, 58 th Street,
Limonite Avenue, and of course the Santa Ana River.
• Jurupa Road: Runs through the center of town and represents one of the few opportunities in Jurupa Valley to conserve an authentic country road as such, and to provide addresses for smaller scale community-serving retail, recreational, and civic uses and amenities.
The identity, character, and quality of a city is defined in large measure by the public spaces through which residents, workers, and visitors access and move through the city every day. That predominant impression of Jurupa Valley’s municipal identity is, in turn, defined by these major corridors that will be the focus of this work. And along those corridors – particularly where they intersect one another – lie most of the commercial, social, and recreational centers of community life and activity. The design, function, and overall “ambiance” of these major corridors as they approach and pass through the centers of commercial, recreational, and civic activity play a major role in the appearance, function, experience, and economics of those centers. Between those centers, the major corridors passing between the community’s neighborhoods and through the rural open spaces also define the image and identity of Jurupa Valley.
This Corridor Plan presents a great opportunity to reimagine what these major streets can contribute to the value and experience of each part of Jurupa Valley. Beyond simply adding landscaping and signage to the existing wide, high-speed suburban arterial streets, this Plan offers the opportunity to consider how targeted adjustments to the lane configurations, medians, sidewalks, stormwater management facilities, and tree canopies of selected segments of these streets might significantly improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians, cyclists, and equestrians, and contribute to the making of places where people want to spend time – and money – with friends and family. This plan aims to go beyond just beautification of the City’s corridors, and will also plan for function, multimodal circulation, and a wholistic approach to the public realm in the City’s town centers, gateways, and rural areas.
Such improvements could be particularly valuable within “town centers” and other existing and envisioned community gathering places, where concentrations of commercial, social, and economic activity are envisioned. Such places are never optimally served by street designs intended to simply maximize the volumes and speeds of through-traffic. Maximizing volumes of through traffic is a core design objective of the Countywide roadway system. Over the past several decades, the art and science of roadway design has
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 3 progressed very significantly beyond the designs on which County standards are based. It is clearly possible to move enough traffic to support economic development while also making more pleasant places for people to spend time and gather as a community.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 4 Proposed Consultant Team
We have assembled a multi-disciplinary team of specialists in planning, transportation, landscape design, signage and branding, civil engineering, sustainable infrastructure, and community engagement. Our proposed team is as follows:
Civic Solutions, Inc. (CSI) as contract staff for the City of Jurupa Valley, will be responsible for project management, coordination with City staff, lead planners, and community outreach and engagement. Jean Ward will be the Principal-in-Charge and Project Director.
Sargent Town Planning (STP) will lead the town planning and design work, and the preparation of the Corridors Plan document. They will work closely with Civic Solutions and City staff throughout all phases of the project, including existing conditions analysis, public engagement, and Plan preparation.
Fong Hart Schneider + Partners (FHS+P) is a landscape architecture firm that has been collaborating with Sargent Town Planning for over a decade on streetscape and urban design projects of many types. They will collaborate with the team to define an appropriate palette of landscape materials, designs, and themes that express the semi-rural town character to which Jurupa Valley aspires.
Fehr & Peers (F&P) will provide transportation and mobility consulting services, working closely with CSI, STP, and City staff to identify opportunities, constraints, strategies, and designs for a street and trail network that meets the functional and community design character requirements of an all-mode backbone mobility network for the entire city.
Graphic Solutions (GS) will take the lead in crafting a comprehensive graphic program that includes branding, identity, and wayfinding for the identified major corridors, gateways, and centers throughout the City. They will prepare a complete conceptual design package, along with conceptual cost estimates for each type of signage element. They can also contribute cost information to capital projects cost estimates.
Proactive Engineering Consultants (PEC) is the civil engineering firm that we propose to retain to work with us in understanding the nature and cost of any street improvement work that we may recommend as part of the project. Based in Corona, they are experienced in all aspects of street and infrastructure design, and will assist the team in defining the scope and probable construction costs of potential capital improvement projects that may be associated with Corridor Plan implementation. We also propose to retain the services of Paul Crabtree, a civil engineer who collaborates with us regularly, and who specializes in authentic rural infrastructure.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 5
Corridor transformation – Suburban to semi-rural and town center environments Source: Sargent Town Planning
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 6
Corridor transformation – Suburban to semi-rural and town center environments Source: Sargent Town Planning
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 7
Signage and branding
Source: Graphic Solutions
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 8
Streetscape and landscape
Source: Fong Hart Schneider + Partners
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 9
Green Infrastructure
Source: Paul Crabtree
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 10 Proposed Scope of Services for Phase 1 : Citywide Corridors Plan We propose to organize the professional services for preparation of the Citywide Corridors Plan into the following three major tasks: Project Initiation and Analysis; Community Engagement and Conceptual Design; and Citywide Corridors Plan.
All deliverables will be provided in digital format – most as PDFs, with some in Microsoft Word or Excel formats – via Dropbox or comparable file-sharing system. Maps will be prepared in GIS, AutoCAD and/or Adobe Illustrator. The Corridors Plan document will be produced utilizing Adobe Creative Suite and delivered as a high-resolution PDF suitable for two-sided color printing, and also as an Interactive PDF intended for viewing on a computer screen and posting to the web.
In the interest of cost savings efficiency, we propose that many of the meetings with City staff – and some stakeholder interviews – will be largely virtual. Team representatives will attend community workshops and public meetings in person, although some team members may participate in some sessions virtually/ remotely.
Task 1 – Project Initiation and Analysis
1.1 Document Collection and Initial Review: The Team will coordinate with City staff to collect all relevant background documents, including but not limited to the General Plan, any relevant Specific Plans, existing street standards, recently designed and/or implemented streetscape improvements, existing collision data, existing traffic volumes, projected traffic volumes, any existing landscape or street tree plans, and any existing municipal signage programs or criteria.
The Team will conduct an initial review of these documents in advance of a kickoff event, to ensure a productive kickoff and initial discussions with the City.
The General Plan and Specific Plan review will focus on street and public space design, but will also address planned land uses along the corridors to identify opportunities for the corridors to provide improved multimodal access to adjacent properties in patterns and designs that reflect and support Jurupa Valley’s semi-rural community image and aspirations.
Deliverables: Preliminary base map of corridors, and preliminary overview of key vision and policy from the General Plan and other plans that are relevant to the Corridors Plan. These will be primarily in PowerPoint format, with maps in PDF.
1.2 Kickoff Event: The Team will join City staff for a half-day or full-day kickoff event in Jurupa Valley. We recommend that the day include a meeting or meetings at City Hall with key City staff, and a driving tour of the major corridors. A primary objective of the tour will be to confirm the general extent of the Corridors Plan, and to discuss at a high level the opportunities for beneficial change represented by each segment and each center or node of each corridor.
We will also focus on opportunities and constraints affecting potential City and community branding and signage. Prior to the tour we will have prepared base maps, the tour route, and a high-level overview of existing vision and policy for each corridor per the General Plan and other plans.
Deliverables: Base maps in advance, and notes from kickoff event.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 11
1.3 Background and Existing Conditions Analysis: Based on the initial document review in Task 1.1 and discussions and the tour in Task 1.2, the Team will complete our review of background information and prepare an organized overview of existing conditions. We will complete a planning level base map of the city, based on GIS data provided by the City and available aerial photography.
During the kickoff tour and on the previous and/or following day, we will systematically photograph the existing conditions along each corridor, including images of the street itself, key vistas from the street into adjoining properties, and open spaces. We will then compile a well-organized corridor-by-corridor “image tour” of the major corridors as a PowerPoint presentation, keyed to the base map. We find that such a comprehensive photographic survey has the potential to help all participants in the planning process to see the City “with fresh eyes,” often noticing characteristics – both positive and negative – that are often overlooked in daily life.
A primary purpose of this analysis will be to reveal opportunities for new streetscape design elements to help each corridor evolve toward the “semi-rural small-town” future mentioned in the General Plan. As we compile and develop the “image tour,” we will note location by location key vision or direction from the General Plan or Specific Plans that might be reinforced through streetscape and public space design. This will include identification of key nodes or gateways where a street is approaching or entering an existing or planned town center, where it is passing by or overlooking vistas of the Santa Ana River or other natural open space, where it is passing residential neighborhoods or communities, and where it is passing by existing or planned employment centers or other economic development opportunities.
The Team will provide the presentation(s) to City staff for review, will meet with staff to review and discuss their comments and requests for revisions, and will update the presentation(s) as requested.
Deliverables: Updated base map of corridors, and more complete overview of key vision and policy from the General Plan and other plans that are relevant to the Corridors Plan. These will be primarily in PowerPoint format, with maps in PDF. Notes from additional meetings with City staff will also be included.
Task 2 – Community Engagement and Conceptual Design
2.1 Stakeholder Interviews and Community Survey: The Team will work closely with City staff to identify key community members with whom interviews will be conducted to gain an initial understanding of key community concerns, hopes, opportunities, and challenges. Such interviews or meetings may be conducted with individuals or small groups, which we expect would include property owners, business owners, resident and civic organization representatives, City staff, City officials, and others.
Depending on the interviewee(s), one or several consultant Team members will attend the interview(s) in person and/or virtually. In many cases we find it helpful to share with interviewees some of the background analysis prepared in Task 1.3, to inform and encourage discussion of emerging issues and opportunities. The Team will compile summaries of topics discussed and viewpoints expressed, in general without associating specific points of view or remarks with any individual or group. We find that by offering people such anonymity, it is
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 12 often possible to elicit very frank input early in the process, which is often very helpful in developing practical strategies for beneficial change and strategic conservation that can garner enthusiastic community support.
As part of this task, Graphic Solutions will meet with key City officials, City staff, property owners, and members of the business community to discuss the City’s sense of its image and identity, to begin to identify themes and elements that should be part of its graphic branding and place-making identity. These meetings will be an integral part of the stakeholder engagement process.
Concurrent with and following the stakeholder interviews, we will conduct an online community survey. The survey will present photographs of existing conditions within the Corridors, and likely also imagery of other comparable corridors with different design characteristics, to enable respondents to express their preferences for the future of Jurupa Valley’s corridors. At this early stage of the work, questions will generally be posed in an open- ended fashion, simply asking people what they like, what they don’t like, what they hope Jurupa Valley will look like in the future, and how these corridors might better support the ways they want to live, work, shop, play, and move around in Jurupa Valley.
2.2 Initial Concepts: Based on input received in stakeholder interviews, the Team will prepare a series of initial conceptual diagrams of potential strategies for enhancing each corridor, including its intersections with smaller streets, trails, and public open spaces. These diagrams will be supplemented with photography of potential streetscape designs, environmental graphics, and street furnishings that might contribute to the authentic semi-rural small-town environment of each corridor as it passes through the neighborhoods, centers, and open spaces as one moves across town.
Initial concepts will focus on illustrative plan diagrams and street cross-sections, showing potential new landscape elements, signage and environmental graphics, and lighting and street furniture elements and systems at key locations along each corridor. Concepts will be typical, for purposes of establishing a comprehensive program of design solutions appropriate to the project. These will include initial suggestions for the “Typical Design” for each corridor as well as “Special Designs” for key nodes, intersections, and gateways. Specific to signage and branding, the preliminary concept designs will reflect recommended treatments for the following elements (list to be refined as appropriate with City staff). • Gateways to Jurupa Valley and Town Centers
• Intersections and Key Nodes (including Town Centers)
• Trail and park identification
• Trail and park wayfinding samples and considerations
• Metrolink Transit identification
• Metrolink Transit wayfinding samples and considerations • Parking identification
• Parking wayfinding samples and considerations
• Active transportation identification
• Key attractions identification
• Key attractions wayfinding samples and considerations • Temporary (event) signage, banner samples, and considerations
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 13 • Digital signage
• Pedestrian kiosks, wayfinding and interpretive sign samples, and considerations • Facility identifications
These initial illustrations will also include the frontages of adjacent development, so that the corridor “passing through” each place may be seen in relation to the place itself. We find that exploring the “place-making potential” of each street in key activity nodes and gateways is a strong strategy for enhancing the unique design character, value, and economic development potential of each node along each corridor. Such initial concepts will be merged with the previously prepared Image Tour presentation and submitted to the City for review and comment.
2.3 Discovery Workshop: In an initial public workshop (which may be in the form of a publicly noticed Joint City Council/Planning Commission study session) the Team will share the scope and purpose of the Corridors Plan effort, a summary of the information developed in previous tasks, high-level initial concepts that address the goals, and concerns identified to date, and then will invite community discussion, input, and feedback. The workshop will likely include some combination of small-group discussions, live polling of participants on a range of issues, and mapping exercises in which participants are invited to identify places they love and places they do not, and to start to think conceptually about improvements to better connect existing places and community assets.
All workshop materials, including presentations, polls, and any other generated content, could be posted to the City’s website to allow others who could not attend the workshop to view and provide feedback.
2.4 Conceptual Corridors Plan Framework: Based on the input received in the Discovery Workshop and on direction from City staff, the Team will work collaboratively to define a conceptual design for the typical condition of each major corridor, including design characteristics and elements that would unify the entire corridor, and characteristics, elements, and configurations that would distinguish key segments, nodes, and gateways one from the other.
Using Mission Boulevard as an example to help clarify this approach, we would anticipate that as one crosses the Santa Ana River from the east and enters Jurupa Valley, the corridor design and signage could make it clear that one is entering the City of Jurupa Valley, and the Rubidoux area specifically. Design elements would make it equally clear when one is leaving Rubidoux, by defining a “typical” Mission Boulevard character that would begin to change subtly in approach to and entry into Glen Avon. Then the transition to Bellegrave would be marked, as well as perhaps entry into and passage through smaller nodes or centers at key intersections as one continues west to the I-15, which would clearly be a gateway of some significance for those approaching on the freeway or from Eastvale and Ontario. a. The Team will work with City staff to schedule the first of two working meetings with City staff in Jurupa Valley in which we will present and discuss the initial concepts. We anticipate that this meeting will include City staff from the planning, public works, economic development, and City Manager departments, to enable a robust discussion of opportunities, challenges, and trade-offs represented by alternative approaches. The goal of these discussions – and the Citywide Corridors Plan overall – will be to confirm the typical street section and design theme for each of the six major corridors, and confirm
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 14 the locations and general character of key Gateways, Centers, and other Nodes along them. Initial concepts for each node will be presented for discussion. b. Based on the input and direction received in the above meetings and in follow-up virtual meetings and correspondence, the Team will refine the typical conceptual designs for each corridor and flesh out conceptual designs for key Gateways, Centers, and other Nodes. An updated conceptual design package – in PowerPoint and PDF – will be delivered to the City staff for review. We anticipate that this will include targeted recommendations for land use and/or development standards refinements in selected locations, to further the goals of the General Plan, more effectively reflect the unique identity of each corridor and each place, and to better leverage the value and economic development potential of new City investment in the Corridors. c. The Team will then work with City staff to schedule a second working meeting to review the updated material. Like the first such meeting, we anticipate that this meeting will include City staff from Community Development, Public Works, and Economic Development, and the City Manager’s office, to enable robust discussion of the aesthetics, wayfinding, placemaking, and functional characteristics of the designs for each Corridor and each Gateway, Center, and other Node. d. Based on the input and direction received in the second working meeting, the Team will further refine the designs for each Corridor Typical Design and further flesh out conceptual designs for key Gateways, Centers and other Nodes. A revised updated conceptual design package – in PowerPoint and PDF – will be delivered to City staff for review.
2.5 Vision Workshop: In a format similar to that of the Discovery Workshop – whether in-person and/or virtual – the Team will present the Conceptual Plan alternatives and related materials for community comment, feedback, and discussion. The presentation will begin with a short overview of the material presented in the Discovery Workshop and a summary of feedback received, as the foundation for the vision alternatives being presented.
2.6 Preferred Alternative Framework Plan: Based on the conceptual alternatives presented and community input received from the Vision Workshop, and based on subsequent direction from City staff, the Team will refine and integrate the preferred concepts and elements of the initial alternatives into a single Corridors Framework Plan. This Plan will set the Typical Design for each Corridor, the Special Designs for each identified Gateway, Center, and other Nodes. It will also include recommendations for related adjustments to land use type and intensity, development standards, and unique community character. We will prepare a new PowerPoint presentation that presents this Framework, along with illustrations and photographs clarifying the key elements, spaces, and places within the Plan. We will deliver this to City staff and then conduct a virtual or in-person meeting with City staff to review and discuss the Framework Plan.
2.7 20% Design for Focused Areas (Town Centers): After the concepts have received positive feedback, concept designs will be prepared for focused areas of the City, which are the three Town Centers identified in the City’s General Plan (Pedley, Rubidoux, and Glen Avon). As illustrated in the figure on page 3, the corridor segments in the Town Centers (identified with red dotted lines) are approximately 4 miles total in length, and would be taken to 20% design,
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 15 as part of this Phase 1 effort, with associated cost estimates. These are the areas where the corridors would likely entail some curb relocations, potentially adding landscaped medians or sidewalk bulb-outs, changes to striping, and perhaps intersection controls, as well as pedestrian-focused landscaping, and signage improvements. These would be special place- specific designs related to but not the same as, the “typicals” for the rest of the corridor segments, which would be defined at a conceptual level for which we would develop conceptual cost estimates per 1,000 square feet or other unit cost basis.
The 20% design plans for focused areas will be based on the information developed in Subtasks 2.1 through 2.6 above. The plans will be developed from scaled aerial imagery in AutoCAD and will focus on key geometric features like curb placement, ADA ramps, signal control suggestions, lane widths, and striping. The level of detail of the concept plans is shown in the example below.
Please note, the concept will be sufficient to communicate corridor layout, key design parameters, and facility treatments but will not be sufficient for facility construction. The City will need to develop the appropriate construction drawings for the corridor and ensure that those designs are appropriate for construction. Additionally, the 20% plans will provide quantity estimates that can be combined with unit costs developed by Proactive Engineering to develop corridor cost estimates for engineering, environmental, and construction. Please note that these cost estimates will be high level.
2.8 City Council/Planning Commission Joint Study Session: We will refine the Framework Plan presentation per input and direction from City staff, and will assist City staff in leading a joint study session to present the Framework plan for discussion and input.
Task 3 – Citywide Corridors Plan
3.1 Administrative Review Draft Corridors Plan: Based on City staff, and Council and Commission input and direction, the Team will refine the Framework Plan and prepare an Administrative Draft Citywide Corridors Plan document. We anticipate that the Plan will be organized into the following major sections or chapters:
a. Purpose, Intent, Authority, Background, and Public Process b. Corridors Plan
i) Vision and Framework Overview
ii) Corridor by Corridor Typical and Special Designs (Cross Sections) iii) Corridor 20% Design Plans for Focused Areas
iv) Land Use & Development Standard Refinement Recommendations v) Relation to Existing Plans & Regulations
vi) Implementation Strategies including Cost Estimates
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 16
3.2 City Staff Review: We will deliver the Draft Plan to City staff for review, and upon completion of that review will conduct an in-person and/or virtual meeting with staff to review their comments, respond to questions, and discuss potential revisions to the Draft.
3.3 Public Review Draft Corridors Plan: Based on City comments and direction, the Team will revise and complete the Plan, producing a Public Review Draft Corridors Plan. We will work with City staff to notice stakeholders and the community that the Draft Plan is available on the City’s website for public review. We recommend providing a minimum 30-day public review period.
3.4 Public Hearings and Adoption, and Final Corridors Plan: Based on any final public input, and with direction from City staff, the Citywide Corridors Plan will be presented as a recommendation to the Planning Commission and the City Council for adoption. This scope of work assumes CEQA analyses will not be required. The Final Plan, which will include any final directed changes from the City Council, will serve as the conceptual basis for future construction drawings.
Subsequent Phase: Construction Drawings
Our Team is available for future phases of implementation, including construction drawings. At the appropriate time and at City request, our team can provide cost estimates for subsequent design efforts.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 17 Initial Cost Estimate
The initial cost estimate for the above scope of work is provided below. Please note we have provided an estimate by Task for Phase 1. We hope this provides the City with a good starting point for framing this important effort, and anticipate we will further refine to best meet your needs after discussions with you.
Because this proposal is an initial draft for discussion, the schedule will be defined as the scope is refined.
For subsequent design phases, including construction drawings, our team is available to provide cost estimates upon request and at such time that we have the necessary information as a result of our Citywide Corridors Plan to scope the work effort in more detail.
For efficiency and to minimize planning/design costs and maximize AARP construction dollars, this scope of work assumes City staff will provide noticing and logistics support for community engagement, including stakeholder interviews, workshops, meetings, and website maintenance and updates. In addition, it is assumed City staff will provide translation support as needed for all engagement efforts. Civic Solutions can provide bilingual support as needed for an additional cost. This scope of work also assumes the City’s GIS contractor, Patrick Ward, will provide GIS files to the consultant team as needed, and assist with the provision of GIS data as needed.
Jean Ward, Community Planning Services Manager, will manage the project as contract staff to Jurupa Valley at the rates as contracted with Civic Solutions. Because the Corridors Plan will implement the vision and policy direction of the General Plan, Mary Wright, the City’s General Plan Program Manager, will provide input and guidance throughout the planning effort and will be involved in community engagement as it relates to supporting the overall General Plan vision. We may also engage other Civic Solutions’ contract planners for Jurupa Valley, as needed, to support the project within the appropriate fiscal year budget.
For cost efficiencies, David Schneider from Fong Hart Schneider & Partners, will work as a consulting landscape architect to Sargent Town Planning (STP), and Paul Crabtree will work as a consulting green infrastructure civil engineer to STP. As such, these associated costs are included in the STP budget.
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 18
CSI STP/FHS+P F&P GS PEC Total
Phase 1 Citywide Corridors Plan
Task 1 Project Initiation and Analysis $14,080 $42,650 $5,000 $4,600 $7,040 $73,370 Task 2 Community Engagement and Conceptual Design $57,280 $127,630 $75,000 $34,700 $38,700 $333,310 Task 3 Citywide Corridors Plan $23,680 $98,440 $0 $7,200 $9,680 $139,000 Subtotal Labor $95,040 $268,720 $80,000 $46,500 $55,420 $545,680 Direct Expenses – – – – – $3,500
Total Estimates Cost for Phase 1 $95,040 $268,720 $80,000 $46,500 $55,420 $549,180 Notes:
We recommend the final contract include a 10-15% contingency for unforeseen tasks or increased scope of work.
For flexibility, after the budget is finalized, we request the ability to transfer funds between tasks and subconsultants , as needed, throughout the process with simple written administrative approval (and not requiring an amended contract) .
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 19 Project Team Qualifications
As contract staff for the City of Jurupa Valley, Civic Solutions will manage a team of specialized consultants who are leaders in their respective fields. Firm overviews and resumes are provided for each consultant team member as follows:
Sargent Town Planning ............................................................................ 20 Fong Hart Schneider + Partners ................................................................ 26 Fehr & Peers ............................................................................................ 29 Graphic Solutions ..................................................................................... 34 Proactive Engineering Consultants .......................................................... 37
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 20
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 21
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 22
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 23
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 24
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 25
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 26
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 27
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 28
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 29
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 30
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 31
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 32
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 33
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 34
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 35
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 36
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 37
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 38
Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Initial Proposal for Discussion October 19, 2022 page 39
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.B
REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT (RHNA) COMPLIANCE
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive and file a report on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) compliance update.
BACKGROUND
On January 19, 2023, the City Council held a public hearing and approved two residential projects submitted by Ce ntury Communities of California, LLC. The first project was for 118 Condominium Units on Lot 7 of Planning Area 2 of the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan Area; and the second project was for 35 detached condominiums on Lot 9 of Planning Area 2 of the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan Area. The Applicant will develop Planning Area (PA) 2 - Lot 9 at a lower density than anticipated per the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan at 13.6 dwelling units per acre. Lot 9 has a target of 77 units. PA 2 (Lots 7 and 9) of the SP is designated as Highest Density Residential (HHDR – 20+ du/acre).
As part of the Housing Element certification process, the City was required to tabulate anticipated densities from incoming projects, and select vacant sites to be re-designated to achieve t he densities needed to meet the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goal of 4,497 units to be built over the next eight (8) years. PA 2 of the SP was included in the tabulation at an expected 300 units (28.4 du/acre ). As a result of the decreased density, the City would be losing 50 units from Low Income category in its adopted Housing Element.
Due to the decrease in density in PA 2 of the SP, the City is now required to up-zone 8.16 acres in the City to HHDR to remain in compliance with RHNA ob ligations and No- Net Loss requirements (with no buffer). City staff will be making recommendations to up-zone additional sites at a future City Council meeting to remain in compliance.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
As additional potential sites for up -zoning are being identified, th is report is intended to provide an update on the City`s compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals within our certified Housing Element.
Housing Element Law
Since 1969, California has required that all local governments adequately plan to meet the housing needs of everyone in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the State). General plans serve as the local government ’s "blueprint" for how the city and/or county will grow and develop and includes seven required elements: land use, transportation, conservation, noise, open space, safety, and housing. The law mandating that housing be included as an element of each juris diction’s general plan is kn own as “housing-element law.”
California’s housing-element law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demand of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain), housing development. As a result, housing policy in California rests largely on the effective implementation of local general plans and, in particular, local housing elements. Local governments must update their housing elements every eight years. The City Council adopted the 6th Cycle Housing Element on December 2, 2021 for the 8-year period of 2021 through 2029.
The Element was subsequently certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) as being fully compliant with State Law on April 21, 2022. The Element includes a number of follow -up implementation items that must be undertaken wi thin specific timelines to ensure the City remains compliant with State Housing Law. The three follow-up housing implementation items that will be presented to the City Council at a future meeting include 1) amendments to the Development Code, 2) amendments to the General Plan Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element; and 3) amendments to the General Plan Land Use Map, the I -15 Corridor Specific Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map.
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The 6 th Cycle RHNA covered the planning period of October 2021 through October 2029. The main objective of the RHNA is to distribute the need for new housing construction in an equitable method throughout the State. Communities use RHNA in land use planning, in prioritizing local resource allocation, and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment, and household growth.
RHNA allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and sub region can grow in wa ys that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promote transportation mobility, and address social equity and fair share housing needs.
Page | 3
ANALYSIS
As part of the Housing Element Update process, the City was required to address how it would accommodate its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) of 4,497 units for the 2021 to 2029 planning period. The City is not required to physically build the number of housing units ascribed to it, but rather, is only required to ensure that its general plan land use map and zoning map designations have adequate capacity to allow for the development of the required units.
Table 1: Jurupa Valley’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Total Very Low Low Moderate Above Mod
4,497 1,207 749 731 1,810
Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) 6th Cycle RHNA Allocation Based on Final Methodology and Final Connect SoCal
The City conducted a comprehensive assessment of land within Jurupa Valley to determine how many residential dwelling units could be potentially developed within the 2021 to 2029 Ho using Element planning period. The assessment determined that all of the City’s moderate and above moderate housing allocation would be met through a combination of planned and potential development. However, it was determined that the City would fall short of its very low income and low-income allocation by 883 dwelling units (529 very low and 354 low.) In order to make up for the shortfall, the City evaluated sites that could be redesignated and/or rez oned to make up t he shortfall. Options were discussed with the Planning Commission, City Council and public, which resulted in some sites being added and some sites being removed. The adopted Housing Element includes an action item to redesignate and rezone 19 sites, to the City`s highest density, HHDR to ensure the City meets its RHNA.
The 19 sites proposed for redesignation and/or rezone to meet RHNA include 70.84 acres, which could accommodate up to 1,197 residential dwelling units. Most of the sites are vacant or min imally developed and are proposed for redesignation and rezone to a higher potential density, which will help meet the City’s very low and l ow-income RHNA requirement.
Figure 1 illustrates the location of all of the 19 sites within the City. The General Plan and Zoning Changes proposed for each of these 19 sites are expected to be presented at a Planning Commission and City Council Public Hearing in February and March 2023. A separate study session is tentatively scheduled for March 2, 2023 to discuss th e additional 8.16 acres needed to up-zone due to No-Net Loss compliance.
Page | 4
Figure 1: 6th Cycle General Plan Redesignation & Zone Change Sites
Figure 2 illustrates all of the sites already designated in the City for Highest Density Residential (HHDR) - Up to 25 du/acre.
Figure 2: Sites Designated Highest Density Residential (HHDR)
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The time to research additional sites to up-zone for compliance is covered by the general fund.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-i Contents
5 – Housing Element ................................ ............ 5-1 A. Introduction ................................ ................................ 5-1 Primary Goals ............................................................... 5-2 State Housing Element Requirements ........................ 5-2 Consistency with Other Elements of the General
Plan ....................................................................... 5-3 Public Participation ...................................................... 5-5 B. Community Profile ................................ .................... 5-11 Data and Methodology.............................................. 5-11 Population Trends and Characteristics ..................... 5-13 Special Needs Groups ................................................ 5-20 Housing Growth ......................................................... 5-30 Composition of Housing Stock .................................. 5-30 Vacancy Rates ............................................................ 5-32 Housing Conditions .................................................... 5-32 Neighborhood Improvements and Removal
of Blight .............................................................. 5-34 Code Enforcement Activities ..................................... 5-35 Housing Costs and Affordability ................................ 5-35 C. Existing Housing Needs ................................ ............. 5-37 Housing Cost Burden ................................................. 5-38 Overcrowding............................................................. 5-39 Publicly Assisted Housing .......................................... 5-40 Units at Risk of Converting to Market-Rate
Housing ............................................................... 5-41 Fair Housing in Jurupa Valley .................................... 5-44 Resources for Special Needs Groups ........................ 5-45 Families ...................................................................... 5-50 Housing Resources .................................................... 5-51 D. Housing Opportunities and Resources ...................... 5-63 Credits toward RHNA ................................................. 5-64 Progress in Meeting Housing Needs ......................... 5-73 Additional Sites Needed to Meet RHNA ................... 5-74 E. Financial Resources for Housing ............................... 5-74 SB 2/LEAP Grants ....................................................... 5-74 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ............ 5-75 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funds .................................................................. 5-76 Additional Resources ................................................. 5-76 F. Opportunities for Energy Conservation .................... 5-76 State Regulations ....................................................... 5-77 State and Federal Programs ...................................... 5-77 Private Sector Programs ............................................ 5-77 G. Housing Constraints ................................ .................. 5-78 Governmental Constraints ........................................ 5-78 Environmental Constraints ........................................ 5-90 Infrastructure Constraints ......................................... 5-92 Market Constraints .................................................... 5-95 Energy Conservation Constraints .............................. 5-98 H. Housing Element Goals, and Policies ........................ 5-98 Goals ........................................................................... 5-99 Policies ........................................................................ 5-99 I. Housing Action Plan ................................ ................ 5-105 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ..................... 5-114 J. Quantified Objectives ................................ ............. 5-120 Appendices ................................ ................................ ... 5-121 Appendix A – Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant
Sites Inventory .................................... 5-123 Appendix B – Proposed Redesignation/Rezone
Sites ..................................................... 5-159 Appendix C – Public Participation ......................... 5-169 Appendix D – Evaluation of Previous Housing
Element/Past Accomplishments........ 5-207
Appendix E – Fair Housing Assessment ................ 5-215
Tables
Table 5.1 : Regional Population Trends, 2000-2019 ........ 5-13 Table 5.2 : Age Distribution – Percent of Total
Population, 2010-2019 .................................. 5-14 Table 5.3 : Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2019 ... 5-14 Table 5.4 : Employment by Industry, 2019 ...................... 5-15 Table 5.5 : Total Households and Household Growth,
2010-2019 ...................................................... 5-16 Table 5.6 : Household Characteristics, Percent of
Total................................................................ 5-16 Table 5.7 : Occupied Units by Tenure, 2019 .................... 5-17 Table 5.8 : Household Size Distribution, 2019 ................. 5-17 Table 5.9 : Household Income by Tenure, 2019 .............. 5-18 Table 5.10 : Distribution by Income Group, Percent of
Total Households ........................................... 5-19 Table 5.11 : Elderly with Disabilities Limiting
Independent Living in Jurupa Valley,
2009-2013 and 2019 ..................................... 5-21 Table 5.12 : Householders by Tenure and Age ................ 5-22 Table 5.13 : Disability Characteristics, Percent of Total Population, 2019 ........................................... 5-23 Table 5.14 : Large Households (5 persons or more) by
Tenure, 2019 .................................................. 5-26 Table 5.15 : Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households ..... 5-26 Table 5.16 : Homeless Population in Jurupa Valley
and Riverside County, 2017-2020 ................ 5-28
Table 5.17 : Farm Worker Employment Profile,
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario
Metropolitan Statistical Area ........................ 5-28 Table 5.18 : Housing Unit Growth Jurupa Valley and
Nearby Jurisdictions ...................................... 5-30 Table 5.19 : Unit Type by Tenure, 2019 ........................... 5-31 Table 5.20 : Unit Size by Tenure, 2019 ............................. 5-31 Table 5.21 : Household Occupancy Status, 2010-2019 ... 5-32 Table 5.22 : Tenure by Age of Housing Stock
(Occupied Units) ............................................ 5-33 Table 5.23 : Number of Dwellings Lacking Plumbing or
Complete Kitchen Facilities, 2019 ................ 5-34 Table 5.24 : Average Rent by Unit Size ............................. 5-36 Table 5.25 : Housing Affordability Matrix, Riverside
County, 2020 .................................................. 5-37 Table 5.26 : Income Limits ................................................ 5-38 Table 5.27 : Overcrowding by Tenure, Percent of
Total Households ........................................... 5-40 Table 5.28 : Non-Public Housing Affordable Units in
Jurupa Valley .................................................. 5-41 Table 5.29 : Rental Subsidies Required – Mission
Villas, 2019 ..................................................... 5-43 Table 5.30 : Senior Housing Development ....................... 5-47 Table 5.31 : Homeless and Special Needs Housing
Resources ....................................................... 5-49 Table 5.32 : Inland Empire Affordable Housing Project
Examples ......................................................... 5-52 Table 5.33 : Jurupa Valley Permitted Uses by Zone ......... 5-54 Table 5.34 : City of Jurupa Valley 6th Cycle RHNA
Allocation ........................................................ 5-64 Table 5.35 : Approved Units Built/Entitled June 30-
September 30, 2021 ...................................... 5-65 Table 5.36 : Pipeline Projects (Units Pending
Approval) as of September 30, 2021 ............ 5-66
Table 5.37 : ADU Affordability Assumptions,
2021-2029 ...................................................... 5-67 Table 5.38 : Approved I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 ................. 5-69
Table 5.39 : Approved Emerald Meadows Ranch
Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-
2029 ................................................................ 5-69 Table 5.40 : Proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan
Amendment (2021) Anticipated Build-Out
2021-2029 ...................................................... 5-70 Table 5.41 : Approved Paradise Knolls Specific Plan
Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2019 ................. 5-71
Table 5.42 : 2021-2029 Projected Specific Plan
Development .................................................. 5-71 Table 5.43 : General Plan Affordability Level
Assumptions ................................................... 5-71 Table 5.44 : City Council and Planning Commission
Approved Projects by Density and
Affordability, January 1, 2019-
October 15, 2021 ........................................... 5-72 Table 5.45 : Sites Inventory ............................................... 5-73 Table 5.46 : Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle Regional
Housing Need Allocation ............................... 5-73 Table 5.47 : RHNA Summary With Redesignation Sites ... 5-74 Table 5.48 : Jurupa Valley General Plan Residential
Land Use Designations, 2017 ........................ 5-80 Table 5.49 : Summary of Residential Zoning Districts
Development Standards ................................ 5-81 Table 5.50 : Residential Parking Requirements ................ 5-82 Table 5.51 : Planning Fees ................................................. 5-83 Table 5.52 : Residential Development Impact Fees
(Per Unit) ........................................................ 5-84 Table 5.53 : Street Design Standards ................................ 5-93 Table 5.54 : Disposition of Home Loans, 2019 ................. 5-97 Table 5.55 : Housing Action Plan Summary, 2021-
2029 .............................................................. 5-106 Table 5.56 – Fair Housing Program Action Items ........... 5-115 Table 5.57 : Quantified Objectives .................................. 5-120
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element 2021-2029 Page 5-1 5 – HOUSING ELEMENT
Figure 5-1: Housing Diversity in Jurupa Valley
A. INTRODUCTION
This Housing Element identifies the housing needs and goals, policies, and programs for Jurupa Valley for 2021 through 2029, and promotes expanded housing opportunities, community safety, prosperity, and quality of life for all, consistent with Jurupa Valley’s adopted Community Values Statement, included in Appendix 8.0 to the 2017 General Plan.
This Housing Element was prepared to establish a strategy to meet this young City’s housing needs for all income levels, in cluding affordable and market -rate housing. This Housing Element was prepared to meet the State of California’s 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Planning Period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029.
The primary issues addressed include:
1. The provision of decent ho using in a healthy enviro nment for all income levels;
2. Affordable housing for special needs populations;
3. Implementation of housing programs;
4. Rehabilitation and preservation of exi sting affordable housing; and
5. Removal of blight.
Housing is a key part of the City’s overall economic develop ment efforts to improve and expand its housing stock, improve property values, diversify the employment base, and improve the quality of life for all residents.
This element contains a reflection of the local issues and state law requirements for the State of California and also demonstrates a determination to meet the minimum requirements under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) determined by the Department of Housing and Comm unity Development (HCD). The following list provides the Primary goals that continue to influence the City’s objectives, policies, and programs:
Primary Goals
HE 1: Encourage and, where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the Ci ty’s share of the region’s housing needs for all income levels and for special needs populations.
HE 2: Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special needs
households.
HE 3: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
HE 4: Maintain and enhance residential neighborhoods and remove blight.
HE 5: Reduce residential energy and water use.
HE 6: Affirmatively further fair housing.
The Housing Element of the General Plan is only one facet of a City’s planning program. The California Government Code requires that General Plans contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. Th is Housing Element helps shape and is influenced by policies contained in the other nine Elements of this General Plan; particularly by the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity , and distribution of land uses throughout the C ity, and by the Mobility Element, which establishes policies for the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the City.
State Housing Element Requirements
State law requires the preparation of a Housing Element as part of a jurisdiction’s General Plan (California Government Code §65302(c)).
It is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-3 prioritize housing needs and to determine ways to meet these needs best while balancing community objectives and resources.
Appendix A in this Housing Element contains background details regarding the City’s inventory of sites for housing development, and Appendix B contains a summary of proposed sites for redesignation/ rezone.
Consistency with Other Elements of the General Plan
This Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan elements and is consistent with the policies and proposals set forth in them.
By law, General Plans must be internally consistent. Therefore, proposed amendments to any element must be evaluated against the other General Plan elements to ensure that no conflicts occur.
When the City of Jurupa Valley incorporated in 2 011, the new City adopted the County’s General Plan, including the Housing Element.
The 2017 Housing Element was the City’s first locally prepared housing element and was developed as part of its new 2017 General Plan. The 2021 -2029 Housing Element is the second Housing Element for the City of Jurupa Valley as required by the timeline set by HCD. As part of the development of this Housing Element Update, the City ensured consistency with the Safety and Environmental Justice elements as required by state law , as well as all other elements of the General Plan.
Housing must be viewed in a context that includes more than the availability of adequate shelter. External factors affect ing the adequacy of housing include the quality of public services, aesthetics and visual characteristics, and proximity to related land uses. For example, the location of housing often determines the extent of school, park, library, police, fire, and other se rvices associated with housing.
Housing is a unique element in that the plans for housing can significantly change the plans and development of the other elements. The following explains how the elements are related. • Air Quality: In terms of housing, air quality can dictate the types and concentration of housing development due to
the kinds of emissions that can result from human activities that produce air -polluting greenhouse gases. Air Quality Goal #6 works to deal with the expected issues surrounding Jobs and Housing.
• Community Safety, Services and Facilities : This combined element covers facilities and safety that can affect the physical development and quality of life in Jurupa Valley.
Community Safety, Service and Facilities Goal #1 and
Goal #2 integrate the efforts to provide pro tection and services to the new housing development in the City.
• Economic Sustainability: Build and maintain a thriving local economy to expand employment and business oppor -
tunities, provide needed products and services, increase median income and property values, and help preserve and enhance Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. In this context, housing can change the speed of growth of the economic
base of the community and seek a housing and jobs balance within the City.
• Environmental Justice : The goal of the Environmental Justice Element is to e nsure environmental equity for all persons, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and establish and maintain an open and
inclusionary public decision -making process. While all of the goals in the E nvironmental Justice Element impact the development of the Housing Element, Environmental
Justice Goal #4 specifically reviews Healthy and Affordable Housing.
• Healthy Communities: The Healthy Communities Element
establishes goals and policies to help improve quality of life and foster healthy behavior and lifestyles, translating the General Plan vision for a robust Jurupa Valley into reality.
Housing in this context is viewed as physical, social , and cultural factors of health and well-being of the community of Jurupa Valley.
• Land Use: The goal of the Land Use Element is to use land to maintain and enhance Jurupa Valley’s unique, small - town character and equestrian -friendly neighbor hoods
while promoting economic opportunities and prosperity for all. This element works with housing to maintain population growth and development trends, and balance the types and density of housing in the City.
• Mobility: The Mobility Element works to create a multi - modal mobility network that protects Jurupa Valley’s semi- rural character and lifestyle, is attractive , and provides all users with safe connections to homes, jobs, schools,
commercial areas, public facilities , and recreation areas, and that reduces dependence on the use of single-occupant automobiles.
• Noise: In the Noise Element, the City describes how it intends to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of
excessive noise exposure on its residents, employees,
visitors, and other persons. In the case of housing, the Noise Element will consider land use compatibility to noise generators like commercial and industrial development to housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-5 • Conservation and Open Space: The Conservation and Open Space Element promotes public health and safety by
redirecting development away from areas subject to
geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. The goals of the Conservation and Open Space Element are integrated into housing through access to open spaces from housing and
the hope to preserve the resources for the futur e
generation of Jurupa valley residents.
Public Participation
In preparing the 6 th Cycle Housing Element, involvement with community members was prioritized to fully understand their values and ideas for the future. There were several opportunities for community members and housing interest groups to express their input and weigh in on housing issues . Although in-person outreach was limited due to COVID -19 constraints, the community adapted and found meaningful ways to get involved in the Housing Element update process through digital engagement platforms and virtual meetings. A summary of outreach activities conducted during the planning effort is provided below . Appendix C contains community engagement materials used to inform and solicit input from the public during the process, including public notices, the Community Housing Survey, and community workshops.
Website and Community Housing Survey
In winter 2020-21, the C ity launched the Housing Element Update webpage and online Community Housing Survey (in English and Spanish). The website contained educational information about the purpose and process for the Housing Element, project updates, and notices of upcoming opportunities to participat e. This included the opportunity to sign up for an email list for future updates for the public study sessions and workshops that were planned for community participation.
To date, the Community Housing Survey has resulted in 231 responses. To connect with as many residents of Jurupa Valley as possible, the survey was promoted through the City’s Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the City’s email list, the City’s Facebook page, and the City’s website. The survey was open to the public through the Housing Element development process, and the responses demonstrated that the community’s interests and concerns reflected those found in the data and demographics. The responses from a majority of the survey takers show that those with the greatest need for housing in Jurupa Valley are seniors, large families, young adults , and homeless persons. The responses also reveal that the community does not see any difficulty in finding housing but does see the need for affordable housing and would like
to see more diversity in affordable housing. Through the survey, the City also received a wide variety of comments on housing that are available in full in Appendix C.
A summary of the survey responses identified the following housing concerns and desires for the City.
• Desire to increase the variety of housing types and
affordability
• Desire to see governme nt assistance for the maintenance of existing homes
• Desire to see housing developed near access to community and commercial amenities
• Desire to provide housing to those who are in the special need categories (i.e. , those who are homeless, single
parent household, seniors or living with disabilities)
The survey was provided in English and Spanish. To reach growing population of Spanish speakers living in the community , t he outreach notices were also provided in Spanish and English . In addition to the normal methods of distribution and legal noticing ; the many utility companies, public agencies and nonprofits organizations that operate in the City were able to provide their customers access to the information available through their websites and utility bills . These surveys results captured the community’s sentiments towards the current housing issues present in Jurupa Valley.
The City incorporated the data into the overall analysis of the Element and the main concerns of the community were reviewed and addressed in the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element. The responses received from the community resulted in specific emphasis on affordable housing and diversity of in future housing types.
Planning Commission and City Council Study Sessions:
Housing Element Overview, Sites Inventory and New
Housing Laws
Public input was facilitated by means of separate Study Sessions conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on March 10, 2021 and April 15, 2021 , respectively, that provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. The Planning Commission and City Council were generally supportive of the need for additional housing sites in the City and indicated areas of the City where additional housing and density would be most feasible, including within the Specific Plan areas and along the City’s major transportation corridors. The meetings were noticed as follows and open for public participation and comment.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-7 • Notices were mailed to interested persons and public
agencies.
• Notices were posted at City Hall.
• Notices were posted on the City’s website.
• Notices were placed in the Press Enterprise Newspaper (print and digital).
Community Workshops
On April 5 and 6, 2021 public workshops were conducted on the Housing Element , one in English and one in Spanish. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the workshops were conducted via
teleconference with computer stations available at City Hall for participants without computer access. The workshops were advertised on the City’s website, community websites, and through social media. During the workshops, City staff provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA.
Participants were then encouraged to provide their input on housing issues and needs in Jurupa Valley. Overall, participants agreed that lack of affordabl e housing is the biggest housing issue in Jurupa Valley.
During these workshops the participants also emphasize d the following concerns and desires for the City to address:
• Desire to increase the variety of housing type s and
affordability,
• Desire to locate higher density housing near transportation corridors,
• Desire to see more multi-family dwelling development and small lot or condo developments to increase the income
variety of the community,
• Desire to see more shared open spaces in the community and developments with less traditional lawns.
These comments have been incorporated into the development of the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element.
Public Review Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was made available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website beginning on May 20, 2021 .
Notices to inform the public and stakeholders about the availability of the Draft Housing Element were mailed and emailed to housing interest groups, including all homeowner’s associations in the City, and announcements of the Draft Housing Element were sent to subscribers of the City’s email service , community agencies, and
Facebook, and were made at Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Planning Commission and City Council Joint Study Session:
Final Sites Inventory and Draft Housing Element
On May 20, 2021 , a joint study session was conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Final Sites Inventory (Appendix A), Proposed Rede signation/Rezone Sites (Appendix B), and the Draft Housing Element. This study session provided an overview of the Draft Housing Element and a detailed overview of the sites inventory. The meeting was noticed and open for public participation and comment. In addition, the City directly invited housing interest groups , including affordable housing developers and nonprofits, senior care providers, property manage- ment companies, and the Chamber of Commerce. A notice was also mailed to representatives of all homeowner’s associations in the City.
This study session was attended by Planning Commissioners, City Council members, community members, and community interest group representatives. The study session was livestreamed through the City website , and community members were provided the opportunity to send in written comments ahead of the session on May 20, 2021. The study session began with an overview of the Draft Housing Element and the timeline of the development and community involvement with this document. The presentation also included a review of the Sites Inventory and ability of the City to meet its RHNA allocation based on existing and proposed land use designations and known development projects . The presentation was then followed by a discussion about proposed sites for redesignation/rezone to the City’s highest density residential designation (HHDR) and R -3 zone and the criteria used to select sites. Sites were chosen to best encapsulate the City’s RHNA as set by the HCD. The discussion centered on vacant sites available in the City of Jurupa Valley.
The City Council had the following comments , and based on individual study sessions, the draft document and the list of site s provided, they voiced their desires to see the following:
• Desire to see highest density housing around commercial development
• Desire to see fewer industrial uses around housing
• Desire to see that no more housing get built directly in areas that are currently impacted by traffic issues
• Desire to see quality housing through designs and buffering to reduce the effects of pollutants to housing sites
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-9 All of the comments provided by City Council members were included and responded to through the programs in this document.
For example, the hou sing sites proposed for redesignation and rezoning have been located near existing and planned commercial developments and future commercial development so that the community will have access to amenities.
Planning Commissioners provided comments on the sites and the following desires:
• Desire to house as many people as possible in the
community as part of a balancing act with jobs
• Desire to see that the development for highest density housing infill and transit corridors spread the density throughout the city
• Desire for inclusionary and mixed income developments for residents to encourage healthy communities
These comments were taken into account when writing this document and were used to modify the overall Sites Inventory and proposed redesignation/rezone sites. The current housing policies in this document also include programs to address the diversity of housing for different incomes, the concentration and location of highest density housing, as well as environmental justice needs for housing development.
This meeting was attended by the public and watched through the livestream available on the City website. This meeting was recorded and kept for future record. Representatives from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and Inland Equity, two local environmental justice groups, attended the meetings and spoke of their comments on the Draft Housing Element and also wrote into the City concerning potential additional programs to further the development of affordable for all.
The nonprofits discussed the following desires for inclusion in the City’s Housing programs:
• Desire for rent control in Jurupa Valley
• Desire to raise fines through code enforcement for
substandard housing in both rental and ownership
• Desire for elimination of the lowest density residential zoning
• Desire for programs to assist with housing ownership
rather than renting
• Desire to relocate the potential housing sites farther away from transportation corridors
• Desire to see inclusionary and mixed housing
The comments received by the City at this study session from these two nonprofit groups have been addressed by the programs of this
Housing Element, including a study for a n inclusionary housing ordinance, the special criteria of potential housing site in ventory selection, and the continued work by the code enforcement team to deal with substandard housing. As the City continues to grow and attempts to accommodate the development of the community, it makes all efforts to provide better housing for all inco me levels through the proposed programs.
Public Review of Draft Housing Element
On May 27, 2021, the Draft Housing Element was updated with the comments received from the City Council and Planning Commission Joint session and then reposted on the City website for public review of the 6th cycle. The announcement for this draft availability was also posted on the City’s website and social media platforms and was sent to all community parties. The update draft was also sent to HCD for the first review. The typical Housing Element review period is 60 days, and on July 23, 2021 the City met with the staff from the HCD to review the State’s preliminary comments, which were formally provided to the City in writing on July 26, 2021. The City has incorporated change s requested by the State in a revised Draft Housing Element Update.
On October 5, 2021, the City made the revised Draft Housing Element with HCD-requested updates available on the City’s website with an invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community groups, and others requesting notification. As of October 15, 2021, the City did not receive any comments from the public on the revised Draft Housing Element; however, the document remain ed available for public review and comment through February 7, 2022. The intention was to keep all community members informed of any changes and updates to the Housing Element and obtain as many comments as possible to best create a document that suits the needs of the people of Jurupa Valley.
On November 10, 2021 , the Planning Commission considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission received a detailed overview of the Housing Element Update and invited members of the public to address the Commission. However, no members of the public asked to be heard.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend
approval of the Housing Element Update to the City Council.
On December 2 , 2021, the City Council considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Mayor invited members of the public to address the Council on the Housing Element Update. However, no members of the public asked to be Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-11 heard. Following discussion of the project , the Council made minor modifications to the sites inventory and unanimously approved the Housing Element Update . I n addition, the Council authorized the Community Develop ment Director to make any non -substantive, technical modifications to the document based on further comments from HCD without the need for re -approval by the City Council.
On December 13, 2021, the City received the second comment letter from HCD on the Housing Element. The letter acknowledged that the City had responded to many of HCD’s previous comments and requested additional information and clarification on the AFFH and other topics.
On February 7, 2022, the City made the second revis ion of the Housing Element available on the City’s website with a n invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community groups, and others requesting notification. The revision reflected changes made to the element in response to HCD’s letter of December 13, 2021. As of February 21, 2022, the City received one comment on the revised Housing Element Update related to whether the revised proposal for the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan was included in the document. As stated in Section D, the revised proposal was not included as it is early in the process and has not been reviewed or approved by the City. The revised draft Housing Element Update was submitted to HCD on February 22, 2022 for review and certification.
B. COMMUNITY PROFILE
This section analyzes demographic and housing characteristics that influence the demand for and availability of housing in the City of Jurupa Valley. This analysis forms the foundation for community - based housing programs that can most fe asibly meet the needs of the residents of the City of Jurupa Valley. This also looks at the growth of the community and uses that data to plan for housing needs within the community of Jurupa Valley.
Data and Methodology
Work on this 2021 -2029 Housing Ele ment began in 2020 prior to completion and publication of 2020 census information. In addition, the City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated on July 1, 2011, after the 2010 Census had been conducted. As such, the City of Jurupa Valley was not identified as a city in the decennial census. Nonetheless, preparation of this Housing Element involved the assemblage and presentation of relevant demographic and housing data for Jurupa
Valley as an individual jurisdiction. Jurupa Valley was added to the demographic data available starting in 2013 as its own city.
The following key data sources were used to complete this Housing Element. Sources of specific information are identified in the text, tables, and figures.
• Census data (2010) and American Community Surveys
(2019 and 2017)
• California Department of Finance (2013)
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) Data, 2013-2017
While the City was not recognized as an incorporated city in the decennial census, demographic and housing data for Jurupa Valley is extracted from the decennial censuses (2010 U.S. Census) by retrieving the data for the block groups and census tracts that generally describe the boundaries of the City of Jurupa Valley . The 2021-2029 Housing Element was prepared in 2020 -2021 and was part of the 2020 Census data collection as a Place; however, because the certified Census data has not been released to the public for use, this Housing Element utilizes the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019. While most of the data is available for the ACS for 2019, not all data is complete and so the data for the 2017 ACS is used in the analysis.
Another method of compiling decennial census data for the City of Jurupa Valley is using data for the Census Designated Places (CDPs) that comprise the City of Jurupa Valley. Six CDPs generally form the boundaries of Jurupa Valley : Crestmore Heights, Glen Avon , Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, and Sunnyslope.
Since the 2010 Census, the Bureau of Census has been conducting sample surveys, known as the American Community Surveys (ACS), on specific demographic and housing variables. ACSs are conducted every 1, 3, or 5 years, depending on the specific variables in question and the population size of the community. Some ACSs do contain data for the City of Jurupa Valley as an incorporated city. Therefore, by necessity, this report draws from multiple ACS data sets that depend upon the availability of data for the City. The ACS data gives us an opportunity to analyze demographic and housing data in the City as recent as 2019. When data is not available at the city -level, this report applies the same method used above for retrieving data from the decennial censuses, and extracts data at the block -group or tract-level.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-13 Population Trends and Characteristics
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of the changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composit ion of the City of Jurupa Valley since 2000.
Historical, Existing, and Forecast Growth
The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated from within Riverside County in 2011 and covers a 45-square-mile area . The City encompasses the neighborhoods of Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Pedley, Indian Hills, Belltown, Sunnyslope, Crestmore Heights, and Rubidoux, thus known as “A Community of Communities.” Jurupa Valley is located in a region that, since 2000, has experienced robust population growth. According to th e U.S. Census, Riverside County had a population of just over 2,470,546 persons in 20 19.
Overall, the County has experienced steady population growth over the last two decades, with the total number of residents increasing by 59.86% since 2000. Table 5.1 compares the population of Riverside County with neighboring counties.
Table 5.1: Regional Population Trends, 2000-2019
2000 2010 2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,470,546 41.7% 12.8% San Bernardino County 1,709,434 2,035,210 2,180,085 19.1% 7.1% Imperial County 142,361 174,528 181,215 22.6% 3.8%
Jurupa Valley* 80,596 93,817 109,525 16.4% 16.7%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000-2010 and ACS 2019
*Jurupa Valley Data for 2000-2010 aggregated from county data by tract level
According to the U.S. Census, Jurupa Valley experienced a 16% population increase between 2000 and 2010. Followed by a 17% population increase between 2010-2019 indicating a steady growth of population in comparison to the growth seen at the County of Riverside. This indicates that while the growth of the population of the County has slowed in the last 10 years, the growth of Jurupa has not slowed and is still contributing to the overall growth of the county.
Age Composition
To estimate the age profile of Jurupa Valley residents, census tract level data from the 2010 Census and 20 19 ACS data was used.
Between 2010 and 2019, the Jurupa Valley population experienced growth in all age groups, but overall, the City’s population is getting older. The “prime working” population, residents between the ages of 25 and 54 years, remains the largest age group in the City. The “school age” population, those between the ages of 5 and 17 years, makes up the next largest segment of the City’s residents. The
percentage of r esidents of all age categories stayed within a few percent of what it was the previous decade.
Table 5.2: Age Distribution – Percent of Total Population, 2010-2019 Age Group
2010 2019
City of
Jurupa Valley1
Riverside
County2
City of
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
County
0 - 4 years 8.0% 7.4% 7.0% 6.3%
5 - 17 years 26.2% 24.3% 25.1% 18.5%
18 - 24 years 8.0% 7.1% 8.7% 9.5%
25 - 44 years 26.5% 26.3% 28.4% 27.0%
45 - 54 years 13.4% 13.4% 10.6% 12.3%
55 - 64 years 9.6% 9.8% 9.0% 11.6%
65+ 8.3% 11.8% 11.2% 14,8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 (DP1).and ACS 2019
1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level Ethnicity/Cultural Identity
In terms of ethnicity and cultural identity, most Jurupa Valley residents are Hispanic. As of 2010, 67% of Jurupa Valley residents were of Hispanic origin (Table 5.3), and during the next decade, the Hispanic/Latino community rapidly grew to become almost 74 % of the City’s population. Between 2010 and 2019, the largest change in population was Asian/Pacific Island in Jurupa Valley where the population doubled in size, replacing the Black/ African American population as the third largest ethnic group in the City. The percentage of total Black/African Americans decreased by half since 2010 in the City , shifting to the fourth largest population group in Jurupa. In comparison to the County ethnic demographics, the City saw change while the County remained basically the same with about a 5% drop in the Non-Hispanic White category and about a 5% increase to the Hispanic and Latino category.
Table 5.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2019
Ethnic Group
2010 2019
City of Jurupa Valley1 Riverside County2 City of Jurupa Valley Riverside County # % # % # % # %
Non-Hispanic White 24,488 26.1% 869,068 39.7% 21,051 19.2% 836,932 33.9% Black/African American 3,079 3.3% 130,823 6.0% 2,014 1.8% 151,215 6.1% Hispanic or Latino 62,376 66.5% 995,257 45.4% 80,687 73.7% 1,236,032 50.0% Am. Indian or Alaska Native 311 0.3% 10,931 0.5% 328 0.3% 10,320 0.4% Asian/Pacific Island 2,286 2.4% 131,770 6.0% 4,619 4.2% 173,027 7.0% Other 136 0.2% 3,682 0.2% 331 0.3% 6,562 0.3%
Two or more races 1,141 1.2% 48,110 2.2% 495 0.5% 56,458 2.3% Total population 93,817 100% 2,189,641 100% 109,525 100% 2,470,546 100% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 and 2020 (DP05) ACS 2019 1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-15 Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by employment trends. Significant employment opportunities within the City can lead to growth in demand for housing in proximity to jobs. The quality (including job security, and stability) and/or pay of available employment ca n determine the need for various housing types and prices.
Table 5.4: Employment by Industry, 2019
Industry
Jurupa Valley* Riverside County
Employees % Employees %
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining 299 0.6% 11,155 1.0% Construction 6,047 13.1% 104,266 9.7%
Manufacturing 5,204 11.3% 96,142 8.9%
Wholesale Trade 2,356 5.1% 28,943 2.7%
Retail Trade 4,310 9.3% 129,331 12.0%
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities 4,648 10.1% 72,544 6.7% Information 295 0.6% 13,500 1.3%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental & Leasing 2,751 6.0% 53,776 5.0% Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Svcs 4,817 10.4% 106,748 9.9% Educational, Health and Social Services 8,482 18.4% 231,824 21.6% Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services 4,013 8.7% 112,373 10.5% Other Services (except Public Administration) 1,827 4.0% 57,484 5.3% Public Administration 1,136 2.5% 56,808 5.3%
Total 46,185 100% 1,074,894 100%
Data indicates the occupations held by Jurupa Valley/Riverside County residents; the location of the related workplace is not indicated by this data. *Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (DP03)
As shown in Table 5.4, over 18.4% of Jurupa Valley’s residents are employed in educational, health, and social services industries.
About 13.1% are employed in construction; 11.3% are employed in manufacturing; 10.4% in professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services and 10.1% in transportation and warehousing, and utilities. This data represents the jobs the American Community Survey Estimates that there are held by the residents of Jurupa Valley but t here is no data to show that these percentages are reflective of the industries op erating within the City of Jurupa Valley.
According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the unemployment rate in Jurupa Valley has steadily declined since 2010. In 2019, the City’s unemployment rate was recorded at
8.5% which decrea sed f rom the 10.5% in 2010. Despite the decreasing trend, this unemployment rate is still higher than the County’s unemployment rate of 5.8%.
Household Characteristics
This section describes Jurupa Valley’s household characteristics. The Census Bureau def ines a household as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they are related. One person living alone is considered a household, as is a group of unrelated people living in a single housing unit.
Household Growth
In 2015-2019, the American Community Survey reported 24,907 households in Jurupa Valley, an increase of less than 1% from 2010, as shown in Table 5.5 . According to the Census, the number of households in Jurupa Valley is growing at a slower pace than both Riverside County and the State of California overall.
Table 5.5: Total Households and Household Growth, 2010-2019 Area 2010 2019
Percent Increase
2010-2019
Jurupa Valley1 24,787 24,907 0.48%
Riverside County2 686,260 724,893 5.62%
California 12,577,498 13,157,873 4.61%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 (H16) and ACS 2015-2019 5 Year (DP02) 1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the block group level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level Household Characteristics and Size
As shown in Table 5.6, the majority of households in Jurupa Valley in 2010 were family households (83%), at a higher proportion than the County as a whole (74%). About 44% of all households in the City were families with children and more than 32% of households had at least one elderly member (65+ years). About 7% of all households were made up of an elderly person living alone. In comparison to the state and the county, Jurupa Valley has a much higher number of large households (5+ persons per household) and it is reflected in the main needs of the community.
Table 5.6: Household Characteristics, Percent of Total
City of
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
County California
Household Type
Families 82.8% 73.8% 68.2%
Families with Children 43.4% 31.7% 28.9%
Married Families with Children 31.1% 22.4% 20.6%
Male Headed Families with Children 3.4% 2.5% 2.4%
Female Headed Families with Children 8.9% 6.8% 5.9%
Non-Family Households 17.2% 26.2% 31.8%
Senior Living Alone 7.1% 10.5% 10.0%
Households with Elderly (65+ years) 31.9% 33.8% 30.8%
Household Size
Large Households (5+) 48.7% 33.4% 28.7%
Large Households - Owners 31.8% 22.9% 16.2%
Large Households - Renters 16.9% 10.5% 12.4%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2019 (DP02, S1101, S2501) Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-17 Tenure
Tenure refers to whether housing is rented or owned. Housing tenure is, in turn related to household income, composition (household size and relationships), and age of the householder.
Communities need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes, composition (individuals living together and their relationships to one another), and lifestyles.
Approximately 62% of Jurupa Valley households owned their homes, and 38% of households rented their homes in 2019. As shown in Table 5.7, the homeownership rate in Jurupa Valley was only slightly lower than in Rive rside County but noticeably higher than in the State of California as a whole.
Table 5.7: Occupied Units by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Number % Number % Number %
Jurupa Valley 15,293 62.3% 9,254 37.7% 24,548 100%
Riverside County 493,150 67.1% 241,797 32.9% 734,948 100% California 7,223,672 54.9% 5,934,200 45.1% 13,157,873 100% Source: Bureau of the Census 2010 (H16 -SF1) ACS 2019
As shown in Table 5.8 households of five or more persons made up the majority of households in 2019 with 49%, while the comparable figure for the County was only 33%. Larger renter-households (with five or more pe rsons) had the greatest relative increase , while owner-occupied households with three to four persons had the greatest decrease. This trend may reflect that housing ownership has become increasingly unaffordable to larger households or that some people are rejoining families because of housing costs, thereby resulting in overcrowding.
Table 5.8: Household Size Distribution, 2019
Household Size
Total
Households
% of Total
Households
Renter-
Households
% of Total
Households
Owner-
Households
% of Total
Households
Jurupa Valley*
1 Person 3,179 13.0% 1,453 5.9% 1,726 7.0%
2 Persons 4,510 18.4% 1,513 6.2% 2,997 12.2%
3-4 Persons 4,907 20.0% 2,154 8.8% 2,753 11.2%
5+ Persons 11,952 48.7% 4,143 16.9% 7,809 31.8%
Total 24,548 100% 9,263 37.7% 15,285 62.3%
Riverside County
1 Person 150,187 20.4% 61,142 8.3% 89,045 12.1%
2 Persons 223,412 30.4% 59,036 8.0% 164,376 22.4%
3-4 Persons 116,160 15.8% 44,496 6.1% 71,664 9.8%
5+ Persons 245,189 33.4% 77,041 10.5% 168,148 22.9%
Total 734,948 100% 241,715 32.9% 493,233 67.1%
California
1 Person 3,169,002 24.1% 1,743,267 13.2% 1,425,735 10.8% 2 Persons 4,036,952 30.7% 1,598,340 12.1% 2,438,612 18.5% 3-4 Persons 2,180,067 16.6% 963,641 7.3% 1,216,426 9.2% 5+ Persons 3,771,852 28.7% 1,633,883 12.4% 2,137,969 16.2% Total 13,157,873 100% 5,939,131 45.1% 7,218,742 54.9%
Source: ACS 2019 (S2501)
*Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level
Household Income
Median incomes in Jurupa Valley varied considerably by tenure.
During this time, the median incomes for owner -occupied households in the Jurupa Valley were consistently nearly double those of renter -occupied households. About 32% of Jurupa Valley households are lower income. In 2019, about one -fifth (20%) of Jurupa Valley households earned less than $35,000 and only 24% earned more than $100,000.
Table 5.9: Household Income by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Households Renter-Households Total Households
Number % Number % Number %
Less than $5,000 182 1.2% 0 0.0% 182 0.7%
$5,000 to $9,999 84 0.5% 155 1.7% 239 1.0%
$10,000 to $14,999 368 2.4% 480 5.2% 848 3.5%
$15,000 to $19,999 126 0.8% 508 5.5% 634 2.6%
$20,000 to $24,999 312 2.0% 1,443 15.6% 1,755 7.1%
$25,000 to $34,999 534 3.5% 648 7.0% 1,182 4.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,542 10.1% 1,541 16.6% 3,083 12.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,580 16.9% 1,655 17.9% 4,235 17.3%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,333 15.3% 1,717 18.5% 4,050 16.5%
$100,000 to $149,000 3,664 24.0% 888 9.6% 4,552 18.5%
$150,000 or more 3,560 23.3% 228 2.5% 3,788 15.4%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 24,548 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (S2503)
Percent of Total Households within Each Income Level, 2015 and 2019
Source: American Community Survey 2015 and 2019 (S2503) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Less than $5,000
$5,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,000
$150,000 or more
Less than
$5,000
$5,000 to
$9,999
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$19,999
$20,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,000
$150,000
or more
2015 2 2.6 5.6 2.4 3.9 10.8 11 23.6 16.7 14.5 7
2019 0.7 1 3.5 2.6 7.1 4.8 12.6 17.3 16.5 18.5 15.4
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-19 The relatively high percentage of lower income persons residing in Jurupa Valley is one of several indicators showing a concentration of low-cost rental or sale housing in the City, particularly in several older neighborhoods in Mira Loma, Sunnyslope, Bell town, Glen Avon, and Rubidoux.
For purposes of the Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established five income groups based on Area Median Income (AMI):
• Extremely Low Income: up to 30% of AMI
• Very Low Income: 31% to 50% of AMI
• Low Income: 51% to 80% of AMI
• Moderate Income: 81% to 120% AMI
• Above Moderate Income: >120% AMI
County Median Income as published by HCD must be used to establish income groups for the purpose of the Housing Element.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) periodically receives “custom tabulations” of Census data from the Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. The most recent estimates are derived from the 2013-2017 ACS. This dataset, known as the “CHAS” data
(Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), provides insight on the extent of housing problems experienced by lower -income households.
According to the CHAS data presented in Table 5.10, approximately 17% of Jurupa Valley households can be considered extremely low or very low income (50% or less of the AMI) and an additional 14% can be classified as low income (51% to 80% AMI). The majority of the City’s households (69%), however, were within the moderate and above moderate-income category (greater than 100% AMI). By comparison, about 61% of Riverside County households were moderate or above modera te-income households, which is slightly lower than that of Jurupa Valley.
Table 5.10: Distribution by Income Group, Percent of Total Households Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Extremely Low
Income
(0-30% of AMI)
Very Low Income
(31-50% of AMI)
Low Income
(51-80% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(80% - 100% of
AMI)
Above Moderate
Income
(100%+ of AMI)
Jurupa Valley* 39,850 8.4% 8.8% 14.3% 9.0% 59.6%
Riverside County 711,725 11.3% 11.1% 16.4% 9.8% 51.4%
State of California 12,888,130 15.2% 12.5% 16.2% 9.6% 46.5% Sources: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2013-2017 *Jurupa Valley: 2013- 2017 CHAS data
Notes:
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households rather than on precise numbers. Furthermore, because HUD programs do not cover households with incomes above 80% of the County AMI, CHAS data does not provide any breakdown of income groups above 80% AMI.
According to ACS data used for the HCD Data Viewer, the city is dominated in almost all tracts by Hispanic populations by less than a 10 percent gap to the next largest ethnic group and about 50 percent of the tracts by a predominate gap, concentrated in t he northeast side of the City adjacent to Riverside. This area of the City largely consists of older homes located in closer proximity to industrial development. The ACS data also shows that there is one tract in Jurupa Valley that is white majority as the predominate population by less than a 10 percent cap. This tract also happens to be one of the few tracts that have a higher income than the surrounding tracts in comparison. This is important when looking at the Site Inventory because the ethnic majority can provide insight into the type of cultural habits and cohabitation habits seen through the City and can also provide insight into locations throughout the City that require a higher density of housing.
HUD categorizes any tract and block group with more than 51 percent of the population as Low Moderate Income to have a concentration of need. So while the breakdown of income for Jurupa Valley shows that about 60% of the total population is above moderate income, the ACS data by tract shows that majority of the City’s tracts are populated with households that are Low Moderate Income. The concentration varies of LMI varies with 50% of the tracts in Jurupa Valley showing data of a population of 25% -50% of total population living in the Low Moderate Income categories. And another 25% of tracts showing that 50% to 75% of the population in those tracts living in the Low Moderate Income categories. The City also has two tracts that fall into the categories of having a L ow Moderate Income concentrated population of 75% to 100% which are located adjacent to the Fla bob Airport and the Mira Loma Industrial Overlay. These two areas are also considered disadvantaged communities per the City’s Environmental Justice Element d ue to the proximity to industrial uses and the concentration of low-income residents. As part of the Site Inventory Analysis these tracts were reviewed for the viability for the addition of affordable housing and a few sites located in these two tracts were included as potential sites for development. The City recognizes that the majority of the potential sites are located outside of these tracts and dispersed evenly though the community to prevent any segregation of income from happen.
Special Needs Groups
Certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, may require special accommodations and may have difficulty finding housing due to special needs. Special needs groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, families with childr en, single - parent households, large households, homeless persons and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-21 persons at -risk of homelessness, farm workers, and persons with HIV/AIDS.
These special needs groups are all addressed as part of the Housing Element programs to provide the needed additi onal attention for housing needs as specified by State Law. The City continues to evaluate the programs for providing access to housing for all of its current and future residents.
Seniors
Seniors (persons aged 65 and above) are gradually becoming a more substantial segment of the City’s population in Jurupa Valley, with an increase of 3% increase since 2010 from 8.3% of the overall population to 11.2% . Elderly persons are vulnerable to housing problems due to limited income, prevalence of physical or mental disabilities, limited mobility, and high health care costs. The elderly, particularly those with disabilities, may face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations. A senior on a fixed income can face great difficulty finding safe and affordable housing. Subsidized housing and federal housing assistance programs are increasing ly challenging to secure and often involve long waiting lists.
According to the 2019 ACS 1 Year Estimates, about 11% of all residents in Jurupa Valley were age d 65 or older, 31% of the City’s households included at least one elderly member and 18% of households were headed by a senior resident. Between 2009 and 2013, a little over 16% of all seniors in Jurupa Valley were living in poverty. The 2009 -2013 ACS also estimated that about 16% of Jurupa Valley’s elderly population had at least one disability and 25% had two or more disabilities, as shown in Table 5.11 . This is comparable to the elderly population in the county (16%) and the state (15%) with one disability; and similar to the elderly population in the county (20%) and the state (22%) that report two or more disabilities. By the 2019 the population of elderly persons decreased in comparison to the entire population of the City of Jurupa Valley , but the total number of elderly persons and those who had disabilities increased by about 1,000 persons.
Table 5.11: Elderly with Disabilities Limiting Independent Living in Jurupa Valley, 2009-2013 and 2019 Disability Status
2009-20131,2 2019
Total3 % of People 65+ Total4 % of People 65+
With one type of disability 1,218 16.0% 1,467 12.5%
With two or more types of disability 1,894 24.9% 2,802 23.8% Total with a disability 3,112 40.9% 4,269 36.3%
Source: ACS 2009-2013 and ACS 2019 (C18108)
1 Jurupa Valley: 2009-2013 ACS data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Estimated data from 2009-2013 ACS for illustrative purposes only 3 ACS 2009-2013, 65+ year olds: 7,593
4 ACS 2019: 65+ year olds: 11,774
Figure 5-2: Senior housing, Country Village
Apartments, Jurupa Valley
Generally, the median income for a senior household was about one-third of that for an average household. Data from the County’s 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) supports the information presented below. According to CHAS, in Jurupa Valley, 69% of elderly renter -occupied households and 31% of elderly owner -occupied households suffered from housing cost burden (i.e., total housing costs exceeded 30% of total income).
Similarly, in the County, 65% of elderly-renter-occupied households and 35% of elderly -owner-occupied households suffered from housing cost burden. Furthermore, the majority of elderly -headed households in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside County were homeowners. Many may need financial assistance in ma king necessary repairs or accessibility improvements.
Table 5.12: Householders by Tenure and Age
Householder Age
2010* 2019
Owner-
Occupied %
Renter-
Occupied %
Owner-
Occupied %
Renter-
Occupied %
15-24 years 189 1.2% 462 5.6% 23 0.2% 354 3.8%
25-34 years 1,489 9.1% 1,835 22.3% 1,390 9.1% 1,947 21.0% 35-64 years 11,743 72.1% 4,498 54.6% 10,411 68.1% 5,430 58.6% 65-74 years 1,757 10.8% 799 9.7% 2,358 15.4% 833 9.0%
75 plus years 1,115 6.8% 639 7.8% 1,102 7.2% 699 7.5%
Total 16,293 100% 8,233 100% 15,285 100% 9,263 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census 2010 (QT-H2) and ACS 2019 (B25007) *Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level.
Persons with Disabilities
Federal laws define a person with a disability as “any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment.” In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impair - ments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manu al tasks, and caring for oneself.
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities into the following categories:
• Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing • Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses
• Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering,
concentrating, or making decisions
Figure 5-3: Dwelling with universal access
design
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-23 • Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs
• Self-care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing • Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing
errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping According to the 2019 ACS, approximately 10% of the Jurupa Valley population had one or more disabilities. Of the disabilities tallied during that time, as shown in Table 5.13, ambulatory and cognitive disabilities were the most prevalent. The City’s elderly population, in particular, seemed to be the most affected by disabilities , with about 41% of Jurupa Valley seniors affected by at least one disability.
Table 5.13: Disability Characteristics, Percent of Total Population, 2019 Disability by Age and Type 5 to 17 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over Total Total Persons with a Disability 4.6% 9.9% 41.0% 10.1%
Disability Type
Hearing Difficulty 1.1% 1.5% 19.8% 3.3%
Vision Difficulty 1.2% 2.4% 7.9% 2.6%
Cognitive Difficulty 4.8% 2.6% 9.1% 4.0%
Ambulatory Difficulty 0.0% 3.9% 26.9% 5.5%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.1% 1.5% 6.4% 2.35
Independent Living Difficulty* -- 3.5% 20.8% 6.25
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (S1810)
*Tallied only for persons 18 years and over and percent represents all disabilities tallied, not percent of all disabled persons. A person can have multiple disabilities.
The City’s homeless population also appeared to be dispro - portionately affected by disabilities and health issues. The County of Riverside’s 2020 Point-In-Time Homeless Report found that 2 5% of Jurupa Valley’s homeless population had a physical disability, 14% reported a mental illness, 30% had a substance abuse disorder, and 20% reported a chronic health condition. Among those persons who are experiencing homelessness, dual diagnoses have been noted as a problem, i.e., cognitive difficulty connected to chemica l dependency/addiction.
In 2019, the American Community Survey estimates 41% of all persons aged 65 and over have a disability. Over the last two decades there has been a steady increase of those aging into the 65 years and older demographic. Because seniors have a much higher probability of being disabled, the housing and service needs for persons with disabilities should grow considerably , commensurate with senior population growth. Special housing needs for persons with disabilities fall into two gener al categories: physical design to address mobility impairments; and in-home social, educational, and medical support to address developmental and mental
impairments.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
As defined by state law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual who:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 18;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning;
d) mobility; e) self- direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and
• Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and
sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
The Census does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5% . This equates to approximately 1,643 persons in the City of Jurupa Valley, based on the 2019 ACS population Estimate of 109,525.
The Inland Regional Center is a community-based, private nonprofit corporation funded by the State of California to serve peop le with developmental disabilities, as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (aka Lanterman Act). The Lanterman Act is part of California law that sets out the rights and responsibilities of persons with developmental disabiliti es. The Inland Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers throughout California and serves individuals and their families who reside within Riverside County. The Regional Center provides diagnoses and assessments of eligibility, and helps plan, access, coordinate, and monitor the services and supports that are needed because of a developmental disability. As of April 2021, the Regional Center had over 39,800 clients living Inland Empire living in a variety of different assisted situations, at home, in ca re facilities and living independently with the help of the service provided.
Families with Children and Single-Parent Households
According to the 2019 American Community Survey Estimates, approximately 43.4% of all households in Jurupa Valley have children under the age of 18, as shown in Table 5.6 (page 5-16).
Single-parent households often require special consideration and assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing, as Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-25 well as accessible daycare, health care, and other supportive services. Due to their generally lower income and higher living expenses such as daycare, single -parent households have limited opportunities for finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.
In 2019, approximately 2,327 single -parent households resided within Jurupa Valley, representing 11% of the City’s households. An estimated 2,067 households of the 2,327 single-parent households with children under age 18 are headed by females . Of particular concern are single-parent households with lower incomes.
Housing element law requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including female-headed households, to ensure adequate childcare or job training services. In Jurupa Valley, 14.6 % are female headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region), 6.1% are female headed with children (compared to 6.6 % in the SCAG region), and 0.8% are female headed with children under 6 (compared to 1.0 % in the SCAG region).
Female-headed households with limited incomes have trouble finding adequate, affordable housing. It is estimated that 895 female-headed households in the City have incomes below the federally recognized poverty level. Of the 895 female -headed households in poverty, 647 are estimated to have children at home.
Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more members.
These households are usually families with two or more children or families with extended family members such as in -laws or grandparents. It can also include multiple families living in one housing unit to save on housing costs. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is often limited. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, lower - and moderate -income large households may reside in smaller units, res ulting in overcrowding.
With the recent COVID-19 pandemic, the se households are likely working with even smaller budgets when caring for their families.
As indicated in Table 5.6 (page 5-16), in 2019, 48.7% of all households in Jurupa Valley had five or more members, which is high in comparison to the 33.4% of the County. Generally, areas with higher proportions of large households also tend to have a high proportion of intergenerational families, non-White populations, and have higher rates of overcrowding and higher cost burden.
Cultural differences can also contribute to overcrowded conditions.
Some cultures tend to have larger households or more open attitudes about intergenerational living , shared costs, and living arrangements, even in small housing units. In addition, recently Figure 5-4: Large families and multi-
generational households
arrived immigrants may stay with relatives on a temporary basis until they are established.
Table 5.14: Large Households (5 persons or more) by Tenure, 2019 Number of Persons in Unit Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Total large households 5,362 2,706 11,952
Total households 16,293 8,233 24,548
Percent of total households 32.9% 32.9% 48.7%
Source: ACS 2019
Extremely Low-Income Households
As previously identified, extremely low-income (ELI) households are those making 30% (or less) of the AMI. In 2019, approximately 2,062 extremely low -income (ELI) households resided in the City, representing 8.4% of the total households and compared with 11.3% for the County of Riverside. Most extremely low-income households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems, such as overpayment (defined as cost burden greater than 30% of income), overcrowding and substandard housing.
As shown in Table 5.15 below, HUD CHAS data, based on the 2014 - 2018 ACS, estimates there are 2,250 ELI households in Jurupa Valley.
ELI households are more likely to experience housing problems such as overcrowding and cost burden. Over 90% of ELI renters and 77% of ELI owners experience one or more housing problem s. Lack of complete plumbing or kitchen facilities is not as common among ELI households compared to overcrowding or cost burden. ELI owner - occupied househ olds are cost burdened at a higher rate (65.6%) than ELI renter -occupied households (62.1%). However, there is a higher rate of incomplete facilities and overcrowding among ELI renters compared to owners.
Table 5.15: Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
With one or more housing problem* 615 76.9% 1,310 90.3% 1,925 85.6% Lacking complete plumbing/kitchen facilities 4 0.5% 50 3.4% 54 2.4% Overcrowded (>1 person per room) 85 10.6% 360 24.8% 445 19.8% Severely overcrowded (>1.5 persons per room) 30 3.8% 145 10.0% 175 7.8% Cost burdened (>30%) 525 65.6% 900 62.1% 1,425 63.3%
Severely cost burdened (>50%) 495 61.9% 805 55.5% 1,300 57.8% Total Households 800 100.0% 1,450 100.0% 2,250 100.0%
*Totals are not mutually exclusive as housing can have multiple problems Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.
The concentration of those living under the poverty line in Jurupa Valley is concentrated in 5 tracts. Of these tracts, one of them has a concentration of 30% to 40% of the to tal population in that tract living under the poverty line. This tract is located near the Flabob Airport and is one of the older neighborhoods in the City. This area and the neighboring tracts are considered as an area with a need of Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-27 additional housing and was analyzed in the Site Inventory with the other guidelines like access to amenities, transportation , and other criterion. The City also continues to work with the local housing authority and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County ( FHCRC) to assis t those who need the resources and access to housing assistance.
Homeless Persons
On January 4, 2012, final regulations went into effect to implement changes to the HUD definition of homelessness contained in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The definition affects who is eligible for various HUD- funded homeless assistance programs. The new definition includes four broad categories of homelessness:
• People who are living in a place not meant for human
habitation, in emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or who are exiting an institution where they temporarily
resided.
• People who are losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled -up
situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing.
• Families with children or u naccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state.
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.
This d efinition demonstrates the diversity of people experiencing homelessness. The numerous locations in which people
experiencing homelessness can be found complicate efforts to accurately estimate their total population. For example, an individual living with friends on a temporary basis could be experiencing homelessness but would be unlikely to be identified in a homeless count.
The most recent point -in-time count conducted in 2020 identified 103 unsheltered homeless individuals in the City of Jurupa Valley .
This figure has fluctuated in the past 4 years and the number of sheltered persons to unsheltered persons has minimal data. The 2020 homeless population in Jurupa Valley made up about 4.8% of the total unsheltered homeless population for Riverside County , as shown in Table 5.16. The point-in-time count is a snapshot of how many homeless people are on streets and in emergency and transitional shelters on any given day in Riverside County and Jurupa Valley, although numbers can vary significantly by season.
Figure 5-5: Jurupa Valley homeless camp
Table 5.16: Homeless Population in Jurupa Valley and Riverside County, 2017-2020 Unsheltered Sheltered Total Homeless Population
Jurupa Valley
2017 129 n/a 129
2018 148 46 194
2019 139 n/a 139
2020 103 n/a 103
Riverside County
2017 1,638 768 2,406
2018 1,685 631 2,316
2019 2,045 766 2,811
2020 2,155 729 2,884
Source: 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 Riverside County Homeless Point-In-Time Count Report.
Farm Workers
As traditionally defined, farm workers are persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm workers tend to work in fields or processing plants. During harvest periods when workloads increase, the ne ed to supplement the permanent labor force is satisfied with seasonal workers. Often these seasonal workers are migrant workers, defined by the inability to return to their primary residence at the end of the workday. The agricultural workforce in Riverside County does many jobs, including weeding, thinning, planting, pruning, irrigation, tractor work, pesticide applications, harvesting, trans portation to the cold storage or market, and a variety of jobs at packing and processing facilities, as described in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17: Farm Worker Employment Profile, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area Occupation Title Employment
Location
Quotient*
Mean Hourly
Wage
Annual Mean
Wage
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 7,610 1.48 $15.14 $31,480 First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers 220 0.92 $25.82 $53,710 Agricultural Inspectors 250 1.73 $19.37 $40,290
Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 70 0.23 $14.69 $30,550 Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse 6,370 2.02 $14.43 $30,020 Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch and Aquacultural Animals 140 0.35 $18.94 $39,400 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2020 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
*“Location Quotient” is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration
Jurupa Valley was once primarily a farming area, with dairies, orchards, row crops, and small farms. With urbanization, most agricultural uses have moved out of the City and therefore, agricultural employment within the City of Jurupa Valley is declining.
According to SCAG data, only about one -tenth of 1% of the City’s civilian workforce (or 743 persons) works in agriculture and related occupations. It follows that few farm workers live and work in the City. While only small, isolated pockets of commercial agricultural remain in the City, cities must also consider housing needs for farmworkers employed in outlying County areas. In Riverside Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-29 County, there are a few farm worker housing developments that currently operate at capacity during harvest seasons.
Farm worker households tend to have high rates of poverty, live disproportionately in housing that is in the poorest condition, have very high rates of overcrowding, have low homeownership rates, and are predominantly members of minority groups. Some
immigrant farm workers may have an inherent fear and mistrust of law enforcement and other government authorities based on their experience or perception of the government in their country of origin or on the rumors and experiences of other farm workers.
These farm workers may be reluctant to report fair housing issues or violations or contact any government official for assistance.
Furthermore, most federally funded housing programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program and other subsidy programs, exclude persons who are undocumented. This means that people who are sometimes most in need are unable to obtain housing assistance, and others are unable to find any housing and instead must resort to homeless shelters, to sleeping in their vehicles, or to homeless encampments.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average annual full-time wage for farm workers and laborers in the Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontario MSA in May 2020 was $31,480. Within farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, first-line supervisors and agricultural inspectors earned the highest wages. Table 5.17 above presents the location quotient for farming, fishing, and forestry occupations. The location quotient is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration. A location quotient greater than one indicates the occupation has a higher share of employment than average, and a location quotient less than one indicates the occupation is less prevalent in the area than average. The location quotient for agricultural employment in Jurupa Valley shows there is a moderate to high concentration of all types of agricultural occupation in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA.
According to SCAG Pre-Certified Local Housing Data, 743 persons living in Jurupa Valley worked in Farming with 486 of them having full-time jobs in this industry compared to the total farm workers in the SCAG region. That is less than 1% of the total full-time workers living in the City. The data shows that the agricultural industry is slowing in Jurupa Valle y as less land is farmed. Similarly, only 801 persons are employed in the farming industry by businesses located within Jurupa Valley ; 577 of which are full-time year -round jobs.
While the City is not a center for regional farming, agriculture is essential to the regional economy and food supply within distribution.
The different special needs groups are identified again with the associated aids and programs within the City of Jurupa in the following resource section.
Housing Growth
Historically, housing growth in Jurupa Valley lagged behind the County and other neighboring jurisdictions, but experienced growth similar to the state as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010, Jurupa Valley’s housing stock increased at a significantly slower rat e than the County’s and other nearby cities. However, housing growth in the region was severely impacted by the recent recession and, since 2010, the City’s housing stock has grown at rates lower rate than the County and the state average.
Table 5.18: Housing Unit Growth Jurupa Valley and Nearby Jurisdictions City/County1,2
Number of Units
2000
Number of Units
2010
Number Units
2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
Jurupa Valley 23,429 26,176 26,680 12.5% 1.9%
Moreno Valley 41.431 55,559 55,784 34.1% 0.4%
Perris 10.553 17,906 18,906 69.7% 5.5%
Hemet 29.401 35,305 35,522 20.1% 0.6%
Riverside County 584,674 800,707 857,222 36.9% 7.1%
California 12,214,549 13,680,081 14,367,012 12.0% 5.0%
Sources: Bureau of the Census 2000 (H001) and 2010 (QT-H1), ACS 2015-2019 5 Year Estimates (DP04). 1 Jurupa Valley: 2000 Census data aggregated at the block group level and 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level. 2 Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet and Riverside County, State of California: 2000 and 2010 Census data aggregated at the city, county or state
Composition of Housing Stock
The composition of the City’s housing stock, specifically regarding its available housing inventory by unit type, has remained fairly stable since 2000, which is to be expected given the City’s limited housing growth during this time. The California Depart ment of Finance, which records building permit data submitted by local jurisdictions, estimates that single-family detached and attached units comprise the majority of the City’s housing stock ( 81%), while multi -family units make up about 1 3% of the housin g stock and about 6% in mobile homes (Table 5.19). Countywide, in 20 19, 69% of housing units were single -family detached units compared to 5 7% in the state. In Riverside County, multi-family units represented about 17% of the housing stock in 2019; compared to 31% in the state. Dwelling unit size and type significantly affect housing cost, density , and character. In general, smaller, single-family housing and multi-family housing allow more cost-efficient construction and tend to be more affordable for lower income households. The current data presented shows that the number of affordable units based on size is inadequate at both the City and County levels.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-31 As shown in Table 5.19 , owner -occupied housing units were predominantly single-family detached, comprising 90% of all owner- occupied units. The majority of renter -occupied units were also single-family detached housing units (55%).
Table 5.19: Unit Type by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter- Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
% of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
% of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
% of Total
Occupied Units
Single-family, detached 13,801 90.3% 5,101 55.1% 19,927 77.5% Single-family, attached 368 2.4% 401 4.3% 769 3.0%
Multi-family (2-4 units) 22 0.1% 595 6.4% 617 2.4%
Multi-family (5+ units) 0 0.0% 3,138 33.9% 2,722 10.6%
Mobile homes 1,067 7.0% 444 4.8% 1,643 6.4%
Other (boats, RV) 27 0.2% 0 0.0% 27 0.1%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 25,705 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2019, (DP04)
As previously identified and shown in Table 5.14 (page 5-26), Jurupa Valley has a significant number of large households (i.e., households with five or more persons). According to the ACS 2019, approxi- mately 49% (Table 5.14) of all Jurupa Valley households are classified as large households, compared with about 33% in the County and 29% in the state. In 2019, about 35% of renter-occupied units were two-bedroom units, and about 32% were three -bedroom units, as shown in Table 5.20. Over 36% of owner-occupied units had three bedrooms and 40% had four bedrooms. Generally, housing units with three or more bedrooms are the most suited for large households, indicating that adequately sized rental units may be in limited supply in Jurupa Valley.
Table 5.20: Unit Size by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
%* of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Occupied Units
Studio/1 bedroom 230 1.5% 1,479 16.0% 1,709 7.0%
2 bedrooms 1,861 12.2% 3,266 35.3% 5,127 20.9%
3 bedrooms 5,609 36.7% 2,955 31.9% 8,564 34.9%
4 bedrooms 6,055 39.6% 1,287 13.9% 7,342 29.9%
5 or more bedrooms 1,530 10.0% 276 3.0% 1,806 7.4%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 24,548 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (DP04)
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
Vacancy Rates
A certain number of vacant units are needed in the housing market to moderate the cost of housing and allow sufficient housing choice.
Vacancy rates are generally higher among rental properties, as rental units have greater attrition than owner -occupied units do. A healthy vacancy rate (one that permits sufficient choice and mobility among a variety of housing units) is considered to be 2% to 3% for ownership units and 5% to 6% for rental units. In 2010, the vacancy rate in Jurupa Valley was 6.3%, as shown in Table 5.21. By 2019, the overall vacancy rate for the City was determined to be 4.3%. This overall rate, however, includes housing units that were vacant due to foreclosures, seasona l occupancy, or other reasons. The actual vacancy rate (actual number of unoccupied dwelling units at any given time) for the City is likely to be higher than the listed rate , because of the COVID-19 pandemic and the loss of housing due to the associated effects of the economic crash during 2020. According to the 2019 ACS, only about 21% of the City’s 1,114 vacant units were actually available for rent or sale, which reflects a relatively high number of seasonably occupied and possibly abandoned units.
Table 5.21: Household Occupancy Status, 2010-2019
Occupancy Status 2010
Percent of
Total Housing Units 2019
Percent of
Total Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units 24,526 93.7% 24,907 95.7%
Vacant Housing Units 1,650 6.3% 1,114 4.3%
For Sale 561 2.3% 165 0.6%
For Rent 409 1.6% 66 0.3%
Total Housing Units 26,176 100% 26,021 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census 2010, (QT-H1); ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates (DP04) Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract.
Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level.
Housing Conditions
Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions.
In general, housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit a need for repairs based on the useful life of materials. Housing more than 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for major repairs.
Jurupa Valley’s housing stock is older. Approximately 42% of the owner-occupied units in the City were built before 1980, and 18% were built before 1960. Of the City’s renter -occupied units, 47% were built before 1980, and 21% were built before 1960. Table 5.22 summarizes the age of the City’s housing stock by tenure. Based on housing age alone, a significant portion of Jurupa Valley’s housin g stock could require rehabilitation in the upcoming decade.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-33 Table 5.22: Tenure by Age of Housing Stock (Occupied Units) Year Built
Owner-Occupied Renter- Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
%* of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Occupied Units
2010 or later 2,292 15.0% 768 8.8% 3060 12.8%
2000 - 2009 1,425 9.3% 2,216 25.5% 3641 15.2%
1990 - 1999 1,798 11.8% 932 10.7% 2730 11.4%
1980 - 1989 3,273 21.4% 1,295 14.9% 4,568 19.0%
1970 - 1979 2,493 16.3% 1,050 12.1% 3,543 14.8%
1960 - 1969 1,255 8.2% 1,168 13.4% 2,423 10.1%
1950 - 1959 1,804 11.8% 712 8.2% 2,516 10.5%
1940 - 1949 659 4.3% 911 10.5% 1,570 6.5%
1939 or earlier 286 1.9% 211 2.4% 497 2.1%
Total 15,285 100 8,696 100% 23,981 100%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (B25036)
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
The data are from the American Community Survey and therefore, is based on a sample of units and extrapolated to represent the entire housing stock. This table is intended only to provide a general picture of age and tenure of the housing stock.
The City of Jurupa Valley does not maintain a list of housing in need of repair or replacement. However, Planning and Code Enforcement staff estimate that approximately 10% of all the housing built prior to 1980 will need some level of rehabilitation during the 2021-2029 planning period, and 1% will need replacement. For owner-occupied housing, this equates to 650 potential homes in need of rehabilitation and 65 homes in need of replacement. For renter -occupied housing, the numbers are 405 potential homes i n need of rehabilitation and 41 homes in need of replacement.
Housing Conditions
Housing condition refers to the ability of various systems in a house to meet adopted building codes for health and safety, including plumbing, heating, electrical, and struct ural systems. Housing conditions are considered substandard when one or more systems are found to be below the minimum standards required by Section 1001 of the Uniform Housing Code. Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the threat to residents’ health and safety that substandard housing poses.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and u tilities often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. According to the 2019 ACS, 82 occupied units in Jurupa Valley (0.3% of all units) lacked complete plumbing facilities and 234 units lacked complete kitchen facilities (0.9% of all units), as shown in Table 5.23. This may be due to the fact that in Jurupa Valley, “substandard” dwellings such as tack rooms, storage or other outbuildings are often used illegally as guest quarters or as separate dwelling units. Under the City’s Zoning Code, guest
quarters are not permitted to have kitchens. However, with the adoption of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (ADU), the City is seeing more per mit applications for the legalization of these substandard dwelling units that are often cited by Code Enforcement. Currently, Code Enforcement is dealing with 387 permits that involve substandard dwellings.
One possible reason for the common use of substa ndard dwellings in the City is the relatively high number of lower income/large households and overcrowding in some residential areas. It should be noted that there might be some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as some units may lack bo th complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Similar to the county and the state, housing units lacking appropriate infrastructure and utilities comprise a very small proportion of the City’s housing stock.
Table 5.23: Number of Dwellings Lacking Plumbing or Complete Kitchen Facilities, 2019 Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
% of Total
Housing Units
Jurupa Valley1
Lacking plumbing facilities 32 36 82 0.3%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 42 179 234 0.9%
Riverside County2
Lacking plumbing facilities 1,621 1,341 2,347 0.4%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 1,883 4,390 5,435 0.9% California3
Lacking plumbing facilities 20,916 43,006 56,547 0.5%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 26,676 124,714 149,260 1.2% Source: American Community Survey, 2019 5 Year Estimates (B25049, DP04). 1 Jurupa Valley: Housing Units: 24,907
2 Riverside County Housing Units: 724,893
3 California Housing Units: 13,044,266
Neighborhood Improvements and Removal of Blight
Jurupa Valley includes nine distinct communities with varied settings, housing types, and housing needs. Some neighborhoods in the older communities of Rubidoux, Mira Loma, Belltown, and Glen Avon consist mostly of pre -1980s houses, many with deferred maintenance and code compliance issues; a lack of storm water drainage and other public improvements; and localized blighted areas caused by accumulated trash, illegal dumping, and graffiti.
These conditions can discourage reinvestment in these areas, lower property values, and detract from neighborhoods’ safety and appearance. It is a primary goal of this young city to reverse urban blight and improve residential neighborhood quality and pride through code enforcement, public and private capital investment, and heightened awareness and attention to community needs. The City has worked since the last housing element to provide grants to aid homeowners with neighborhood and housing improvements.
These grants were obtained through the LEAP grants from HCD and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-35 offered to the community in two waves of grants. These grants will be part of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element ’s effort to continue neighborhood improvements.
The City has tracked these grants and advertised them on the City website, City Hall bulletins and on social media. However, grants are limited and with the new housing element the City expects to continue to offer these grants to qualifying properties. These grants are meant for rehabilitation and updates as required as needed.
These grants however do not cover the neighborhood infrastructure improvements and the City has a program to prioritize the lacking infrastructure in neighborhoods that need it the most to minimize blight and allow for both neighborhood pride and better connectivity/accessibility throughout the community.
Code Enforcement Activities
The City of Jurupa Valley has established a Code Enforcement program to ensure a high quality of life throughout the communities and maintain property values. Code compliance in the City is a responsive program under which property inspections are done only when inspection requests and complaints are received. Such a system may result in under -reporting of code compliance issues, particularly regarding the rental housing stock. Often, tenants fear retaliation from the landlords and are therefore less willing to report an issue. Legal residency issues or language barriers may be another obstacle for reporting code compliance issues. According to the Code Enforcement staff, in January 2021 Jurupa Valley had 387 active code en forcement cases dealing with housin g conditions and/or safety issues, and the City has closed 4,346 such cases since the 2017 Housing Element. The City has some cases that have been open since 2012 and still being worked on, provided that in the past 4 years the City has made significant im provements and growth since incorporation. An estimated 234 parcels are currently considered substandard which makes up less than 0.1% of the City .
These properties have been recorded as needing code compliance according to ACS data from 2019. And while th is number is smaller than that recorded by Code Enforcement it is likely that the City has more substandard homes than recorded since the only cases that are documented are the ones filed through a complaint or through self-report. The City will continue t o try and address the needs of community through the program for the rehabilitation programs.
Housing Costs and Affordability
Home Prices and Rents
Realtor.com® was used to provide housing market data for Jurupa Valley. This information is sourced daily f rom listings and property data on the realtor.com website, which includes an up -to-date and
accurate aggregation of real estate listings from approximately 800 regional listings from Multiple Listing Service (MLS). According to realtor.com, in March 2021, the average home listing price in Jurupa Valley was $499,078. The average selling price for homes in the City was slightly lower than that. This amounts to about $360 per square foot on average and , according to ACS 2019 , there are only 165 homes on the market available for purchase currently.
Information on current rental rates in the City was obtained through a review of advertisements on Craigslist during January 2021 .
Available rental housing ranged from single -room studios to multi- bedroom single family units . Most of the available units in the City were two -bedroom, and three-bedroom units , based on listings advertised. Table 5.24 summarizes average rents by unit size.
Overall, the units of varying sizes were listed as available for rent in January 2021 with an average rent of $1,902.
Table 5.24: Average Rent by Unit Size
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4+ Bedroom
$1,145 $1,216 $1,649 $2,500 $3,000
Source: www.craigslist.org, accessed January 20, 2021
Affordability Gap Analysis
To determine overall housing affordability, the costs of homeowner- ship and renting are compared to a household’s ability to pay these costs. Housing affordability is defined as spending no more than 30% to 35% of gross household income (depending on tenure and income level) on housing expenses. Table 5.25 summarizes affordable rents and purchase prices by i ncome category based on the 2 020 HCD median income of $ 75,300 for Riverside County. General cost assumptions for utilities, taxes, and property insurance are shown.
Affordable purchase price assumes a 4% interest rate with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage loan and a 10% down payment.
Given the need for a down pa yment and the high costs of homeownership, lower income households lacking sufficient savings or transferable equity must usually occupy rental housing. The affordability problem also persists in the rental market. The situation is exacerbated for large ho useholds and seniors with lower and moderate incomes given the limited supply of large units. The cost burden for these groups is increased with the COVID-19 pandemic, and from the community survey, these special needs groups are also the ones that the community believes need the most help in finding affordable and available housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-37 Table 5.25: Housing Affordability Matrix, Riverside County, 2020 Income Annual Income
Affordable Monthly
Housing Costs
Utilities
(per month)
Taxes and
Insurance
(per month)
Maximum
Affordable Price
per month per year
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$15,850
$18,100
$21,720
$26,200
$30,680
$396
$453
$543
$655
$767
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$139
$158
$190
$229
$268
$191
$235
$297
$381
$462
$13,823
$20,092
$28,186
$39,993
$50,980
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$26,400
$30,150
$33,900
$37,650
$40,700
$660
$754
$848
$941
$1,018
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$231
$264
$297
$329
$356
$455
$536
$602
$667
$712
$59,005
$71,697
$80,348
$89,028
$93,891
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$42,200
$48,200
$54,250
$60,250
$65,100
$1,055
$1,205
$1,356
$1,506
$1,628
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$369
$422
$475
$527
$570
$850
$987
$1,110
$1,232
$1,322
$126,669
$148,997
$167,499
$185,815
$198,386
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$52,700
$60,250
$67,750
$75,300
$81,300
$1,318
$1,506
$1,694
$1,883
$2,033
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$461
$527
$593
$659
$711
$1,112
$1,288
$1,448
$1,609
$1,727
$171,637
$200,603
$225,313
$250,268
$267,764
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$63,250
$72,300
$81,300
$90,350
$97,600
$1,581
$1,808
$2,033
$2,259
$2,440
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$553
$633
$711
$791
$854
$1,376
$1,590
$1,787
$1,985
$2,135
$216,818
$252,208
$283,342
$314,721
$337,570
Sources: 2020 HCD Income Limits - Riverside County; Riverside Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2020; Veronica Tam and Assoc., 2021 AMI=Area Median Income
Assumptions:
1. Affordable housing cost = 30% household income
2. Taxes, insurance, HOA = 35% monthly affordable cost (owner costs only)
3. 10% down payment
4. 3% interest rate
C. EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS
This section provides an overview of existing housing needs in Jurupa Valley. It focuses on four types of housing need in the community:
1. Housing need resulting from housing cost burden;
2. Housing need resulting from overcrowding;
3. Housing need resulting from population growth; and
4. Housing needs of special needs groups such as elderly persons, large households, persons with disabilities,
female-headed households, homeless persons, and farm
workers.
Housing Cost Burden
As previously identified, housing cost burden is generally defined as households paying more than 30% of their gross income on housing- related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
High housing costs can cause households to spend a
disproportionate percentage of their income on housing. This may result in payment problems, deferred maintenance, or
overcrowding. Housing Cost Burden adversely affects the low income, very low income and extremely low -income residents the most and with the 2020 -2021 COVID-19 pandemic, these income groups have been hit e ven harder with cost burdens. To track information related to cost burdens and issues surrounding fair housing, the City of Jurupa Valley is contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The agency helps track housing trends that can be con sidered an impediment to accessing housing .
According to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County 2019-2020 Fiscal Year Report, most landlord/tenant complaints (23.45%) were related to housing lease/rental terms, followed closely (22.61%) by complaints related to Notices (e.g., eviction notices, late rent notices, and other notices from landlords) , and then by complaints related to speed and lack of repair to rental facilities. According to the Fair Housing Council , recent increases in complaints related to these categories are likely linked to the loss of work due to the pandemic closures and safety regulations implemented by the State of California for a staggered reopening of businesses. The increasing cost burdens and global pandemic have exacerbated the issue and resulted in the associated issues such as overcrowding and the need to assist those in the special needs groups identified in the Community Profile.
This section uses data from the CHAS provided by HUD. The CHAS provides information related to households with housing problems, including cost bur den, overcrowding, and/or without complete kitchen facilities and plumbing systems. The most recent estimates are derived from the 2013 -2017 ACS and released by the HUD April 13, 2021. The data includes a variety of housing need variables, further broken d own by HUD -defined income limits and HUD - specified housing types. It should be noted that HUD -defined income limits differ slightly from the income limits established by the state, as shown in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26: Income Limits
HUD Income Limits State HCD Income Limits
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) Very Low (31-50% AMI)
Low Income (51-80% AMI) Low Income (51-80% AMI)
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
(81%+ AMI)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI)
AMI=Area Median Income
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-39 According to HCD’s Data viewer 20% to 40% percent of Owner Occupied Households have monthly costs that are 30.0 percent or more of Household using recent (2015-2019) ACS data. In the same data time period, renters are more cost burdened with data showing 40% to 60% percent of renter households have monthly costs that are 30% or more of household income. However, overpay ment by owners and renters went down since 2014, as the proportion of residents in higher income groups has increased. The rising housing cost is ever increasing and ultimately leads to other related housing issues like overcrowding and lack of availability of affordable homes for special needs groups.
Overcrowding
By definition, dwelling units with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are con sidered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding impacts owners and renters; however, renters are generally more significantly impacted. Some households may not be financially able to purchase adequately sized housing and may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home to lower costs. With the current 2020 -2021 COVID-19 pandemic, the stress on housing availability and affordability is even higher, causing additional overcrowding.
Household overcrowding reflects variou s living situations: 1) a family lives in a home that is too small; 2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or 3) unrelated individuals or families are “doubling up” to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the over crowded conditions. Some cultures tend to have larger household sizes than others due to the preference of sharing living quarters with extended family members and as a way of sharing living costs among family members. Overcrowding can strain physical faci lities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes and
neighborhoods.
Approximately 18% of all households in Jurupa Valley were overcrowded, and 4% were severely overcrowded, according to the 2019 ACS. As shown in Table 5.27, overcrowding is significantly more common among the City’s renter -households than owner - households. By comparison, the incidence of over crowding in Riverside County is much lower at almost half as many households dealing with this issue.
Table 5.27: Overcrowding by Tenure, Percent of Total Households
Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
Jurupa Valley 30.0% 10.2% 17.5% 6.2% 3.0% 4.2%
Riverside County 11.9% 4.6% 7.0% 2.7% 1.3% 1.7%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (B25014).
Publicly Assisted Housing
The availability and location of publicly assisted housing may be a fair housing concern. If such housing is concentrated in one area of a community or of a region, a household seeking affordable housing is limited to choices within the ar ea. In addition, public/assisted housing and Housing Choice Voucher ( Section 8) assistance should be accessible to qualified households regardless of race/ethnicity, disability, or other protected class status.
Public Housing
The City of Jurupa Valley does not have its own housing authority and so collaborates with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) when providing public housing. Eligible residents must be seniors or disabled, or have an annual gross income at or below 80% of the AMI. T he City indicated in its Fair Housing Assessment (Appendix E) that 456 households live in public housing in Jurupa Valley. In addition to these households being served, more than double that number are on the waitlist.
Housing Choice Vouchers Program
HACR administers the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) for Jurupa Valley residents. This housing voucher program (also known as Section 8 housing) provides rental subsidies to low -income families that spend more than 30 % of their gross income on housing cost and currently 344 Jurupa Valley households are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. For the distribution of Voucher assistance within the City, HACR has established local preferences such as families who have lost HCVs due to funding cuts, working families, elderly or disabled, and veterans. As of February 2018, 1,742 households were on the waiting list for the HCV program. Of these households, 292 are seniors, 409 are disabled and 282 are self-identified as homeless without permanent housing.
As an extension of the HCV program, HACR assists eligible families who purchase a home by applying their existing HCV towards a monthly mortgage payment. Eligible families may qualify for a maximum period of 10 or 15 years (depending on the mortgag e terms).
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-41 Other Affordable Housing Developments
Housing developments utilizing federal, state, and/or local programs, including state and local bond programs, Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), density bonus, or direct assistance programs, are often r estricted for use as low -income housing and provide another source of affordable housing for a jurisdiction.
Table 5.28 summarizes housing developments in Jurupa Valley in which some or all of the units are designated as affordable for low to moderate-income households. While additional affordable units have been approved for entitlement since the last Housing Element Update, none have been built and ready for occupation.
Table 5.28: Non-Public Housing Affordable Units in Jurupa Valley Property Name Property Address Funding Source Unit Size Total
Affordable
Units
Total Project
Units
Expiration of
Affordability
Mission Villas 5870 Mission Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92509
LIHTC, §202/811 53 – 1 BR
1 – 2 BR
54 54 2038
Mission Palms 5875 Mission Blvd.
Rubidoux, CA 92509
RDA, LIHTC, HOME 88 – 1 BR
20 – 2 BR
1 – 3 BR
109 109 2059
Mission Palms II 3702 La Rue St.
Riverside, CA 92509
RDA 73 – 1 BR
18 – 2 BR
91 91 2062
Mission Village Senior
Apartments
8989 Mission Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92509
RDA, LIHTC, 90 – 1 BR
12 – 2 BR
102 102 2066
Habitat for Humanity-
CalVet Jurupa Valley
Veterans Housing
At the end of Amarillo
Street in Glen Avon area
CalVet Habitat,
HACR
18 – 3 BR
8 – 4 BR
26 26 2061
Total 382 382
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2021 Notes: These properties were developed prior to the incorporation of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, records on these properties do not use Jurupa Valley as the location but these properties are located in Jurupa Valley.
Abbreviations: HOME: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HUD); CDBG: Planning Block Grant (HUD); RDA: City Redevelopment Agency; LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit; HTF: Housing Trust Fund; MHSA; Mental Health Services Act
Units at Risk of Converting to Market-Rate Housing
Projects at Risk
State law requires that the City identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing multi -family rental units that are eligible to convert to non -low-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions during the next 10 years. Thus, this at -risk housing analysis covers a 10 -year period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2031 (10 years from the statutory deadline of the Housing Element). Consistent with state law, this section identifies publicly a ssisted housing units in Jurupa Valley, analyzes their potential to convert to market rate housing uses, and analyzes the cost to preserve or replace those units.
Within the at-risk analysis period, only one project is considered to be at -risk of converti ng to market -rate housing —54-unit Mission Villas senior housing, funded with Section 202 financing and Section 8 project -based rent subsidies. The project was placed in service in 1998 and Section 202 carries a 40 -year low-income use restriction. The Secti on 8 contract for Mission Villas was last renewed in February 2020. However, HUD has prioritized funding for Section 8 renewals for senior housing projects (Section 202), and therefore, this project is at low risk of converting to market -rate housing. There are several public agencies and private nonprofits in the West Riverside County area with the capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units or develop new affordable units. In 2020, these include:
1. Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
5555 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, CA 92504
(951) 351-0700
2. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
4164 Brockton Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 682-6581
3. Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing 340 E. 2nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 480-1249
4. National Community Renaissance
9421 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 483-2444
5. Habitat for Humanity Riverside
2180 Iowa Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507
Phone: (951) 787-6754
6. Path of Life Ministries
1240 Palmyrita Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507
Mail: PO Box 1445, Riverside CA
Phone: (951) 786-9048
Preservation and Replacement Options
To preserve the existing affordable housing stock, the City must either preserve the existing assisted units or facilitate the development of new units. Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options typically include: 1) transfer of project to nonprofit ownership; 2) pr ovision of rental assistance to tenants; and 3) purchase of affordability covenants. For example, CDBG and HOME funds may be used to acquire and rehabilitate the affordable units in exchange for an extended affordability covenant on the assisted units. In terms of replacement, the most direct option is the development of new assisted multi -family housing units. These options are described below. Due to the City’s significant financial constraints, all options would require a Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-43 collaborative effort between the City and the Riverside County Housing Authority or nonprofit housing agency to pursue.
1. Transfer of Ownership
Transferring ownership of an at -risk project to a nonprofit housing provider is generally one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. Transferring property ownership to a nonprofit organization would secure low - income restrictions, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. Mission Villas is a Section 202 senior housing project, which is nonprofit - owned. Therefore, transferring ownership to another nonprofit is not a necessary preservation option.
2. Rental Assistance
Table 5.2 9 shows rental subsidies required for a typical 54-unit below-market apartment project in Jurupa Valley in 2019. According to HUD records, the units at Mission Villas are renting at $676 monthly, significantly below Fair Market Rents for comparable units.
If these units convert to market rate, the tenants should expect to pay at least $986 per month, resulting in an affordability gap of $310.
As indicated in Table 5.29, the total cost of subsidizing the rents of all 54 at -risk units is estimated at $16,740 per month or $200,880 annually. Providing this level of subsidies for at least 55 years would require over $20 million, assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5% over 55 years. The feasibility of this alternative is highly dependent upon the availability of reliable funding sources necessary to make rent subsidies and the willingness of property owners to participate in the program.
Table 5.29: Rental Subsidies Required – Mission Villas, 2019 Unit Size Total Units Fair Market Rent1 Household Size Contract Rent2 Monthly Subsidy
per Unit
Total Monthly
Subsidy
1-bedroom 54 $986 1 person $676 per month $310 $16,740
1 Fair Market Rent (FMR) is determined by HUD, 2019.
2 2015 contract rent for unit at Mission Villas per HUD records.
3. Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of the at-risk project is to work with Riverside County’s Housing Authority or nonprofit housing agencies and developers to provide incentives to the property owner to maintain the project as affordable housing.
Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump -sum payment, and/or supplementing the rents to market levels. The feasibility of this option depends on whether the complex has a high level of debt-to- equity ratio. By providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing
subsides in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates to the owner, the City can ensure that some or all of the units remain affordable.
Funding available for purchase of affordability cov enants is also limited. Typically, HUD funds cannot be used for this purpose.
4. Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low -income housing units is a means of replacing the at-risk units if they are converted to market-rate units and are eligible for HUD funds. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average construction cost of approximately $150,000 per unit, it would cost over $8.1 million (excluding land costs) to construct 54 new assisted units. Including land costs, the total cost to develop replacement units would be higher.
5. Cost Comparisons
The above analysis attempts to estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options. These cost estimates are general estimates and are intended to demonstrate only the relative magnitude of funding required. Actual costs of preservation would depend on the individual circumstances of the at-risk property and market conditions at the time.
New construction of 54 replacement units has the highest upfront costs ($8.1 million, excluding land costs) but the new units would typically be subject to long -term affordability restrictions and high housing quality standards. In evaluating the various options, the City or the responsible housing agency must consider the available funding sources and the willingness of property owners to participate in preservation, among other factors. With the dissolution of redevelopment in California and as a “young” city, Jurupa Valley has virtually no financial capacity to support affordable housing development.
The majority of funding for housing related projects stem from state grants and aid money. This is not a sustainable way to develop and as the above analysis has indicated , the City currently has very limited resources for such prospects.
Fair Housing in Jurupa Valley
Housing is a crucial part of our community, because as it a ffects everyone at a fundamental level and equal access is necessary to meet the essential needs of each person. In recognizing equal housing access as a fundamental right, the federal government and the State of California have both established fair housing choice as a Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-45 right protected by law. To comply with state law, the City of Jurupa Valley continues to participate in an effort to assess impediments to fair housing of the community through an “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Study”. The most rec ent analysis was completed in 2019 and defines “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that res trict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
State law added a requirement for an assessment of fair housing to be included in the housing element, which includes the following components: a su mmary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions. The City of Jurupa Valley’s Fair Housing Assessment is included in Appendix E.
Key issues identified from as impediments to fair housing in the City of Jurupa Valley includes impediments stemming from the lack of education and awareness on housing resources; lack of fair housing enforcement activity; discriminatory lending, renting and real estate practices in the City; and restrictive land use policies. These impediments are be tracked and investigated by the City with the assistance of the Hair Housing Council of Riverside County, while continuing to develop policy and best practices to better achieve fair housing for Jurupa Valley.
Resources for Special Needs Groups
Special needs groups make up a large portion of the population in the City of Jurupa Valley and the main groups that need the most assistance in the City with such a steady population growth is elderly persons, large households, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, homeless persons, and farm workers. Thi s section reviews the same special needs groups presented in the Community Profile with the resources that are currently available to the residents of Jurupa Valley.
Seniors
The Riverside County Office on Aging is a planning and advocacy entity that serves as the official Area Agency on Aging (AAA) throughout Riverside County. It is charged to provide leadership in developing a system of care services for older persons and adu lts with disabilities in the County. Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) are local aging programs that provide information and services on a
range of assistance for older adults and those who care for them.
Some of the programs and services provided by AAA include:
• Aging and Disability Resource Connection Program
• Care Coordination
• Caregiving
• Care Transitions Intervention (CTI)
• Community Outreach and Education
• Legal Assistance
• Transportation
Some senior programs in the City of Jurupa Valley have been offered in pa rtnership with Jurupa Valley Adopt a Family program, a community-based 501(c)(3) organization, and Healthy Jurupa Valley.
Services and programs provided include assistance to senior households during the holiday seasons, and workshops catering to senior residents; recent workshop topics include returning to work after retirement. Through Healthy Jur upa Valley, seniors are also invited to attend senior health fairs. Additionally, the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District provides a Senior Mentoring Program that focuses on providing enrichment and/or general assistance to senior citizens, including assistance with everyday tasks and exposing seniors to new activities.
Seniors in Jurupa Valley may also benefit from programs offered through the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA). Through the Senior Home Repair Grant (SHRG) Program, EDA may be able to cover up to $6,000 of cost of repairs with no loan or payback requirement.
In terms of affordable housing resources, there are 357 affordable rental units in 4 rental properties throughout Jurupa Valley that are restricted for seniors, w ith renter qualifications not to exceed anywhere from 50% to 80% of median income. In addition to the senior housing developments listed in Table 5.30, seniors in the City are served by 11 state -licensed residential care facilities for the elderly and 15 adult residential facilities with a combined capacity to serve 379 persons. In addition, Country Village Apartments provides 1,238 senior apartments, with rents affordable to low - and moderate-income households.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-47 Table 5.30: Senior Housing Development
Name Address Units
Mission Village Senior Apartments 8989 Mission Boulevard Riverside, CA 92509
102
Country Village Apartments 10250 Country Club Drive
Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
1,238
Mission Villas 5870 Mission Boulevard
Riverside, CA 92509
54 Mission Palms 5875 Mission Boulevard
Rubidoux, CA 92509
109
Mission Palms II 3702 La Rue Street
Riverside, CA 92509
92 Total 1,595
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2020
Persons with Disabilities
A number of nonprofit agencies provide supportive services to persons with disabilities living in Jurupa Valley. ARC of Riverside County is a private, nonprofit corporation serving adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. ARC operates six facilities in Western Riverside County providing services for those in need of full -time programming to ensure the development and maintenance of functional skills required for self -advocacy, community integration, and self -care. In addition, the Community Access Center (CAC), an independent living center located in the City of Riverside, has been providing services to people with disabilities in the County since 1995. CAC provides information, supportive services, and independent living skills training. The City is also amending the current zoning code to include the necessary provisions to meet the Lanterman Act and will include and allow for group homes, boarding homes for person with disabilities.
Single Parent Households
Limited household income constrains the ability of single -parent households to afford adequate housing, childcare, health care, and other necessities. Of the single -parent households, 33.4% are male headed and 66.6% are female headed, leading to even great er constraints with American Community Survey for 2017 showing over 25% of those female -headed households are living under poverty level.
Several agencies that serve Jurupa Valley residents offer various programs for families with children. The Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District offers programs and recreational classes for the City’s youth, including health fairs, youth sports, special events, help with homework, and volunteer programs. Additional community and family resources are available through Healthy Jurupa Valley, as part of a national Healthy Cities movement to improve the health and quality of life for City residents. Healthy Jurupa Valley efforts are
carried out through Action Teams, including the Jurupa Valley Family Resource Network, and include the organization of special community events such as the Healthy Jurupa Valley Extravaganza Health Fair that provides access to community services and children activities.
Single-parent households in Jurupa Valley can also benefit from general prog rams and services for lower -and moderate -income persons, including the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing programs, the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency’s (EDA) First Time Homebuyer and Home Repair Loan Program (HRLP ) Programs, and various community and social services provided by nonprofit organizations in the region such as the Food Bank.
Large Families
The average household size in Jurupa Valley is 4.21 persons compared to 3.3 persons in Riverside County , and these larger households make up about 30% of all households in the City. The large family households exist typically to both reduce the overall burden of housing costs and the cost of other necessities such as food, clothing, medical care, and other essentials. Large households in Jurupa Valley can benefit from general programs and services for lower-and moderate -income persons, including The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing program s, the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency’s (EDA) First Time Home Buyer (FTHB) and Home Repair Loan Program (HRLP) Programs, and various
community and social services provided by nonprofit organizations in the region.
Farm Workers
In Jurupa Valley, there are few farm worker resources due a number of service providers in Riverside County. While farm workers have access to many of the other resources that the other special needs groups have as well, they have more limited assistance and services to farmworkers. The Family Resource Center Program at Mecca Family and Farm Workers Service Center (91-275 66th Avenue, Suite 100, Mecca, CA 92254) provides seven core service types: parenting skills, self -sufficiency, community action, child abuse prevent ion services, information and referral services, education and literacy, and life skills. There are also two farm worker housing projects located in Riverside County: Chapultepec Apartments (62 -600 Lincoln St reet, Mecca, CA 92254; 31 units) and Las Mañanit as (91-200 Avenue 63 Mecca, CA 92254; 128 beds).
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-49 The space at these housing projects is limited and serve the county as a whole, and with the added pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic, the State has implemented a program called “Housing for the Harvest” to a ssist these essential workers in the effort to keep California fed and safe. Riverside County partnered with the TODEC Legal Center to distribute financial and housing aid to farm workers who suffered loss of wages due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to provide housing alternatives those exposed and require
quarantining for 14 days.
While these programs are in place to help this special need group, more can be done for more permanent solutions to the need for farm worker housing in Jurupa Valley. This Housing Element update includes a program that addresses the need for farmworker housing in the City by amending the Zoning Code to address the
requirements of the Employee Housing Act.
Homeless Persons
The 2020 Point-in-Time homeless count, which occurred in January 2020, identified 103 unsheltered homeless individuals in comparison to the 139 unsheltered homeless individuals counted during the same survey in 2019 in the City of Jurupa Valley. While the numbers have declined from the previous year, this numbe r does not include possible increases due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The resources and services described in Table 5.31 serve low income and special n eeds populations in Jurupa Valley —not just the homeless. While some of the programs and services identified below are not located within the City’s boundaries, the services they provide are available to persons residing in Jurupa Valley. At the same time, the City also uses federal Community Development Block Grant ( CDBG) money to fund housing for up to three homeless persons each night by subsidizing room rentals at program - approved transient housing in the area.
Table 5.31: Homeless and Special Needs Housing Resources Agency/Program Description Location
Emergency Shelter
Path of Life Ministries -
Community Shelter
Program
An emergency homeless shelter that serves adults by providing temporary housing along with assistance in obtaining important documents, job readiness, computer workshops, counseling, meals, hygiene supplies and various other forms of support.
This program provides beds for up to 64 qualified single men and women. 2840 Hulen Place
Riverside, CA 92507
Path of Life Ministries -
Family Shelter Program
This program is offered to single parents with children, couples with children and single women. Support services focus on rapid re-housing, employment and increased income. It is a dormitory setting with 50 beds. 2530 Third Street
Riverside, CA 92507
Path of Life Ministries -
Emergency Cold Weather
Shelter
The Path of Life Community Emergency Shelter provides an additional 72 beds from December to mid-April. These beds are provided on a night-by-night basis under the federal cold weather shelter initiative in cooperation with the County of Riverside. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Agency/Program Description Location
Community Kitchens
Calvary Chapel Food assistance is provided on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month. 5383 Martin Street Jurupa Valley, CA 95168-
11092
Eagle Food Ministries Provides food boxes for individuals and families on Thursdays. 5410 Beach Street Riverside, CA 92509
Manna Ministries Food assistance is provided on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month. 4318 Pyrite Street Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Rubidoux Missionary
Baptist Church
Groceries are provided to families and individuals on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month.
2890 Rubidoux Boulevard
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Rubidoux Family
Resource Center
Provides groceries and food, and also provides referrals to resources such as thrift stores and clothing
5473 Mission Boulevard
Rubidoux, CA
Transitional Housing
The Place Jefferson Transitional Programs (JTP) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) offering vocational, supported living, and educational programs for individuals with chronic mental illness and/or addictions.
3839 Brockton Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
Safe House Transitional
Living
A 15-bed apartment complex in downtown Riverside. Services are available to older homeless youth ages 18-22 for up to 18 months. Five apartments are set aside for Permanent Supportive Housing for youth ages 18-24.
9685 Hayes Street
Riverside, CA 92503
Permanent Supportive Housing
Path of Life Ministries Provides immediate housing to chronically homeless individuals and some families, in scattered privately owned homes and apartments throughout Riverside County. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Rental and Support Services
Path of Life Ministries Rapid-Rehousing Program: provides assistance for the most immediate housing possible for homeless families with children and provides temporary rental subsidies.
Rental Assistance Program: when available, provides one-time rental assistance (up to $1,000) to those exiting from homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Foothill AIDS Project Provides housing assistance, including help in locating and paying for emergency, transitional, or permanent housing, funds for paying rent, mortgage, and utility assistance. Referrals are available to other government and private subsidized housing programs and the state's homeless prevention program. 3576 Arlington Avenue, #206
Riverside, CA, 92506
Inland Empire Veterans
Stand Down
Reunites homeless veterans with their families and communities through restorative resources and services. Some services provided include VA Claim assistance, legal clinics/seminars, transportation, food, blankets/sleeping bags, and care counseling. 6185 Magnolia Avenue, #338
Riverside, CA 92506
Disabled American
Veterans Charity
Provides free, professional assistance to veterans and their families in obtaining benefits and services.
4351 University Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
Lutheran Social Services Some emergency services provided include food pantry, grocery packs, clothes, lunches, motel vouchers, eviction prevention, and rental assistance. 3772 Taft Street
Riverside, CA 92503
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2015
Families
As part of the previous housing element , the City remove d the definition of “family” as it was too constraining to the diverse household types in the Jurupa Valley. The City instead used a housing element program to allow for a more open ended
interpretation of what a family is under the housing elem ent and City code. There is no current plan to create a new definition for family in the City of Jurupa Valley due to the possibility of creating unnecessary restrictions to options for housing in the City.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-51 Housing Resources
A jurisdiction’s housing resources include the existing housing stock as well as vacant and underutilized land that can support additional housing. The paragraphs below outline the City of Jurupa Valley’s housing resources and demonstrate how the City can provide its share of the region’s future housing need. In addition, financial and administrative resources available to support housing activities and facilitate implementation of housing policies and programs are addressed, as well as opportunities for energy conservation.
Residential Density and Affordable Housing
State housing law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis showing that land use designations or zones identified for the development of housing for lower income households are sufficient to encourage such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: 1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; or 2) utilize default density standards deemed adequate to meet the lower income housing n eed. According to state law, the default density standard for the City of Jurupa Valley is 30 dwelling units per acre.
Based on an analysis of affordable housing development in the Western Riverside County region and on discussions with local affordable housing developers, as outlined in the following section, the City has determined that a base density of 25 du/a (allowed maximum density, not including any applicable density bonus) is appropriate to accommodate the City’s lower-income housing need.
Not only does 25 du/a accommodate the lower income need, it also minimizes the impact of the density amongst the currently available housing stock. The density of these new residential developments is important in so far as they match the character of the communi ty, which primarily consists of larger lot, ranch style single family homes.
Program HE 1.1.1 commits the City to amending the Land Use Map of the General Plan to add 69.2 acres of HHDR-designated land with appropriate zoning to allow multi -family ownership and rental housing. The HHDR land use designation allows a density of 21 -25 dwelling units per acre, with additional density possible through state-mandated density bonuses. As outlined in Section D, Housing Opportunities and Resources, the additional acreage will enable the City of Jurupa Valley to meet and exceed its 2021-2029 RHNA while also protecting the rural, country aesthetics of the City.
Land costs in Jurupa Vall ey continue to be significantly lower than those of Orange and Los Angeles Counties; hence, the number of units per acre necessary to allow an affordable housing develop - ment project to achieve economies of scale is smaller than that of many other Southern California cities. A survey of vacant properties
for sale in Jurupa Valley on LandSearch.com showed seven properties available and suitable for residential development.
Properties ranged in size from 1 to 17 acres and had an average land cost of $160,000 per acre. By comparison, vacant properties in inland Orange County on mostly smaller, infill sites range from $1 million to well over $1.5 million per acre.
The City contacted three affordable housing developers within the Riverside/Jurupa Valle y area: Nat ional Community Renaissance, Jamboree Housing Corporation, and Bridge Housing Corporation.
Based on those conversations, it was determined that densities of 25 dwelling units per acre are sufficient to accommodate affordable housing development within the City of Jurupa Valley. According to these developers, the primary determinant of affordability is land cost, followed by the type and cost of construction. They noted that there was a “pivot point” density at or near 25 dwelling units per acre. As density increased beyond this point, podium type develop- ment was typically required, significantly increasing the cost of construction. For this reason, these developers believed densities of 25 dwellings per acre or less were more feasible than higher densities in the Riverside/San Bernardino market. They also stressed the importance of project compatibility with surrounding uses in setting project density because this related directly to the time and cost of development. Consequently, these nonprofit developers indicated that sites designated at 25 dwelling units per acre would be suitable to develop affordable housing. The examples in Table
5.32 show that, while the densities vary within the Inland Empire , the average density is about 24.14 units per acre. These develop - ments are in diverse locations including some of the highest densities found on infill projects in the middle of the jurisdiction ’s downtown area.
Table 5.32: Inland Empire Affordable Housing Project Examples Jurisdiction Development Name Address Acreage
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units/Acre
Jurupa Valley Northtown Housing Mission and Crestmore 26 68 13.23 Ontario Palm Terrace 2 Apartments 1449 East D Street 2.08 48 24 Riverside Cedar Glen Apartments 9830 County Farm Road 7.41 100 13.5 Riverside Mission Heritage Project 3933 Mission Inn Avenue 1.72 71 41.28 Rancho Cucamonga Villa Pacifica II 7418 Archibald Avenue 2.27 60 26.43 Rancho Cucamonga Day Creek Villas 12250 Firehouse Court 4.04 140 34.65 Fontana Sierra Ave Apartments 16839 Ramona Avenue 4.31 60 13.92 Moreno Valley Courtyards at Cottonwood Cottonwood and Indian 6.78 80 11.80
Currently, state law requires that cities provide additional aid to housing developers to streamline the process for the development of affordable housing, specifically for the low income, and the very low-income housing categories. To comply with state law, in 2021, the City is in the process of developing a “by right ” process for projects in the HHDR General Plan designation with a minimum of Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-53 10% of units affordable to affordable to lower income households during the 2021-2029 planning period to be processed without the need for discretionary review. This law intents to incentivize the development of affordable housing and minimize government constraints on developing affordable housing units in California.
Variety of Housing Opportunity
The Zoning Code provides for a range of housing types, incl uding single-family, multi-family, accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes, mobile home parks, licensed community care facilities, employee housing for seasonal or migrant workers as necessary, assisted living facilities, emergency shelters, supportiv e housing, transitional housing, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. Table
5.33 summarizes the types of housing allowed by Jurupa Valley’s Zoning Code to ensure a variety of housing opportunities continue to be available and the City continues to update the permitted uses of each zone as required by state law.
Single- and Multi-Family Uses
One-family dwellings are permitted uses in most residential zones.
Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the R -4 zone, as well as the R-2, R -3, and R -6 zones with the approval of a Site Development Permit (SDP). As outlined in Section G, Housing Constraints, the Site Development Permit (SDP) process is a typically discretionary review process that is strictly concerned with addressing design and potential impacts. Additionally, the Community Development Director acts on SDPs unless the Community Developme nt Director has determined that there is a significant impact on the community.
In that case, SDPs are referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
SDPs for residential projects are typically approved by the Community Development Director and ge nerally do not require Planning Commission approval, except when the project is processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentative Tract Map, or other entitlements that require Planning Commission or City Council action.
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-54 Table 5.33: Jurupa Valley Permitted Uses by Zone
Zoning
District
One- Family
Dwelling
Multiple
Family
Dwelling
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Congregate
Care
Facilities
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
and
Supportive
Housing1
Farm Worker
Housing2
Employee
Housing SRO
Manufactured
Housing/
Mobile Home
Mobile-Home
Park
Planned
Residential
Development
R-R/R-R-O P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-1/R-1A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-2 P P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-2A P P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-3 P* P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-3A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-T P NP P NP NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-T-R P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P – P#
R-4 P* P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-6 P P P NP NP P NP P P P CUP P#
PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD NP PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD P#
I-P NP NP NP NP P NP NP P* NP P* NP NP
A-1 P NP P NP NP P P* NP NP P* CUP P#
A-2 P NP P NP NP P P* NP NP P* CUP P#
W-2 P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP NP NP P#
R-D P P* P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
N-A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P* NP P#
Source: City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Code, 2021
P = Permitted by Right; CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required; “NP” = Not Permitted; P* = Requires Site Development Permit; P#= Requires PC/CC review; PUD = Allowed with PUD; rezoning required.
Notes: 1 Transitional and Supportive housing subject to same requirements that apply to standard residential uses. 2 Employee housing for six or fewer persons is treated as a single-family structure and residential use.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-55 Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs are attached or detached dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.
ADUs may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower income households and seniors. These units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size.
California law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under which ADUs are permitted through a ministerial process (California Government Code , §65852.2). To meet the requirements of state law, the City amended the ADU code in 2018 and 2020 to minimize requirements and to stay consistent with current code and to keep the process ministerial. A ministerial process is intended to reduce permit processing periods and development costs, because proposed ADU that comply with local zoning regulations and standards can be approved without a public hearing.
Jurupa Valley permits ADU on parcels that have a legal, single-family dwelling existing on the site, subject to additional development standards and the approval of an ADU Permit. A DU Permits are reviewed by the Community Development Director and do not require discretionary review or a hearing. Current code also allows for Junior ADU within existing single- family homes in addition to an ADU, effectively allowing up to three units on a single parcel. The code also allows up to two ADUs to be added to multi -family dwellings, subject to additional development standards and the approval by the Community Development Director.
Mobile Housing
State law requires local governments to permit m obile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation (and permanently connected to water and sewer utilities, where available), in all single -family residential zoning districts (§65852.3 of the California Government Code).
For purposes of permit issuance, Jurupa Valley permits mobile homes on a foundation system on all lots zoned to permit single - family dwellings. The installation of manufactured homes not on foundations is allowed whenever it is specifically provided for in the various zone classifications and is subject to the requirements and standards set forth in those zones. A mobile home permitted in the R-R and R -A zones, however, is subject to additional develop ment standards regarding minimum floor area and lot size. These requirements are standard for most California jurisdictions and are like those of Riverside County.
In Jurupa Valley, 1,643 mobile home units encompass approximately
6.4% of all housing in the City. These mobile homes are a source of affordable units in the City and when they are under 1,000 square feet, they can be considered as an ADU on a parcel with an existing single-family home. They are permitted with a foundation and ADU site plan review through the Community Development Department at the City.
Approximately 50% of the mobile homes in Jurupa Valley were developed prior to 1980. The City of Jurupa Valley does not maintain a list of mobile homes in need of repair or replacement. However, Planning and Code Enforcement staff estimate that approximately 10% of all the mobile homes developed prior to 1980 will need some level of rehabilitation during the 2021-2029 planning period, and 1% will need replacement. This equates to 82 potential mobile homes in need of rehabilitation and 9 mobile homes in need of replacement.
Residential Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (§5115 and §5116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code) declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons is required by law. A state-authorized, certified, or authorized family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour- a-day basis is considered a residential use to be permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these h omes (commonly referred to as “group” homes) for six or fewer persons than are required of other permitted residential uses in the zone. The Lanterman Act covers only licensed residential care facilities. California Housing Element law also addresses the p rovision of transitional and supportive housing, which covers non-licensed housing facilities for persons with disabilities that meet the statutory definitions for those terms . The City must ensure that, in addition to allowing smaller residential care fac ilities, larger group homes of seven or more persons are also allowed through a ministerial process, regardless of license.
The City of Jurupa Valley defines congregate care facilities as “a housing arrangement, developed pursuant to Article XIX of the Zoning Code, where nonmedical care and supervision are provided, including meals and social, recreational, homemaking and security services.” As part of this housing element update, the City’s provisions for licensed residential care facilities will be amende d as needed to ensure consistency with the Lanterman Act.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan Housing Element, 2021-2029 Page 5-57 Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims, operated by a public or nonprofit agency. State law requires juris dictions to identify adequate sites for housing that will be made available through appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including emergency shelters a nd transitional housing (§65583(c)(1) of the California Government Code). State law (SB 2) requires that local jurisdictions make provisions in their zoning codes to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year -round shelter. Local jurisdictions may establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters.
The state also adopted State Housing Element Law restricting the requirements local jurisdictions can set as development standards for these emergency shelters. Housing Element Law requires that local government s impose only those development and
management standards that apply to residential or commerc ial development within the same zone.
The City of Jurupa Valley permits emergency shelters in its Industrial Park (I-P) zone, subject to the development standards allowed under SB 2, such as minimum floor area for each client, minimum interior waiting and client intake areas, off -street parking and outdoor lighting requirements.
The City has a number of large, vacant I -P zoned sites totaling 439 acres. In February 2021, the City adopted an amendment to the existing emergency shelter codes to comply with th e requirements and provisions of current state law. The sites are dispersed on the following parcels and can be found on Figure 5-6 below.
Figure 5-7 illustrates sites in the City of Jurupa Valley that are zoned I-P and permit emergency shelters. I -P-zoned sites are located through the City of Jurupa Valley and were determined to be appropriate for emergency shelters due to their proximity to commercial centers and transportation options. These I -P zoned parcels are located in proximity to commercial sites shown in the red/pink with transit and major freeways connecting them through to the neighboring communities. The only parcels on this map without any commercial zones and transit stops in its immediate vicinity is located on the western City border by Interstate 15. This site looks disconnected, but it is adjacent to the freeway and commercial amenities can be found just to the West in the City of Eastvale.