Page - 1 -
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Thursday, October 19, 2023
Closed Session: 5:30 p.m.
Regular Session: 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. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
B. EMPLOYEE COMPENSATIO N NEGOTIATIONS - UNREPRESENTED EMPLOYEES. The City Council will meet in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 with the City's designated representatives regarding the salaries, salary schedules, and compensation paid in the form of fringe 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. 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.
D. 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 -
benefits of its unrepresented employees for the purpose of reviewing its position and instructing the City's designated representatives. Final action on these issues will take place in open session. The City’s designated representatives are: City Manager Rod Butler; Assistant City Manager Michael Flad; and Human Resources Manager Tanya Bragg.
C. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council will meet in closed session with the City Attorney pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to one matter of pending litigation: Application of Southern California Edison Company (U -238-E) for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to Construct the Riverside Transmission Reliability Project, California Public Utilities Commission Case No.
A.15-04-013.
D. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS. The City Council will convene in closed session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the acquisition of certain property interests from the real property located at 5930 Etiwanda Avenue, Jurupa Valley CA . The negotiating parties are the City of Jurupa Valley and the property owner, New Hope Transport.
Negotiators for the City are Rod Butler, and Michael Flad. Under negotiations are price and terms of the acquisition of the property.
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS IN CLOSED
SESSION
4. 7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL FOR REGULAR SESSION ● 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. NATIONAL PREPAREDNES S MONTH – PRESENTED BY BRICE
BARTLETTE, EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR
Page - 3 -
B. JURUPA ROAD GRADE SE PARATION PROJECT – PRESENTED BY
MARK LANCASTER, DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION, COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT
9. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
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 – ADMINISTRATION & FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2023
2. UPDATE ON THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE CO UNCIL OF
GOVERNMENTS - I-REN EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING
OF OCTOBER 17, 2023
B. MAYOR PRO TEM GUILLERMO SILVA
1. UPDATE ON THE NORTHW EST MOSQUITO AND VEC TOR
CONTROL DISTRICT MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2023
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. UPDATE ON THE RIVERS IDE COUNTY TRANSPORT ATION
COMMISSION MEETING OF OCTOBER 11, 2023
2. UPDATE ON THE NORTHWEST TRANSPORTA TION NOW
COALITION MEETING OF OCTOBER 12, 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 -
3. UPDATE ON THE METROL INK / SOUTHERN CALIF ORNIA
REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY – AUDIT AN D FINANCE
COMMITTEE MEETING OF OCTOBER 13, 2023
4. UPDATE ON THE MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION ANNUAL
WORKSHOP OF OCTOBER 19, 2023
12. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
13. SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT UPDATE
Requested Action: That the City Council receive and file the report.
14. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. OCTOBER 5, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
15. 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 ful l 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. SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGR EEMENT BETWEEN THE C ITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY AND CIVICA LAW GROUP, APC, FOR ON-CALL
LEGAL SERVICES
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Civica Law Group, APC (CIVICA) for On-Call Legal Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached to the staff report as approved by the City Attorney.
C. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RSG, INC. FOR THE
DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY PROJECT
Requested Action: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to an Agreement with RSG, Inc. for professional services for the District at Jurupa Valley project.
Page - 5 -
D. ACCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND
DRAINAGE PURPOSES (AGUA MANSA COMMERCE PHASE II, LLC A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
1. Requested Action: That the City Council accept the offer of dedication of an easement for public road and drainage purposes including public utility and public services purposes over the area as shown on Exhibit B of DED23-003.
2. Authorize the Director of Public Works and City Clerk to sign the Acceptance of Dedication for DED23-003.
E. ADOPTION OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-83, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY'S LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP)
AND AUTHORIZING THE PLAN TO ANNEX INTO THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (MJLHMP) 2023 TO MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
F. CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMEND MENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URBAN 3, INC., FOR
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Requested Action: That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to an Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for professional services for an economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley.
G. APPROVAL OF A DIGITAL DISPLAY AGREEMENT AND AN AERIAL
ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH GALLEANO
FAMILY TRUST AND GEORGIOS, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11347 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF
WAY FOR A DIGITAL DISPLAY
Requested Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023 -84, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, APPROVING A DIGITAL DISPLAY AGREEMENT AND AN
AERIAL ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO
JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.245.030.I WITH
GALLEANO FAMILY TRUST AND GEORGIOS, LLC, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A DIGITAL DISPLAY PURSUANT TO SECTION
Page - 6 -
9.245.030.I OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE FO R THE PROPERTY AT 11347 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND ADJACENT CITY
RIGHT OF WAY AND FINDING THE ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM CEQA
UNDER SECTION 15061 AND 15304 OF THE CEQA GUIDELINES
16. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
17. PUBLIC HEARINGS
18. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. INITIATION OF THE PROCESS TO REPEAL THE MISSION DE ANZA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP123) APPLICABLE TO AN AREA ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,100 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF
THE JENSEN-ALVARADO RANCH, EAST OF PEDLEY ROAD AND
NORTH OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER
1. Requested Action: That the City Council, by motion, reconfirm 2016 initiation of the repeal of Mission de Anza Specific Plan No. 123, and, if reconfirmed, initiate the process to repeal the Mission de Anza Specific Plan; and
2. Initiate a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone for the Mission de Anza Specific Plan No. 123 area.
B. DISCUSSION AND APPROVAL OF NEW JURUPA VALLEY BRAND
IDENTITY AND LOGO
Requested Action: That the City Council receive, discuss and file a presentation of Jurupa Valley brand identity concepts and provide direction to staff related to the new Jurupa Valley brand identity and logo.
19. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
20. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
21. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
22. ADJOURNMENT
Adjourn to the Regular Meeting of November 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 staff in assuring that reasonable arrangements can be made to provide accessibility to the meeting or service.
Agendas of public meetings and any other writings distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members in connection with a matter subject to discussion or consideration at an open meeting of the City Council are public records. If such writing is distributed less than 72 hours prior to a public meeting, the writing will be m ade available for public inspection at the City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, at the time the writing is distributed to all, or a majority of, Jurupa Valley City Council Members. The City Council may also post the writing on its Internet website at www.jurupavalley.org.
Agendas and Minutes are posted on the City’s website at www.jurupavalley.org.
AGENDA ITEM NO. 14.A
-1-
MINUTES
OF THE REGULAR MEETING
OF THE JURUPA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
October 5, 2023
1. 6:00 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
Mayor Chris Barajas called the closed session meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva and Council Member Leslie Altamirano w ere absent.
City Attorney Peter Thorson announced that Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva will not be present as he has a business dispute with Mr. Nunez and will not be in the room where the closed session is taking place.
2. CONVENE TO CLOSED SESSION
A. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Mr. Juan Nunez commented regarding the closed session items. He requested that before the City Council moves forward with the two matters of pending litigation that they first do an ac curate investigation involving his buildings and all his documents that were “removed by the City of Jurupa Valley.” Sylvia Moran stated that she and her husband run a batting cage business in one of the buildings that the City is trying to shut down. This is a business that keeps kids off the street and promotes health and fitness. She and her husband put a lot of time and effort into this business and they wish to continue providing this business in the community.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - PENDING LITIGATION. The City Council met in closed session with the City Attorney and Special Counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1) with respect to two matters of pending litigation: 1) City of Jurupa Valley v. Juan Carmelo Nunez Salazar, et al. (Riverside Superior Court Case No. RIC2002036); and 2) City of Jurupa Valley v.
Juan Carmelo Nunez, et al. (Riverside Superior Court Case No. CVRI2202444).
3. RECONVENE IN OPEN SESSION
A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF ANY REPORTABLE ACTIONS IN CLOSED
SESSION
RETURN TO AGENDA
-2-
City Attorney Peter Thorson announced that there were no reportable actions taken.
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
Mayor Chris Barajas called the regular meeting to order at 7:29 p.m. Council Member Leslie Altamirano was absent.
5. INVOCATION was given by Pastor Kyle Fagon, Beacon Hill Assembly of God Church.
6. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Chris Barajas.
7. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
A motion was made by Council Member Armando Carmona, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, to approve the Agenda. Mayor Chris Barajas announced that Item 14.D has been pulled from tonight’s Agenda for further consideration.
Ayes: C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano
8. PRESENTATIONS
A. RIVERSIDE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SER VICES -
INTRODUCTION OF “PET OF THE MONTH”
The City’s Pet of the Month for October, a 1 -year old male Rottweiler named “Frankie” 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. Due to the current “Go big and go home” adoption campaign, the adoption for Frankie is free all the way through October 7, 2023.
9. PUBLIC APPEARANCE/COMMENTS
Sam Vasquez stated that the plight of Mr. Juan Nunez raises a lot of questions, particularly whether there was a conflict of interest relating to his situation where a planning commissioner or city staff had any financial entanglements that compromised their decision making because what is clearly happening right now is a series of actions to obstruct his right as an entrepreneur for his buildings that have previously been approved.
-3-
Colin Markovich, Field Representative for Assemblymember Sabrina Cervantes announced that the governor signed AB777 to prevent the depositing of toxic substances at the Stringfellow site. This came into being when the Department of Toxic Substances deposited toxic substances at the Stringfellow site. He highlighted AB 603 and AB 14878, which are currently on the governor’s desk.
10. INTRODUCTIONS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS, COUNCIL COMMENTS AND
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Armando Carmona stated that he enjoyed his chance to walk with some students from his childhood elementary school, Troth Street Elementary during National Walk to School Day. He encouraged volunteers to sign up for a community clean up event this Saturday from 7:00 am to 10:00 am. The community clean up event will include volunteers from historic Mira Loma and Riverside County Parks and Open Space District.
Volunteers will meet at Etiwanda and 66 th Street. Anyone interested can contact him at City Hall.
11. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ORAL/WRITTEN REPORTS REGARDING
REGIONAL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
A. MAYOR CHRIS BARAJAS
1. Mayor Chris Barajas gave an update on the Western Riverside Council of Governments Executive Committee meeting of October 2, 2023.
B. MAYOR PRO TEM GUILLERMO SILVA
1. Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva gave an update on the Interagency Coordinating Council meeting of September 22, 2023.
C. COUNCIL MEMBER BRIAN BERKSON
1. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Metrolink / Southern California Regional Rail Authority meeting of September 22, 2023.
2. Council Member Brian Berkson gave an update on the Southern California Association of Governments Transportation Committee meeting of October 5, 2023.
12. CITY MANAGER’S UPDATE
City Manager Rod Butler reported that the City has a contract with Burrtec Waste that includes street sweeping. They recently hi red a new company, CMAX Commercial Maintenance, Inc. that will be responsible for citywide street sweeping beginning this week with brand new state of the art equipment. He announced that a copy of the street sweeping
-4-
schedule can be found on the City’s w ebsite. He announced a community bulky item pickup event will be held at Patriot High School on Saturday, October 14th from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. The event is open to residents with proof of residency. He announced a community meeting for the Pacific Avenue Phase 1 Project on October 10th at 6:00 p.m. at Rubidoux High School. Spanish translation services will be available at the meeting.
13. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 REGULAR MEETING
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Armando Carmona , to approve the Minutes of the September 21, 2023 regular meeting.
Ayes: C. Barajas, A. Carmona, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano, B. Berkson
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 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
$10,272,754.86
Requested Action: That the City Council ratify the check registers dated August 30 and September 7, 13 and 21, 2023 as well as the payroll registers dated August 31 and September 1, and 15, 2023.
C. AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT WITH BREA IT SOLUTIONS (A
DIVISION OF THE CITY OF BREA) FOR CONTRACT INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY SERVICES RECOMMENDATION
Requested Action: That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement by and between the City of Jurupa Valley and Brea IT Services (a division of the City of Brea) for the provision of Information Technology Services.
-5-
D. INITIATION OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) AND
CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) FOR 9.6 ACRES LOCATED AT 10045 AND 10051 LIMONITE AVENUE (APNS: 162 -220-014, AND -016) – PULLED FROM
THE AGENDA FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION
Requested Action: That the City Council initiate a General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Change of Zone (CZ) for 9.6 acres located at 10045 and 10051 Limonite Avenue (APNs: 162-220-014, and -016).
E. AWARD CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT TO CALMEX ENGINEERING,
INC. FOR 2023-2024 PAVEMENT REHABILITATION (ARPA) PROJECT, CIP NO. 23111
1. Requested Action: That the City Council approve and award a construction agreement to Calmex Engineering, Inc. in the amount of $8,643,891.20 for the 2023-2024 Pavement Rehabilitation (ARPA) Project, CIP No. 23111, for the work included in its bid proposal and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in the form attached hereto; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to execute any subsequent related minor amendments to the Agreement with Calmex Engineering, Inc., up to 10% as contingency to cover the cost of any unforeseen conditions.
F. APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CIVIC SOLUTIONS FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE A CITYWIDE CORRIDORS
PLAN – REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION
Requested Action: That the City Council approve an Agreement for Consulting Services with Civic Solutions for planning services for the Citywide Corridors Plan in an amount not to exceed $657,998 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City Council.
A motion was made by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva, seconded by Council Member Armando Carmona , to approve the Consent Calendar , with the exception of Item No. 14.D, which was removed from the Agenda for further consideration and Item 14.F, which was removed for further discussion.
Ayes: C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano
15. CONSIDERATION OF ANY ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
CALENDAR
-6-
14.F APPROVAL OF AN AGREEMENT WITH CIVIC SOLUTIONS FOR
CONSULTING SERVICES TO PREPARE A CITYWIDE C ORRIDORS
PLAN – REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR FURTHER
DISCUSSION
Council Member Brian Berkson requested that Item 14.F be removed from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.
City Manager Rod Butler provided additional information and respon ded to Council’s questions.
A motion was made by Council Member Brian Berkson, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva , to approve an Agreement for Consulting Services with Civic Solutions for planning services for the Citywide Corridors Plan in an amount not to exceed $657,998 and authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement on behalf of the City Council and for City staff to provide quarterly reports to the City Council.
Ayes: C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano
16. PUBLIC HEARINGS
17. COUNCIL BUSINESS
A. INCREASE THE SCOPE OF WORK IN THE JURUPA AREA
RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT MASTER PLAN TO INCLUDE A
TRAILS MASTER PLAN AND APPROVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING
Michael Flad, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report.
A motion was made by Council Member Armando Carmona , seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva , to 1 ) approve an increase in the scope of work in the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District Master Plan to include a Trails Master Plan; 2) approve additional funding to Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District in the amount of $95,000 for the Trails Master Plan; and 3) authorize the City Manager to take such further actions as may be needed to implement these approvals.
Further discussion followed regarding quantifying the maintenance costs and how those costs will be projected in the future.
Ayes: C. Barajas, B. Berkson, A. Carmona, G. Silva
Noes: None
Absent: L. Altamirano
-7-
18. CITY COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were no requests for future Agenda items.
19. CITY ATTORNEY’S REPORT
City Attorney Peter Thorson had no report.
20. COUNCIL MEMBER REPORTS AND COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Guillermo Silva noted that several residents have contacted him regarding the maintenance of an SCE easement within the Sky Country community. City Manager Rod Butler indicated that he would look into this matter and get back to him.
21. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the City Council, Mayor Chris Barajas ad journed the meeting at 8:21 p.m.
The next meeting of the Jurupa Valley City Council will be held October 19, 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
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: IRWIN SALAS, CODE COMPLIANCE SUPERVISOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.B
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY AND CIVICA LAW GROUP, APC, FOR ON-CALL
LEGAL SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council approve the Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and Civica Law Group, APC (CIVICA) for On-Call Legal Services and authorize the City Manager to execute the Agreement in substantially the form and format attached and as approved by the City Attorney.
BACKGROUND
The City of Jurupa Valley has a contract for specialized code compliance legal services with Civica Law Group. While assisting the City with one of its code cases, t he C ity unexpectedly encountered a cross-complaint filed by a property owner. Civica Law Group is now defending the City in a cross -complaint while they continue to prosecute a civil action for non-compliance. The additional time required to defend the City in the cross- complaint has impacted the existing budget for specialized code compliance legal services.
ANALYSIS
The current agreement with Civica Law Group calls for a not to exceed amount of $50,000 per fiscal year on the Special Legal Services account . Due to the ongoing litigation and complexity of the code case that Civica is working on, the original $50,000 budget for this fiscal year is nearly exhausted.
Staff is proposing the Second Amendment to the Agreement to increase the budgeted amount available . The proposed Amendment will increa se CIVICA’s Agreement to $100,000 per fiscal year through the initial term of the Agreement. Funding for the Amendment is available in the current Fiscal Year 2023-24 budget.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
FINANCIAL IMPACT
If the Second Amendment is approved, the not -to-exceed amount will be increased to $100,000 per fiscal year throughout the initial term of the Agreement. The majority of services provided will continue to be for ongoing litigation for the case that CIVICA is currently working on . The cost incurred during litigation will then go through a cost recovery process by CIVICA to include placement of a lien on the property f or payment of fees once the case is resolved.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the Second Amendment between the City and CIVICA LAW GROUP APC
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN CIVICA LAW GROUP, APC
AND THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT LEGAL SERVICES
1. PARTIES AND DATE.
This Second Amendment to the agreement for services (“Amendment”) by and between the CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY (“City”), and CIVICA LAW GROUP, APC, a California Professional Corporation engaged in the practice of law in the State of California (“Law Firm”) is effective as of October 19, 2023. Law Firm and the City are sometimes individually referred to herein as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree to the terms of this Agreement as set forth herein.
2. RECITALS.
2.1 The City and Law Firm entered into an Agreement on March 1, 20 23, whereby, Law Firm agreed to provide legal services to the City , which Agreement was subsequently amended in a First Amendment on June 15, 2023.
2.2 The City and Law Firm now desire to enter into a Second Amendment.
3. TERMS.
3.1 Contract Changes. The Agreement is amended as provided herein. a. Section 3.3 is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows: For all legal services provided in this Agreement, the City will compensate Law Firm at the blended rate of $245 per hour for attorney representation and $149 per hour for paralegals and law clerks, which rates shall increase by 3% rounded to the nearest dollar on July 1 of each year to offset rising costs.
The attorney’s fees to Law Firm under this Agreement shall not exceed $ 100,000 per fiscal year on a net basis without approval of the City Council.
3.2 Continuing Effect of Agreement. Except as amended by this Amendment, all provisions of th e Agreement on March 1, 2023 and subsequent First Amendment shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. From and after the date of this Amendment, whenever the term “Agreement” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement, as amended by t his Amendment to the Agreement. Said Agreement is and remains an effective, valid and binding obligation.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
By: ____________________________ Dated: October 19, 2023 Rod B. Butler
City Manager
[Signatures continue on following page]
2 Attest:
_____________________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
_____________________________________
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
CIVICA LAW GROUP, APC
By: ____________________________ Dated: October _____, 2023 Matthew Silver
Managing Partner
Page | 1
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: O CTOBER 19, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.C
C
ONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RSG, INC. FOR THE
DISTRICT AT JURUPA VALLEY PROJECT
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the Second Amendment to an Agreement with RSG, Inc. for professional services for the District at Jurupa Valley project.
BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2022, the City and RSG, Inc. entered into an initial agreement in which RSG, Inc. would provide professional services for the City. The original agreement with RSG, Inc. was for a total of $24,925. The purpose of the Agreement was for RSG, Inc. to analyze a proposed application for “The District at Jurupa Valley” project and recommend potential community benefits for negotiation under a development agreement. The work product would entail a memo containing findings based on a fiscal, economic, and profitability analysis, along with a draft term sheet for use during the negotiation process.
On July 6, 2023, the City Council Approved Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Agreement with RSG, Inc. for an additional $25,075 or a not- to- exceed amount of $50,000 per contract. Due to the complexity of the projects and the additional time spent analyzing the projects, RSG, Inc. has requested an amendment to their agreement for an additional $16,000 or a not-to-exceed amount of $66,000 per contract.
Scope of Work
The scope of services for the contract included the following tasks:
1. Review project submittal with staff and ascertain conforming alternative project to the proposed project.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
2. Prepare a financial feasibility analysis of both the projects and the alternatives, in the form of a land residual analysis comparing RSG’s estimates of project value to the direct and indirect construction cost.
3. Compare both scenarios to market-acceptable returns and identify profit surplus or shortfall for each.
4. Prepare estimates of the following as a baseline for calculation of fiscal and economic impacts:
a. Construction cost (estimating construction/temporary impacts and fee estimates)
b. Value estimate using income approach (for assessed value and property tax estimates)
c. Development impact fees, as applicable
d. Permanent employment estimates, based on comparable projects in the trade area
5. Calculate and forecast existing and potential municipal revenues accruing to the City General Fund, including p roperty tax , s ales tax, p roperty tax in lieu of vehicle license fees, property transfer taxes, and transient occupancy taxes.
6. Calculate and forecast existing and potential municipal expenditures from the City General Fund, including law enforcement, fire protection, and other services materially affected.
7. Prepare a letter that summarizes their findings and provides recommended term sheet deal points for discussion with the developer.
Purpose of Community Benefit Analysis
The City Manager`s Office and the Community Development Department have had several discussions with the applicant about community benefits to be included in a development agreement to address land use and impacts of the project s on the City. In many cases, land use changes are necessary to make otherwise infeasible land use plans feasible, but often this can result in substantial profit to the developer for a city’s discretionary approval.
The community benefits framework considers that such profit should be shared with the City in the form of meaningful public benefits that not only mitigate the project impacts , which is required of each project, but also extend these benefits outside the project site itself. In this case, the Ci ty requested RSG to prepare a technical analysis of the p roject and provide recommendations for the appropriate scale and type of community benefits.
The District at Jurupa Valley
The District at Jurupa Valley project establishes a new mixed-use specific plan in a 244- acre project site of predominantly vacant land located in the eastern portion of the City south of SR-60. The new specific plan (The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan) replaces the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan and permit development of up to the following quantities of land uses if adopted by the City Council:
Page | 3
• Up to 1,192 residential units (both single and multi-family units) • 3 million square feet of commercial and industrial uses, the latter including warehouse and logistics uses
• A 160-room hotel and hospitality area, and
• 7 acres of park and open space.
ANALYSIS
RSG has reached the maximum amount they can bill under the existing agreement on the community benefit study for The District at Jurupa Valley. RSG has performed much more extensive work than was included in the July 2023 agreement and is requesting an amendment to their scope of work to including the following:
• Prepare presentation of community benefits for City officials • Participate in meetings with City officials
• Assist in the continued development of term sheets for each project in conjunction with staff
• Revise both term sheets and participate in developer negotiations • Evaluate the potential financial value of various community benefits sought by the City and proposed by the developer
• Evaluate the financial impact analysis provided by the developer It is recommended that the City Council approve the second amendment to the Agreement with RSG , Inc. for a n additional $16,000, for a total contract amount of $66,000 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed second amendment will have no effect on City costs or revenues. Full cost recovery will occur, as the City will require the applicant to pay the entire total contract value to the City.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve second amendment to the 2022 Agreement increasing the contract amounts for an additional $16,000.
2. Elect not to amend the Agreements at this time and provide alternative direction to staff.
Page | 1
120
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: PAUL TOOR, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS/CITY ENGINEER
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.D
A
CCEPTANCE OF OFFERS OF DEDICATION FOR PUBLIC ROAD AND
DRAINAGE PURPOSES (AGUA MANSA COMMERCE PHASE II, LLC, A
DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY)
RE
COMMENDATION
I
t is recommended that the City Council:
1. Accept the offer of dedication of an easement for public road and drainage purposes including public utility and public services purposes over the area as shown on Exhibit B of DED23-003.
2. A
uthorize the Director of Public Works and City Clerk to sign the Acceptance of Dedication for DED23-003.
BACKGROUND
A
gua Mansa Commerce Phase II, LLC, is the owner of the highlighted area as shown on Exhibit B of DED23-003.
T
he area is located on the northwest of Agua Mansa Road centerline, at the corner of Brown Avenue and Agua Mansa Road.
A
s a part of the PM 37528 development approval, the owner is required to dedicate a portion of Agua Mansa Road along their property frontage for further road widening.
T
he applicant submitted the required offer of dedication documents, staff reviewed the documents, and found them in compliance with the California Government Code (7050), local ordinances, and the conditions of approval for this development.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
ANALYSIS
In anticipation of acceptance of the offers of dedications, staff prepared a Certificate of Acceptance as required by Government Code Sect ion 27281. Acceptance of the offers of dedication will grant the City an easement for public road and drainage purposes and allow improvements along Agua Mansa Road.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact to the General Fund.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Take no action.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
*****************************SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE**************************
T. 2S R. 5W SEC. 2 ROAD NAME: Agua Mansa Rd. PROJECT# DED23-003 APN: 175-210-037
DTT: 0
THIS INSTRUMENT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY AND ENTITLED TO E RECORDED WITHOUT FEE. (GOV CODE 6103)
OFFER OF DEDICATION
AGUA MANSA COMMERCE PHASE II, LLC A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY (OWNERS)
Grant(s) to the City of Jurupa Valley, a political subdivision, an easement for public road and drainage purposes, including public utility and public services purposes, over, upon, across, and within the real property in the City of Jurupa Valley, County of Riverside, State of California, described as follows:
SEE LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PLAT ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBITS "A" AND "B" AND MADE A PART HEREOF
[Signature page follows.]
Executed on Sr,*.> i/ , 2023
GRANTOR:
AGUA MANSA COMMERCE PHASE II, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
By: Agua Mansa Commerce Holdings, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
is sole member
By: PR II Agua Mansa Commerce, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company,
its Managing Member
By: PRISA II LHC, LLC,
a Delaware limited I'
its sole member
company
Name: P\aro ez
Its: Vice President
NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document. uPunblic', pc!sro'na'l:y" appeare'a Pedro :Szaunz:heDzE rwohreo npreoved to' Am2 ro'n th'e b'asis o'f satisfdctory ;'vidNeon'cae" to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/ she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies) and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I CERTIFY UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH IS TRUE AND CORRECT. 4 44 CYNTH1AKAT1C4AK
i' =:::fE;j?:58 i'
WITNESS MY HAND AL SEAL
kL-t NotaryPublic
Printed name: Cynthia Katigbak
[Signature Page to Offer of Dedication]
SHEET 1 0F 7
EXHIBIT "A"
PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT DED 23-003
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
THAT PORnON OF PARCEL '8" OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT N0. 4621, /N THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 57;4TE OF CALIFORN/A, RECORDED DECEMBER 4, 2003 AS DOCUMENT N0. 200.3-952447 0F OFFICIAL RECORDS, LYING WITHIN SECnON 2, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 5 WEST S.B.M., LYING EASTERLY AND SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED L/NE.- BEGINNING AT THE SOUTH5ASTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERT4/N LINE HAV/NG A B5'lR/NO AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 58a05'05 WES7; 564.77 FEEI AS SHOWN ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT;
THENCE SOUTH O?26'20" WES7: 27.78 FEET TO A LINE BE/NG PARALLEL WITH AND D/57;4NT NORTHWESTERLY 59.00 FEEI MEASuRED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE CENTERL/NE OF AGUA MANSA ROAD (50 FEET HALF VVIDTH) AS SHOWN ON SAID LOT LINE ADJUSTMEN7;-
THENCE SOUTH 32'41'26" WES7; 187.86 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOuTH5ASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL '8";
CON7;41NING: 1,350 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.
SUBJECT TO: COVENANTS, COND/nONS, RESTR/CnON5 RESERV4T/ONS, EASEMENTS, AND RH;HTS-OF-WAY, /F ANY
EXH/Bff'B' AnACHED HERETO AND BY THIS REFERENCE MADE A PART HEREOF.
SURVEYOR:
PREPARED UNDER THE D/RECnON OF:
/M'f)"'
0)f/li/23
DATE
P.L.S. N0. 9123
REC. EXP. SEP7: .30, 2024
N0. 9123
0:}4100-41 99S41 33}ESMT}RWDED}41 33RWDED.dwg
LINE TABLE
LINE # BEARING LENGTH
Ll N 0726'20" E 27.78'
L2 S 11'05'39" E 33.24'
EXHIBI T -B = SHEET 2 0F 2
PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT DED 23-003
PLAT
5ASEMENT NOTES:
(xsurrrpas picms or itveprss mri rcprss ro O? rpou xcu< uxysx pos:i, spvr BEEN DED/CATED OR REL/NQUISHED ON THE MAP OF 24088-2 0N FILE /N BOOK 171 PAGE 32, OF PARCEL MAPS.
(RESTR/CTED ACCESS R/GHTS PLOTTED HEREON AS , , , , , , , ,, ,) (2- xtv vsturtvr itv vvop or sourt-trptv catiropw cxs coupam' rop piprutvrs mri UnL/nES AND INC/DEA/TAL PURPOSES, RECORDED DECEMBER 7, 1998 AS /NSTRUMENT N0. 529473 0F OFFICIAL RECORDS.
([5covmmrs, cotvotnotvs, prsrpicnotvs mri vsrurtvrs sur owrntvc my COVENANTS OR RESTR/CnONS, /F ANY, INCLuD/AH; BUT NOT L/M/TED TO THOSE BASED UPON AGE RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, SEX, GENDER, C.ENDER lDENn7Y: GENDER EXPRESSION, SEXUAL OR/EN7;=1T/ON, MAR/7;=!It SWuS, NATIONAL ORIGIN, ANCESTRY, FAM/L/AL 57;4TuS, SOURCE OF /NCOME, DISABILITY, VETERAN OR M/LffARY 57;4TUS, CENrnC /NFORMATION, MEDICAL CONDlnON, ClnZENSH/P, PRIMARY LANGUAGE, AND /MM/GRAT/ON STATUS, AS Sff FORTH /N APPLICABLE 57;"ITE OR FEDERAL fa'S, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SAID COVENANT OR RESTR/CnON /S PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW AS S,E7 FORTH /N THE DOCUMENT RECORDED FEBRUARY 2, 1993 AS /NSTRUMENT N0. 4 7 JOB OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
SAID COVENANTS, CONDlnONS AND RESTR/CnONS PROVIDE THAT A V/OLAnON THEREOF
SHALL NOT DEFEAT THE L/EN OF ANY MORTGAGE OR DEED OF TRUST MADE IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR XLUE.
ASSIGNMENT AND ASSUMPnON OF R/GHTS UNDER DECLARAnON OF COVENANTS, COND/nONS, RESTRICT/ONS AND 5'lSEMENTS RECORDED NOVEMBER 6, 2002 AS /NSTRuMENT N0. 2002-641118 0F OFFICIAL RECORDS.
AMENDED AND RESTATED DECLARATION OF COVENANT5 CONDlnONS, RESTR/CT/ONS AND 5ASEMENTS RECORDED FEBRUARY 5, 2003 AS /NSTRUMENT N0. 2003-084568 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
Mk,,,,SURVEYOR.-
/ I-z'/ (- IN " . S - %
((,,'4<,,Yza (,, ";?,_,_PREPARED UNDER THE D/RECnON OF: 0 DC 'C (, 0
'kllJ') '*N0.9123"*
""" 01/17/23 B q
th x cpA7 ' 4%
DATE 440FCkLe()P.L.S. N0. 912J
RE(;. EXP. SEP7: 30, 2024Last Update:7/17/23
0:}4100-41 99 S41 33}ESMTS,RWDED}41 33RWDED.dwg
[:Z'710Thienes Engt"neenng, /nc.
Ilr'lrl CIVIL ENGINEERING - LAND SURVrY/NG
IILJlj 74J4!9 nprsrotvr soutymo
t/ // LA MIRADA, CAL/FORNb4 90638
llllJ pt-t.(zt*)szt-*att m(yu)spt-it;zy
RECORDING REQUESTED BY:
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 Attn:
City Clerk
Exempt: Government Code Section 6103
SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE
APNs: 175-210-037
PUBLIC ROAD AND UTILITY EASEMENT
CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE
(Government Code Section 27281)
THIS IS TO CERTIFY that the interest in real property granted by the easement deed dated the 11th day of September, 2023 from the Grantor, AGUA MANSA COMMERCE PHASE II, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, to the Grantee, CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, a municipal corporation, is hereby accepted for the purpose of vesting title in the City of Ju rupa Valley on behalf of the public for public road and drainage purposes, including public utility and public services purposes, and said street shall not become part of the City maintained street system until accepted by resolution of this council adopte d pursuant to the authority granted to the undersigned as provided in Streets and Highways Code Section 1806 and Sections 1 and 2 of Riverside County Ordinance No. 669.1, as said ordinance was adopted by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley pursuant to Jurupa Valley Ordinance No. 11-10 adding Chapter 1.35 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, adopting by reference the ordinances of the County of Riverside as of July 1, 2011, the date of incorporation of the City of Jurupa Valley, as well as the reso lutions, rules and regulations of the County of Riverside implementing these ordinances. Grantee consents to the recordation of said easement by its duly authorized officer.
Dated: October 19, 2023
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
ATTEST:
Paul Toor, PE Victoria Wasko, CMC
Director of Public Works/City Engineer City Clerk
Page | 1
120
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: BRICE W. BARTLETTE, EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT DEPT.
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.E
A
DOPTION OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY LOCAL HAZARD
MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL
DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
RE
COMMENDATION
1) T
hat the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-83, entitled:
A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY'S LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (LHMP) AND AUTHORIZING
THE PLAN TO ANNEX INTO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA
MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN (MJLHMP) 2023 TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DISASTER MITIGATION ACT OF 2000
B
ACKGROUND
I
n 2000, the United States Congress adopted the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) to authorize a program for pre- disaster mitigation efforts. Congress realized that natural disasters (and human-caused events, which Congress later added) posed a great danger to human life and property. Congress determined a larger emphasis needed to be placed on identifying these natural and human- caused hazards and proactively assessing the risks posed to communities.
T
he Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 provides policy to the State Mitigation Officer and guidance to local jurisdictions to develop an LHMP. An LHMP is not required by law, but
RETURN TO AGENDA
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-83
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA ADOPTING THE JURUPA VALLEY LOCAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN ANNEX FROM THE RIVERSIDE
COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA MULTI -JURISDICTIONAL LOCAL
HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE FEDERAL
DISASTER MITIGATION AND COST REDUCTION ACT OF 2000
WHEREAS, President William J. Clinton signed H.R. 707, the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000, into law on October 30, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires all jurisdictions to be covered by a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan to be eligible for Federal Emergency Management Agency post-disaster funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Jurupa Valley has committed to participate in the development of the Riverside County Operational Area Multi-Jurisdictional Local Hazard Mitigation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of Jurupa Valley coordinated the development of the City of Jurupa Valley Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex; and
WHEREAS, the City of Jurupa Vall ey is concerned about mitigating potential losses from natural disasters before they occur; and
WHEREAS, the plan identifies potential hazards, potential losses and potential mitigation measures to limit losses; and
WHEREAS, the California State of Emergency Services has reviewed the plan on behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency; and
WHEREAS, formal adoption of the plan by the Jurupa Valley City Council is required before final approval of the plan can be obtained from the Federal Emerge ncy Management Agency; and
WHEREAS, the City of Jurupa Valley has determined that it would be in the best interest of the City of Jurupa Valley to adopt the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby a dopts the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 2000; and directs the City of Jurupa Valley to forward the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Annex to the Riverside County Emergency Manag ement Department , the California Emergency Management Agency and to the Federal Emergency Management Agency on behalf of the City for final approval.
-2-
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 19th day of October, 2023.
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko
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. 2023-83 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 19th day of October, 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 19th day of October, 2023.
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
2023
Prepared by:
City of City of Jurupa Valley
2/1/2023
LOCAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
DRAFT
1 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
CONTACT INFORMATION
CITY OF CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
Name: Brice Bartlette
Title: Emergency Services Coordinator
Address: 8930 Limonite Ave
City, State and Zip: City of Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Direct Contact: (951) 204-1763
Email: [email protected]
DRAFT
2 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
PLAN ADOPTION/RESOLUTION
The City of Jurupa Valley will send the updated LHMP to the Riverside County Emergency Management Department which will forward it to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (CAL OES) for review prior to being submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In addition, we will wait to receive an “Approval Pending Adoption” letter from FEMA before taking the plan to our local governing bodies for adoption. Upon approval, the City of Jurupa Valley will insert the signed resolution.
DRAFT
3 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this local hazard mitigation plan is to identify the County’s hazards, review and assess past disaster occurrences, estimate the probability of future occurrences , and set goals to mitigate potential risks to reduce or eliminate long -term risk to people and property from natural hazards.
The plan was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to achieve eligibility and potentially secure mitigation funding through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Mitigation Assistance, Pre-Disaster Mitigation, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs.
The City of Jurupa Valley’s continual efforts to maintain a disaster-mitigation strategy is ongoing.
Our goal is to develop and maintain an all -inclusive plan to include all jurisdictions, special districts, businesses , and community organizations to promote consistency, continuity , and unification.
The City of Jurupa Valley planning process followed a methodolo gy presented by FEMA and CAL-OES which included participation in meetings with the Operational Area Planning Committee (OAPC) coor dinated by the Riverside County Emergency Management Department (EMD) comprised of participating Federal, State, and local jurisdictions agencies, special districts, school City’s, non-profit communities, universities, businesses, tribes, and the general public.
The plan identifies vulnerabilities, provides recommendations for prioritized mitigation actions, evaluates resources, and identifies mitigation shortcomings, and provides future mitigation planning and maintenance of the existing plan.
The plan will be implemented upon FEMA approval.
DRAFT
4 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
DRAFT
5 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tae of Contents
CONTACT INFORMATION ........................................................................................................ 1 PLAN ADOPTION/RESOLUTION .............................................................................................. 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. 5 SECTION 1.0 - COMMUNITY PROFILE .................................................................................... 7
1.1 Brief History .......................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Geography and Climate Description ..................................................................... 7
1.3 Population and Housing ........................................................................................ 9
1.4 Economy Description ...........................................................................................10
1.5 Development Trends and Land Use .....................................................................11 SECTION 2.0 - PLANNING PROCESS.....................................................................................14
2.1 Background and Scope ........................................................................................14
2.2 Planning Area ......................................................................................................14
2.3 Local Planning Process .......................................................................................15
2.4 Participation In Regional (OA) Planning Process .................................................17
2.5 Dates Available for Public Comment ....................................................................17
2.6 Plans Adopted by Resolution ...............................................................................17 SECTION 3.0 – UPDATES FROM THE 2018 LHMP ................................................................18
3.1 Updates from 2018 Plan ......................................................................................18
3.2 Hazard Identification Updates from 2018 Plan .....................................................18
3.3 Mitigation Project Updates from 2018 Plan ..........................................................19 SECTION 4.0 - HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................20
4.1 Hazard Identification ............................................................................................ 20
4.2 Disaster Declaration History .................................................................................23
4.3 Hazard Profiles ....................................................................................................25
4.3.1 Earthquake ..........................................................................................................26
4.3.2 Wildfire.................................................................................................................28
4.3.3 Flooding ...............................................................................................................30
4.3.4 Heat Wave ...........................................................................................................32
4.3.5 Drought ................................................................................................................34
4.4 Vulnerability Assessment .....................................................................................37
4.4.1. Jurupa Valley’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk ..................................................37
4.4.2. Jurupa Valley’s Vulnerability to Hazards ..............................................................38
4.4.3 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment ..................................................................39
4.4.4 Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment ........................................................................43
4.3.5 Flood Vulnerability Assessment ...........................................................................45
4.4.6 Heat Wave Vulnerability Assessment ..................................................................47 SECTION 5.0 – COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM ....................................................................49
5.1 Repetitive Loss Properties ...................................................................................49
5.2 National Flood Insurance Properties ....................................................................49 SECTION 6.0 - CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT ........................................................................50
6.1 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities ........................................................................50
6.2 Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities ............................................51
6.3 Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities ................................................................................51
6.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships ..................................................................52
6.5 Funding Opportunities ..........................................................................................52 DRAFT
6 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION STRATEGIES .............................................................................54
7.1 Mitigation Goals ...................................................................................................54
7.2 Mitigation Objectives and Actions by Hazard .......................................................55
7.2.1 Earthquake Objectives .........................................................................................55
7.2.2 Wildfire Objectives ...............................................................................................55
7.2.3 Flood Objectives ..................................................................................................55
7.2.4 Heat Wave ...........................................................................................................55
7.2.5 Multiple Hazard ....................................................................................................55
7.3 Hazard Mitigation Action Prioritization ..................................................................58
7.4 Future Mitigation Strategies .................................................................................58 SECTION 8.0 – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS .........................59
8.1 Plan Implementation ............................................................................................ 59
8.2 Plan Maintenance and Review .............................................................................59
8.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms ................................................60
8.4 Continued Public Involvement ..............................................................................60 Attachment A – HMPC Meeting Agendas and Sign-In...............................................................62 Attachment B – LHMP Survey Results ......................................................................................62 Attachment C – STAPLEE Criteria ............................................................................................ 62
DRAFT
7 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 1.0 - COMMUNITY PROFILE
1.1 Brief History
The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated on July 1, 2011, by a group of passionate community volunteers. It is proud to be the 482nd City in Calif ornia and the 28th City in Riverside County.
The primary reason for incorporation was the strong desire for enhanced police services and local control over planning and zoning issues.
The city covers a 44-square mile area encompassing the communities of Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Pedley, Indian Hills, Belltown, Sunnyslope, Crestmore Heights, and Rubidoux.
Jurupa Valley is rich in history dating back hundreds of years. "Jurupa" in Jurupa Valley derives its name from the first inhabitants of the area, Native Americans who called "Jurupa" their home.
The Jurupa Valley area lies at the territorial boundaries of two different Tribes, the Gabrielino Tribe and the Serrano Tribe. Over the years, there have been various interpretations of the meaning of "Jurupa", from a greeting meaning "peace and friendship" to the first padre to visit the area, to a more widely recognized origination that "Jurupa" refers to the California Sagebrush common to the area. In 1838, the area became known as Rancho Jurupa under a land grant to Senõr Don Juan Bandini by the Mexican government. By the late 1800s, the Jurupa Valley area began to live in the shadow of the more popular City of Riverside. Much of the Jurupa Valley area has what once was a Riverside mailing address. Yet, settlement of the area in and around what is now the City of Riverside began in the Jurupa Valley many years before Riverside's founding.
The City of Jurupa Valley today is a mix of high and low -density residential development, rural farming and other agricultural activities, and a mix of commercial retail and industrial activity.
It has been in recent years that residential development and economic activity has increased, in the areas adjacent to the I-15 and Highway 60. The City has significant capacity for expansion of both residential and commercial development activity in the future.
1.2 Geography and Climate Description
Located in north-west corner of Riverside County near the junction of the 60 Freeway and Interstate 15. The city is bordered by San Bernadino County to the north, City of Riverside to the southwest, City of Norco to the south, and City of Eastvale to the East, and has a geographical footprint of 44 square miles.
The city has three main geographical features that have an effect on waterflow, wind movements, and vegetation growth. On the northern border of the city are the Jurupa Hills which reach a peak elevation of 2,223 feet, the Pedley Hills in the central portion of the city with an average peak elevation of 1,300 feet, and the Santa Riverbed along the southern border, that starts at 840 feet of elevation in the northeast corner of the city sloping down to 580 feet in the southwest corner of the city.
These geographical features create a gently sloping valley through the central portion of the city down to a flatter area in the southeastern part of the city. Due to the topography the areas of the city along the Santa Ana Riverbed tend to have dense vegetation growth with the northern and DRAFT
8 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
eastern portion being drier with less vegetation and wind tends to channel through the valley area located between the Jurupa and Pedley Hills.
Figure 1-1: Map of Jurupa Valley Planning Area
The City of Jurupa Valley has a Mediterranean climate with slightly rainy winters and dry warm summers, with no real extremes in weather. The average annual maximum temperature is 94.9°, average minimum is 42.8°, and the average temperature is 66.2°, with an average annual rainfall of 9.39 inches. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) calculates averages based upon a thirty-year increment and the average temperature is calculated by adding the monthly maximum and minimum temperature together and dividing by two. Table 1-1 is based upon the 1991 to 2020, 30- year period for the Riverside Municipal Airport data station, located approximately six-miles from the center of Jurupa Valley.
Table 1-2: Jurupa Valley Monthly Average Temperatures and Precipitation
MONTH AVG TEMP MAX TEMP MIN TEMP PRECIP (IN)
Jan 55.6 67.7 43.6 2.29
Feb 56.3 67.9 44.7 2.41
Mar 59.5 72.1 46.9 1.21
Apr 62.9 75.9 50 0.57
May 67.6 79.9 55.3 0.2
Jun 73 86.7 59.3 0.04
Jul 78.6 93.3 63.9 0.12
Aug 79.8 94.9 64.7 0.03
Sep 76.6 91.3 61.9 0.11
Oct 68.9 82.7 55.2 0.33
Nov 61 74.5 47.4 0.57
Dec 54.8 66.8 42.8 1.51
Source: National Centers for Environmental Information 30-year period 1991-2020
DRAFT
9 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
1.3 Population and Housing
The data used in this section comes from the most comprehensive 2020 Decennial Census and 2020 American Community Survey (ACS), administered by the United States Census Bureau (US Census). Data from the 2020 Decennial Census is limited in detail and requires supplemental information from the 2020 ACS. As such, Table 1-2 within this chapter is the only table that relies on the 2020 Decennial Census Data.
Since the last LHMP was adopted, the city has seen a population growth of around 4.9% from the previously estimated population of 101,315. Although, the median age of the city residents is 32.9 years of age, there has been a rise in the aging population throughout the city. Refer to Table 1-1:
Basic Demographic and Housing for Jurupa Valley.
Table 1-1: City of Jurupa Valley Basic Demographics and Housing Total population 106,646
Percentage of residents under 14 22.7%
Percentage of residents (65+) 10.4%
Median age (years) 32.9
Total households 24,829
Owner occupied units 68.9%
Renter-occupied units 31.1%
Median income $77,787
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 American Community Survey (ACS) – Jurupa Valley
Table 1-2: City of Jurupa Valley Racial Composition
Race or Ethnicity Population Percentage
Hispanic or Latino (of any race) * 74,047 70.49%
White 19,187 18.26%
Asian 5,281 5.03%
Black or African American alone 3,529 3.36%
American Indian and Alaska Native 240 0.23%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander 237 0.23%
Other Race 534 0.51%
Two or more races: 1,998 1.90%
Total 105,053 100.00%
Source U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census – Jurupa Valley
DRAFT
10 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 1-3: City of Jurupa Valley English Proficiency for Residents 5- years or Older Languages
Number
of
Speakers
Percent
Speak English
less than
"very well"
Percent speak
English less
than "very
well"
English only 41,678 42.0% - -
Spanish 53,928 54.3% 20,299 37.6%
Other Indo-European
languages 1,418 1.4% 497 35.0%
Asian and Pacific Island
languages 2,164 2.2% 1,093 50.5%
Other languages 106 0.1% 18 17.0%
Total over 5 years of age 99,294 - 21,907 22.1%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2020 ACS – Jurupa Valley
1.4 Economy Description
Although primarily a bedroom community which limits the sales and property tax base, the City of Jurupa Valley has a diverse business and job base that includes the non- manufacturing sector of agriculture, retail, trucking/warehouse distribution centers, and other support services. Per the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2020 ACS 5- year estimates there are a total of 46,522 jobs within the jurisdiction, Table 1-4 gives a breakdown of these jobs by sector.
Table 1-4: Employment by Job Sector for Residents
Source: U.S. Census 2020 ACS 5-year estimates – Jurupa Valley
1.1%
14.7%
11.1%
3.9%
12.3%
10.7%
0.7%
4.3%
8.5%
16.4%
9.0%
4.3%
3.0%
Employment/Jobs by Sector: Total 46,522
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Transportation and warehousing, and utilities
Information
Finance and insurance, and real estate and rental and leasing Professional, scientific, and management, and administrative and waste management services
Educational services, and health care and social assistance Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation and food services
Other services, except public administration
Public administration
DRAFT
11 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Expanding commercial and residential opportunities in Jurupa Valley has been a major focus, since the 2018 LHMP, due to its strategic location along Interstate 15 and State Highway 60 and minutes-away from State Route 91, and since the last LHMP update has seen significant expansion in the warehousing and distribution sector. Some of the m ajor employers inclu de Costco Distribution Center, Walmart/NFI Distribution Center, Home Depot Distribution Center, Nestle USA Distribution Center, Sam’s Club Distribution Center, Safeway/Vons Distribution Center, Big O Tires Distribution Center, and Penske Truck Leasing , which all have business operations in Jurupa Valley. These distribution centers are a key component of the of economic revenue for the City and generate over a third of all tax revenue.
Table 1-5: City of Jurupa Valley Sales Tax Base
Source: HDL Companies
1.5 Development Trends and Land Use
As of the 2020 census, Jurupa Valley has a population of 106,406 people which represents an astounding 11.5% growth since 2010. With this growth has come strong investment in the production of housing, warehouses, and other commercial uses; as well as the type of investment in public spaces befitting the fastest-growing community in America.
Jurupa Valley has permitted several planned unit developments and subdivisions in recent years with still more planned for the near future. The I-15 Corridor Plan, situated at the western extremity within Mira Loma of the city plans for 508 units, many of which have already been constructed.
Paradise Knolls, located adjacent to both the Mira Loma and Pedley communities, is currently
DRAFT
12 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
being constructed which includes 481 residential units. Further, 1,697 and 1,196 units are proposed as part of the Rio Vista and District at Rubidoux specific plans respectively in the eastern portion of the city. With an additional 1,126 units in the pipeline working towards permitting throughout the city, including 438 in Pedley, 25 in Glen Avon, and 1,576 units at Vernola Ranch adjacent to Mira Loma.
The Riverside County Economic Development Strategic Plan identified that the area suffers from significant re tail leakage to outside communities. However, recently approved commercial projects have the potential to redirect those sales back into the city. Further, as with the rest of the Inland Empire, Jurupa Valley has seen remarkable growth in the square footage of warehousing.
Recently, the 1.1 -million-square-foot Mira Loma Industrial/Warehouse was developed.
Additionally, 8 major commercial and warehouse projects were approved totaling 270,179 square feet of commercial floor area, and 7,490,407 square feet of warehouses.
Accompanying this growth in commercial and residential opportunities, Jurupa Valley has established several recreational amenities available to residents and visitors. The 2017 General Plan identifies 11% of land as parklands and open spaces. A large percentage of which includes the Santa Ana River, the Jurupa Mountains, and Pedley Hills. The Santa Ana River is currently operated as a County Regional Park and Open Space District and functions as a public/quasi-public conservation area and runs the length of the southern and western borders of the city.
JARPD, the Jurupa Valley Area Parks Department, operates 15 formal parks with a range of amenities for residents to enjoy with 4 more additional facilities planned or under construction.
One of which includes a .77-acre purchase of land on Mission Boulevard in the Rubidoux area by JARPD for the future site of a city recreational facility.
The city also works with developers to establish privately owned and protected open space. Most recently, a 70-acre protected open space area was approved as part of the Agua Mansa Commerce Park.
Despite this rapid growth seen throughout the city, Jurupa Valley still has ample room to grow.
The 2021 certified Housing Element identifies 439 acres of vacant land zoned for industrial parks, and 348.72 acres available for housing production with an estimated buildout of an additional 1,344 residential units. An additional 19 sites totaling 69.2 acres are slated for rezones to accommodate 1,822 units and adopted and in- process Specific Plans intend to steward the development of an additional 1,592.75 acres of land with a mix of uses. All told, this represents 2,449.67 acres of vacant land, approximately 9% of Jurupa Valley’s 43 square mile area that is primed for development.
Recognizing the renewed interest in development in Jurupa Valley, the city has initiated further planning efforts to redevelop the Glen Avon, Rubidoux, and Pedley Town Centers. Together with corridor beautification efforts, and seeking funding through state grant opportunities, the intention is to further bolster investment in these historic cores, providing quality recreational, civic, and service industry opportunities for Jurupa Valley’s growing population.
DRAFT
13 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Figure 1-2 City of Jurupa Valley Land Use Map from General Plan
DRAFT
14 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 2.0 - PLANNING PROCESS
2.1 Background and Scope
Hazard mitigation is defined by FEMA as “any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long- term risk to human life and property from a hazard event.” The results of a three- year, congressionally mandated independent study to assess future savings from mitigation activities provides evidence that mitigation activities are highly cost-effective. On average, each dollar spent on mitigation saves society an average of $6 in a voided future losses in addition to saving lives and preventing injuries (National Institute of Building Science Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves 2017 Interim Report).
Hazard mitigation planning is the process through which hazards are identified, likely impacts determined, mitigation goals set, and appropriate mitigation strategies determined, prioritized, and implemented. This LHMP Update documents the City of Jurupa V alley’s hazard mitigation planning process and identifies relevant hazards and vulnerabilities and various strategies the City will use to decrease vulnerability and increase resiliency and sustainability in the Jurupa Valley community.
This 2022 LHMP Update is part of the Riverside County multi -jurisdictional plan that geographically covers the unincorporated areas of the county and the geographical area of those jurisdictions that are part of the plan.
This LHMP Update was prepared pur suant to the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390) and the implementing regulations set forth by the Interim Final Rule published in the Federal Register on February 26, 2002, (44 CFR §201.6) and finalized on October 31, 2007. these requirements and regulations will be referred to collectively as the Disaster Mitigation Act (DMA) or DMA 2000.) While the act emphasized the need for mitigation plans and more coordinated mitigation planning and implementation efforts, the regulations established the requirements that local hazard mitigation plans must meet in order for a local jurisdiction to be eligible for certain federal disaster assistance and hazard mitigation funding under the Robert T.
Stafford Disaster Relief and Emerg ency Act (Public Law 93 -288). This planning effort also follows FEMA’s 2013 Plan Preparation Guidance.
Information in this LHMP Update will be used to help guide and coordinate mitigation activities and decisions for the City of Jurupa Valley policies in the future. Proactive mitigation planning will help reduce the cost of disaster response and recovery to the City and its business and residents, by protecting critical facilities, reducing liability exposure, and minimizing overall impacts and disruptions. The Planning Area has been affected by hazards in the past and is thus committed to reducing future impacts from hazard events and maintaining eligibility for mitigation-related federal funding.
2.2 Planning Area
This 2022 LHMP Update covers the approximate ly 44 square mile geographical boundary of Jurupa Valley. Hence forth this area will be referred to as the Planning Area.
DRAFT
15 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
2.3 Local Planning Process
Planning Process
Requirements §201.6(b) and §201.6(c)(1): An open public involvement process is essential to the development of an effective plan. In order to develop a more comprehensive approach to reducing the effects of natural disasters, the planning process shall include:
1) An opportunity for the public to comment on the plan during the drafting stage and prior to plan approval;
2) An opportunity for neighboring communities, local and regional agencies involved in hazard mitigation activities, and agencies that have the authority to regulate development, as well as businesses, academia, and other private and nonprofit interests to be involved in the planning process; and 3) Review and incorporation, if appropriate, of existing plans, studies, reports, and technical information. [The plan shall document] the planning process used to develop the plan, including how it was prepared, who was involved in the process, and how the public was involved.
The City’s planning process followed the four -step DMA planning process recommended by FEMA and California Offices of Emergency Services (CalOES) which includ ed: (1) Organize Resources, (2) Assess Risk, (3) Develop a Mitigation Plan, and (4) Adopt and implement the plan.
Throughout this process, the City participated in meetings coordinated by the Riverside County Emergency Management Department (EMD).
The overall approach to the City’s LHMP Update was to develop an understanding of the natural hazards to the City and to determine ways to reduce those risks, and to prioritize and outline potential mitigation strategies.
To complete these objectives, a representative from the City Manager’s Office attended the August 24th, Riverside County MJLHMP Workshop. Based up on the information provided at this workshop, the City Manager’s Office coordinated and collaborated with city departments to identify memb ers of the Cities H azard Mitigation Planning C ommittee (HMPC) which was comprised of members from multiple departments, including: City Manager’s Office, Public Works, Code Enforcement, Admin/Finance, Human Resources, Engineering, and Community Development and held there initial meeting on September 22 nd, 2022.
This meeting served to reintroduce the LHMP and outline the list of duties by department, expectations, and project deadlines. City Management lent much needed support to staff to relay the criticality and importance of participation in the update process by all departments. The list in Table 2-6 includes all HMPC members that attended one or more HMPC meetings as well as those who provided key input into the planning process.
Table 2-6: THE CITY Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee Agency Department Name & Title
City of Jurupa Valley City Manager Terri Rollings, Assistant to the City Manager City of Jurupa Valley Building & Code Ryan Batista, Sr. Code Enforcement City of Jurupa Valley Human Resources Cynthia Passalacqua, HR Analyst City of Jurupa Valley Human Resources Taylor Howard,
City of Jurupa Valley Admin /Finance Connie Cardenas, Director DRAFT
16 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Agency Department Name & Title
City of Jurupa Valley Public Works David French, Director City of Jurupa Valley Engineering Octavio Duran, Asst. City Engineer City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Dianne Guevara, Dep. Director Riverside County Sherriff Jason Sexton, Lieutenant, Jurupa Valley Station CalFire Fire William Otterman, Division Chief
Riverside County EMD Brice Bartlette, Emergency Services Coordinator The HMPC met formally seven times during the planning period (September 2022 – January 2023) which adequately covers the four phases of DMA planning process. The formal meetings held, and topics discussed are described in Table 2-7. Invitations, agendas, and sign- in sheets for each of the meetings are included in Appendix A.
Table 2-7: HMPC Meeting Dates and Agendas
Meeting
Type Meeting Topic Meeting
Date Meeting Location
HMPC #1
Kickoff
Meeting
1) Introduction to DMA and the planning process
2) Overview of current LHMP
3) Organize Resources
9/22/2022 Jurupa Valley City Hall
HMPC #2 Hazard Identification & Profiling 10/12/2022 Jurupa Valley City Hall HMPC #3 Hazard Identification & Profiling
HMPC #4 Vulnerability Assessment 11/3/2022
HMPC #5 Capabilities Assessment 11/14/2022 Jurupa Valley City Hall HMPC #6 Goal, Objective, and Action Development 12/1/2022 Jurupa Valley Operations Center
HMPC #7 Plan Implementation, Maintenance, and Adoption 1/14/2023 Jurupa Valley Operations Center
Early in the planning process, the HMPC determined that data collection, mitigation strategy development, and plan approval would be greatly enhanced by involving other local, county, and state agencies and organizations to participate in the process. Based on their involvement in hazard mitigation planning, their involvement in the Planning Area, and/or their interest as a neighboring jurisdiction, representatives listed in Table 2-3 were invited to participate on the HMPC or in the planning process via email.
Table 2-8: Jurupa Valley Collaboration Partners
Agency Department
Riverside County Emergency Management Department
Jurupa Valley Services District Emergency Management
Healthy Jurupa Valley Fire
City of Eastvale Emergency Management
CalFire Fire
Riverside County Sherriff Department
California Office of Emergency Services Mitigation Planning The HMPC continued to collaborate to review hazards, conduct risk assessment/analysis for each hazard, and identify and outline possible mitigation strategies. Discussions also included an updated history of disasters, mitigation efforts and a ranking of local hazards. These meetings DRAFT
17 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
included discussion of municipal laws and upcoming adoption of building codes as related to hazard mitigation.
As sections were finalized and established thresholds met, the draft revision of the LHMP update was readied for public release and discussion.
2.4 Participation In Regional (OA) Planning Process
The City’s Emergency Manger participated in the Regional MJ LHMP planning process with the Riverside County Operational Area by attending MJLHMP meetings and public hearings. At these meetings, common hazards, ranking, and potential mitigation ideas were discussed for all jurisdictions participating in the MJLHMP.
The City participated in Riverside County workshops, conferences, and meetings, including:
• On May 25th, 2022, the City of Jurupa Valley signed the Letter of Commitment to part of the MJLHMP planning process.
• On August 24th, 2022, the City of Jurupa Valley participated in the Riverside County LHMP Jurisdiction Workshop to begin the planning process. • On September 22nd, 2022, the City of Jurupa Valley participated in the Riverside County LHMP Jurisdiction Risk Assessment meeting.
• On October 5th, 2022, the City of Jurupa Valley participated in the Riverside County LHMP Steering Committee Planning meeting.
• On January 4th, 2022, the City of Jurupa Valley participated in the Riverside County LHMP Steering Committee Planning meeting.
2.5 Dates Available for Public Comment
On November 1st, 2022, the City Mangers Office posted a ten -question survey for the LHMP to solicit information and feedback on hazards in the community and input for the LHMP update.
This survey solicited feedback on what the residents believed to be the most significant hazards to the Planning Area and where they thought mitigation efforts should be focused. This information was used to as input for hazard ranking and potential mitigation goals and actions. The full survey results and public comments are in Appendix B.
• On January 19
th, 2023, the Draft LHMP was presented at the monthly City Council Meeting for public comment. A link to the Draft LHMP was also sent to the Community Based Organization Healthy Jurupa Valley, for dissemination to its members. • From January 20
th to January 31st, 2023, the Draft LHMP was placed on the City Website for public comment. These comments were considered and implemented into the final draft that was forwarded for review and approval.
2.6 Plans Adopted by Resolution
Upon approval by FEMA, the LHMP will be presented to the City Council in a public meeting for adoption via an official Resolution.
DRAFT
18 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 3.0 – UPDATES FROM THE 2018 LHMP
Element D - Plan Review, Evaluation, and Implementation Requirement §201.6(d)(3) A local jurisdiction must review and revise its plan to reflect changes in development, progress in local mitigation efforts, and changes in priorities, and resubmit if for approval within 5 years in order to continue to be eligible for mitigation project grant funding.
The updated LHMP complies with FEMA guidance and California OES guidelines for LHMPs.
The update followed the requirements noted in the DMA of 2000 and FEMA’s 2013 Local Hazard Mitigation Planning Handbook. This LHMP update involved a comprehensive review and update of each section of the 2018 LHMP and has attempted to align with the elements of the DMA and FEMA review guide and therefore has multiple changes in section title and content.
3.1 Updates from 2018 Plan
The 2023 update was a complete review and rewrite of many of the sections to align with the four- step planning process and incorporate update information. Many of the 2018 LHMP sections were renamed or adjusted in their order within the 2023 update.
3.2 Hazard Identification Updates from 2018 Plan
The FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) evaluates 18 different natural hazards that could affect communities throughout the United States. In the initial stages of the hazard identification process the HMPC conducted a comparison report of those census tracts located within the Planning Area to identify potential hazards.
Based upon the reference documents and after discussion it was decided that many of the hazards addressed in the 2018 LHMP, are not natural hazards and would be better addre ssed in a comprehensive Threat Hazards Identification Risk Analysis (THIRA) in conjunction with an update to the Emergency Operations Plan.
Table 3-9 identifies those changes in the hazard identification between the 2018 and 2023 plan update and identifies the significance of that hazard to the Planning Area.
Table 3-9: Hazard Identification Changes from the 2018 LHMP 2023 Hazards 2018 Hazards Comments Significance
Earthquake Earthquake No change High
Wildfire Wildfire No change High
Flood Flood No change Medium
Drought Drought No change Medium
Heat Wave Extreme Summer/Winter Weather No change Medium Cold Wave - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
Strong Winds Severe Wind Events This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low Hail - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
Hurricane - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
Ice Storm - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
Landslides Landslides This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low Lighting - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
Tornado - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low
DRAFT
19 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
2023 Hazards 2018 Hazards Comments Significance
Winter Weather Extreme Summer/Winter Weather This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 Low Avalanche - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 N/A
Coastal Flooding - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 N/A Tsunami - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 N/A
Volcanic Activity - This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 N/A - Pandemic This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Terrorism This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Hazmat Incidents This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Pipeline This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Power Outage This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Civil Unrest This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Nuclear Incident This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Insect Infestation This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 - Transportation This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
- Disease/Contamination This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 - Jail/Prison Event This was excluded, see table 4.1.1 - Aqueduct This was excluded, see table 4.1.1
3.3 Mitigation Project Updates from 2018 Plan
The 2018 mitigation goals were reviewed and adjusted to be more broad-based, while still aligning with the intent. Below are significant changes to the goals and actions Table 3-10: Mitigation Goals and Action Updates from 2018 LHMP 2018 LHMP GOALS/ACTIONS COMMENT In 2023
Update
Goal 1: Implement mitigation policies and strategies
contained in the City of Jurupa Valley Incorporated into 2023 - Goal 3 - Action 1: The City’s Code Enforcement Office
proactively responds and enforces city ordinances related to weed abatement violations to reduce fire threat.
The City has increased inspections prior
to the fire season
Yes
Action 2: Require all new developments, existing
critical facilities, and structures to comply with the most recent California Building Code seismic design
standards.
This has been incorporated into the City
Building Code
Yes
Action 3: Direct chief Building Official to increase
enforcement priority on vacant land. Code enforcement has increased inspections prior to fire season
Yes
Action 4: Prioritize future capital projects focused on mitigating flood risk of flood-prone areas.
Not started, need to conduct hydrographic
survey Yes
Goal 2: Continue to educate the general public in
mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery
activities. Incorporated into 2023 - Goal 2
-
Action 5: Build a team of volunteers who are
personally prepared for a disaster and provide CERT
training for them to respond in our communities.
The City has a train-and-release program,
that hosts annual classes
Yes
DRAFT
20 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 4.0 - HAZARD IDENTIFICATION AND RISK ASSESSMENT Element B - Risk Assessment & Hazard Identification Requirements Requirement §201.6(c)(2): [The plan shall include] A risk assessment that provides the factual basis for activities proposed in the strategy to reduce losses from identified hazards. Local risk assessments must provide sufficient information to enable the jurisdiction to identify and prioritize appropriate mitigation actions to reduce losses from identified hazards.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction . The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
4.1 Hazard Identification
The Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC) conducted a hazard identification study to determine the hazards that threaten the Planning Area. This section details the methodology and results of this effort. The following data sources were used for this Hazard Identification portion of the Plan Update:
• 2018 Jurupa Valley General Plan
• 2022 Jurupa Valley LHMP Survey
• 2018 Riverside County MJLHMP
• California Franchise Board Disaster Deceleration Website • NOAA Storm Events Database
• FEMA National Risk Index (NRI) Comparison Report
• FEMA Disaster Deceleration Database
Using existing natural hazards data and input gained through the kickoff planning meeting, the HMPC agreed upon a list of natural hazards that could affect the City . Hazards data from the California Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), FEMA, the Nationa l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and many other sources were examined to assess the significance of these hazards to the City. Significance of each identified hazard was measured in quantitative terms and focused on key criteria such as frequency and resulting damage, which includes deaths and injuries, as well as property and economic damage. The natural hazards evaluated as part of this LHMP include those that have occurred historically or have the potential to cause significant human and/or monetary losses in the future.
As a starting point, a NRI Comparison Report for the census tracts in the Planning Area was run to identify hazards of concern to the City . Building upon this effort, the Disaster Declaration Database was download from FE MA and the California Treasures Office, additionally, a storms data search was conducted via the NOAA Website. The HMPC also considered and the City ’s General Plan Safety Element and 2018 Riverside County MJLHMP. Based upon these historical documents, the HMPC identified 2-High Significant hazards and 3- Medium Significant hazards, which were profiled and had vulnerability assessments conducted in the LHMP Update see Table 4-11.
DRAFT
21 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-11: Jurupa Valley Hazard Identification Risk Matrix 2023
Based upon these historical documents, certain hazards were excluded from consideration for this LHMP Update and they are listed in Table 4-12.
DRAFT
22 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-12: 2023 LHMP Excluded Hazards
Hazard Excluded Reason for Exclusion
Aqueduct The City does not have an aqueduct that could cause flooding or potential inundation.
Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.16
Avalanches The City does not have sufficient snowfall to have avalanche as a hazard.
Civil Disturbance While civil disturbances occur from time to time, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.10 Coastal Flooding Due to the distance from the coast, and limited chance of waters reaching the City coastal flooding was excluded from consideration.
Cold Wave There are low numbers of freeze events in the City. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.13.2 Cyber Threats While the potential for cyber threats exists, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.6 Strong Winds
While strong winds can occur in the City, this hazard has been moved to a low significance, due to it having a limited impact on either the physical infrastructure or the community lifelines within the jurisdiction. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.13.3 Hail There are low numbers of hail events in the City.
Hazmat Incidents While hazardous materials releases can occur, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.22 Hurricane While hurricane can occur along the coast, there have been no instances where it has caused a significant impact on the City.
Ice Storm While ice storms can occur, there have been no instances where it has caused significant impact the City.
Insects Pests and Diseases While pests and diseases from insects can occur, there have been no instances where it has affected the City. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.18
Jail/Prison Event While the potential for jail/prison event exists, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.19 Landslides The City does not have sites in areas that could be affected by this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.21
Lighting While lighting can occur, there have been no instances where it has caused a significant impact on the City.
Nuclear Incident While radiological accidents may occur, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.12 Pandemic While the potential for a pandemic exists, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.2 Pipeline While hazardous materials releases can occur, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.20 Power Outage While energy emergencies occur from time to time, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.4 Terrorism While the potential for terrorism exists, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.7 Tornado While tornados can occur, there have been no instances where it has affected the City.
Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.17
Transportation While transportation incidents can occur, there are other avenues outside of this Plan Update to address this hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.14 Volcano Due to the distance from volcanoes, and the limited chance of an eruption, volcano was excluded from consideration.
Winter Weather While winter weather/storms can occur, the associated hazard comes from flooding and will be addressed in that hazard. Covered in MJLHMP Section 5.3.13
DRAFT
23 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
4.2 Disaster Declaration History
One method to identify hazards based upon past occurrences is to look at what events triggered federal and/or state disaster declarations within the Operational Area (OA). Disaster declarations are granted when the severity and magnitude of the event’s impact surpass the ability of the local government to respond and recover. Disaster assistance is supplemental and sequential. When the local government’s capacity has been surpassed, a state disaster declaration may be issued, following the local agency’s declaration, allowing for the provision of state assistance. Should the disaster be so severe that both the local and state government’s capacity is exceeded, a federal disaster declaration may be issued allowing for the provision of federal disaster assistance.
The federal government may issue a disaster declaration through FEMA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and/or the Small Business Administration (SBA). FEMA also issues emergency decla rations, which are more limited in scope and without the long -term federal recovery programs of major disaster declarations. The quantity and types of damage are the determining factors. This section focuses on state and federal disasters and emergency declarations that have occurred within Riverside County.
Riverside County has experienced 50 federal declarations since 1990 and 10 state declarations since 2015. Out of these 60 declarations 1 was associated with and earthquake event, 2 from biological events, 2 from freezing events, 3 from flooding events, 14 from severe storms, 34 from fires, 1 with hurricane (for evacuations stemming from Hurricane Katrina in 2005). Details of federal and state disaster declarations is shown in Table 4-9 and Table 4-10.
Table 4-13: Summary of Federal Declarations in Riverside County 1990 - 2022 Year Disaster
Type Disaster Cause County Disaster
Number
Federal
Declaration
Date
1990 Fire FIRES Riverside DR-872 6/30/1990
1991 Freezing SEVERE FREEZE Riverside DR-894 2/11/1991 1992 Earthquake EARTHQUAKE & AFTERSHOCKS Riverside DR-947 7/2/1992 1993 Flood SEVERE WINTER STORM, MUD &
LAND SLIDES, & FLOODING Riverside DR-979 2/3/1993
1994 Fire FIRES, MUD/LANDSLIDES,
FLOODING, SOIL EROSION Riverside DR-1005 10/28/1993
1995 Severe
Storm
SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING LANDSLIDES, MUD FLOW Riverside DR-1046 3/12/1995 1995 Severe
Storm
SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, MUD
FLOWS
Riverside DR-1044 1/10/1995
1998 Severe
Storm
SEVERE WINTER STORMS AND
FLOODING Riverside DR-1203 2/9/1998
2003 Fire CA-LOCUST WILDFIRE Riverside FM-2491 8/19/2003 2003 Fire CA-RAILROAD FIRE Riverside FM-2475 7/3/2003
2003 Fire CANYON FIRE Riverside FM-2487 7/25/2003
2004 Fire WILDFIRES, FLOODING, MUDFLOW
AND DEBRIS FLOW Riverside DR-1498 10/27/2003
2004 Fire CA - PLEASURE FIRE Riverside FM-2515 4/26/2004 2004 Fire CA-CERRITOS FIRE Riverside FM-2517 5/4/2004
2004 Fire CA-EAGLE FIRE Riverside FM-2516 5/4/2004
2004 Fire CA-MELTON WILDFIRE Riverside FM-2533 7/18/2004 DRAFT
24 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Year Disaster
Type Disaster Cause County Disaster
Number
Federal
Declaration
Date
2004 Fire PASS FIRE Riverside FM-2500 10/21/2003
2004 Fire CA-LAKEVIEW Riverside FM-2530 7/14/2004
2004 Fire CA-MOUNTAIN FIRE Riverside FM-2507 10/26/2003 2005 Hurricane HURRICANE KATRINA EVACUATION Riverside EM-3248 9/13/2005 2005 Severe
Storm
SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING,
LANDSLIDES, AND MUD AND DEBRIS
FLOWS
Riverside DR-1585 4/14/2005
2005 Severe
Storm
SEVERE STORMS, FLOODING,
DEBRIS FLOWS, AND MUDSLIDES Riverside DR-1577 2/4/2005 2006 Fire ORCHARD FIRE Riverside FM-2676 9/17/2006
2006 Fire WOODHOUSE FIRE Riverside FM-2584 10/6/2005
2006 Fire SIERRA FIRE Riverside FM-2630 2/6/2006
2007 Fire ESPERANZA FIRE Riverside FM-2678 10/26/2006
2007 Freezing SEVERE FREEZE Riverside DR-1689 3/13/2007 2008 Fire WILDFIRES, FLOODING, MUD
FLOWS, AND DEBRIS FLOWS Riverside DR-1731 10/24/2007
2008 Fire WILDFIRES Riverside EM-3279 10/23/2007
2009 Fire WILDFIRES Riverside DR-1810 11/18/2008
2009 Fire FREEWAY FIRE COMPLEX Riverside EM-2792 11/15/2008 2010 Severe
Storm
SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING, AND DEBRIS AND MUD
FLOWS
Riverside DR-1884 3/8/2010
2011 Flood
SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING, AND DEBRIS AND MUD
FLOWS
Riverside DR-1952 1/26/2011
2013 Fire SUMMIT FIRE Riverside FM-5023 5/1/2013
2013 Fire FALLS FIRE Riverside FM-5040 8/6/2013
2013 Fire SILVER FIRE Riverside FM-5041 8/8/2013
2017 Fire CANYON FIRE Riverside FM-5213 9/26/2017
2017 Flood SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING, AND MUDSLIDES Riverside DR-4305 3/16/2017
2018 Fire WILDFIRES Riverside EM-3396 12/8/2017
2018 Fire HOLY FIRE Riverside FM-5268 8/9/2018
2018 Fire CRANSTON FIRE Riverside FM-5260 7/25/2018
2018 Fire CANYON 2 FIRE Riverside FM-5223 10/9/2017
2019 Severe
Storm
SEVERE WINTER STORMS,
FLOODING, LANDSLIDES, AND
MUDSLIDES
Riverside DR-4431 5/1/2019
2020 Biological COVID-19 Riverside EM-3428 3/13/2020
2020 Biological COVID-19 PANDEMIC Riverside DR-4482 3/22/2020 2020 Fire HILL FIRE Riverside FM-5299 10/30/2019
2020 Fire APPLE FIRE Riverside FM-5325 8/2/2020
2020 Fire 46 FIRE Riverside FM-5300 10/31/2019
2021 Fire BLUE RIDGE FIRE Riverside FM-5381 10/26/2020 2022 Fire FAIRVIEW FIRE Riverside FM-5451 9/6/2022
Source: OpenFEMA DataSet: Disaster Declarations Summaries
DRAFT
25 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-14: Summary of State Declarations in Riverside County 2015 - 2022 Year
Month Disaster County Disaster
Code
Governor
Declared
2015 July Severe Rainstorms Riverside 65 Yes
2017 January January Winter Storms Riverside 77 Yes
2018 July Cranston Fire Riverside 102 Yes
2018 August Holy Fire Riverside 106 Yes
2019 January -
February Atmospheric River Storm System Riverside 109 Yes 2019 October Eagle, Reche, Saddleridge,
Sandalwood, and Wolf Fires Riverside 112 Yes
2019 October Extreme Wind and Fire Weather
Conditions All California counties 114 Yes
2020 August -
September
Fires and Extreme Weather
Conditions
Declared by Governor
only: All other California
counties not listed above
115 Yes
2022 September Fairview & Mosquito Fires Riverside 133 Yes 2022 September Tropical Storm Kay Riverside 135 Yes
Source: State of California Franchise Tax Board
4.3 Hazard Profiles
Element B - Risk Assessment & Hazard Identification Requirements Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(i): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the type, location and extent of all natural hazards that can affect the jurisdiction. The plan shall include information on previous occurrences of hazard events and on the probability of future hazard events.
The hazards identified in Section 4.1 Hazard Identification, are profiled individually in this section.
These profiles set the stage for Section 4. 4 Vulnerability Assessment, where the vulnerability is quantified for each of the priority hazards.
Those hazards that are not profiled in this section are covered in the Riverside County MJLHMP; Table 4-12 in Section 4.1 identifies were they can be found in the plan.
Each hazard is profiled in the following format:
• Hazard/Problem Description —This section gives a description of the hazard and associated issues followed by details on the hazard specific to the Planning Area. Where known, this includes information on the hazard location, extent, seasonal patterns, speed of onset/duration, and magnitude and/or any secondary effects. • Past Occurrences—This section contains information on historical incidents, including impacts where known. The extent and location of the hazard within or near the Planning Area is also included here. Historical incident worksheets and other input from the HMPC were used to capture information on past occurrences along with other data sources. • Frequency/Likelihood of Future Occurrence —The frequency of past events is used in this section to gauge the likelihood of future occurrences. Where possible, frequency was calculated based on existing data. It was determined by dividing the number of events observed by the number of years on record and multiplying by 100. This gives the percent DRAFT
26 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
chance of the event happening in any given year (e.g., three droughts over a 30-year period equates to a 10 percent chance of experiencing a drought in any given year). The likelihood of future occurrences is categorized into one of the following classifications:
• Highly Likely—Near 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or happens every year • Likely—Between 10 and 100 percent chance of occurrence in next year or has a recurrence interval of 10 years or less
• Occasional—Between 1 and 10 percent chance of occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence interval of 11 to 100 years
• Unlikely—Less than 1 percent chance of occurrence in next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of greater than every 100 years.
4.3.1 Earthquake
Hazard/Problem Description: An earthquake is a sudden, rapid shaking of the ground caused by the breaking and shifting of rock beneath the Earth's surface. For hundreds of millions of years, the forces of plate tectonics have shaped the Earth as the huge plates that form the Earth’s surface move slowly over, under, and past each other. Sometimes the movement is gradual. At other times, the plates are locked together, unable to release the accumulating energy. When the accumulated energy grows strong enough, the plates break free causing the ground to shake. Most earthquakes occur at the boundaries where the plates meet; however, some earthquakes occur in the middle of plates.
Where earthquakes have struck before, they can strike again, often without warning. The major form of direct damage from most earthquakes is damage to construction. Bridges are particularly vulnerable to collapse and dam failure may generate major downstream flo oding. Buildings vary in susceptibility depending on their construction and the types of soils on which they are built.
Earthquakes destroy utility infrastructure which, in turn, may set off fires, hinder rescue efforts, and impact normal functions for an extended period of time. The hazard of earthquakes varies from place to place depending on the regional and local geology. Ground shaking may occur 65 miles or more from the epicenter (the point on the ground surface above the focus). Ground shaking can change the mechanical properties of some fine grained, saturated soils, where upon the soils liquefy and act as a fluid (liquefaction).
Most earthquake-related injuries result from collapsing walls, flying glass, and falling objects as a result of the ground shaking.
Older buildings constructed before building codes were established, and even newer buildings constructed before earthquake-resistance provisions were included in the codes, are the most likely to be damaged during an earthquake. Buildings one or two stories high of wood-frame construction are considered to be the most structurally resistant to earthquake damage. Older masonry buildings without seismic reinforcement (unreinforced masonry) and soft story buildings are the most susceptible to the type of structural failure that causes injury or death.
Location: The Planning Area is located in a geologically active part of the United States and is at risk to earthquakes from multiple faults. The region’s geology is dominated by the intersection of the Pacific and North American tectonic plates, two components of t he earth’s crust that are moving in opposite directions. Large earthquake faults have developed in response to the stress DRAFT
27 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
between the plates. When enough strain builds up along a fault line, the plates slip, and an earthquake occurs.
There are multiple fault zones near the City that have the potential to cause a 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquake. The San Andreas, San Jacinto Fault, and Elsinore Fault, and Fontana Fault are all within 15 miles of the City.
Figure 4-3: Faults capable of 6.0 magnitude or greater earthquakes
Extent: The speed of onset of earthquake is short. Duration of shaking is also short, though aftershocks may continue to occur for a period of time. The amount of energy released during an earthquake is usually expressed as a magnitude and is measured directly from the earthquake as recorded on seismographs. An earthquake’s magnitude is expressed in whole numbers and decimals (e.g., 6.8).
DRAFT
28 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-15: Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) Scale
Source: USGS
Past Occurrences: There has been no state decelerations and one federal declaration for Riverside County for earthquakes, since 1990. However, the city was unincorporated at that time and there is not a loss report for damages. The NCDC does not track earthquakes.
Table 4-16: Earthquake Declarations in Riverside County Disaster
Type
State Deceleration Federal Deceleration
Count Years Count Years
Earthquake 0 - 1 1992
Source: FEMA, California Tax Franchise Board
Likelihood of Future Occurrences : Occasional (major earthquake)—It is likely that Jurupa Valley will be subject to minor earthquakes in the future. Major earthquakes are considered to be occasional in the City.
4.3.2 Wildfire
Hazard/Problem Description: California is recognized as one of the most fire‐prone and consequently fire‐adapted landscapes in the world. The combination of complex terrain, Mediterranean climate, and productive natural plant communities, along with ample natural and aboriginal ignition sources, has created conditions for extensive wildfires. Wildland fire is an ongoing concern for Riverside County, and to lesser extent those sites located in the City .
Historically in California, the fire season extended from early spring through late fall of each year during the hotter, dryer months. However, in recent years, wildfire season is more of a year around event. Fire conditions arise from a combination of high temperatures, low moisture content in the air and fuel, an accumulation of vegetation, and high winds.
DRAFT
29 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Potential losses from wildfire include human life, structures and other improvements, natural and cultural resources, quality and quantity of water supplies, cropland, timber, and recreational opportunities. Economic losses also result. Smoke and air pollution from wildfires can be a severe health hazard. In addition, catastrophic wildfire can create favorable conditions post fire for other hazards such as flooding, landslides and mudflows, and erosion during the rainy season.
Location: Fire can affect any area of the City; however historical trends shows that the most fire prone areas are along the Santa Ana Riverbed where there is dense vegetation growth on the southern border of the City. CAL FIRE has mapped areas in California that are at risk to wildfire and categorizes them by risk. Figure 4.3.2 is a map of the City Areas located in these High Fire Severity Areas.
Figure 4-4: Jurupa Valley Wildfire Risk Map
Extent: Fires can have a quick speed of onset, especially during periods of drought. Fires can burn for a short period of time or may have durations lasting for a week or more. Unlike earthquakes and wind, the extent of a wildfire is dependent on fuels, weather, and topography.
Past Occurrences: The 46 Fire in October 2019, was a Federally Declared Disaster that burn 348 acres, damaged 7 structures and destroyed 7 structures within the City of Jurupa Valley. There have been an additional 33 federal declarations for Riverside County for wildfires, since 1990 and six state decelerations for wildfire in Riverside County since the last LHMP update in 2018 and.
The NCDC has recorded 14 wildfires in the cities of Jurupa Valley, Norco, and Riverside mainly
DRAFT
30 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
along the Sana Ana Riverbed, since 1995 with a total of $155,000 in property damage and 3 injuries.
Table 4-17: Riverside County Disaster Declarations from Wildfire Diaster
Type
State Deceleration Federal Deceleration
Count Years Count Years
Wildfire 6 2018, 2019, 202, 2022 34
1990, 1994, 2003,
2004, 2006, 2007,
2008, 2009, 2013,
2017, 2018, 2020,
2021, 2022
Source: FEMA, California Tax Franchise Board
Likelihood of Future Occurrences: Highly Likely — From May to October of each year, the area in the Santa Ana River faces fire threat. Due to long, hot, dry summers, portions of the Planning Area continue to be at risk from wildfire.
4.3.3 Flooding
Hazard/Problem Description: A flood is defined as an overflowing of water onto an area of land that is normally dry. Floods generally occur from natural causes, usually weather-related, often in conjunction with a prolonged period of seasonal precipitation or with sudden and very heavy rain falls. Floods can, however, result from human causes as a dam impoundment bursting. Dam break floods are usually associated with intense rainfall or prolonged flood conditions. In the Riverside County area, a major earthquake could cause a dam failure. In a dam failure scenario, the greatest threat to life and property typically occurs in those areas located immediately below the dam since flood depths and discharges generally decrease as the flood wave moves downstream.
Floods are generally classed as either slow-rise or flash floods. Slow-rise floods may be preceded by a warning time lasting from hours to days, or possibly weeks. Evacuation and sandbagging for a slow rise flood may lessen the flood-related damage. Conversely, flash floods are characterized by extremely short warning times.
There are generally three types of freshwater floods that can occur: riverine, flash, and urban stormwater. Regardless of the type of flood, the cause is often the result of severe weather and excessive rainfall, either in the flood area or upstream reaches. • Riverine flooding is the most common type of flood event and occurs when a watercourse exceeds its “bank -full” capacity. Riverine flooding generally occurs as a result of prolonged rainfall, or rainfall that is combined with already saturated soils from previous rain events. The duration of riverine floods may vary from a few hours to many days.
Factors that directly affect the amount of flood runoff include precipitation amount, intensity and distribution, the amount of soil moisture, seasonal variation in vegetation, snow depth, and water-resistance of the surface due to urbanization. This type of flooding is most common along the Santa Ana Riverbed along the southern edge of the City. • The term “flash flood ” describes localized floods of great volume and short duration. In contrast to riverine flooding, this type of flood usually results from a heavy rainfall on a DRAFT
31 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
relatively small drainage area. These types of floods can occur in the City of Jurupa valley and are most often associated with stormwater flood events. • Stormwater/Urban flood events have increased as land has been converted from fields or woodlands to roads and parking lots and lost its ability to absorb rainfall. Urbanization increases runoff by two to six times that of natural terrain.
Location: The area adjacent to the Santa Ana River and in the Mira Loma community are the most impacted by flooding in the City. The potential for flooding can change and increase through various land use changes and changes to land surface, which result in a change to the floodplain.
A change in environment can create localized flooding problems inside and outside of natural floodplains by altering or confining natural drainage channels. These changes are most oft en created by human activity.
Figure 4-5: City of Jurupa Valley Flood Zones
Extent: Flood extents are usually measured in depths and velocity of flooding and extent of the floodplain. These extents are traditionally determined by FEMA DFIRM flood maps which show the extent of the 1% and 0.2% annual chance floodplains. Flood durations in the City tend to be short to medium term, or until either the storm drainage system can catch up or flood waters move downstream. The City has approximately 4,019 acres that is classified in one of the FEMA flood zones, with the majority along the Santa Ana River.
DRAFT
32 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Past Occurrences: There have been two state decelerations for flooding/severe storms in Riverside County since the last LHMP update in 2018 and a total of ten federal declarations for Riverside County for flooding/severe storms, since 1990. The NCDC has recorded five flash floods, with $65,000 in damages, and one flood with no damages in the City of Jurupa Valley, since 1995. The HMPC noted that there is annual flooding in the Mira Loma area of the City when the area receives substantial amounts of precipitation.
Table 4-18: Riverside County Disaster Declarations from Flood and Severe Storms Disaster
Type
State Deceleration Federal Deceleration
Count Years Count Years
Flood - - 3 1993, 2011, 2017
Severe
Storm 2 2019, 2022 7
1995, 1998, 2005,
2010, 2019
Source: FEMA, California Tax Franchise Board
Likelihood of Future Occurrences: Highly Likely — With the increase in atmospheric rivers and change in weather patterns heavy rain falls over a short period of time are becoming a multi -year event.
4.3.4 Heat Wave
Hazard/Problem Description: According to information provided by FEMA, extreme heat is defined as temperatures that hover 100 degrees or more above the average high temperature for the region and last for several weeks. Heat kills by taxing the human body beyond its abilities. In a normal year, about 175 Americans succumb to the demands of summer heat. In the 40- year period from 1936 through 1975, nearly 20,000 people were killed in the United States by the effects of heat and solar radiation. In the heat wave of 1980, more than 1,250 people died.
Heat disorders generally have to do with a reduction or collapse of the body’s ability to shed heat by circulatory changes and sweating or a chemical (salt) imbalance caused by too much sweating.
When heat gain exceeds a level at which the body can remove it, or when the body cannot compensate for fluids and salt lost through perspiration, the temperature of the body’s inner core begins to rise, and heat -related illness may develop. Elderly persons, small children, chronic invalids, those on certain medications or drugs, and persons with weight and alcohol problems are particularly susceptible to heat reactions.
Location: Extreme heat events occur on a regional basis. The Planning Area tends to have numerous extreme heat days exceeding 90°F, June - September. All portions of the City are at risk to extreme heat. Extreme heat occurs throughout the Planning Area primarily during the summer months. The WRCC maintains data on weather normal and extremes in the western United States.
WRCC data for the City is summarized in Table 4-19.
DRAFT
33 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-19: Jurupa Valley Extreme Maximum Temperatures
Source: Western Regional Climate Center
Extent: Heat emergencies are often slower to develop, taking several days of continuous, oppressive heat before a significant or quantifiable impact is seen. Heat waves do not strike victims immediately, but rather their cumulative effects slowly take the lives of vulnerable populations.
Heat waves do not generally cause damage or elicit the immediate response of floods, fires, earthquakes, or other more “typical” disaster scenarios. While heat waves are obviously less dramatic, they are potentially deadlier.
The Table 4-20 on the next page illustrates the Heat Index (HI) as a function of heat and relative humidity. The Heat Index describes how hot the heat‐humidity combination makes the air feel. As relative humidity increases, the air seems warmer than it actually is because the body is less able to cool itself via evaporation of perspiration. As the Heat Index rises, so do health risks.
Specifically:
• When the Heat Index is 90°F, heat exhaustion is possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity.
• When it is 90° to 105°F, heat exhaustion is probable with the possibility of sunstroke or heat cramps with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. • When it is 105° to 129°F, sunstroke, heat cramps or heat exhaustion is likely, and heatstroke is possible with prolonged exposure and/or physical activity. • When it is 130°F and higher, heatstroke and sunstroke are extremely likely with continued exposure. Physical activity and prolonged exposure to the heat increase the risks.
DRAFT
34 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 4-20: National Weather Service Heat Index Chart
Past Occurrences: There have been no state and federal declarations or NCDC events in that the HMPC could locate. The NRI lists 50 heat wave events for the planning area and there HMPC has historical knowledge of multiple days of extreme heat over 100°F.
Likelihood of Future Occurrences: Highly Likely —Temperature extremes are likely to continue to occur annually in the Planning Area. Temperatures at or above 90°F can occur on summer days in the City.
4.3.5 Drought
Hazard/Problem Description : Drought is a gradual phenomenon. Although droughts are sometimes characterized as emergencies, they differ from typical emergency events A drought is a period of unusually constant dry weather that persists long enough to cause deficiencies in water supply (surface or underground). Droughts are slow onset hazards, but, over time, they can severely affect crops, municipal water supplies, recreational resources, and wildlife. If drought conditions extend over a number of years, the direct and indirect economic impacts can be significant. High temperatures, high winds, and low humidity can worsen drought conditions and also make areas more suscep tible to wildfire. In addition, human actions and demands for water resources can accelerate drought-related impacts.
Climate scientists studying California weather patterns find that drought conditions are likely to become more frequent and persistent over the 21st century due to climate change. The experiences of California during recent years underscore the need to examine more closely the state’s water storage, distribution, management, conservation, and use policies.
DRAFT
35 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Drought is a complex issue invol ving many factors—it occurs when a normal amount of precipitation and snow is not available to satisfy an area’s usual water -consuming activities.
Drought can often be defined regionally based on its effects.
Location: Drought is a regional phenomenon. Dr ought affects the whole of the City. Drought in the United States is monitored by the National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS).
A major component of this portal is the U.S. Drought Monitor. A snapshot of the drought conditions from 2018 to 2023 drought conditions in California and the Planning Area can be found in Figure 4-6.
The US Drought Monitor includes a scale to measure drought intensity:
• None
• DO (Abnormally Dry)
• D1 (Moderate Drought)
• D2 (Severe Drought)
• D3 (Extreme Drought
• D4 (Expectational Drought)
Figure 4-6: Riverside County Current Drought Conditions 2018 to 2022
Source: https://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/CurrentMap/StateDroughtMonitor.aspx?CA
DRAFT
36 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Extent: There is no established scientific scale to measure water shortage. The speed of onset of water shortage tends to be lengthy. The duration of water shortage can vary, depending on the severity of the drought that accompanies it.
Past Occurrences: There have been no state and federal declarations or NCDC events in that the HMPC could locate. The NRI lists an average of 1242 drought events among the Census Tracts within the Planning Area. The Public Policy Institute of California lists five significant droughts in California, since 1975.
Likelihood of Future Occurrences: Likely—As droughts happen gradually and are based upon the water supply, and a large geographical area, future droughts are likely in the planning area.
DRAFT
37 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
4.4 Vulnerability Assessment
Element B - Vulnerability Assessment
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas.
Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate.
Requirement § 201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions.
With Jurupa Valley ’s hazards identified and profiled, the HMPC conducted a vulnerability assessment to describe the impact that each priority hazard would have on the City. The vulnerability assessment quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to natural hazards and estimates potential losses.
4.4.1. Jurupa Valley’s Vulnerability and Assets at Risk As a starting point for analyzing the City’s vulnerability to identified hazards, the HMPC used a variety of data to define a baseline agains t which all disaster impacts could be compared. If a catastrophic disaster was to occur in the City, this section describes significant assets at risk. Data and analysis used in this baseline assessment included:
• Total values at Risk
• Critical infrastructure at risk
• Growth and development trends.
Parcel Inventory and Assessed Values : The NRI Comparison Report “Exposure – Building value” and “Exposure – Population” data were used for the basis of this analysis. The City does not own the majority of the critical infrastructure within the planning area and has limited capability to produce a complete value loss table. The data provided represents best available data.
The Riverside County Assessor Office’s interactive web map displays a total of 28,186 properties within the City, with a total assessed value of 10.2 billion dollars. These properties are further broken down in six categories. Figure 4 -7 displays a screenshot of the complete data from the assessor’s office.
DRAFT
38 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Figure 4-7: Riverside County Assessor Data for the City of Jurupa Valley
4.4.2. Jurupa Valley’s Vulnerability to Hazards
The Disaster Mitigation Act regulations require that the HMPC evaluate the risk and vulnerability associated with priority hazards identified in the planning process. This section summarizes the possible impacts and quantifies, where data permits, the City’s vulnerability to each of the hazards identified in Section 4.2.
• Flood
• Wildfire
• Earthquake
• Extreme Heat
An estimate of the vulnerability of the City to each identified hazard, in addition to the estimate of likelihood of future occurrence, is provided in each of the hazard- specific sections that follow.
Vulnerability is measured in general, qualitative terms and is a summary of the potential impact based on past occurrences, spatial extent, and damage and casualty potential. It is categorized into the following classifications:
• Low—Minimal potential impact. The occurrence and potential cost of damage to life and property is minimal.
• Medium—Moderate potential impact. This ranking carries a moderate threat level to the general population and/or built environment. Here the potential damage is more isolated and less costly than a more widespread disaster.
DRAFT
39 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
• High—Widespread potential impact. This ranking carries a high threat to the general population and/or built environment. The potential for damage is widespread. Hazards in this category may have occurred in the past.
4.4.3 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Unlikely
Vulnerability—High
Hazard Summary: Ground shaking is typically the greatest hazard and major cause of damage. The transmission of earthquake waves can cause buildings to collapse, streets to crack, and utility lines to rupture. Strong ground shaking can also cause damage due to falling objects such as bookcases or water heaters, chemical spills, and secondary effects such as fire or explosion. Impacts from earthquake include property damage, critical facility damage, injury, and loss of life.
On any given site, the degree of shaking tends depends on the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the fault, property of the underlying soils, building design and construction, and building materials. Shaking tends to be strongest on filled soils and in areas where soil depth and moisture content are high.
The HMPC noted that within Riverside County, there are several earthquake faults, however, the Fontana Fault was focused on for the assessment. Multiple faults in the County have the capability of greatly affecting the City by causing significant damage and disruption to widespread areas.
The City’s buildings and utility systems are generally designed to withstand some disaster damage and function at least at pa rtial capacity. However, major quake -caused structural damage to under/above ground buildings and utilities would have a serious impact on response to and recovery from a major disaster.
Methodology: USGS earthquake shape map for a 6.8 magnitude earthquake on the Fontana Fault, figure 4-6, was used to establish potential damage estimates. This map classified ground shaking as “Violent”, this was then assigned a value of .10 and multiplied by the total “Exposure- Building Value” from the NRI data for Planning Area. Table 4 -8 is the total estimated loss for a 6. 8 or greater earthquake within the City by census tract.
DRAFT
40 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Figure 4-8: USGS Shake Map Fontana Scenario
Table 4-21: Earthquake Total Value Loss for Structures in the City of Jurupa Valley Census Tract Earthquake - Exposure - Building Value Value Loss 30800 $ 501,967,000 $ 50,196,700 40402 $ 314,296,000 $ 31,429,600 40405 $ 529,269,000 $ 52,926,900 40703 $ 319,239,000 $ 31,923,900 30200 $ 446,572,000 $ 44,657,200 40201 $ 433,994,000 $ 43,399,400 40202 $ 147,607,000 $ 14,760,700 40301 $ 432,374,000 $ 43,237,400 40302 $ 676,274,000 $ 67,627,400 40404 $ 309,431,000 $ 30,943,100 40501 $ 459,482,000 $ 45,948,200 40503 $ 569,093,000 $ 56,909,300 40604 $ 474,042,000 $ 47,404,200 40616 $ 672,338,000 $ 67,233,800 40102 $ 306,190,000 $ 30,619,000
DRAFT
41 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Census Tract Earthquake - Exposure - Building Value Value Loss 40303 $ 196,626,000 $ 19,662,600 40403 $ 363,749,000 $ 36,374,900 40502 $ 348,831,000 $ 34,883,100 40606 $ 165,989,000 $ 16,598,900 40615 $ 822,089,000 $ 82,208,900 30104 $ 525,458,000 $ 52,545,800 41004 $ 317,457,000 $ 31,745,700 40101 $ 374,070,000 $ 37,407,000 40203 $ 192,726,000 $ 19,272,600 40204 $ 177,342,000 $ 17,734,200 40603 $ 145,043,000 $ 14,504,300 40605 $ 211,384,000 $ 21,138,400 40607 $ 1,852,806,000 $ 185,280,600 12700 $ 1,811,058,000 $ 181,105,800 2604 $ 409,199,000 $ 40,919,900 2607 $ 600,249,000 $ 60,024,900 4004 $ 355,982,000 $ 35,598,200 2601 $ 1,039,853,000 $ 103,985,300 4003 $ 327,035,000 $ 32,703,500 Total Value Loss = $ 1,682,911,400
Critical Infrastructure at Risk: A magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake would impact the entire Planning Area including all of the critical facilities. Figure 4-7 shows the critical facilities within the planning area.
DRAFT
42 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Figure 4-9: Critical Infrastructure Earthquake Risk Map for Jurupa Valley
Source: Homeland Infrastructure Foundation-Level Data
Overall Community Impact: A Magnitude 6.8 or greater earthquake would be catastrophic to the entire community. There would be large spread damage to housing and community lifelines. The potential road damage would make it difficult for transportation out of the affected areas or first responders to access. The aging population and those under the age of five would be the greatest impacted.
Description of land uses and development trends: Since the 2018 LHMP there has been significant residential and commercial development in the planning area, with an additional 6,539 units in the construction or planning phase. The HMPC noted that these future developments should be built to seismic code and even though built to code, these structures could still be at risk from earthquake shaking. However, this new development could potentially change the demographics of the City , as a younger population with reduced social vulnerability purchases the units, decreasing the overall vulnerability to the planning area.
DRAFT
43 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
4.4.4 Wildfire Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely
Vulnerability—High
Hazard Summary: The City’s greatest risk is from a wildland-urban interface (WUI) fire along the Santa Ana River where the vegetation is most dense. The threat of a wildfire under Santa Ana wind conditions in this area presents risks and impacts to the entire city and could cause critical damages.
The hot and dry periods of late summer and fall combined with seasonal wind patterns, flammable vegetation, and dense development patterns contribute to creating a substantial fire threat.
Although the physical damages and casualties arising from wildfires may be severe, it is important to recognize that they also cause significant economic impacts by resulting in a loss of function of buildings and infrastructure. Economic impacts due to loss of building use for sheltering operations, utility service disruptions causing school closures, and traffic delays/detours from road and bridge closures could all be economic impacts.
Methodology: Using GIS the CalFire HFSZ layer was overlayed with the critical facilities point layer to determine those facilities that can potentially be affected. To quantify a potential loss estimate, the HMPC used the “Wildfire -Exposure-Building Value”, multiplied by .25 from the NRI census tracts located adjacent to the most fire prone areas within the city. This is a worst-case scenario should a wildfire in the Santa Ana Riverbed or Pedley Hills create an urban conflagration and spread house to house. Table 4-22 lists the estimated total value loss.
Table 4-22: Wildfire Total Value Loss for Structures in the City of Jurupa Valley Census Tract Wildfire - Exposure - Building Value Value Loss 40402 $ 5,938,938 $ 1,484,734 40405 $ 17,807,089 $ 4,451,772 40302 $ 6,890,923 $ 1,722,731 40404 $ 8,951,966 $ 2,237,992 Total Value Loss = $ 9,897,229
Critical Infrastructure at Risk: The City does not own or operate any critical infrastructure in in a HSFZ; however, there are critical facilities owned and operated by outside agencies that can be affected directly by wildfire , they are shown in Figure 4-10. All of the City’s facilities could be affected by smoke, poor air quality, or potential power outages caused by a wildfire.
DRAFT
44 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Figure 4-10: Critical Infrastructure Wildfire Risk Map for Jurupa Valley
Overall Community Impact: A wildfire w ould have significant impact on the community due to air quality and potential evacuations . The greatest impact will be to those with breathing issues and limited mobility. Additionally, the unhoused population within the City, is concentrated in the Santa Ana Riverbed area and fast -moving wildfire could potentially cause fatalities within this population.
Depending on the location of the fire transportation corridors and evacuation routes could be impacted. Those residents that do not have vehicles would be at the highest risk.
Description of land uses and development trends: Since the 2018 LHMP there has been significant residential and commercial development in the planning area, with an additional 6,539 units in the construction or planning phase. The n ew development in the City will be built to code, which includes building with fire resistant materials based on fire risk. Additionally, this new residential development will eliminate approximately 1,000 acres of vacant property that holds light fuels that will reduce the overall vulnerability.
DRAFT
45 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
4.3.5 Flood Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Likely
Vulnerability—Medium
Hazard Summary: Floods have been a part of the City’s past and will continue to be so in the future. During winter storms, prolonged precipitation can result in flooding causing damage to property and infrastructure. Predominantly, the effects of flooding are generally confined to areas near the drainageways and low -lying areas. As waterways grow in size from local drainages, so grows the threat of flood and dimensions of the threat. Structures can also be damaged from trees falling as a result of water -saturated soils. Electrical power outages can occur and cause major problems.
The City is working in conjunction with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District to identify and mitigate areas that may cause or have the potential to cause damage or destruction of property.
Heavy rain events can also lead to problems with storm drainage systems and create localized flood problems. According to the City of Jurupa Valley Storm Drain Master Plan, there are several flooding problem areas in the Ci ty. These areas are primarily a result of undersized pipes where the runoff exceeds the pipe capacity even for minor storms. Compounding the storm water run - off, the geological features of Jurupa Valley is that everything slopes in a southwesterly direction.
Storm water from the City of Riverside and surrounding areas northeast of Jurupa Valley are draining westward into Jurupa Valley storm water facilities.
Methodology: Using GIS the DIFRM flood zones layer was overlayed with the City’s critical facilities point layer to determine those critical infrastructure facilities that could be affected. To quantify a potential loss estimate, for the Planning Area, the HMPC used the Expected Annual Loss -Building Value for those Census Tracts identified as Relatively High and Relatively Moderate for Riverine Flooding from the NRI Comparison Report. Table 4-23 displays the potential value loss.
Table 4-23: Flooding Total Value Loss for Structures in the City of Jurupa Valley Census Tract Riverine Flooding - Exposure -
Building Value
Riverine Flooding - Expected Annual Loss -
Building Value
30800 $39,415,373 $60,325
40402 $11,525,920 $17,640
40405 $27,178,871 $41,597
40703 $13,478,962 $20,630
40201 $59,191,037 $90,592
40616 $130,673,335 $199,995
30104 $12,976,348 $19,860
40603 $10,227,104 $15,653
Total Value Loss = $466,293
Critical Infrastructure at Risk: The biggest impact to critical infrastructure would be to the roads and transportation corridors in the city. The City’s Public Works and Code Enforcement building is located in a reduced risk area own that could potentially be affected by a flooding if the levee DRAFT
46 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
failed. however, there are critical facilities owned and operated by outside agencies that can be affected directly by flooding, they are shown in Figure 4-11.
Figure 4-11: Critical Infrastructure Flood Zone Risk Map for Jurupa Valley
Overall Community Impact: Flooding could have an impact on the transportation capability of the City, impacting those that rely on public transportation. The low -lying flat area within the community of Mira Loma is the most impacted by stormwater flooding. The unhoused population within the City, is concentrated in the Santa Ana Riverbed area and flooding in this area could cause potential displacement and/or loss of life.
Description of land uses and development trends: Since the 2018 LHMP there has been significant residential and commercial development in the planning area, with an additional 6,539 units in the construction or planning phase. None of these developments will be located in a floodplain and the developer must submit storm water drainage plans to the City, which will mitigate localized storm water flooding. The City will continue to enforce the floodplain ordinance on new development and future development. Overall, the development trends will have no impact on the City to Riverine Flooding and a reduced vulnerability to storm water flooding.
DRAFT
47 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
4.4.6 Heat Wave Vulnerability Assessment
Likelihood of Future Occurrence—Highly Likely
Vulnerability—Medium
Hazard Summary and Impact on Community: Extreme heat happens in the City for short periods of time each year. Extreme heat may overload demands for electricity to run air conditioners in homes and businesses during prol onged periods of exposure and presents health concerns to individuals outside in the temperatures. Extreme heat may also be a secondary effect of droughts or may cause drought -like conditions in a temporary setting. For example, several weeks of extreme heat increases evapotranspiration and reduces moisture content in vegetation, leading to higher wildfire vulnerability for that time period even if the rest of the season is relatively moist.
Extreme heat, when combined with wind, can lead to Public Safety P ower Shutdown (PSPS) events in the larger County area that could extend into the Planning Area.
Methodology: Heat waves will have limited impact or damage to the physical structures and limited loss risk associated with them. The greatest risk is to the vulnerable populations throughout the Planning Ara and the HMPC had no way to define a methodology to calculate loss risk. The Public Health Alliance of Southern California created an index to identify health disadvantage areas within the state. A reas that have a low Healthy Place Index (HPI) would be at greater risk during heat waves. Figure 4-12 is a map of the HPI for the Planning Area.
Figure 4-12: Healthy Places Index Map for Jurupa Valley
Source: Public Health Alliance of Southern California
Critical Infrastructure at Risk: All of the critical infrastructure within the City are at risk from extreme heat, due to potential power outage that be caused by a heat wave. These facilities should have backup generator power to ensure continuity of operations.
Overall Impact on Community: Due to the low HPI many of the residents within the Planning Area would be susceptible to heat waves. The most vulnerable populations would be the unhoused population, infants, and children under 5, elderly, and those individuals with disabilities.
DRAFT
48 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Description of land uses and development trends: Since the 2018 LHMP there has been significant residential in the planning area, with an additional 6,539 units in the construction or planning phase. The new residential development could potentially change the demographics of the City, as a younger population with reduced social vulnerability purchase the units.
The completed and planned commercial development within the planning area is approximately 425 acres of wareh ouse and commercial area. This development combined with residential development could create an increased urban heat island effect and an increased strain on the electrical grid, which may increase the overall vulnerability to heat waves in the future.
The City encourages that future facilities have emergency plans or backup power to address power failure during times of extreme heat and in the event of a PSPS or other interruption in service.
DRAFT
49 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 5.0 – COMMUNITY RATING SYSTEM
5.1 Repetitive Loss Properties
There are no repetitive loss or severe loss properties within the jurisdiction as of the date of this LHMP update.
5.2 National Flood Insurance Properties
a. Describe participation in NFIP, including any changes since previously approved plan.
a. The City is in compliance with the NFIP and provide NFIP brochures to residents with the High Flood Zones and during outreach events.
b. Date first joined NFIP.
a. September 23
rd, 2013
c. Identify actions related to continued compliance with NFIP. a. Initiated Conditional Letter of Map Revision for developing properties d. CRS member?
a. No
e. CRS class?
a. N/A
f. Describe any data used to regulate flood hazard area other than FEMA maps. a. Engineering studies and consultation with the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation City.
g. Have there been issues with community participation in the program? a. No, the City needs revised DFIRM maps.
h. What are the general hurdles for effective implementation of the NFIP? a. We currently are waiting for a BAO letter from FEMA for hydrology and hydraulic studies performed for the Santa Ana River by the RCFCWCD .
i. Summarize actions related to continued compliance with NFIP (c-2 and c-4) a. N/A
i. Repetitive Loss Properties
a. N/A
DRAFT
50 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 6.0 - CAPABILITIES ASSESSMENT
Capabilities are the programs and policies currently in use to reduce hazard impacts or that could be used to implement hazard mitigation activities. This capabilities assessment is divided into five sections.
• Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
• Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities
• Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities
• Mitigation Outreach and Partnership
• Funding Opportunities
6.1 Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities
These capabilities can be expanded and improved upon by i ncorporating hazard information into the General Plan. Implement a process to ensure mitigation actions identified in the hazard mitigation plan are reviewed as part of the update to the City’s Capital Improvement Program, Continuity of Operations Plan, and Emergency Operations Plan.
Table 6-24 lists planning and land management tools typically used by jurisdictions to implement hazard mitigation actives and those that are currently active in the City. The column that indicates “Yes” or “No” defines if the City has that capability currently.
Table 6-24: Regulatory Mitigation Capabilities for the City of Jurupa Valley Regulatory Tool Yes/No Comments
General Plan Yes
Adopted in September 2017, this plan outlines the future changes in the City such as new infrastructure that will be built, and policies on public safety and land use. This plan will help with the implementation of mitigation
actions that are listed in the LHMP.
Capital Improvements Plan Yes Drainage project
Transportation Plan Yes Circulation Master Plan for Bicyclist and Pedestrians Economic Development Plan Yes
Hazard Mitigation Plan Yes 2018 Plan
Community Wildfire Protection Plan Yes Reference Riverside County Plan Local Emergency Operations Plan Yes Review for mitigation efforts Zoning Ordinance Yes Title 9 in municipal code – Ordinance is effective and enforced.
Subdivision Ordinance Yes Title 7 in municipal code – Ordinance is effective and enforced.
Floodplain Ordinance Yes Title 8 municipal code – Ordinance is effective and enforced.
Other special purpose ordinance
(stormwater, steep slope wildfire) Yes Stormwater Runoff, Title 6 Building Code Yes Version: 2022
Fire Dept International Standards
Organization Rating Yes
Permitting Requirements Yes
Erosion Sediment Control Program Yes Informally address sediment issues Flood Insurance Study or other
engineering study for streams Yes
DRAFT
51 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Elevation certificate Yes
6.2 Administrative and Technical Mitigation Capabilities The Administrative and Technical capabilities can be expanded and improved on to reduce risk through coordination with department managers during the annual review of the LHMP and as the City progresses towards implementation. This coordination would identify information that should be included in future updates.
Table 6 -25 is a list of City Departments that can have a role in activities related to hazard mitigation. The column that indicates “Yes” or “No” defines if the City has that capability currently.
Table 6-25: Administrative and Technical Capabilities for the City of Jurupa Valley Personnel/Technical Resources Yes/No Department/Position Planning Commission Yes Community Development
Mitigation Planning Committee Yes Created for this plan update Public works officials Yes Public Works Dept
Planner/Engineer with knowledge of
land development/land management
practices
Yes Community Development/Public Works
Engineer/Professional trained in
construction practices related to
building and/or infrastructure
Yes Public Works/Building
Planner/Engineer/Scientist with an
understanding of natural hazards Yes Public Works
Personnel skilled in GIS Yes Contracted
Full time building official Yes Building Dept
Floodplain Manager Public Works
Emergency Manager Yes Contracted w/ Riverside County
Grant writer Yes Contracted / In-house
Budget/Finance personnel Yes Finance Dept
GIS Data- Land Use Yes Contracted
GIS Data - Links to Assessors Data No
Maintenance programs to reduce risk
(e.g. tree trimming, clearing drainage
systems)
Yes Public Works
6.3 Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities
Fiscal Capabilities can be expanded and improved upon by coordinating with other departments, organizations, and agencies to identify potential assets and resources that may not currently be considered.
Table 6-26 identifies financial tools or resources that the City could potentially use to help fund mitigation activities.
DRAFT
52 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 6-26: Fiscal Mitigation Capabilities for the City of Jurupa Valley Fiscal Resources Accessible Comments
Community Development Block Grants,
HMPG, or other federal infrastructure
funding Yes
BRIC, EMPG, SHSP, CDBG
Capital Improvements project funding Yes Active Transportation Program (ATP), CDBG, Senate Bill 1 (Gas Tax), Measure A
Authority to levy taxes for specific
purposes Yes Voter approval required
Impact fees for new development
Yes
General Government Facilities, Fire Protection
Facilities, Circulation Systems Facilities, Park Facilities Improvement, Mira Loma Road & Bridge Benefit
District (MRBBD)
Incur debt through general obligation
bonds Yes Voter approval required
Incur debt through special tax bonds Yes Voter approval required Incur debt through private activities No
Innovative finance Yes
Public-private partnerships
Other federal funding programs
Critical infrastructure resilience
incentives (including tax credits, zoning
relief, and mission-related investments)
Withhold spending in hazard prone
area
6.4 Mitigation Outreach and Partnerships
The City trains residents in emergency preparedness through CERT classes that are available to residents twice a year. CERT training prepares residents to assist the City of Jurupa Valley and emergency personnel during hazardous situations and mitigates the likelihood of loss of life or injury in the process.
The City partners with the Jurupa Community Services District, Rubidoux Community Services , and the Western Riverside Council of Governments as well as relevant State and Federal agencies to disseminate information on drought regulation, water conservation, ground water contamination prevention, and any other local environmental hazard preventive and mitigating actions that residents can take and become aware of.
The City also partners with the non- profit group Reach Out to form Healthy Jurupa Valley to improve the quality of life for the residents and will w ork with other organizations, such as the Red Cross, to identify educational resources available to the public and opportunities to provide the information to the community.
6.5 Funding Opportunities
FEMA HMA Grants: Cal OES administers three main types of HMA grants: (1) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, (2) Pre -Disaster Mitigation Program, and (3) Flood Mitigation Assistance Program. Eligible applicants for the HMA include state and local governments, certain private non-profits, and federally recognized Indian tribal governments. While private citizens cannot DRAFT
53 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
apply directly for the grant programs, they can benefit from the programs if they are included in an application sponsored by an eligible applicant.
FEMA Public Assistance Section 406 Mitigation : The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act provides FEMA the authority to fund the restoration of eligible facilities that have sustained damage due to a presidentially declared disaster. The regulations contain a provision for the consideration of funding additional measures that will enhance a facility’s ability to resist similar damage in future events.
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities : FEMA’s BRIC grant program give states, local communities, tribes and territories funding to address future risks to natural disasters, including ones involving wildfires, drought, hurricanes, earthquakes, extreme heat, and flooding.
Addressing these risks helps make communities more resilient.
Community Development Block Grants: The California Department of Housing and Community Development administers the State ’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program with funding provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. The program is available to all non -entitlement communities that meet applicable threshold requirements. All projects must meet one of the national objectives of the program – projects must benefit 51 percent low- and moderate-income people, aid in the prevention or clearance of slum and blight or meet an urgent need. Grant funds can generally be used in federally declared disaster areas for CDBG eligible activities including the replacement or repair of infrastructure and housing damaged during, or as a result of, the declared disaster.
Small Business Loans: SBA offers low-interest, fixed-rate loans to disaster victims, enabling them to repair or replace property damaged or destroyed in declared disasters. It also offers such loans to affected small businesses to help them recover from economic injury caused by such disasters.
Loans may also be increased up to 20 percent of the total amount of disaster damage to real estate and/or leasehold improvements to make improvements that lessen the risk of property damage by possible future disasters of the same kind.
Increased Cost of Compliance: Increased Cost of Compliance (ICC) coverage is one of several resources for flood insurance policyholders who need additional help rebuilding after a flood. It provides up to $30,000 to help cover the cost of mitigation measures that will reduce flood risk.
ICC coverage is a part of most standard flood insurance policies available under NFIP.
DRAFT
54 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 7.0 - MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Element C - Mitigation Strategy
Requirement §201.6(c)(3): [The plan shall include] a mitigation strategy that provides the jurisdiction’s blueprint for reducing the potential losses identified in the risk assessment, based on existing authorities, policies, programs and resources, and its ability to expand on and improve these existing tools.
The City of Jurupa Valley coordinated through the Emergency Management Department of Riverside Country and other multiple cities and agencies throughout Riverside County in the creation/update of the LHMP. The cooperation and discussions both in regional meetings, community outreach, and internal meetings allowed a global perspective and a local jurisdictional perspective to identify additional exposures and hazards within our jurisdiction. The overall mitigation strategy is to leverage those mitigation capabilities identified in S ection 6.0 to reduce the loss of life, property damage, and economic impact to the City.
7.1 Mitigation Goals
Element C - Goals & Objectives
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(i): [The hazard mitigation strategy shall include a] description of mitigation goals to reduce or avoid long-term vulnerabilities to the identified hazards.
During the initial goal-setting meeting, the HMPC reviewed the results of the hazard identification, vulnerability assessment, and capability assessment from the 2018 LHMP. This analysis of the risk assessment identified areas where improvements could be made and provided the framework for the HMPC to formulate planning goals and objectives and to develop the mitigation strategy for the City’s Planning Area.
Goals were defined for the purpose of this mitigation plan update as broad-based public policy statements that:
• Represent basic desires of the City.
• Are future-oriented, in that they are achievable in the future; and • A time-independent, in that they are not scheduled events.
Goal 1: Align all building, zoning, safety, and emergency plans within the city, to reduce economic impacts and promote a resilient economy.
Goal 2: Minimize the loss of life and reduce property damage as a result of natural, made -made, or human-caused hazards and support the health and safety of the whole community.
Goal 3: Improve community resilience to disasters through increased outreach and awareness and better resources.
Goals are stated without regard to implementation. Implementation cost, schedule, and means are not considered. Goals are defined before considering how to accomplish them so that they are not dependent on the means of achievement. Goal statements form the basis for objectives and actions that will be used as means to achieve the goals. Objectives define strategies to attain the goals and are more specific and measurable.
DRAFT
55 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
7.2 M itigation Objectives and Actions by Hazard
Element C - Identification & Analysis Mitigation Actions Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(ii): [The mitigation strategy shall include a] section that identifies and analyzes a comprehensive range of specific mitigation actions and projects being considered to reduce the effects of each hazard, with particular emphasis on new and existing buildings and infrastructure.
Prior to the “Mitigation Goals Objectives and Action” meeting, the FEMA Mitigation Ideas “A Resource for Reducing Risk to Natural Hazards,” and a PowerPoint presentation were distributed to the HMPC members for review. The HMPC focused on three main mitigation action types defined in the FEMA Mitigation Ideas, the types were:
• Local Planning and Regulations
• Structure and Infrastructure Projects
• Education and Awareness Programs
The HMPC concurred on the following objectives and actions to help mitigate the potential hazards and vulnerabilities identified in Section 4.2 and that would support the City’s mitigation goals. The mitigation actions associated with the objectives in Section 7.2.1 – 7.2.5 are in Table 7-27.
7.2.1 Earthquake Objectives
• EQ-1: Adopt and Enforce Building Codes
• EQ-2: Implement Structural Mitigation Techniques
• EQ-3: Increase Earthquake Risk Awareness
7.2.2 Wildfire Objectives
• WF-1: Reduce Risk through Land Use Planning
•
WF-2: Create Defensible Space Around Structures and Infrastructure • WF-3: Educate Property Owners about Wildfire Mitigation Techniques
7.2.3 Flood Objectives
• FL-1: Improve Stormwater Management Planning
• FL-2: Adopt Policies to Reduce Stormwater Runoff
• FL-3: Educate Owners about Flood Mitigation Techniques
7.2.4 Heat Wave
• HW-2: Increase Awareness of the Extreme Temperature Risk and Safety
7.2.5 Multiple Hazard
• MH-1: Integrate Mitigation into the future revisions of all the General Plan, Emergency Operations Plan, and other plans that have the potential of mitigating natural hazards. • MH-2: Increase Hazard Education and Risk Awareness throughout the community ove r the next four years.
DRAFT
56 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 7-27: 2023 Mitigation Actions
IDActionGoalBackground/BenefitDepartment(s)Cost EstimatePotential FundingTimelinePriority EQ 1.1
Require all new developments, ex isting critical
facilities, and structures to com ply with the m ost
recent California Building Code seism ic design
standards. (2018)
1 Falling debris is one of the leading
causes of injury during ground
shaking / This will reduce potential
injuries
Building$25,000 - $50,000G eneral Funds2018 - 202813
EQ 2.1
Inventory and asses all city buildings to ensure
s hatter-res is tant glas s or film is ins talled on all windows.
2,1
During heavy ground shaking
windows can shatter sending
projectiles through the air and onto the
surfaces of buildings.
Building$75,000 - $100,000G eneral Funds,
BRIC2023 - 202612
EQ 3.1 Develop an outreach program about earthquake risk and m itigation activities for business and residents 3 Education on potential hazards and
m itigation techniques is one of the key
foundations to building a m ore resilient
com m unity.
City Manager/Emergency
Management $15,000 - $25,000G eneral Funds,
EMPG2023 - Ongoing 3
WF 1.1
Conduct a G IS spatial analysis of historical fire hot- spot areas within the City, to identify areas that m ay require a brush clearness program or ordinance to
reduce the risk associated with the area.
1, 2
The City historically has fire in the
sam e areas of the city. Conducting this
analys is will allow for more proactive
measures to reduce potential fires
throughout the city.
Com m unity
Development/JCSD/CalFir
e
$15,000 - $$25,000
G eneral Funds,
Com m unity
Developm ent
Budget
2023 - 20287
WF 1.2
Continue to address the density and quantity of
development, as well as emergency access,
landscaping, and water supply.
1,2
The city continues to approve new
developm ents in the G len Avon and
Mira Loma area, and the potential risk
of fire from the Santa Ana River bottom
needs to be addressed for fire
suppression.
Com um unity
Developm ent/Building/JC
SD
$10,000 - $15,00G eneral Funds,
BRIC2023 - Ongoing 15
WF 2.1Enforce city ordinances related to weed abatement violations to reduce the wildfire threat 2,3
Unm ainatied fauna and flora are one of
the biggest contributors to the start
and spread of wildfires within the
com m unity. Continuing enforcem ent
will help reduce potential ignition
points and the spread of fires.
Code Enforcem ent$5,000 - $8,000G eneral Funds2018 - Ongoing 1 Earthquake
Wild fire
DRAFT
57 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Table 7-27: 2023 Mitigation Actions Continued
IDActionGoalBackground/BenefitDepartment(s)Cost EstimatePotential FundingTimelinePriority FL 1.1Begin the develop a com m unity-wide storm water
management master plan1
The developm ent of a storm water
m aster plan will help guide storm water-
related priorities and capital
im provem ent projects over the nex t 10
to 15 years.
Public Works$75,000 - $125,000G eneral Funds,
BRIC2023 - 20288
FL 1.2Continue developing engineering guidelines for
drainage from new developm ent.2
From incorporation, the City has used
the Riverside County guidelines in lui
of establishing its own. Establishing
policies and procedures will help the
City attain reasonable standardization
f d i d i ifi t th Cit
Public Works$35,000 - $50,000G eneral Funds 2018 - 203011 FL 1.3
Develop drainage infrastructure im provem ent plan in
areas of historical areas of flooding during winter
storm s and heavy rainfall events.
1,2
This has been a practice of the City
from incorporation. Requiring this will
ensure that flow of storm water will be
channaled appropriately to reduce the
Engineering/RCFC$500,000 - $1 millonG eneral Funds,
BRIC2018 - 202814
FL 3.1
Educating the public about securing debris, propane
tanks, yard item s, or stored objects that m ay
otherwise be swept away, damaged, or pose a hazard
if picked up and washed away by floodwaters.
3 Educating the public will create
awareness throughout the com m unity
to reduce preventable accidents from
flood hazards
Public Works/Em ergency
Management $15,000 AnnuallyG eneral Funds2023 - 20286
HW 2.1
Identify additional facilities within the City that can be used as cooling centers, with generator backup
power, that are within a reasonable distance of our
m ost vulnerable populations.
2 The City currently has two cooling
centers with an increasingly aging and
unhoused population that could be
vulnerable during ex trem e heat. /
Identifying potential sites for
additional cooling centers in closer
prox im ity to these poulations will
reduce the risk of heat injuries.
Com m unity Developm ent $5,000 - $10,00G eneral Funds2023 - 20248 HW 3.1
Educate em ployees, businesses, and residents about
the dangers of ex treme heat and the steps they can
take to protect themselves when ex treme temperatures
occur.
3 With a low HPI and growing unhoused
population, education on the signs and
sym ptom s of heat injuries will help to
reduce potential inuuries
City Manger$1,000 - $3,000G eneral Funds,
EMPG2023 - Ongoing 5
MH 1.1
Incorporating risk assessm ent and hazard m itigation
principles into com prehensive planning efforts of the
City G eneral Plan.
1 Hazard mitigation and assessment
have been a siloed approach in the
planning process. Having a unilateral
hazard m itigation approach will allow
for a m ore com prehensive planning
process.
Com m unity Developm ent $5,000 - $10,000G eneral Funds, EMPG2023 - 202710
MH 1.2Develop a post-disaster recovery plan to facilitate decision-m aking following a hazard event. 1,2
The City does not have a Post-Disaster
recovery plan. This plan will help
identify what m itigation efforts should
be done and where fud ning would
best be spent.
Emergency
Managem ent/Building/Pu
blic Works
$25,000 - $50,000G eneral Funds,
EMPG2023 - Ongoing 9
MH 3.1Continue to im plem ent a m ulti-hazard public
awareness program through the CERT program 3
Educating the com m unity is one of the
key foundations of building resiliency.
Maintaining this program will help to
prepare the com m unity.
City Manager/Emergency
Management $45,000 - $60,000G eneral Funds,
EMPG2023 - Ongoing 4
MH 3.2
Provide inform ation on all types of hazards,
preparedness and m itigation m easures, and
responses quarterly through the Com m unity-Based
Organizations (CBO) and school districts within the
City.
3 Currently, there is no dedicated
program to educate the com m unity on
potential hazards by season.
Establishing this program would inform
the com m unity as fire or flooding
seasons approach.
Emergency Mangament$15,000 - $25,00G eneral Funds,
EMPG2023 - Ongoing 2
Flood
Heat Wave
All-Hazard
DRAFT
58 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
7.3 Hazard Mitigation Action Prioritization
Element C - Mitigation Action Plan
Requirement §201.6(c)(3)(iii): [The mitigation strategy section shall include] an action plan describing how the actions identified in section (c)(3)(ii) will be prioritized, implemented, and administered by the local jurisdiction. Prioritization shall include a special emphasis on the extent to which benefits are maximized according to a cost benefit review of the proposed projects and their associated costs.
The HMPC identified and prioritized the following mitigation actions based on the Social, Technical, Administrative, Political, Legal, Economic, and Environmental (STAPLEE) criteria.
See Appendix C for completed STAPLEEE documentation.
7.4 Future Mitigation Strategies
The HMPC will review and prioritize mitigation measures while focusing on the City’s goals.
During the next five years, the Committee will review risks and hazards annually that are identified by staff, community-based organizations, collaborative partners or presented through the Hazard Communication process and will be included in future Local Hazard Mitigation Plans if funding is available and there is a risk for potential damage.
The City has taken an active approach to disaster preparedness and mitigation by contracting with the Riverside County EMD for Emergency Services Coordinator position to facilitate the continued development of mitigation activities within the jurisdiction, with a focus on community outreach and preparedness.
The City will continue to foster and develop Review Cooperative Agreements with the Cities of Norco, Riverside, and Eastvale in connection with hazard mitigation projects , outreach, and preparedness.
DRAFT
59 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
SECTION 8.0 – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE PROCESS Element A - Planning Process
§201.6(c)(4)(i): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] section describing the method and schedule of monitoring, evaluating, and updating the mitigation plan within a five‐year cycle. §201.6(c)(4)(iii): [The plan maintenance process shall include a] discussion on how the community will continue public participation in the plan maintenance process.
Implementation and maintenance of this 2023 LHMP Update is critical to the overall success of hazard mitigation planning. This is the fourth step in the planning process. This chapter provides an overview of the overall strategy for plan implementation and maintenance and outlines the method and schedule for monitoring, updating, and evaluating the Plan. The chapter also discusses incorporating the Plan into existing planning mechanisms and how to address continued public involvement.
8.1 Plan Implementation
While this plan contains many worthwhile actions, the City will need to decide which action(s) to undertake first. Two factors will help with making that decision: the priority assigned the actions in the planning process and funding availability. Low or no-cost actions most easily demonstrate progress toward successful plan implementation.
An important implementation mechanism that is highly effective and low-cost is incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan recommendations and their underlying principles into other plans and mechanisms, such as general plans, earthquake and stormwater plans, Emergency Operations Plans (EOPS), evacuation plans, and other hazard and emergency management planning efforts for the City.
The appointed department directors and staff appointed to head each department within the City are charged with implementation of various activities in the Plan Update. During the annual reviews as described later in this section, an assessment of progress on each of the goals and activities in this LHMP Update should be determined and noted. However, the priorities and standing of activities may change based upon a change in the environment or funding opportunities.
The primary duty of the City is to see the LHMP Update successfully carried out and to report to their governing board and the public on the status of plan implementation and mitigation opportunities. Other duties include reviewing and promoting mitigation proposals, considering stakeholder concerns about hazard mitigation, passing concerns on to appropriate entities, and posting relevant information on the City website.
8.2 Plan Maintenance and Review
The City’s Manger’s Office is responsible for initiating plan reviews for the planning area. In order to monitor progress and update the mitigation strategies identified in the mitigation action plan, The City, Emergency Manager will revisit this Plan Update annually each year or following a hazard event. The HMPC will meet annually to review progress on plan implementation. This DRAFT
60 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
LHMP update is anticipated to be fully approved and adopted in mid-2023, the next LHMP update for the Jurupa Valley Planning Area will occur in 2028.
Criteria for Annual Reviews:
• The renovations to city infrastructure including water, sewer, drainage, roads, bridges, gas lines, and buildings.
• Natural hazard occurrences that required activation of the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), whether or not the event resulted in a presidential disaster declaration.
• Natural hazard occurrences that were not of a magnitude to warrant activation of the EOC or a federal disaster declaration but were severe enough to cause damage in the City or closure of offices, schools, or public services.
If the City identifies changes have occurred during the evaluation, we will update the LHMP Revision Page, and notify Riverside County EMD to update our Annex.
The Riverside County Emergency Management Department will coordinate the monitoring, evaluation, and update of the MJLHMP.
8.3 Incorporation into Existing Planning Mechanisms
The City of Jurupa Valley will integrate mitigation goals, information, and actions from its 20 23 LHMP into the Safety Element of the General Plan upon the next update in 2027. The LHMP is already implemented into the following planning mechanisms:
• Building and Construction Codes
• Fire Codes
• Capital Improvement Plan
• Storm Drain Master Plan
• Stormwater Ordinance required by MS4
• Efficient Landscape Irrigation Ordinance required by MS4 • City Stormwater Procedural Manual
• Local Implementation Plan
• Facilities Management Plan
• Water Quality Management Plan
The LHMP will be reviewed by key staff to incorporate the identified hazards within the City .
Some of these identified hazards will also include review with the County of Riverside EMD personnel to help address potential funding opportunities. All of the identified hazards within the plan will be considered in building, modernizing, and maintaining city facilities.
8.4 Continued Public Involvement
Continued public involvement is imperative to the overall success of this Plan’s implementation.
The update process provides an opportunity to solicit participation from new and existing stakeholders and to publicize success stores from the plan implementation and seek additional public comment. The LHMP maintenance and update process will include continued public and DRAFT
61 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
stakeholder involvement and input through attendance at City Council Meetings, Communi ty Based Organization meetings, other meetings or events that may be scheduled, web postings, press releases to local media, and through public hearings.
DRAFT
62 City of Jurupa Valley
Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update DRAFT
February 1st, 2023
Attachment A – HMPC Meeting Agendas and Sign-In
Attachment B – LHMP Survey Results
Attachment C – STAPLEE Criteria
Page | 1
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: O CTOBER 19, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.F
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URBAN3, INC., FOR
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to an Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for professional services for economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2023, the City and Urban3, Inc. entered into an initial agreement in which Urban3, Inc. would provide professional services for the City. The original agreement with Urban3, Inc. was for Phase 1 of their analysis for a total of $24,839. The purpose of the Agreement was for Urban3, Inc. to conduct an economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley. The analysis will be used for the implementation of the Pedley Town Center Plan.
Due to the additional time spent analyzing data, Urban3, Inc. has requested an amendment to their agreement for Phase 2 of their analysis for an additional $32,582 or a not-to-exceed amount of $57,421 . This amount was included in the FY 2023 -2024 Community Development budget.
Urban3 is a consulting firm specializing in land value economics, property tax analysis, and community design. Their approach bridges the gap between economic analysis, public policy and urban design. Their analysis will help demonstrate development patterns that both secure the City`s fiscal condition and create a strong sense of place.
AN
ALYSIS
Urban3 has reached the maximum amount they can bill under the existing agreement on the economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley. Urban3 is requesting an amendment to their scope of work to complete the following deliverables:
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
• An analysis of various land use patterns within the Jurupa Valley community • An analysis of statewide and local tax systems and creation of graphics to share this information in an easy-to-understand format with citizens • An analysis of the taxable vs. nontaxable land in the City • Comparison of the economic potency of the downtown within the City and within the County as a ratio
• Comparative analysis of economic potency of different housing typologies, both single-family and mixed-use
• Comparative analysis of commercial properties by type and their economic potency
• Comparing economic productivity of varying property types county-wide • The delivery of those models, including a full map package, to the City of Jurupa Valley
• Public Education Sessions, including presentations of the models and PowerPoint to your community, audiences determined by the Jurupa Valley staff • Graphics created as part of your analysis and an executive- level narrative for inclusion in plan documents
• Data will be presented at a future joint City Council and Planning Comm ission meeting
It is recommended that the City Council approve the first amendment to the Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for a n additional $32,582, for a total contract amount of $57,421 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the proposed first amendment were included in FY 2023- 24 Community Development budget for professional services.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve first amendment to the 2023 Agreement increasing the contract amounts for an additional $32,582.
2. Elect not to amend the Agreements at this time and provide alternative direction to staff.
Page | 3
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Joe Perez Rod B. Butler
Community Development Director City Manager
Reviewed by: Reviewed by:
Connie Cardenas Michael Flad
Administrative Services Director Assistant City Manager
Reviewed by:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1. First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services between the City of Jurupa Valley and Urban3, Inc. for an economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley
• Exhibit A-1.- Approved 2023 Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for Professional Services for an economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley • Exhibit B-1- Urban3 Proposal
Page | 1
S
TAFF REPORT
DATE: O CTOBER 19, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.F
CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH URBAN3, INC., FOR
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS FOR THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute the First Amendment to an Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for professional services for economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley.
BACKGROUND
On June 29, 2023, the City and Urban3, Inc. entered into an initial agreement in which Urban3, Inc. would provide professional services for the City. The original agreement with Urban3, Inc. was for Phase 1 of their analysis for a total of $24,839. The purpose of the Agreement was for Urban3, Inc. to conduct an economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley. The analysis will be used for the implementation of the Pedley Town Center Plan.
Due to the additional time spent analyzing data, Urban3, Inc. has requested an amendment to their agreement for Phase 2 of their analysis for an additional $32,582 or a not-to-exceed amount of $57,421 . This amount was included in the FY 2023 -2024 Community Development budget.
Urban3 is a consulting firm specializing in land value economics, property tax analysis, and community design. Their approach bridges the gap between economic analysis, public policy and urban design. Their analysis will help demonstrate development patterns that both secure the City`s fiscal condition and create a strong sense of place.
AN
ALYSIS
Urban3 has reached the maximum amount they can bill under the existing agreement on the economic analysis for the City of Jurupa Valley. Urban3 is requesting an amendment to their scope of work to complete the following deliverables:
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
• An analysis of various land use patterns within the Jurupa Valley community • An analysis of statewide and local tax systems and creation of graphics to share this information in an easy-to-understand format with citizens • An analysis of the taxable vs. nontaxable land in the City • Comparison of the economic potency of the downtown within the City and within the County as a ratio
• Comparative analysis of economic potency of different housing typologies, both single-family and mixed-use
• Comparative analysis of commercial properties by type and their economic potency
• Comparing economic productivity of varying property types county-wide • The delivery of those models, including a full map package, to the City of Jurupa Valley
• Public Education Sessions, including presentations of the models and PowerPoint to your community, audiences determined by the Jurupa Valley staff • Graphics created as part of your analysis and an executive- level narrative for inclusion in plan documents
• Data will be presented at a future joint City Council and Planning Comm ission meeting
It is recommended that the City Council approve the first amendment to the Agreement with Urban3, Inc. for a n additional $32,582, for a total contract amount of $57,421 and authorize the Mayor to execute the amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Funds for the proposed first amendment were included in FY 2023- 24 Community Development budget for professional services.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve first amendment to the 2023 Agreement increasing the contract amounts for an additional $32,582.
2. Elect not to amend the Agreements at this time and provide alternative direction to staff.
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: GEORGE WENTZ, MANAGER SPECIAL PROJECTS
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.G
APPROVAL OF A DIGITAL DISPLAY AGREEMENT AND AN AERIAL
ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH GALLEANO
FAMILY TRUST AND GEORGIOS, LLC FOR THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 11347 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF
WAY FOR A DIGITAL DISPLAY
RE
COMM
ENDATION
1) That the City Coun cil adopt Resolution No. 2023- 84, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
APPROVING A DIGITAL DISPLAY AGREEMENT AND AN AERIAL
ENCROACHMENT EASEMENT AGREEMENT PURSUANT TO JURUPA
VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.245.030.I WITH GALLEANO FAMILY
TRUST AND GEORGIOS, LLC, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DIGITAL DISPLAY PURSUANT TO SECTI ON 9.245.030.I OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE FOR THE PROPERTY AT 11347 RIVERSIDE DRIVE AND
ADJACENT CITY RIGHT OF WAY AND FINDING THE ACTIONS EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061 AND 15304 OF THE CEQA
GUIDELINES
BACKGROUND
On August 16, 2018, the City Council adopted an ordinance amending sections 9.245.010,
9.245.020, and 9.245.030 of Chapter 9.245 of the municipal code concerning regulation of outdoor advertising structures, and finding an exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under section 15061(B)(3) of the CEQA guidelines.
The ordinance provides an opportunity for those who own a static billboard to upgrade their board to a Digital Display with approval from the City. The City is interested in cooperating with privately controlled properties and entering into public/private contracts
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
in appropriate locations under the Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone to allow for digital displays thereby increasing City revenues.
Since the ordinance was adopted by the City Council, staff has been working with several billboard owners to bring forward an agreement to enhance messaging to the public combined with bringing benefit to the community.
The attached proposed Digital Display Agreement calls for the upgrade of a static billboard to digital messaging. The existing billboard is on private property within the Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone . The owner of the property and the operator of the billboard are seeking City approval to replace the existing billboard with a digital display. Since this location already has a conventional billboard and is in the City’s Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone no zone change is requir ed for this location.
The proposed Digital Display Agreement will replace a similar agreement for this location approved in 2021 so as to accommodate the design of the sign and the ownership of the property.
ANALYSIS
The proposed 2023 Digital Display Agreement would result in the following:
• Digital Display would have two digital display faces of 14 feet x 48 feet each; • Maximum height of the Digital Display shall not exceed a height of forty -five (45) feet from the roadbed of the adjacent freeway or highway to which the display is oriented, or a maximum height of forty -five (45) feet from the grade on which it is constructed, whichever is greater;
• A community benefit would be paid to the City each year in the amount of 15% of NET revenues from the Digital Display ;
• The City will have a minimum of 120,000 six second spots per year on the Digital Display which equates to 200+hours;
• City would be identified on a collar on the Digital Display; and • Advertisements for sex oriented businesses and certain advertisements for cannabis, alcohol and tobacco are restricted by the Digital Display Agreement and the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code
.
The proposed Aerial Encroachment Easement Agreement would provide:
● T he Digital Display to overhang the City right of way along Riverside Drive; Page | 3
● The overhang would begin 40 feet above the City’s Riverside Drive right of way and would be an area 15 foot by 15 foot by 20 foot to accom modate the Digital Display;
● The Aerial Encroachment Easement is necessary in order to allow the two faces of the Digital Display to be set at the appropriate angles in order to maximize viewing by traffic on the eastbound and westbound SR60 Freeway; ● The City may terminate the Aerial Encroachment Agreement if the property if the Digital Display Agreement is terminated or owner and operator fail to comply with the Digital Display Agreement.
The Digital Display will be constructed in accordance with the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code and must meet the development standards for Digital Displays in Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone (attached) as well as the California Outdoor Advertising Act and Business and Professions Code. Georgios will be required to obtain a Site Development Permit for the Digital Display
CEQA
The proposed action to approve the Digital Display Agreement and the Aerial Encroachment Easement Agreement are 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 proposed location of the Digital Display is within the Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone adopted by Section 9.245.030 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code in 2018. The Agreement s do not substantially change the location of an existing billboard or its structure but only replaces the traditional billboard sign with a digital display sign. Any impacts of a new digital display billboard in this zone was contemplated and mitigated by the development standards of the Special Outdoor Advertising Display Overlay Zone.
OTHER INFORMATION
The City may use the funds derived from the Digital Display boards for any municipal purpose.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Under the terms of the Agreement, the Company will pay the City 15% of NET revenues per year.
ALTERNATIVES
Provide staff with comments to the Digital Display Board agreement.
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: OCTOBER 19, 2023
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.A
INITIATION OF THE PROCESS TO REPEAL THE MISSION DE ANZA SPECIFIC PLAN (SP123) APPLICABLE TO AN AREA ENCOMPASSING APPROXIMATELY 1,100 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED WEST OF
THE JENSEN-ALVARADO RANCH, EAST OF PEDLEY ROAD AND
NORTH OF THE SANTA ANA RIVER
RECOMMENDATION
By motion, that the City Council:
1. Reconfirm 2016 initiation of the repeal of Mission De Anza Specific Plan No. 123, and, if reconfirmed, initiate the process to repeal the Mission De Anza Specific Plan; and,
2. Initiate a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone for the Mission De Anza Specific Plan No. 123 area.
BACKGROUND
In 2016, the City Council voted to initiate the process to repeal the Mission De Anza Specific Plan (SP), a plan that encompasses approximately 1,100 acres generally located west of the Jensen- Alvarado Ranch, east of Pedl ey Road and north of the Santa Ana River. However, due to a substantial increase in land use entitlement applications combined with limited staffing, limited financial resources, and shifting priorities, the effort was postponed. Since it has been 7 years since the action was taken (and since Jurupa Valley has a new City Council), it is considered important to reconfirm this action. A map of the SP area is provided as Exhibit 1 and a copy of the SP is included with this report as Attachment 1. Exhibit 1 is not the most up- to-date map showing the bou ndaries, however, it is the clearest map. Attachment 2 is the current map excluding Serrano Oaks project site.
It is important to note that the SP is almost 50 years old and that it was originally intended to guide development on undeveloped land. To the contrary, the area within the SP is now almost completely developed. The document contains antiquated development standards, irrelevant grading directives and obsolete planning policies. Furthermore, the
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
plan could be considered an impediment ( or barrier) to future housing construction. It is also important to note that i mpediments to new housing development are highly discouraged by the Governor’s O ffice of Hous ing and Community Development (HCD) and the City could jeopardize its certification of its Hous ing Element if any impediments remain unresolved.
A recent example of such an impediment occurred when the City Council recently approved a residential community consisting of 66 townhomes, named Serrano Oaks, on the east side of Clay Street within the SP area. The applicant was required to obtain an amendment to the SP to move forward with the entitlement process since the SP designated the property for industrial uses. If the property had remained within the SP boundary, and therefore allowed to develop with industrial uses, conflicts with existing land uses would likely have occurred.
ANALYSIS
Specific Plans and Zoning
Originally, California State law provided the authority for cities and counties to establish detailed plans for aggregating land ownerships under redevelopment or to precisely plan public streets and highways through the adoption of specific plans. When these older plans were adopted, they did not contain devel opment standards in lieu of zoning. Over the past fifty years, specific plans have evolved, both in practice and in S tate law to become a combination of detailed, engineered plans for infrastructure, land divisions or aggregation of land, and now extensively include detailed development standards.
Today, most specific plans replace conventional zoning since they include everything that would otherwise be addressed in the zoning code. Thus, the City zoning ordinance includes a SP zone. Specific Plans in the City that are zoned SP include Rio Vista, Emerald Meadows Ranch, Thoroughbred Farms and Paradise Knolls. In these cases, the City consults only the adopted SP document to apply standards for development and land uses within the particular specific plan boundary.
However, several older specific plans that include development standards were adopted by the County in addition to conventional zoning . One of these specific plans is SP123, Mission De Anza. In these cases, staff must advise landowners regarding the provisions of the specific plan but its regulations are often unclear, ambiguous and inconsistent with the General Plan. In addition, there are portions of the specific plan that cannot be found.
This has resulted in significant conflicts and confusion regarding the application of the SP.
The City Attorney has advised that a SP prevails in cases where a requirement is addressed in both the zoning and the SP. Only where the SP is silent can the City apply the zoning. This concept works with the new SPs, since there is no other zoning on the property. But the older SPs, such as Mission De Anza, were not designed to work with the current code or General Plan.
Implications of Repealing a Specific Plan
The Mission De Anza Specific Plan covers large areas (approximately 1,100 acres) of the City in which all properties affected have an adopted zoning designation. The area is predominantly zoned residential (R-1) and commercial (C-1/C-P, and CPS). Thus, if the Page | 3
SP is elimina ted, the allowed uses and development standards of the existing zoning would clearly apply. Moreover, in the event of an eventual repealing of SP123, development in the area would require site development permits and conditional use permits that would allow the City to attach conditions to potential projects. This would be consistent with the development process throughout the rest of the City. Thus, future development would be regulated by existing zoning and no further action by the City would be required.
Mission De Anza Specific Plan
The Mission De Anza Specific Plan was adopted in 1974 by the County of Riverside for the purpose of regulating the form of development of a large portion of the Jurupa Planning Area, an area that was then unincorporated Riverside County and is now part of the City of Jurupa Valley. See Exhibit 1. As noted previously, this was undertaken at a time when much of the impacted area was relatively undeveloped.
EXHIBIT 1: Boundaries of the Mission De Anza Specific Plan
Page | 4
SP123 was intended to address land use planning at a time when development of the affected area had largely not yet occurred, prior to the construction of single-family homes associated with the Indian Hills Golf Club, Jurupa Hills Country Club, and surrounding areas. Because this area is now primarily developed, remaining parcels with development potential are limited, generally non- contiguous, and include hillside areas.
Inasmuch as the land use regulations detailed in the Specific Plan supersede the City zoning, the regulation of further development in this area must be done under SP123.
In the event that the Specific Plan is repealed, future development would be regulated by existing zoning. In addition to the repeal, it is recommended to initiate a General Plan Amendment and a Change of Zone to proceed with an evaluation of the SP area to confirm if there are any properties that may have inconsistencies between the General Plan and zone or undesirable land use. If there are inconsistencies or undesirable land use, the next step would be to bring forth recommendations to the Planning Commission and City Council.
INITIATION PROCESS
Every General Plan A mendment and Change of Z one requires environmental documentation, staff analysis and public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council before these changes can be adopted. The following considerations apply to the initiation process, which only authorizes the process to begin:
1. Initiation of a General Plan Amendment or Change of Zone does not entail an evaluation of the merits of the proposed project, but only whether or not to proceed with a formal evaluation process and public hearings.
2. The Council may express their opinions as to whether the City should proceed with the formal evaluation process, but should reserve their opinions regarding the merits or the ultimate action on the item until the evaluation process and public hearings have been completed.
3. The only issue before the Council at this time is whether or not to initiate the General Plan Amendment or Change of Zone process in order to study the repeal of the specific plan and obtain public comment. Once the formal evaluation process and public hearings are completed, the City Council will have the opportunity to approve or disapprove or make changes to the proposed repeals.
Should the Council decline or take no action to reconfirm the repeal or initiate a General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone, the status quo will remain, and the Mission De Anza Specific Plan will remain in place. If the City Council reconfirms the repeal and does not initiate the General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Change of Zone (CZ), the underlying land use and zoning will regulate land use, but there may be a few properties that would require a GPA or CZ in order to develop the land.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
The City Council initiation of an action does not require any public noticing. However, upon determining the appropriate recommendations to address the issues, staff will reach out to those potentially affected or with an interest in the process. This will include landowners, especially those with vacant land, and the business owners in the area. At
Page | 6
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Mission De Anza Specific Plan No. 123
2. Current boundaries of SP No. 123
ATTACHMENT 1 Mission De Anza Specific Plan
Ml[§§JION DJE ANZA
SPECIFIC PLAN
OCTOBER 1974
AlB,ER-T A . WEBB ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
,,~
r-
r
r�
['�
[
l�.
ALBERT 'A, WEBB
A. HUBERT WEBB
ERNEST N. WEBB
JOHN H STAAF
SAM I. GERSHON
JOSEPH KICAK
REG KNAGGS
JOSEPH K-H LEUNG
ROBERT L BOULOEN
ANTHONY J. KENNEDY
FRED HANS HANSON
L. A. WAINSCOTT
JAMES W. LAUGHLIN
ROONEY 0. CRAMPTON
LAWRENCE R. BLASHAW
WILLIAM M. BARG
CHAN VOOU
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
3788 MCCRAY STREET, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
TELEPHONE (714) 686•1070
December 10, 1974
Riverside County Planning CoUDDission
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, California 92501
Gentlemen:
REF. W.O.
FILE NO.
We are submitting, for your approval, the Specific Plan for Mission De Anza.
74-19
2599.2
This plan has been prepared at the request of Mission De Anza, Inc.; Cal Electric Investment Company, Beauchamp (Dental Finance Company); Robert L. De Ruff; R. O. Hunter; and Richard L. Read, the owners of the subject property.
The purpose of this Specific Plan is to provide for the orderly development of the area within the intent of the Jurupa General Plan. ,)
The informal review and cqmments of the Indian Hills Homeowners Association,
the Jurupa Connnunity Services District, the Jurupa Unified School District, and the Riverside County Planning Department is acknowledged with appreciation.
LAW:af
Very truly yours,
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
_ __//?�� .. �'!
x& {t. //cl�,t l,d"'-�,> zr--
L. A. Wainscott
Senior Engineer, R.C.E. 16056
I.
I.
I.
l.
L
L
r
r
r
r
r.
\
l
l
L
L
L
L
L
J
SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR
MISSION DE ANZA
PRELIMINARY DRAFT
DECEMBER, 1974
PREPARED BY
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
CIVIL AND HYDRAULIC ENGINEERS
3788 McCRAY STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFOl<NIA
92506
r
r
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
r PAGE
r INTRODUCTION 1
LAND USE 2
r DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3
r
CIRCULATION ELEMENT 6
8 HOUSING
f~ GEOLOGY AND DRAINAGE 8
PUBLIC SERVICES 9
l ~ PHASING 10
\_, APPENDIX A - DENSITY CALCULATION
APPENDIX B - LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC
l APPENDIX C - GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
PLATES
l
NO .
1 SLOPE ANALYSIS. . . . . In Pocket
I 2 LAND USE . . In Pocket
3 CIRCULATION In Pocket
I 4 HOUSING In Pocket
5 SOIL CLASSIFICATION In Pocket
i
I _
I. INTRODUCTION
SPECIFIC PLAN
FOR
MISSION DE ANZA
w.o. 74-19
File 112599.2
The Mission DeAnza Specific Plan has been prepared to provide a method whereby the property may be developed and used for a variety of residential housing types and densities, supporting commercial and community facilities consistent with the Jurupa General Plan and the topography of the area.
The project site, consisting o acres, is located in Sections 18 and 19, T2S,R5W and Sections 13, 24 and 25 T2S,R6W. The major portion of the site has been known over the years by such names as Sterns Ranch, 1001 Ranch, and Indian Hills.
Development within the area was started over ten years . ago with the sub division of approximately sixty acres of land on the north side of Limonite Avenue on both sides of Via Escalante. This was followed a few years later with the initial development of the Sterns Ranch as a golf course/residential complex.
At the present time this development consists of a 137 acre golf course, club house, restaurant/convention center, swim club. and 303 residential lots.
The Mission DeAnza Specific Plan will provide the planning tool necessary for the successful completion to this area's development.
With a total plan density of~ d an equivalent population of is area when fully developed will be a major residential area. that may vary fromlOO to 300 units per year, this project will require between 8 and 25 years to complete. At the present time, a normal rate of growth would indicate a completed project within ten years, that is an average population increase of 720 per year, or an average of 225+ building starts per year. -1-
f
II. LAND USE
The land use proposed by this Specific Plan is intended to be in complete harmony with the Jurupa General Plan as adopted by the Board of Supervisors on September 19, 1973. The General Plan has this area divided into six different land uses; counnercial, industrial, regional park, and three densities of residential.
In the hill land, a dens .ity o~ overs approximate
7 ~on the north
side of Limonite, west of Clay Street, is an area of approximat by a density of 3-5 DUA. For purposes of this plan, the 39-acre located within the General Plan designated area for regional park, has been given a useable density value of 3-5 DUA, with the plan density at zero (0). The balance of --:::::::::::::::::0 I b
the residential plan area, approxima as a General Plan density of 0-3 DUA. This provides a total General Pan density of 2,258 DU. The Specific Plan density is 2,252 DU, which is less than the General Plan (Appendix A).
The development of this plan ,is based on a transfer of General Plan ________ ... -... "------- densities based on a slope analysis of the topography and applying design densities for the different types of planned uses. The slope analysis was prepared with four different ranges of slopes; less than 5%, 5% to 15%, 15% to 30%, and greater than 30%. The design densities for the eleven different planned residential uses have l. been varied in intensity to allow for a build-ability factor on the first three L~
slope classifications. All areas greater than 30% slope have been planned for zero density. This is not to say that no building may take place on these steeper slopes, only that no density was provided by this Specific Plan for those areas of greater than 30% slopes. All calculations have been made on a gr,OSS----pa--r-c~ and it is intended that implementation of this plan be on that basis.
For purposes of this plan, the following planned uses and design densities have been adopted:
-2-
7 r~~
[~
L
L
Design Density (DUA) by Slope
5% 5%-15% 15%-30%
Residential - Urban (Ru) 3.5 2.5 1.5
Residential - Medium (Rm) 3.0 2.0 1.0
Estate - Large (EL) 2.0 1.2 0.4
Estate - Small (Es) 2.5 1.5 0.5
Planned Unit Dev. - Large (PUDL) 5.0 3.5 2.5
Planned Unit Dev. - Small (PUDs) 8.0 6.0 4.0
Multi-Family - Medium (MFL) 12.0 10.0 8.0
Multi-Family - Low (MFL) 8.0 6.0 4.0
Undefined - Urban (URu) 8.0 6.0 4.0
Undefined - Medium (URm) 6.0 4.0 2.0
111. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
All development within the Mission DeAnza Specific Plan will be ln accordance with the Rules and Regulations of the State of California and the County of Riverside as they may pertain to the State Map Act, Zoning, Conditional Use Permits, the applicable building codes, and the provisions of this Specific Plan. Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, Sec. 3.5(b) & (c) shall be modified as outlined in Section IV of this Specific Plan. The average area per dwelling unit shall mean the average of atl developed areas (to include parks, recreational, and open space), exclusive of areas dedicated and accepted for vehicular rights of way, divided by the total number of dwelling units.
A. RESIDENTIAL - AREAS 5 7 15 a nd 30
These areas are intended to provide primarily for detached single family residential housing and related community facilities, consistent with an R-1 zone classification.
The gross density and the average area per dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with the following table:
-3-
i
l_
I
L..,
Gross Density Average Area Min. Lot Area
Area DUA Per Dwelling Per Dwelling
5 1.4 18,500 S.F. 7,200
7 1.1 20,000 S.F. 7,200
15 2.2 10,000 S.F. 7,200
30 1.2 20,000 S.F. 7,200
a. ESTATES - AREAS 8, 13A, and 13B
These areas are intended to provide for low density, single family estate developments of a spacious, semi-rural character, under hillside conditions, consistent with an R-1 or R-A zone classification.
The gross density and the average area pet dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with the following table:
Gross Density Average Area Min. Lot Area
Area DUA Per Dwelling Per Dwelling
8 0.2 130,000 S.F. 12,500
13A 0.3 80,000 S.F. 12,500
13B 0.2 130,000 S.F. 12,500
C. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - AREAS 11 2A, 2B, and 3
These areas are intended to provide for attached single family residential developments on a cluster or group development basis, in such a manner as to provide a desirable mix of compatible living environ ments, consistent with an R-1 or R-4 zone classification.
The gross density and the average area per ~welling unit shall be provided in accordance with the following table:
Gross Density Average Area Min. T.,ot Area
Area DUA Per Dwelling Per Dwelling
1 4.1 8,000 S.F, 3,200
2A 5.5 6,000 S.F. 2,400
3 3.4 9,600 S.F. 2,400
-4-
f
i
I ~
I
. I
l
D. MULTI-FAMILY- AREAS 11, 12, 31, and 32
These areas are intended to provide for medium and low density apartment developments and related co11D11unity facilities, consistent with an R-2 or R-3 zone classification.
The gross density and the average area per dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with the following table:
Gross Density Average Area Min. Lot Area
Area DUA Per Dwelling Per Dwelling
11 7.2 4,200 S.F. N/A
12 7.4 4,200 S.F. N/A
31 7.3 4,200 S.F. N/A
32 8.0 4,000 S.F. N/A
E. UNDBP'.INED RESIDENTIAL - AREAS 17-A, 17-B1 18 1 and 28 These areas are intended to provide for medium density
residential developments and may include detached single family housing, attached single family units on cluster or group develop ment basis, or other types of single family housing consistent with the R-1, R-4, or R-T zone classification.
The gross density and the average area per dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with the followina table:
Gross Density Averaae Area Min. Lot ArP-a
Area DUA Per Dwelling Per Dwelling
17-A 2.0 12,000 S.F. 6,000
17-B 1.7 15,000 S.F. 6,000
18 8.0 4,000 S.F. 3,000
28 7.0 4,500 S.F. 3,000
-5-
r
r
F. NON-RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
1. Neighborhood Shopping Center - Area 14
2. · School Site - Area 16
3. Industrial - Area 27
4. Regional Park - Area 29
IV. CIRCULATION ELEMENT
The proposed circulation plan is intended to show the size and general location of the principal streets that are required to provide access to the various areas of the Specific Plan, in a manner consistent with the County General Plan of Roads.
Limonite Avenue is an existing County arterial highway, running in an east-west direction between Van Buren Boulevard and Mission Boulevard. The major north-south street is Camino Real. It is proposed that Camino Real be extended to the south to provide an entrance into the Santa Ana River Bottom Regional Park, and to the north for egress from the plan area through to Jurupa Road. In addition to these major arterials, minor ingress and egress is proposed at 54th Street on the west and at the east boundary of the plan area for future connection with the undeveloped land in the southwest quarter of Section 17, lying outside the Specific Plan area.
I. Access to Limonite Avenue is proposed at Baldwin Avenue, Clay Street, El Palomino, and Camino Real. Access to Skyview Road is proposed by the extension of the existing streets to the north; Via Escalante and Sharon Way. Skyview Road is to be extended as a frontage road across Areas 15, 16, and 11, with access onto Camino Real at the existing median opening located approximately 800 feet north of the Limonite intersection •.
-6-
r
1-~,
r-
r~
r r~
r ~
L
I.
The proposed Clay Street extension to the north will require a special design, due to the topography and the existing golf course improvements.
Low density hillside areas are to be served with a minimum street improvement of 32 feet, curb to curb on a fifty foot right of way. with a minimum shoulder of four feet, in accordance with County Road Department Std. No. 106.
It is proposed that for this Specific Plan, the present Riverside County cul-de-sac planning standards shall be modified from the present limits of 1,000 feet maximum length and/or 21 single family dwelling lots to the following sliding scale. Beginning with a maximum of 40 DU (including multi-family) located on a maximum 200 foot length cul-de-sac, the length of cul-de-sac may be increased by forty feet for a decrease of one dwelling unit to a maximum length of cul-de-sac of 1,400 feet, with a maximum of 10 DU having access (Appendix B),
-7-
l
v. HOUSING
The different types of residential units proposed by this Specific Plan are intended to be in harmony with the existing high quality of development in the area, and to provide for the total needs of the overall community.
A recap of the total planned units by type shows the following distribution:
TYPE OF UNIT
Residential-Urban
Residential-Medium
Estates-Large
Estates-Small
Subtotal
P.U.D. - Large
P.U.D. - Small
Subtotal
Multi-Family-Medium
Multi-Family-Low
Subtotal
Undefined Residential-Urban
Undefined Residential-Medium
Subtotal
TOTAL
NUMBER OF UNITS
15 323
78 20
436
74 377
451
130
649
779
454
132
586
2,252
PERCENT OF TOTAL
19.4%
20.0%
34.6%
26.0%
100%
For purposes of this plan, architectural sketches have been prepared for four of the different types of proposed uses and are shown on the attached plan entitled "Housing". These sketches are not intended to be tentative maps of the respective areas, but are presented for purposes of clarification as to the possible architectural treatment that may be used within the frame of topography and design density of this Specific Plan.
-8-
r
VI. GEOLOGY AND DRAINAGE
A. A feasibility study dated April 7, 1974 has been prepared by Accu-Test and is included as Appendix C.
B. The major drainage problems within the plan area have been eliminated by the improvements installed in conjunction with the existing develop ments. The minor drainage problems that remain will be solved during the development process, in a manner acceptable to the County Road r· Department and County Flood Control District.
VII. PUBLIC SERVICES
A. Utility services are existing in the area and the implementation of this plan shouldallow for the orderly expansion of these services.
B. The Jurupa Unified School District presently owns Area 16, an 11-acre parcel on the north side of Limonite Avenue, easterly of Camino Real.
The ultimate needs of the District to serve the area will require additional study and c0Dm1itment to achieve the goals of the General Plan.
C. Area 29, a 39-acre parcel south of the Union Pacific Railroad is within the area of the Santa Ana Regional Park. Local parks are to be estab lished adjacent to school sites.
D. The undefined location and c0Dm1itment for future public service facili ties, school sites, local parks, libraries, and fire stations will require that at such time as definitive plans and commitments are made, the Specific Plan density be adjusted on the affected parcel, such that the total density will remain the same.
-9-
I
l
I.
l.
VIII. PHASING
Existing development consists of residential housing, golf course, and community facilities.
The manner of future phasing will be governed by economic conditions and the availability of vehicular access and utilities.
PHASING TABLE
AREA PHASE
NO. DU I II REMARKS
1 '74 74
2-A 258 100 158 1 After No. 1 2-B 4 4 1
3 115 115
5 144 84 60
7 78 15 63 Portion after No. 2-A
8 20 20 After No's. 3 and 7
11 130 130
12 282 142 140 After Commercial (No.
13-A 60 60 After No. 5
13-B 18 18 After No's. 5 and 30
15 15 15
17-A 71 30 41
17-B 61 30 31
18 176 176
28 278 140 138
30 101 51 50
31 319 169 150
32 48 48
TOTAL 2,252 1,208 1,044
14)
It is recognized that, due to the diversity of the plan and the unknown economic factors, there may be a logical development that would require minor varia tions in the proposed phasing, i.e. Areas 2-A, 5, 12, 17-A and 17-B, 28, 30, and 31 may vary in the number of dwelling units per phase as the economic conditions warrant.
At an average rate of 225 DU per year, this phasing would represent two, 5-year periods, for a total of ten years to complete.
-10-
r
i
' r
I
l
l
APPENDIX A
DENSITY CALCULATION
·-· ·•----i
......- -
--, --, -' --l 1'
' }
MISSION De ANZA - SPECIFIC PLAN
DENSITY CALCULATION
General Plan Area Slope Areas
{Acres) (Acres) Proposed Plan Densitt Calculation
0-1 0-3 3-5 5% 5%-15% 15%-30% 30% Land Use 5% 5%-15% 15%-30% NO. ACRES DU/A DU/A DU£A DU TOTAL DU/AC.
1 18 18 54 7.8 9.0 1.2 0 PtJD-LG 39.0 31.5 3.0 74 4.1
2-A 47 15 32 ill 0,6 33.6 12.8 0 PUD-SM 4.8 201.6 Sl.2 258 5.5 2-B 1 1 5 0 0 1 0 PtJD-SM 0 0 4.0 4 4.0
3 34 30 4 42 0 6.0 19.8 8.2 PUD-SM 0 36.0 79.2 115 3.4
5 102 25 77 256 0 42,5 58.1 1.4 B.esdl-Med. 85.0 58.1 144 1.2 7 71 60 11 93 0 14.4 49.2 7.4 llesdl-Med. 0 28.8 49.2 78 1.1 8 93 93 93 0 6.9 19.8 66.3 Estates-Sm. 0 10.4 9.9 20 0.2 11 18 18 54 0 5,2 9.8 3.0 Multi-Fam. 0 52 78.4 130 7.2
Med.
12 38 38 114 27.0 11.0 0 0 Multi-Fam. 216 66 0 282 7.4
Low
13-A 213 190 23 259 0 10.2 120.2 82.6 Estates-Lg. 0 12.2 48.1 60 0.3 13-B 94 90 4 102 0 2.9. • 35.9 55.2 Estates-Lg, 0 3.5 14.4 18 0.2 14 13 13 39 7.0 · 6.0 0 0 Collllllercial
15 7 7 21 0 4.7 2.3 0 Readl-Urban 0 ii.a 3.5 15 2.2
16 School 0
17-A 35 ·12 23 127 0 4.8 26.1 4.1 Undefined 0 19.2 52.2 7l 2.0 Resdl-Med.
17-B 36 7 29 152 0 7,9 14.8 ~ 13.3 Undefined 0 31.6 29.6 61 1.7 Resdl-Med,
18 22 22 110 22 0 0 0 Undefined 176 0 0 176 8.0
R.esdl-Urban
27 Induatr1&1 3.7 5.3 0 0 0
28 40 40 120 33.3 0 3.0 3.7 Undefined 266.4 0 12.0 278 7.0 Resdl-Urban
i!; 29 39 39 "d
195 Park Park 0
r=1 30 87 so 37 161 0 19."9 60.7 6.4 Resdl-Med. 0 39.8 60.7 101 1.2 z 0 31 44 44 132 27.6 16.4 0 0 Multi-Fam. 220.8 98.4 0 319 7.3 1-1 >< Low
> 32 6 6 18 6 0 0 0 Mult1-Fam. 48 0 0 48 8.0 Low
1,058 572 372 114 2,258 (2.l DU/A£) 2.252 (2.1 DU/J£)
I .
I
L
APPENDIX B
LENGTH OF CUL-DE-SAC
C::: - ===t
e XION:3dd'O' - NV7d Ol.:::1103dS '1ZN'1' 30 NOISSIV\I
0 ~
Ill
r r -2
Ci)
C
2 --i
(/)
. .·• ... ,.;,;,,,
•..
0 LENGTH OF CUL.-DE-SAC (In feet)
N
0 0
~
0 0
Ol
0 0
g·
N 8
0 O-t----+---_,._---+- ----1-----,...----1-----+-
10 15
20 25 ' z C
~
m
111
30 lJ
0 -q
35 0
~
111
r
40 r -2
Q
C
2 -~
(/)
r
rrt
z
Q
-I
I
0 < "Tl
v> 0
C
r
I
0 Pl
I
(/)
l>
0 ,,
· 1
l
l
I
j
j
j
J
. j
\
'-✓ J
J
I
I
I
'
f
I
APPENDIX C
GEOLOGIC INVESTIGATION
r
! ~
{
r
I
I
[
. ,,, ....._
'- ' .A
I
I.
I
.>-._/
L
FEASIBILITY STUDY
FOR
FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF MISSION DE ANZA
COUNTY OF RIVERS IDE, CALIFORNIA
PREPARED :F'OR
Mission De Anza, Inc.
P. O. Box 3617
Riverside, California.
. 1874 l'A!;T OALL 1-101\D
ANAH!.IM, CALlfORNIA 9280.b (7141 6:l!,-229li
LOS ANliELES.•IUVF.HSllH -SAN DII <iO /IIH 1\:1
CALL TOLL fnlf: 18001 422-411!.t
I .
I .
L
accu-test soil l.\BORat:01w 1ncoa:2poa:2.\tt::O
April 7, 1974
Mission De Anza, Inc.
P.O Box 3617
Riverside, California
Attention:
Subject:
John West
Feasibility Study for Future Development of
Mission De Anza, Riverside tounty, California
This report presents ~he results of our geologic investigation of the subject property located in Pedley MoW1tains area, Riverside County, California. The purpose of the investigation was to determine and · evaluate the geologic conditions affecting the gross stability of the property; and to present our opinion on the suitability of the property for the construction of future development.
Geologic data was obtained from the folloving sources:
(1)
(2)
"Pregro.ding Soils Inspection" for Tract 3393, lots
1-134 and Tract 3394, lots 1-74 in Riverside County,
California; Pacific Materials Laboratory, Inc.,
July 13, 1965,
"Interim Sojl Compaction Report: for Tract 3394,
lots 1-17, 23-25, 29, 31-52, 56-60, 62,63,69, nnd
11-74, at 1001 Hanch, Pedley, California.; Pacific
Matcriuls Luborutory, Inc,, July 26, 1966.
10:!4 E:AST BALL ROAD LOS /,NGH[S•HIVlflSIDE•SAN DllGCl 1\1,!:AS CALL TOLL fRH (8001 422-411 i, ANAli[IM . CALIFORNIA 92805 (714) 635-2295 r
r
'
I
l
[_
I
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
( 7)
"Preliminary Soils Analysis" for Proposed Residences,
Tract 5724 in Riverside County, California; Jurupa
Western Inc., ~cember 19, 1974.
"Preliminary Soils Analysis" for Proposed Residences,
Tract 3393, lots 6 thru I7, 62, 63, 66, 69, 71, 72,
73, and 74 in Riverside Cpunty, California; Jurupa
Western Inc., March 28, 1974.
Yerkes and ot rers, "Geology of th:! Los Angeles Basin
California - An Introduction", 1565, U.S. Geological
Survey PP 420-A.
"Crustal Strain and Fault Movement Investigation 11 ,
Faults and Earthquake Epicenters in California,
January 1964, State of California Department of Water
Resources Bulletin, No. 116-2.
State of Califo1nia DEPARTI~ErJT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,
Geology of the ,Turtll,)a Mountains, Gan Bernardino and Riverside Count:ies, California, Special Ieport, 5
By Edward M . .Mackevett; Februury 1951.
-2-
1824 EAST BALL ROAD
··,ANA)iEIM, C/\LlfOANIA 9280t> P14t 63f,-2:19t; . . ..
LOS ANGLL[S-nlVERSID[-SAN DlfGO •\lll/\S
CAIL TOLi. FAEl (!JUDI 4:.!2-,\111,
,~
f
I.
l.
l.
I
accu-test SOil LaBOR.ltOQy lnCORpOQ..\t~~
-3-
PHYSIOGRAPHY
Regional
The southern sloping site is part of an alluvial fan lying south of Jurupa Mountains in the southeastern Pedley Hills area. The central portion of the site is underlain by old alluvium.
The bedrock in the hill area is composed of:
Woodson Mountain Granodiorite
The gra.nodiorite is a leucocratic rock that ranges in color from white to light gre:y and contains only a small proportion of ferromagnesia.n minerals.
It ranges from fine-grained to coarse-grained; the finer-grained fa.cies gen~ ern.lly are confined to marginal zones of the plutons. No evidence for the a.ge relationship between the coarse-grained and fine-grained fa.cies were obtained.
Siliceous Metamorphic Rocks
These rocks are predom1nantJy biotite-rich gneisses o.nd schists; in the central part biotite-rich gneisses and muscovite and biotitc bear- ing quartzitcs; and in the western port they ore mainly impure quartzites.
Foliation is commonly well developed in these rocks. In most cases it is steep-dipping and parallels the contact of the ne£;1rest intrusive body. In places the foliation is highly controlled o.nd ptygmo.tically folded. Wherever observed in the same outcrop the foliution und the bedding seem to be po.rallel in both plan und section.
1624 EAST BALL ROAD
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 (7141 635-2295
LOS ANGELES•RIVEnSIOE-SAN Dlf.GO AREAS
CALL TOLL FREE (800) 422 -4115
i
r
, oli
' accu-test Soil lasoRatoRy 1nc0Rpo1uteo
Bonsall Tonalite
The Bonsall ton&lite contains numerous inclusions of gabbro, or metamorphic rocks, or bot4 rock types. It varies considerably in texture, and probably represents a series of separate, closely related intrusive masses or plutons. Most of the inclusions are elongate, and few exceed 2 feet in length. Biotite and hornblende, the principal ferromagnesian minerals in the tonalite, commonly are oriented with their long axes parallel. This, together with inclusions, gives much of the rock distinct foliation and lineation.
However, some parts of the tonalite lack good foliation and lineation. The Bonsall tonalite is medium to coarse-grained, and ranges in color from light to dark gray.
San Marcos Gabbro
Two textural varieties of gabbro occur in this area. One of these is a dark-gray, medium-grained rock that weathers to a dark reddish brown, and forms the bulk of the gabbro masses. The other is a mottled dark gray and white, brown-weachering rock that is confined to the peripheral zones of the masses. It may represent a facies of the gabbro that was contaminated by later intrusive rocks, although there is no mineralogical evidence to indicate this. The typical texture of the peripheral gabbro consists of grained crystals, which i.s suggestive of a heterogeneous orgi.n for this rock type. Irregula.r segregations tho.t o.re ricli in hornblende occur in some of the gubl.Jro bodies.
-4-
1824 EAST BALL ROAD
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 (7141 6:!6•2295
LOS AN GELES•l1I VU!SID[<:AN DI t:L;Q A Rf AS
CALL TOLL fREE (!JOO) 4:>:'-4116
'
i
I.
. ~
LOCAL PHYSIOGRAPHY
c\CCU-t€St SOIL laBORatORY h1co12poR.\t€O
-5-
The subject property lies in the western Pedley Mountains area. The central portio~ of the site is presently developed into residential homes, a small lake, and a golf course. The steeper slope area are found in the northeastern, northwestern, Wld southeastern areas. The slopes in these areas vary from 5% to 30%. The site consists of light vegetation Wld trees and is presently vacant. Drainage is southwesterly towards the Santa Ana River. The surface elevations vary from 700 1 - 800 1 in the low Santa Ana riverbed areas to 800' in the northern Pedley hill areas.
EARTH M .. ti.TERIALS
The soils on the site nre of the Cieneba-Rock la.nd-Fallbrook association which consist of well-drained and somewhat excessively drained, undulating to stee,t1, very shallow to moderately deep soils that have a surface J.a.y~r of sandy lawn, reddish tannish brown, a.nd fine sandy loam; on granitic rock and also He.nford-TuJunga-Greenficld association which consist of very deep, well-drained to excessively drained, nearly level to moderately steep soils that have a surface layer of sand to sandy loam; on alluvie.l fans and flood plains. 1824 EAST ElALL ROAD
ANAHEIM, CALIFOHNIA 92805 (7141 635-2295
LOS ANGELES-nlVERSIDE-SAN DIEGO AREA$
CALL TOLL FRH 18001 422-4115
r
i
I •
EXPANSION CHARACTERISTICS
-~·· -~ accu-t€st soil l~soRatoRy 1nc0Qpo12~t€O
l? J · -6-
.. /" y'
The buildings, sidewalks, and streets that have been constructed over the past 10 7ears sh?W no indication of shrinkage, cracks, indicating the nature of tbese soils are non-expansive. From our experience of these soils in this area we find the soils to have very fine bearing qualities.
SLOPE STABI,LITY
Slope stability calculations have been run on the materials in this area and were found to be safe. Using al 1/2 horizontal to 1 vertical to a maximum height of 30'.
GROUNDWATER
The State of California Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 104-3 indicates tho.t the groundwa.ter levels vary from '(DO' elevation to 725' elevation across the site. This would indicate a 50' - 801 differences in elevation from the surface to the top of the groundwater. 'l' re base of the groundwater is cousidered to be at approximately the elevation of 600', this would not indicate near surface liquifnction except within the areas of the Santa. Ano.
River-bed.
1824 EASl DALL RO/\D
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 (714) 635-22%
LOS ,\NGEU:S-AIVERSl(JE•S/\N n1u;o ,'\R[AS
CALL TOLi. FREE (800) 42 ✓ -4115
r
i
r
r
I.
r~
r
1.'
I
,J
L
1·
l i)
accu-test SOil laBOR.\tORY lnCORPOR~\t€0
-1-
v
FAULTING
No faults are know to cross the site, as determined by a review of aerial photographs and geologic literature. The most significant nearby faults are the San Jacinto Fault Zone, 10 miles northeast; the Elsinore Fault Zone, 14 miles south; the Cucamonga Fault Zone, 13 miles northwest; and the San Andreas Fault Zone, 17 miles northeast. All of these fault zones are considered to be active.
1824 EAST BALL BOAO
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805 1714) 636-2295
LOS ANr.ELES•IIIVrHSIDE-SAN DILGO AIU·AS
· CALL TOLL FllEE (800) '122-4115
'
I.
I
0 SEISMICITY
accu-test SOil laBOR.\tORY IOCORPOR.\t€0
-8-
The entire greater Los Angeles area has been and will be subject to strong shaking from e~bquakes originating or nearly active or poten tially active faults such as the Newport-Inglewood. San Andreas• San Jacinto.
Elsinore and other lesser kno"Wn fault zones. Thousands of widely scattered earthquakes occur each year in California but only a few hundred are large enough to be felt. Of these few hundred, only a very few a.re of large enough magnitude to have any effect on structures. The probability of future earthquake activity statistically compares with that of the recent past.
Earthquake probability criteria can only be based on the historic record of earthquakes until such time as valid earthquake predictions by stre.in evalua tion or other methods is possible.
It is understood that a magnitude of 6.5 earthqunkes occures somewhere in the Southern California region on the averfige of about once every three to four yea.rs. As an example, a. 6.6 magnitude eurthqua.ke occured in the Borrego Mountains area 220 kilimeters southeast of Los Angeles in 1968. Another example is the more recent February 9, 1971, G.6 magnitude eo.rthqua.lte which occured in the San Fernando area of Los Ange::.es. A listing of earthquakes of magnitude 6.0 and greater in Southern Cnliforni~ is in the appendix of this report. The listing location is by Jo.ti tude ( 0 ). This site is loco.ttid o.t la.ti tude 33°50' and longitude 117°'.J0'.
1824 fAST BALL ROAD
ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92B05 (71'1) 635-2295
L05 ANGELES-RIVERSIDE-SAN Ol~GO AREAS
CALL TOLi. r-Ht:E 10001 4n.411 s
' I
I
\
I.
I
I
\
) __,,
. •. •· .. I
CJ)
v
Seismicity
accu~tESt SOil laBOR.\tORY lnCORPOQ.lt€0
-9-
The resultant ground shaking at the tract from anticipated earth quake motion on the four known active faults is tabulated below:
Distance to
Cause.ti ve Expected
Causative Fault Magnitude
Fault {Miles ) Richter
Cucamonga 13 6 - 1
Elsinore 14 4 - 6
San Andreas 17 7.0 - 8.o
B.o - 8,5
San Jacinto 10 6 - 1
1824 FAST DALL ROAD
ANAltl IM, CALtfORNIA 92805 1714 I 635•229ti
A pp:roxima te
Expected Ground Probability
Acceleration of Occurrence
(Gravity) (20 year "Period)
0.15 - 0.25 Intermediate
0.05 - 0 .20 Likely
0.25 - 0,35 Inteiinediate
0,35 - o.iio Lov
0.20 - 0 .30 Likely
LOS ANGll.l:!.-FUVlH~IO£:•SAN DIHlO Am/\!,
CALL l'Oll ffHE (0001 41.:-411!>
,. • - --..-ro• ' ..,... - , . :·
J -_
<t
__ -, -'"~'ly----··•J-'
·:-... • •
} a;;'.' ;
z
. .•
Y..''·.
VICINITY MAP
11to •c.u.1
• •
,-
I ,. .. o,,.
.. ,
~P.
'ni":'6446
'-.~1.e-
0ENOT~$ RECORDED MAP.:;..
MIS ION DE ANZA
SPECIFIC PL.AN
LAND USE
)
DRAFT ADDENDUM
TO
MISSION DE ANZA SPECIFIC PLAN
(TENTATIVELY APPROVED BY THE
~IVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING COM
MISSION, DECEMBER 10, 1930)
JANUARY, 1981
PREPA;~ED BY
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
3783 ;k(RAY STREET
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
)
ALBERT A WEBB
A HUBERT WEBB
ERNEST N WEBB
JOHN H STAAF
SAM I. GERSHON
REG KNAGGS
ANTHONY J , KENNEDY
FRED HANS HANSON
RODNEY D. CRAMPTON
DAVID M. ALGRANTI
WALLACE H FRANZ
MICHAEL CALL
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
3788 McCRAY STREET, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
TELEPHONE (714) 686-1070
January 21, 1981
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA. 92501
Honorable Board Members:
REF. W.0 .
FILE NO.
We are submitting for your approval this Addendum to the Specific Plan for Mission de Anza (SP-123 approved May 28, 1975), a 1058 acre development project located within the Pedley Hills area of West Riverside County.
This Addendum was prepared to provide the County with a more detailed explanation of the major revisions to SP-123 as proposed by De Anza Country, Inc., owners and developers of the subject property.
Approval of this Addendum was given by the Riverside County Planning Commission on December 10, 1980, subject to the conditions of approvai included in Appendix A.
The proposed revisions as presented in this Addendwn affect three basic areas (land use related) of the approved plan and are as follows: (1) project area, an increase of approximately 451 acres, resulting in a revised total of 1,509 acres; (2) alteration of indi vidual parcel boundaries; and (3) reallocation of approved densities.
A brief discussion of each revision is presented in the Project Des cription of this report.
The Addendum also addresses five potential environmental impact areas (impacts resulting from the revisions proposed) not evaluated in the Environmental Impact .Assessment prepared for the approved plan. Potential environmental impacts may be experienced in the areas of noise, traffic, land use compatability, schools, and historical properties.
Finally, possible alternatives to the revised Specific Plan have also been discussed; however, the alternatives presented relate mainly todevelopment procedure rather than the actual development proposed within the revised plan itself.
77-109
2599.20
)
ALBERT A. WEBB ASSOCIATES
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
January 21, 1981
The intent of this Addendum is to discuss relationships of the proposed revisions to the appr·oved Specific Plan. Various elements of SP-123 that will not be substantially affected by the proposed revisions will remain as presented in the approved plan and will not be further discussed in this Addendum.
SIG:sb
-Encl.
Sincerely yours,
ALBERT A: WEBB ASSOCIATES
A" / ,.,, / / ( ti~--~ -~ './;;~:;_ ..
S~•( I. Ge~oti ,,- ✓ / / C
Vice President
.. --
)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction •
Background •
Scope and Purpose
Environmental Considerations •
Project Description
Location
Land Use •
Discussion of Proposed Revisions
Density Transfers
Housing
Public Services
Water and Sewer Service
Proposed School Sites
Phasing
Potential Environmental Impacts
Noise
Traffic Generation •
Existing Roadways
Potential Impacts
Schools
Impacts
Mitigation Measures
Land Use Compatibility
Historical Properties
Mitigation Measures
Brief Discussion of Alternatives
Marketability Study
Supply Characteristics
Trends
Employment
Population
i
Page
1 1
3 3
4 4
4 9
11 14
14 14
- --·--·- -
I 5 :~ - ~~ ... ;;· -~- , ;-_~
16 18
20 22
22 23
23 23
24 25
25 25
26 27
27 28
29 JO
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(cont'd)
Housing Activity
Housing Demand
Conclusions
Table
1 2
3 4
5 Figure
1 2
3 Plate
1 2
3 4
Appendix
A
TABLES
Mission de Anza - Specific Plan
Density Calculation
Mission de Anza - Specific Plan
Revised Density Calculation December 1980
Revised Specific Plan Land Use
Current Subdivision Tracts -
Revised Specific Plan • . . . . .
Revised Specific Plan Phasing Schedule
FIGURES
Regional Location Map
Project Site Location Map
Noise Barriers in Cross Section
PLATES
Specific tian - Land Use - SP-123
Revised Specific Plan - Land Use
Proposed Hotel and Apartment Complex
Parcel 33 Layout .
APPENDICES
Conditions of Approval .............. .
ii
Page
31 31
32 2
7 10
17 19
5 6
21 In Pocket
II II
II II
II
"
A-1
Background
MISSION DE Ai.~ZA SPECIFIC PLAN
ADDENDUM
Introduction
The Mission de Anza Specific Plan as originally pre
pared (July 1974) covered 1,563 acres of land within the Pedley Hills area of West Riverside County. At that time the Plan called for 2,764 dwelling units (excluding 433 existing residen tial lots), a 10 acre community and professional center, a 13 acre neighborhood commercial unit, 9 acres of industrial land, and 39 acres of regional park land. Prior to Planning Commission review, one of the property owners decided to withdraw from the project, resulting in a revision to the Specific Plan.
The approved Specific Plan (Specific Plan #123,
approved May 28, 1975, hereafter to be referenced as SP-123) includes 1,058 acres with a total plan density of 2,252 dwelling units (DU) and an equivalent population of 7,200 people.* How- ever, the Environmental Impact Report remained unchanged and still addressed the acreage and densities in the original Specific Plan. The areas which were withdrawn from the original plan were deleted and given a Not A Part (NAP) designation on all illustra- tions used. The development of the plan was based on a transfer of General Plan densities and a slope analysis of the topography, then applying design densities for the different types of planned uses. The density distribution for SP-123 is shown in Table 1. *
11 Mission de Anza - Specific Plan", October 1974, Albert A. Webb Associates.
-1-
TABLE 1
MISSWS De A}IZA - SPECIFIC PLAN
DENSITY CALCULATION
General Plan Area Slope Area/i
{Acres) ~Acres) Proposed Plan Densi;z Calculation
0-l 0-3 3-5 5% 5%-15% 15%-30% 30% Land Use 5% 5%-15% l.5%-30% NO. ACRES DU/A DU/A DU/A DU TOTAI. DU/AC.
l 18 18 54 7.8 9.0 1.2 0 PUD-LG 39.0 31.5 3.0 74 4.1
2-A 47 15 32 lll 0.6 33.6 12.8 0 PUD-SM 4.8 201.6 51.2 2S8 5.S 2-B l l 5 0 0 l 0 PUD-SX 0 0 4.0 4 4.0
3 34 30 4 42 0 6.0 19.8 8.2 PUD-SM 0 36.0 79.2 115 3.4
5 102 25 77 256 0 42.5 58.l 1.4 Resdl~Xed. 8S.0 58.l 144 l.2 7 71 60 11 93 0 14.4 49.2 7.4 Resdl-Med. 0 28.8 49.2 78 l.l 8 93 93 93 0 6.9 19.8 66.3 Estates-Sm. 0 10,4 9.9 20 0.2 11 18 18 54 0 5.2 9.8 3.0 Multi-Fam. 0 52 78.4 130 7.2
Med.
12 38 38 114 27.0 11.0 0 0 Multi-Fam. 216 66 0 282 7.4
Low
I
N
I 13-A 213 190 23 259 0 10.2 120.2 82.6 Estates-Lg, 0 12.2 48.l 60 0.3 D-B 94 90 4 102 0 2.9 ; 35.9 55.2 Estates-Lg, 0 3.5 14.4 18 0.2 14 13 13 39 7.0 6.0 0 0 Commercial
15 7 7 21 0 4.7 2.3 0 Resdl-Urban 0 11.8 3.5 15 2.2
16 School 0
17-A 35 ·12 23 127 0 4.8 26.l 4.l Undefined 0 19.2 52.2 71 2.0 Resdl-Med.
17-B 36 7 29 152 0 7.9 14.8' 13.3 Undefined 0 31.6 29.6 61 1.7 Resdl-Hed,
18 22 22 110 22 0 0 0 Undefined 176 0 0 176 8.0
Resdl-Urban
27 Industrial 3.7 5.3 0 0 ! 0
28 40 40 120 33.3 0 3.0 3.7 Undefined 266.4 0 12.0 278 7.0 Resdl-Urban
29 39 39 195 Park Park 0
30 87 50 37 161 0 19;9 00.1 6.4 Resdl-Med. 0 39.8 60.7 101 1.2 31 44 44 132 27.6 16,4 0 0 Multi-Fam. 220.8 98.4 0 319 7.3 Lo·o1
32 6 6 18 6 0 0 0 Mult.1-Fa.:n. 48 0 0 48 8.0
Low
1,058 S72 372 114 2,258 (2.1 DU/AC) 2,252 (2.l DU/AC)
:·a ken f rl'Tn Mission de Anza - Specific Plan, October 1974, (Albert A, Webb Associates) as approved May 28, 1975.
For the most part, the development which has occurred
within the Specific Plan area has been in conformance with SP-123; however, various density changes have occurred and since the approval of the plan, the project proponent (de Anza Country, Inc.) has purchased and tentatively mapped the proper ties which appeared as NAP of the approved plan, including 124 acres south of Limonite Avenue. Certain proposed changes have been made to the Planning Department regarding various lot size, densities, and zoning to accommodate current proposed tracts within and outside the SP-123 area. Planning Department Staff review of the proposed changes resulted in a request for an updated Specific Plan incorporating these changes, further re sulting in the preparation of this Addendum.
Scope and Purpose
This report provides a description of the development
which has occurred within the SP-123 area and the proposed developm e nt presented in this Addendum. In addition to discussing the relationships of the proposed revisions to the approved Specific Plan, various elements of SP-123 (e.g. circulation, housing, etc.) that will not be substantially affected by the proposed revisions will remain as presented in the approved plan and will not be further discussed in this Addendum.
Environmental Considerations
As previously stated, the original plan called for
2,764 DU's on 1,563 acres. The Environmental Impac t Report -1-
(EIR No. 42) addressed the impacts of the original plan and was approved prior to one of the property owners withdrawing from the project. While this addendum is proposing 3,365 DU's, an increase of 1,113 DU's over the approved plan SP-123, the increase in DU's to be given environmental consideration in this addendum will be the 601 DU's that were not addressed in the original EIR.
Project Description
Location
The project site is located in the Pedley Hills area
of West Riverside County, 4.5 miles west of downtown Riverside off Limonite Avenue._e+1-G-Qme_assing 1509 acres of gent_ly rolling_ hills (Figure 1). Most of the development indicated in the revised Specific Plan will center in portions of Township 2 South, Range 6 West, Sections 13, 24 and 25 and Township 2 South, Range 5 West, Sections 18 and 19, San Bernardino Base and Meridian (Figure 2).
Land Use
The total number of dwelling units in the revised
Specific Plan will be 3,365 compared to the 2, 2.52 estimated for the approved plan. The revised density distribution is shown in Table 2 with the corresponding parcels illustrated in Plate No. 2 (in pocket). The Riverside County Planning Depart ment refers to Plate 2 as Exhibit "C" in their reports. -4-
OCf:Aiv
5CAll ~ 11\11.ts
'Fe 0 --;t..J ·r
10 )D
I
BER.NARDINO CO.
RIVER.SIDE
I o=·
DIEGO Co. (
C
REGIONAL LOCATION
0 MAP
I f-" I <.-iURE 1
,
I
l_
,'
I
4 2
0 N
,,-
)
,, . I ,, ,' .,· ~
,,
FIGUR E
' ' . .. ~--,,:
PROJECT
LOCATI N . a
SITE
MAP
COURTESY
AUTO. OF CLUB OF SO . CALIF.
1/2 SCALE IN MILES
I
:---
1/2
2 TABLE 2
MISSION DE ANZA - SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISED DENSITY CALCULATION
DECEMBER 1980
Hillside Recorded Proposed
Residential : Parcel No.: Tract No.: D.U. D.U. Acres Land Use 1-A 5724 49 13.2 P.R.D.
1-B 13.1 Park
9284
1-C 11579 54 15.4 Single Family Res.
9283
2-A 8500 144 44.4 S.F.R.
2-A-2 11 2.9 S.F.R.
2-B 10 1.2 P.R.D.
X 3 72 19.2 P.R.D.
X 3-1 ---
_ _._ .... :;rn - --k..._'. _ -13.9 p. R--. 9-~.~.l ..
.. ",,.,. __ ...,
~ -· , ... ~
.
5 6438 85 50.9 S .F .R.
5-1 15886 66 38.8 S.F.R.
6-A 9336 123 72.8 S.F.R.
6-B 130 8.7 M.F.R.
7-1 11084 22 15.3 S.F.R.
7-2 11083 38 16.4 S.F.R.
X 8-A 110 54.7 S .F. R./P. U. D.
X 8-B 0 78.6 Open Space
11 90 15.3 M.F.R.
11-1 0 1.0 Couunercial/Office
12 258 26.3 P.R.D.
13-A 32 15.4 P.R.D.
13-A-l 14 14.7 S.F.R.
X 13-A-2 41 78.8 S.F.R .
X 13-A-3 4 115. 7 S.F.R.
13-B 10986 19 75.0 S.F.R.
14 0 26.2 Commercial
15 11658 70 36.0 S.F .R.
17-A 7232 21 32.1 S.F .R.
17-B 7232-1 40 36.7 S.F.R.
17-C 16253 7 8.1 S.F .R.
-7-
TABLE 2 - (Cont'd)
MISSION DE ANZA - SPECIFIC PLAN
REVISED DENSITY CALCULATION
DECEMBER 1980
Hillside Recorded Proposed
Residential Parcel No.: Tract No.: D.U. D.U. Acres Land Use 18 11885 85 22.4 S.F.R.
21 145.0 Golf Course
22-A 250 22.1 M.F.R.
22-A-l 150 2.3 M.F.R.
22-B 4.3 Commercial
22-C 2.9 Commercial
22-D l .4 S.F.R.
22-E 1. 9
22-F 4.5
__ 2.2_..,c_
---· 1.5 - ·;-::'~·
27-A 8.8 Commercial
27-B 11.5 Commercial/Office
28-A 5.3 School Site
28-B 10850 212 31.4 S.F.R.
29 38.8 Park
30 7703-1 34 34.2 S.F . R.
30-1 7703 64 50.4 S.F.R.
31 9282 166 43.8 S.F.R.
32 6929 25 8.6 S.F.R.
Edison Pro£,
33-A 129 17.3 PRD
33-B 179 40.7 S.F.R.
33-C 6.9 Park
33-D 202 12.5 Apt./Residential
33-E 202 12.l P.R.D.
33-F 122 10.0 P.R.D.
33-G 14.1 Light Industrial
33-H 14. 7 Light Industrial
SUBTOTAL 861 2,504
2,504
+ 861
GRAND TOTAL 3,365 1509.2 acres
-8-
_)
The basic project concept presented in the approved
plan was to provide a planned co11DJ1unity environment which creates a blending of a variety of housing types and open space, in addi tion to providing recreational, connnercial, and industrial oppor tunities. The revised Specific Plan maintains this concept as is illustrated in Table 3.
Discussion of Proposed Revisions. The proposed revi
sions presented in this Addendum affect three basic areas of the Land Use Element of the approved plan: (1) project area, (2) individual parcel boundaries, and (3) approved density allo- cations~ A brief discussion of each!~ as follows " -· - ---. ---- - - (1) The major revision to SP-123 is an increase of
approximately 451 acres which includes all of Parcels lB, lC, 6A, 6B, 21, 22A, 22A-l, 22B, 22E, 22F, 22G, 32, 33A through 33H, and a portion of Parcels 27A and 27B, as shown in Table 2.
Parcel 33A through 33H was not a part of the original or the approved plan; however, it has been purchased by the project pro ponents with the intent to acconnnodate a large number of the density transfers being proposed.
(2) Some of the parcels presented in the approved
plan have been slightly altered to accommodate the market. In some cases a single tract map will include property in and not in SP-123 boundaries. The best example of this is shown with Parcel 1-1 (Tract 9284, Plate 3) 10 acres, contains 5 acres which were part of the approved plan and 5 acres which appeared as NAP (Plate 1).
- 9-
TABLE 3
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE
Category Symbol Acres Percent
(Gross)
Residential
Single-Family S.F.R. 885.9 58.7
Multi-Family M.F.R. 49.9 3.31
Planned Unit Development P.U.D. 54.7 3.62
Planned Residential Development P.R.D . 128.6 8.52
Apartment/Residential 12.5 0.83
Subtotal 1131.6 74.98
Non-Residential
w~ ---.~= 5 . 3 -=~;:, .. --
Open Space 78.6 5.21
Park 58.8 3.9
)
Golf Course 151.4 10.03
(
Couunercial Comm. 42.2 2.8
Office Office/Comm. 12.5 0.83
Light Industrial Ind. 28.8 1.90
Subtotal 377 .6 25.02
TOTAL 1509.2 100.00
-10-
)
In other cases some parcels were divided and formed
new parcels (e.g. Parcel No's. 2A, 2A-l, 2A-2, 5, and 5-1).
There are many examples of these and they can be easily depicted from Plates 1 and 2.
(3) The third major change in land use shown in
the revised Specific Plan is a reallocation of densities for a number of parcels. The development which has occurred to date has resulted in a marked decrease in density (compared to the approved density) for various parcels. Two examples of this can best be seen in Parcels 28 and 31. Parcel 28B (Tract 10 ;~0-)---4&- planned- for deve ·l-o-pment of 212 dwelling units, 66 units less than the SP-123 allocation of 278 units.
Overall, the development of lower densities has resulted in a total of 517 units less than the approved Specific Plan.
Conversely, other parcels have increased their den
sity over that which was allocated in the approved plan.
Increased densities were experienced in Parcels 7-1, 7-2, and 15, resulting in an overall increase of 84 units over that which was approved for the respective SP-123 parcels.
Density Transfers. The densities presented in the
revised Specific Plan, as shown in Table 2, were developed on a transfer of both approved Specific Plan densities and General Plan densities in addition to applying slope limitations where applicable.
-11-
· - · - ·" t - · •,- - · • • ..::.::._ - .-.:~ • • "· ~ : .=. J )
The intent of the revised Specific Plan is to transfer
(where needed) the net density not implemented in the develop ment of the approved Specific Plan area; in addition to trans ferring General Plan densities from areas which are planned to remain undeveloped.
The following parcels are planned to receive the major
portion of the transferred densities. Parcel 22A and 22A-l (Table 2, Plate 2) are planned for multiple family use. The project proponent plans to develop Parcel 22A, a 22 acre parcel, into approximately 42 two and three story apartment complexes for a,. total of 248 __ units. _ Parcel 22A-l, a 2. 3 acre parcfl, is= .., planned to be developed into a 150 unit hotel associated with the golf course use (Plate 3). Tentative plans for the apart ment complex and hotel envisions the development of two small lakes with bike and jogging paths. The close proximity of the Indian Hills Country Club and the golf course were major con siderations in the development of these particular land uses for these parcels with the hotel being used for promotional pur poses and to house competitors during golf tournaments. Parcel 22A and 22A-l appeared as NAP in SP-123 and is allowed a maximum density of 3.0 units per acre under the General Plan. The re vised Specific Plan proposes to consolidate a portion of the net density not implemented in the development of SP-123 (approxi mately 398 units) into these two parcels.
-12-
)
Parcel 33 (Plate 4) south of Limonite is a 124 acre
parcel that is planned for commercial-industrial and residential development. As previously stated, Parcel 33 was recently pur chased by the project proponents and was not within the boundaries of the approved plan. At the present time that portion of Parcel 33 planned for residential development is zoned M-2; however, a zone change has been submitted.
Those planned residential developments within the R-3
zone of Parcel 33 are required to have a minimum of 40 percent open space (excluding streets, etc.). It is felt that any deficit in the open space can be made up by the 6.9 acre park (Parcel 33C). -- - --- - ,,-
Similar situations may develop elsewhere within the Specific Plan with any deficits in open space being made up by other existing neighborhood parks. An additional requirement of a planned residential development is that if it is adjacent to a development of lesser density, a wall separating the two land uses is required. After discussing this requirement with the County staff, the recommendation was to eliminate the wall re- quirement. The recommendation to eliminate the wall requirement was based on the feeling that a wall tends to segregate a neigh borhood rather than promote cohesiveness. Also, by eliminating the wall, the land use planning is more efficient and does pro vide for 16 additional dwelling units within the single family development, Parcel 33B.
The areas planned for commercial-industrial develop-
ment are Parcel 33G, 14.l acres in size, and Parcel 33H which -13-
)
is 14. 7 acres in size. The areas planned for commercial industrial development are consistent with the existing zoning and the Jurupa General Plan.
The area of Parcel 33, planned for residential develop ment is 93 + acres in size with a total of 834 DU's for a density of 8.9 DUA. 284 DU's are allowed by the General Plan density of
3.0 DUA with 550 DU's being density transfers.
Housing
For purposes of this Addendum, preliminary archi
tectural sketches have been prepared for the proposed apart ment complex and hotel and for the residential portion of Parcel 33 (Plates 3 and 4). These sketches are intended to conceptionalize design plans and are presented for illustration purposes only.
Public Services
Water and Sewer Service. The majority of the revised
Specific Plan area lies within the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD). Parcel 30 and 32 lie within Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD).
The only revision to SP-123 regarding water and sewer
is the Indian Hills Water Reclamation Plant which has been operating since August, 1980*. The site for the facility is situated along the east bank of the Rancho Drain, east of Lake side Drive, west of Palomino Drive, north of Limonite Avenue *Jurupa Community Services District "Final Environmental Impact Report Indian Hills Water Reclamation Plant", May 1979, Albert A. Webb Associates.
-14-
= i -
)
)
and south of the Indian Hills Golf Course. Disposal of the treated effluent will be by reclamation onto the Indian Hills Golf Course. after approval by the Health Department. located north of the facility, thus commiting 145 acres (Parcel 21) for permanent reclamation use.
The 800,000 gallon a day wastewater reclamation plant
will provide sewer service for the entire Indian Hills (Mission de Anza) development area. Treated effluent will be pumped to an existing reservoir located in the Pedley Hills and subsequently used for golf course irrigation through the existing irrigation system. Currently, irrigation water is provided by the West Riverside Canal Company. Implementation of the Indian Hills plant will not only allow for the continuation of the Mission De Anza Specific Plan (currently experiencing sewer capacity problems with JCSD) but will also provide for the most cost-effective means of obtaining and insuring an irrigation supply to the Indian Hills Golf Course.
Proposed School Sites. The Jurupa Unified School
District (JUSD) did own 11 acres (Parcel 16 of SP-123, Plate 1) of land within the approved plan boundaries on the north side of Limonite Avenue, east of Camino Real. Since the approval of SP-123, the JUSD has exchanged property with the project proponents for a more suitable site south of Limonite Avenue (10 acres of Parcel 28A of the revised Specific Plan, Plate 2). -15-
The school district believes the new site to be more suitable for an elementary school site for the following reasons: the topography of the site north of Limonite Avenue is rocky and hilly and has major access problems; the new site south of Limonite Avenue is relatively flat and has easy access.
Parks. The only site specifically designated for
park use in SP-123 was Parcel 29 (Plates 1 and 2) a 39-acre parcel south of the Union Pacific Railroad and is within the area of the Santa Ana Regional Park. Future development of the site is unpredictable at this time.
In ad.dition to Pare.el 29, Parcel 21, Parcel 1B, and
Parcel 33C are planned for recreational use. The revised Specific Plan will permanently dedicate Parcel 21, the exist ing golf course, to this use. Recreational development pro posed for approximately 10 acres of Parcel lB will provide for walking and jogging paths paralleling the Ranch Drain extend ing north adjoining the proposed lake-park development tenta tively planned to surround the apartment complexes proposed for Parcel 22A. A conceptional illustration of the proposed apartment complexes and lake-park development is presented in Plate 3.
Phasing
Table 4 presents the current development conditions
for the various projects within SP-123. The approved plan -16-
TABLE 4
CURRENT SUBDIVISION TRACTS
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN
Final Map Recorded Tentative Approved
Parcel Parcel
Tract No. DU* Tract No. DU
11885 18 85 11803 7-2 38
5724 1-A 49 7232 17A 21
9282 31 166 11804 7-1 22
6438 5 85 7703 30-1 64
9283 & 7703-1 30 34
8500 2-A 144
11658 15 70
7232-i : ''" 1°7B ·40~· ,..,,.;··
10850 28-B 212
9284 &
11579 1-C 54
6929 32 25
9336 6-A 123
10986 13B 19
TOTAL DU's 790 461
*Dwelling Units
-17-
utilized an average rate of 225 DU's per year resulting in two 5 year phasing periods for a total of ten years to com plete. Utilizing the current development conditions presented in Table 4 and the current undeveloped lands proposed for residential use (Table 2) the phasing schedule presented in Table 5 was produced.
Of the non-residential land use areas, only two have
been developed thus far. Parcel 11-1 is occupied by the de Anza Country, Inc. office, and Parcel 14 is currently being developed (as proposed in SP-123) for the de Artza Shopping Center. Develop~ ·,.-- ment of other non-residential areas will be governed by economic conditions affecting each parcel.
Potential Environmental Impacts
The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the approved
Mission de ~1za Specific Plan was originally prepared for the planning of the entire Pedley Hills area prior to the withdrawal of the approximate 263 acres of land as referenced in the back- ground section of this report*. The revisions to the original Specific Plan required by the withdrawal did not modify the basic intent of the Plan nor the impacts resulting from it; therefore, the EIR remained unchanged. The full impact reported in the EIR will be reached when the revised Specific Plan is adopted and subsequently implemented.
*"Environmental lMpact Assessnent - Mission de An~a Specific Plan", October 1974, Albert A. Webb Associates.
-18-
TABLE 5
REVISED SPECIFIC PLAN
PHASING SCHEDULE
Parcel Dwelling
No. Units 1981 1985 1990
1A 49 49
lC 54 54
2A 144 144
2A-2 11 10
2B 10 15
3 72 72
3-1 33 29
5 85 85
5-1 66 66
6A 123 128
6B 130 130
7-1 22 38
7-2 38 22 ,,
8-A 110 110
11 90 90
) 12 258 86 172
13A 32 32
13A-l 14 14
13A-2 41 41
13A-3 4 4
13B 19 19
15 70 70
17A 21 21
17B 40 40
17C 7 7
18 85 85
22A 250 250
22A-l 150 150
22D 1 1
28B 212 212
30 34 34
30-1 64 64
31 166 166
32 25 25
33A 129 129
33B 179 179
_) 33D 202 202
33E 202 202
33F 122 122
TOTAL 3,365 1,070 2,144 150
-19-
Potential impacts not evaluated in the previous EIR
result from significant revisions to the original plan for which the EIR was prepared. Potential environmental impacts not evalu ated in the EIR may be experienced in the following areas ; noise, traffic, schools, sewer services, land use compatibility, and historical properties. Of the six areas identified, only the impacts associated with noise, traffic, schools, land use com patibility, and historical properties, are considered potentially adverse; the impacts associated with sewer services are considered to be ben e ficial and have not been given further discussion here. -A brief -at-scussion of the potential env iro n-;;;e~tal impacts · is pre sented in the following section.
Noise
The major revision to SP-123 affecting the area impa c ted by noise is the proposed development of apartments and townhouses adja ce nt ro the Uni on Pacific Railroad tr ac ks (Par cels 3 30 and 13E) so uth of Limonite Avenue. Plate 4 illustrates the rel a tionshi p be tween Parcels 33E and 33F with the railroad tracks. The parking structures for both the apartments and townhouses will be incorpor ated in a noise attenuation barrier shown in Figure J. A noise study was conducted providing mitigation measures which are included in Appendix A (conditions of approval) Exhibit D. -20-
' -
FIGURE 3
LOT· A LOT B
-i,r-- --
LOT G LOTD
L ..... ~ 1h>.PH:ll
~ ~ --~ !,i.A..llo,.,.J.t,
LOT G LOT A&B
LOT D&E
-21-
_)
Traffic Generation
Parcel 33 was not within boundaries of the approved
plan and as such was not included within the scope of the SP-123 EIR. However, only the traffic generated by the residential portion will be addressed at this time as it is not known what type of businesses will locate on the two commercial units of Parcel 33.
At final buildout, it is anticipated that 834 DU's
will be constructed within the residential portion of Parcel 33.
Using a trip generation factor of 10 trip ends per dwelling unit per day, the average dail•rcraffTc -· (ADT) will be 8,340 vehicle · trip ends.
Existing Roadway~
The primary roadway serving Parcel 33 is Limonite
Avenue which is a four-lane divided highway with a capacity of approximately 22,000 ADT. Traffic counts taken by the Riverside County Road Department indicate that Limonite Avenue at Peralta Street (approximately 3/4 mile east of Parcel 33, had an ADT of 13,059 in October of 1978 and Limonite Avenue at Baldwin Avenue (approximately 1/4 mile west of Parcel 33) had an ADT of 17,602 in January of 1978.
A 10 percent increase in the ADT per year normally
occurs on primary roadways. Using a 10 percent increase per year, the ADT at Limonite and Peralta would be 14,305 at present, while the ADT at Limonite anJ Baldwin would be 21,298 at present. -22-
)
Potential Impacts
The additional traffic generated by Parcel 33 will put
Limonite Avenue over its design capacity within the vicinity of ,
Parcel 33 and. as such, will deteriorate the level of service from a "C" level to a high or middle "D" level of service. This deterioration of service level will probably occur during peak hours of use, 7 A.M. to 9 A.M. and 4 P.M. to 6 P.M. Problems that can be expected to be encountered are as follows:
Longer than average waiting times for vehicles turn-
ing left on Limonite Avenue from Clay Street.
Longer than average waiting times for vehicles turn-
ing left on Clay Street from Limonite Avenue.
An increased propensity for accidents.
Proposed mitigation measures are included in Appendix A.
Schools*
As previously stated, under Environmental Consideration, only the 601 DU's not addressed in ETR No. 42 will be used to asse::;s the impacts on schools within the area. Student generatinri within the Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD) averages 1.12 student per household, which would equal 672 new students. This number of students would be divided equally among the Elementary, Junior High and High School grade levels or 224 sttidents added at each level.
Impacts
Because of the crowded conditions that presently exist
within the .llJSD, many ,.;chools nre nn dn11hle sessions and a numher ii1~-. Nick Ferguson, Assistant Superintendent,
Jurupa Unified School District.
-23-
of students are bussed throughout the District to help distribute the load. According to the JUSD, there is no way of anticipating the impact of the 672 new students other than the fact that they will add to the problem.
Mitigation Measures
The JUSD owns a ten acre school site within the bound
aries of SP-123; however, without actual school facilities being constructed, the impact on the school system cannot be mitigated.
The District has a number of options for the construction of school facilities.
State Senate Bill 1384 gives the District the right to
issue school bonds with voter approval. The school
bond issue was on the ballot in the last local election within the District, but was voted down. This type of
financing is probably the most feasible method of con
structing school facilities. Hopefully, as the
situation within the District progressively gets worse, the voters will realize that the issuance of bonds is
the only feasible method of financing school facilities.
The JUSD has the option of levying a developers fee of
$1,400 per dwelling unit.
The JUSD is in the process of conducting a Master Plan
of the District. The Master Plan will qualify the
District for state aid under the Leroy Green Lease
Purchase Act for the construction of school facilities. -24-
}
Land Use Compatibility
The residential land uses on Parcels 33A, 33B, and 33E
will be separated from the industrial land uses on Parcel 33H by incorporating the parking structures into noise barriers (Figure 3). The industries that locate within the boundaries of Parcel 33H are intended to be light industry and completely enclosed within structures. Actually, Parcel 33H is to be a buffer zone between the residential land uses and the United States Pipe Company located westerly of Clay Street.
Historical Properties
A structure, located on the southern boundary of
Parcel 33, has been identified as having some historical significance on a local scale. The structure was built by William E. Pedley around 1905 and is thought to be one of the earliest uses of reinforced concrete.
Mitigation Measures
Mr. Ron Goldman, Supervising Planner of the Environ
mental Quality Section, Riverside County Planning Department, indicated that recordation of the structure would properly mitigate the impacts on the structure. The recordation will be photographing the structure and writing a historical narra tive about it. The recordation was accomplished by Mr. Tom Patterson, author and local historian, and was accepted by the Riverside County Parks Department historian as being adequate mitigation.
-25-
)
Brief Discussion of Alternatives
' Possible alternatives to the revised Specific Plan
relate mainly to development procedure rather than the actual development pro.posed within the revised plan itself. Alterna tives to the revised Specific Plan are as follows:
(1) Separate Specific Plan
(2) Individual Planned Unit Development (PUD)*
Any proposed development within the boundaries of
SP-123 inconsistent with the approved plan constitutes a revision to SP-123. Therefore, Alternatives 1 and 2 could only apply to the propose ·d additional 451 acres which were not a part of SP-123.
Although Alternatives 1 and 2 are feasible, neither
is considered practical. The size of the additional area and spacing of development does not seem to warrant such a formal document as a specific plan. as such. A separate PUO would be more suitable than a specific plan; however, obtaining the required permits needed to develop Parcels lB, 6B, 22A, 22A-l, 22B, and all phases of Parcel 33 would be more diffic.ult under a PUD system.
*The true meaning of a PUD does not limit itself to residential development. A PUD is generally a planned residential community consisting of a mix of residential and commercial development staged at the community level. The definition given earlier for the PUD category is :Jctually more s 11itahle for what is eomm<rnly termed a Planned Residential DevelopmPnt (PRO).
-26-
Neither Alternative 1 nor 2 allows for the realloca
tion of densities as proposed in the revised Specific Plan, whereas the revised Specific Plan, as proposed, accomplishes the basic intent of both Alternatives 1 and 2 in addition to addressing the revisions proposed to SP-123. In light of the development background of the entire Indian Hills area, the revised Specific Plan appears to be the more rational approach to the successful completion to this area's development.
Marketability Study
A marketability study was prepared for the revisions
to SP-123 by Market -Pro.f-iles2'!of S-anta Ana, California and sub..:
mitted to the project proponents on February 1, 1980. The follow ing is a brief summary of that marketability study.
Supply Characteristics
A review of "For Sale" housing projects was conducted
for the Pedley, Rubidoux, La Sierra and Southwest Riverside areas, as well as a review of supply and demand of housing in the Corona/Riverside region. Within this competitive housing market area (CHMA) there are 13 active projects, 12 detached and one attached. Of the 13 acti~e projects, two are sold out, three have had sales suspended by Rivetside sewer moratorium, and three are nearing a sold-out posture.
The 13 active projects are generating a combined
absorption rate of 11.64 units per week for an average per development of .90 units per week.
-27-
An analysis of the inventory levels in the CHMA further indicate the current under-supplied situation of the marketplace.
Of the 1758 available units in the 13 projects, 983 have been offered with sales totaling 863 units. Only 12 percent of the offered units, or 120 units, remain on the market and based upon current ·absorption levels, this supply will be exhausted within ten weeks provided no new units are brought on stream.
Currently, the volume price range for activity in the
CHMA is in the $70,000 to $90,000 price range which represents nearly 75 percent of the CHMA's sole activity. This $70,000 to $90,000 price range also represents the major portion of the CHMA's unsold inventory, 71 p~rcent indicating that this price range will continue to be the most active in the CHMA.
Trends
The Pedley area was initially developed as a demand
spillover outlet for the price-sensitive large-lot consumer from Los Angeles and Orange Counties. However, over the past few years as housing prices escalated, there has been more internal demand pressures for housing placed on the Pedley market area than external demand pressure. The recent building moratorium in Riverside and Corona has prompted even more demand pressure into the Pedley area since it represents one of the few areas in the Riverside/Corona market area where development is still ongoing.
-28-
: ·i
)
Employment
The level of housing demand generated in the Pedley area will be dependent upon the continued economic growth of the areas surrounding it. A significant number of the residents in the Riverside/San Bernardino bi-county region will continue to com mute to work in Orange County which has and will continue to experience dynamic economic expansion. The steady economic growth of the Riverside/San Bernardino bi-county region will add internal demand pressures for housing in the Pedley area. The following table presents the economic growth which has and is projected to occur-i n e ne .ghboring areas of -Pedley which affect de~~ d for housing in the Pedley CHMA.
Year
1970
1975
1980
1985
Economic Growth
1970-1985
Orange County
471,300
644,600
778,600
926,700
San Bernardino/
Riverside
Bi-Count y
350,700
393,300
439,500
490,921
The employment base in Orange County grew from 471,300
in 1970 to 644,600 in 1975 for a substantial increase of 173,300 new jobs. Total employment in Orange County will continue to expand and reach 778,600 in 1980 and 926,700 by 1985; equating to an average increase of 29,595 new jobs per year. Although -29-
)
economic growth in the San Bernardino/Riverside bi-county region was not as dynamic as Orange County, it was substantial. The bi-county employment base increased from 350,700 to 393,300 from 1970 to 1975 and is projected to increase to 439,500 in 1980, and 490,921 in 1985 for an annual increase in new jobs of 10,284 from 1980 to 1985.
Overall employment prospects in San Bernardino/Riverside and Orange Counties are good and will continue to support population and household growth.
Population
In conj un.ct ion with t?t'!blibMtE-gfb
····--
, -population growth
in the bi-county area has been rapid. From 1970 to 1977 the population increased by 161,307.
The forecast of population growth indicates the growth
in new households and the potential for housing demand. Based on the 1970 to 1977 population growth and projections for 1980 and 1985, the number of households is forecasted to increase by 16,918 per year through 1980 and by 15,352 annually thereafter and is presented in the following tables.
-30-
- C - - - -- I
Population and Household Growth
Riverside/San Bernardino Bi-County
1970-1985
No. of House-
Average House- Total No. of holds Added
Year Population hold Size Households Annually
1970 1,140,986 2.69 424,158
1977 1,302,293 2.43 535,923
Projections
1980 1,413,892 2.41 586,677
1985 1,585,615 2.39 663,347
Housing Activity
The housing stock in the bi-county area increased by
113,085 homes from 1970 to 1977 for a total of 532,769 units.
Housing Growth
Riverside/San Bernardino Counties
1970-1977
County 1970
Riverside 168,590
San Bernardino 251,094
1975
214,889
285,831
1977
230,329
302,440
Building permits which are indicators of growth show
that the number of houses authorized increased substantially between 1975 to 1977, from 10,490 to 54,473 but then decreased slightly in 1978 to 33,090.
Housing Demand
The forecast of total housing demand in Riverside/San
Bernardino bi-county is based upon household growth projects -31-
15,966
16,918
15,352
presented earlier. Total demand for ownership and rental is 16,918 units per year through 1980 and 15,352 units annually thereafter. The propensity to own indicates annual demand for 13,534 new homes between 1979 and 1980 and 12,281 houses per year thereafter. Demand by price range indicates the greatest demand will be in the price-sensitive ranges under $65,000 followed by the price sensitive move-up range of $65,000 to $100,000.
Annual Demand by Price Range
Riverside/San Bernardino Bi-County
1979-1985
Price Range 1979-1980
Under $40,000 406
$40,000-$50,000 2,165
$50,000-$65,000 4,196
$65,000-$80,000 2,707
$80,000-$100,000 2,571
$100,000-$125,000 947
$125,000-$150,000 271
$150,00o+ 271
Totals 13,534
Conclusions
1981-1985
368
1,965
3,807
2,456
2,333
860
246
246
12,281
Review of the overall posture of the Riverside market
place in general and the Pedley area in particular, indicates that the greatest opportunity for success is to develop a multi-product line connnunity that will be targeted to the more price-sensitive young-married and growing-family consumer segments. The con- sumers would typically be first-time buyers who will be seeking -32-
; 1
)
)
ownership housing as a hedge against inflation. The attached product lines will allow a product to continue to be offered in the volume price range of demand. As housing prices increase faster than income, first-time buyers will increasingly accept attached housing as a price alternative to detached units.
Currently, activity in the CHMA is most active in the
$70,000 to $90,000 price range.
Employment and population growth indicate continued
demand in the area with the Riverside/San Bernardino bi-county area generating an annual demand for 13,534 units through 1980- "-"" ·· ·· -~ -· · - · - '--'-" and 12,281 units annually between 1981 and 1985.
Based upon the supply and demand dynamics of the
area, significant demand will be generated for development particularly for consumers who are increasingly being priced out of closer~in locations.
To maximize the available market opportunities, the
lower density detached product lines should be planned for early market entry followed by higher density product lines as price escalates and the area becomes more urbanized.
-13-
}
APPENDIX A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
-: ~
....
# , -
: .. ~ .
EXHIBIT B
Specific Plan of Land Use 123-W - Amendment No. 1
Mission De Anza ~ Jurupa Western Inc.
Pedley,'Glen Avon, Rubidoux District
General Conditions
Conditions of Approval
Approved by Planning Conmission
December 10, 1980
1. The specific plan approval shall consist of the following:
Exhibit A - Specific Plan Text
Exhibit B - Specific Plan Conditions of Approval
Exhibit C - Development Plan
Exhibit D - Accoustical Mitigation Report
2. If any of the following conditions of approval differ from the commitment made by the Developer in the Specific Plan text or· map exhibits, the conditions enumerated herein shall take precedence.
3. The development of the property shall be in accordance with the·manditory requirements of all Riverside County ordinances and state laws a·nd shall con.form substantially with the approved Specific Plarf 123-W as filed in the office of the Riverside County Planning Department, unless otherwise amended.
4. Water and sewerage ~isposal facilities shall be installed in accordance with the requirements and specifications of the ·Riverside Cou~ty Health Department.
5. Drainage and flood control facilities and improvements shall be provided in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's requirements;
6. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain clearance from the Riverside County Planning Department that all pertinent conditions c:,f approval have been satisfied in accordance with the specific plan for the phase of development in question. ·
.7. An environmental assessment shall be conducted for each tract, change of zone, plut plan or any other discretionary permit within the specific plan.
8. Prior to recordation of any final subdivision map for a phase of development requiring a homeowners association, the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department the following documents which shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County that the homeo•1mers association will be established and will operate in accordance with the intent and p~rpose of the specific plan. a. The document to convey title;
b. Convenants, Conditions and Restrictions to be recorded.
The approved Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall be recorded at the same time that the final subdivision maps are recorded.
J The homeownr.r' associiltion, with the unqualified right to assess the owners of individual units for reasonable m,1intenarice and rnanagemer.t costs, shall be established and · continuously maint:1ir~~,J. The as sociotion shall have the right to lien the property of any m-iner·s \'!h ,1 default. ·i!l the payme,1t. of thPir .:issec:.sr.ients. Such lien shall not be suborrlinate tu any encumbrance r,th~r than a first deed of trust, provided such deed of tru~t is ;;,adp in :1,,aci frlitt-1 n.ild for v, .. i'lue anrl is of record prior to the lien of the ho!r.£OYin~~~ a~r:,:ir~t~c~:- A-1
)
Specific Plan of Land Use 123-W - Amendment No. 1
Mission De Anza - Jurupa Western Inc.
Pedley, Glen Avon, Rubidoux District Page 2
Land Use Conditions
Conditions· of A°pprova l
Approved By Planning Commissio~
December 10, 1980
9. The total Specific Plan 123-W (Amendment No. 1) shall be developed with a maximum of 3370 dwelling units on 1473+ acres.
10. Final development densities for each residential parcel shown in Exhibit C shall be determined through the appropriate tract and/or conditional use permit application up to the maximum density identified based upon but not lim~ted to the following:
- ~~ , c)
d)
e.)
adequate availability of services
adeq~ate access and circulation
sensitivity to land forms
innovation in housing types, design, conservation or opportunities adequate provision of open space
ii . ..,.. L-ots created pursua'nt to thi's ·specific plan ·shall· be in. c~~formance with the development standards of the zone(s) ultimately applied to the property exc~pt _as· modified _by the specific plan. ·
12. Flag lots -shall not be permitted · in conventional subdivisions.
13. All Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) sh~ll incorporate a homeowners association for maintenance and management of common open space areas, private street systems, landscaped areas, signing and lighting or other defined . responsibilities as necessary.
14. All Planned Residential Developments (PRD's) developed pursuant to this specific plan shall include active recreational facilities and open space 15 areas. ·
Prior to the issuance of-~uilding permits improvement plans for developed common space areas shall be submitted for Planning Department approval for the phase of development in question. · ·
16~ All developed common open space areas and developed landscaped areas, shall include automatic irri~ation systems. Landscaping irrigation plans shall be submitted fo~ Planning Department approval prior to construction.
17. All parcels · shown on Exhibit C and identified for hillside residentia.l ·dey~lopment shall ·be developed so as to conform with the following hillside de~elopment criteria.
A-2
',
_)
Specific Plan of Land Use 123-W - Amendment No. 1
Mission De Anza-Jurupa Western Inc.
Conditions of Approval
Approved by Planning Convnission
December 10, 1980 Pedley, . Glen Avon, Rubidoux District
a) All manufactured slopes shall be contour-graded incorporating the following grading techni.que:
l) The angle of the graded slope shall be gradually adjusted to the angle of the natural terrain.
· 2) Angular forms shall be discouraged. The graded form shall reflect the natural rounded terrain.
3) Graded slopes shalJ be oriented to minimize visual impacts from sur rounding areas.
4) ihe overall shape, height and grade of any cut and fill slope shall be developed in concert with the existing natural contours and scale of the natural terrain of a particular site.
5) -:-fhe t-'8-e-s<and tops. of a 11 slopes in excess of · 10 feet , in vert3c a .. l::.; .~:i!_ · 1-·•' height shall be rounded with curve with radii designed in portion to the total height of the slope where drainage and stability permit such rounding.
b) Where cut and fill slopes are created in excess of 10 feet in height, detai1ed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the County of Riverside prior to approval. The plans will be reviewed for type and density of groundcover, seed· mix, plant sizes, and irrigation systems. c) No grading of any phase of developemnt in hillside residential areas shall be permitted prior to tract map recordation and issuance of grading permits. d) All proposals for innovative solutions to hillside residential development, such earth housing concepts shall be evaluated on an individual basis at the tract map or conditional use permit sta9e... , .
e) All manufactured building pads shall be limited to 10,000 square feet in area.
f) All dwellings shall be located a minimum of 10 feet from the toes and tops of all slopes.
g) No two story construction shall be permitted, except that split level designs may be used to take advantage of split pads and natural topography. h) Natural features such as significant rock outcrops shall be protected to the greatest extent feasible in the. sitinq of· individual lots and building pads. i) No grading or residential pevelopment shall be permitted to take place on the ridelines identified on Exhibit C except that required for access roads and fire breaks. ·
A-3
• 1
)
Specific Plan of Land Use 123-W - Amendment No. 1
Mission De Anza - Jurupa Western Inc.
Conditions of ADoroval
Approved by Planning Commission
December 10, 1980 Pedley, Glen Avon, Rubidoux District
18, Specific Plan 123-W {Amendment No. 1) shall be developed in accordance with the conditions of approval, Exhibit C, and the following specific develop ment criteria for each individual identified parcels: . . a} Parcel 1-8 shall be dedicated to the Jurupa Community Services District and shall be maintained in conjunction with the Golf Course until such time as the area is accepted by the District.
b) Parcel 8-A shall be developed with single family and clustered resi dential units in accordance with the hillside residential development criteria .
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Parcel 8-B shall remain as open space to be managed and maintained in conjunction with the golf course except that hillside residential de velopment may take place within Parcel 8-B by transferring a portion of -the .de-A~e l 8;..A=~g,...Par-cel 8-- B·. If development-:is-::,:prn.~:.zz=--~""_..:a" posed for Parcel 8-8 the maximum density permitted shall be 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres and shall take place in accordance with the hillside residential development criteria.
Parcel 12: The tentative approval of Tract 12018 shall be considered null and void unless a revised tentat i ve map i s submitted and· approved which brings the design of the map (s)'i n.to conformance with the approved amended specific plan.
Parcel 13-A shall be developed with a Planned Residential Development (PRO) in such a manner that no development or grading take place above an elevation of 1100 feet.
Parcel 21: The density of the Jurupa ·General Plan assignable to Parcel 21 (golf course) calculated at the plans's maximum density of 3 du/ac shall be considered fully transferred through the specific ~lan approval.
Parcel 22-B: Shall be implemented with C-P zoning and the uses allowed shall be developed pursuant to the R-3 Zone non-residential uses.
Parcel 29: Shall be conveyed to the Riverside County Parks Department, ·ov Grant Deed with clear title in accordance with the approved phasing program . .
Parcel 33-A: Shall be developed with zero lot-line semi detached (duplex) dwelling units in accordance with Exhibit C and the following criteria:
1) Shall· improve, plant, and irrigate the front yards . 2) Shall provide a Vijriable mixing of heights elevations and setbacks for housir.g tyres, i.e. single story and two story so as to produce a non-uni forr. : s trec r sr2pe profi'l c.
A~4
Specific Plan of Land Use 123-W - Amendment No. l
Mission De Anza -.Jurupa Western, Inc.
Conditions of Approyal
Approved·b.y Planning Colllllission
December 10, 1980 Pedley, Glen Avon, Rubidoux District