Residential walls may consist of vinyl fencing where privacy is desired in areas that are not adjacent to common open space and not adjacent to roadways in reverse frontage areas. Vinyl fencing will be allowed for side, front, and rear yard conditions and in rear yard to rear yard conditions where slopes do not exceed twelve feet (12') in height.
Residential walls may consist of open tubular steel fencing, or a combination wall fencing comprised of a low wall and open fencing where residential development is adjacent to natural or recreational open space at the top of slopes that are greater than twelve feet (12') high. In areas where safety or security conditions warrant more solid fencing, slump block walls are allowed in lieu of open tubular steel fencing or combination low
5.0 Landscape Design Guidelines
5.0-15
wall/open fencing, subject to approval by the Community Development Director. Front yard return walls will be constructed of masonry (slump stone or material of similar appearance, maintenance and structural durability) and will be a minimum of five feet in height. Side yard gates are required on one side of the residential front yard, and shall be constructed of wrought iron, wood, vinyl or tubular steel. All street facing residential walls should be slump block wall.
Accent fences consisting of a 3-rail vinyl fence shall be used along any combination sidewalk/decomposed granite trail.
View fencing is to be used for parks, schools, and other open space areas where some security and privacy is necessary, but view is desirable. View fencing is a 6-foot high fence constructed of tubular steel. Fencing, up to 8 feet high, around common area facilities is permissible for security purposes.
Figure 5.3, Overall Fence & Wall Plan
5.0-16
Not To Scale
NOT A PART
PATS RANCH ROAD
PA-1
PA-2
PA-5
PA-8
PA-9
PA-10 PA-11
PA-12
PA-13 PA-14
PA-15
PA-16
PA-17
PA-18
PA-19A
PA-20A PA-20C PA-20E PA-20B PA-20D PA-20F
PA-19B
PA-19C
PA-6
PA-3 PA-7
PA-4
PA-4
Figure 5.4 A, Fence Types
5.0-17
Not To Scale
1. 2” SQ. TUBULAR STEEL POSTS AND RAILS
2. 1/2” SQ. TUBUAR STEEL PICKETS @ 4” O.C.
FENCE COLOR: BLACK
TUBULAR STEEL FENCE
3-RAIL VINYL TRAIL FENCE
COLOR: “WHITE”
3-RAIL TRAIL FENCE
VINYL FENCE WITHIN PLANNING AREAS
1. 5”X5” VINYL POST
2. 2”X7” TOP & BOTTOM RAIL
3. 6” TONGUE & GROOVE
NOTE: COLOR: WHITE OR TAN
6’-HIGH WALL W/INTERMITTENT METAL FENCING
1. 6’-HIGH WALL (2-SIDE)
2. 3” THICK PRECAST CONC. CAP
COLOR: “NATURAL CONCRETE”
3. 6’ HT. FENCE
2” SQ. TUBULAR STEEL POSTS AND RAILS W/ 1/2” SQ. TUBU
LAR STEEL
PICKETS @ 4” O.C. COLOR: BLACK
CONCEPTUAL IMAGERY/MATERIALS:
3-RAIL FENCE STEEL FENCE
VINYL FENCE
VINYL FENCE
VINYL FENCE
STUCCO WALL
1. 6’ HT. SPLIT FACE (PUBLIC-FACING) BLOCK WALL
2. 2 ROWS OF 4” HT. PRECISION BLOCK BAND TO BE ACCENT
COLOR
3. 2” THICK PRECISION CAP
WALL NOTE: WHERE WALL IS EXPOSED TO PUBLIC VIEW, S2S IS REQUIRED.
COLOR NOTE: WALL IS TO BE CONSISTENT IN ITS COLOR SCHEME.
CAP AND BAND SHALL BE AN ACCENT COLOR AND SHALL
MATCH, EXAMPLE: TAN WALL W/ BROWN BAND AND CAP OR
GRAY WALL W/ CHARCOAL BAND AND CAP.
PERIMETER THEME WALL
1. 18” SQ. STONE VENEER PILASTER
TYPE: “MOUNTAIN LEDGE”
COLOR: ”SIERRA”
2. PRECAST PEAKED CAP
COLOR: “NATURAL CONCRETE”
3. PERIMETER THEME WALL
PERIMETER PILASTER 1. 10’ HT. SPLIT FACE (BOTH SIDES) BLOCK WALL COLOR: “TAN” BY ORCO BLOCK
2. 2” THICK PRECISION CAP
COLOR: “BROWN” BY ORCO BLOCK
I-15 SOUND WALL
Figure 5.4 B, Wall Types
5.0-18
PARTIAL VIEW WALL
1. 18” SQ. STONE VENEER PILASTER - SEE DETAIL
2. SPLIT FACE (1-SIDE) BLOCK WALL W/ PRECISION
CAP
3. 4’HT. FENCE
2”SQ. TUBULAR STEEL POSTS AND RAILS W/1/2” SQ.
TUBULAR STEEL PICKETS @ 4” O.C. COLOR: “BLACK”
WALL NOTE: WHERE WALL IS EXPOSED TO PUBLIC
VIEW, S2S IS REQUIRED.
COLOR NOTE: WALL IS TO BE CONSISTENT IN ITS COLOR SCHEME. CAP AND BAND SHALL BE AN ACCENT COLOR AND SHALL MATCH, EXAMPLE: TAN WALL W/
BROWN BAND AND CAP OR GRAY WALL W/ CHARCOAL BAND AND CAP.
Not To Scale
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK WALL
1. 3.5’ HT. SPLIT FACE (2-SIDE) BLOCK WALL
2. 3 ROWS OF 4” HT. PRECISION BLOCK BAND TO BE
ACCENT COLOR
3. 2” THICK PRECISION CAP
COLOR NOTE: WALL IS TO BE CONSISTENT IN ITS COLOR SCHEME. CAP AND BAND SHALL BE AN ACCENT COLOR AND SHALL MATCH, EXAMPLE: TAN WALL W/
BROWN BAND AND CAP OR GRAY WALL W/ CHARCOAL BAND AND CAP.
CONCEPTUAL IMAGERY/MATERIALS:
STONE VENEER WALL SPLIT FACE WALL
SPLIT FACE WALL STUCCO WALL
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-1
Purpose and Intent
The design guidelines in this section provide a framework for the design of individual projects within the Specific Plan Area. The design guidelines are not intended to be rigid or inflexible. Every project in the Specific Plan Area shall follow these guidelines; however, creative solutions to design are encouraged if it meets the intent of the guidelines or requirements. There can be many ways to comply with a guideline and exceptions will be granted in accordance with Chapter 7.15, such as in the case of a highly original design. The Design Guidelines provided in this section of the Specific Plan may be subject to modification to allow for response to evolving development conditions, such as changes in housing trends, community desires, and the marketplace. Reflecting timeless town building principles, neighborhoods within the VRSP will incorporate a variety of home designs within a pedestrian friendly environment, close to parks, open space, neighborhood commercial center, and civic buildings. The neighborhoods will be designed to embrace comfortable human scale, visual charm, attractive landscapes and well-proportioned spaces formed by appropriately positioned and articulated architecture.
The purpose of the architectural design guidelines is as follows:
• Provide the City of Jurupa Valley with the necessary assurances that development within the VRSP will attain the desired level of quality and design. • Establish criteria for building design and materials, landscape design, and site design that provide guidance to developers, builders, architects, landscape architects, and other professionals who will be involved in the development of the VRSP.
• Provide clear direction to decision makers regarding the theming and intent of the Specific Plan, thus reducing the possibility of confusing interpretation and subjective decisions related to the Specific Plan's implementation.
The architectural design guidelines for the VRSP are intended to foster these ideals and promote innovation and should not be construed to be rigid standards that cannot be modified. The graphic representations contained herein are provided for conceptual illustration purposes only and should be used as general visual aids in understanding the basic intent of the guidelines. They are not meant to depict actual neighborhood, lot, or building design. To encourage creativity and innovation, the design guidelines express “intent” rather than “absolutes,” thus allowing a certain degree of flexibility in architectural design that is consistent with the intended character for the VRSP.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-2
Residential Design Guidelines
One of the goals of the VRSP is to integrate a variety of housing types into the overall neighborhood to assure a range of choices in price and lifestyle for future residents. In addition to providing housing diversity, neighborhood design should also consider the connectivity within and between the neighborhoods, how each neighborhood fits into the overall community, and visible edges of the neighborhoods. This lays the foundation for creating quality neighborhood design throughout the project.
Key elements of neighborhood design in the VRSP include the following:
• A variety of housing opportunities for households of varying economic means, social needs, and life stages.
• Internal connectivity that enhances the relationship of buildings to the street and promotes walkability.
• Neighborhoods designed at a “human scale” with architectural diversity and pedestrian friendly streetscape.
• Strong visual and physical connections with parks and open space amenities.
This section establishes the key architectural styles associated with each residential product type, whether attached or detached and the architectural and site design “elements” that should be considered in all residential development. The primary objective of these guidelines is to provide a variety of housing opportunities that exhibit excellent design across an array of architectural themes and styles consistent with the overall Specific Plan objectives. The VRSP is designed with flexibility to allow internal shifts in residential densities and housing types. A wide range of residential building types and sizes will be integrated within the community. Such integration not only creates a quality pedestrian environment by providing diversity and rhythm to the neighborhoods, but also enables a broad market of housing options. The mix of detached and attached building typologies have the following key attributes that add to the diversity within the community:
• Single-family detached and cluster neighborhoods provide a broad spectrum of home types, from conventional front-loaded homes to rear- and court-loaded cluster homes. The ability to mix and match these home types throughout the VRSP allows for small, diverse pockets of single-family residential design that add visual interest and variety.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-3
• Multi-family attached residential neighborhoods, including townhomes and stacked flats, and the potential for duplexes/triplexes, often resemble small villages, with the buildings generally oriented around public spaces, such as open space areas and recreational amenities. Buildings often form linear edges or green courts, creating opportunities for pedestrian connectivity.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-4
This section provides descriptions of the various building typologies envisioned within the VRSP. Table H, Appropriate Residential Building Typologies by Planning Areas, indicates the building typologies that are appropriate for each Planning Area. In addition to the building typologies listed in Table H, the Community Development Director may allow other building types that enhance diversity in street scenes and housing opportunities, are consistent with the intent of the VRSP, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and meet the development regulations contained in Chapter 3, Community Plan of the VRSP.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-5
Residential building typologies within the VRSP may be located on fee simple or condominium mapped lots. Detached condominiums, which are condominium units that are completely detached and share no adjoining walls, ceilings, floors or other attached architectural elements with the adjacent units, may be developed in the Conventional
Single-Family
Homes
l l l
Front-Loaded
Cluster Homes
l l
Rear-Loaded
Cluster Homes
l l
Attached Residential Buildings
Duplexes l l l l
Triplexes l l l l
Townhomes l l l l l
Stacked Flats l l l l l
Additional building typologies that enhance diversity in street scenes and housing types are permitted, provided they are consistent with the intent of the VRSP, are compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods, and meet the land use regulations contained in Chapter 3 of the VRSP.
Notes
Allowable minimum lots sizes for single-family detached products include 3,150 square feet, 4,000 square feet, and 5,000 square feet.
1 & 2 3 & 4 5, 6 & 7
Cluster Homes
Planning Areas
Appropriate Residential Building Typologies by Planning Areas Table H
17 Single-Family Detached Homes
8, 15 & 16 9 & 10 11 & 14 12 & 13
Product
Types1
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-6
single-family neighborhoods, rear-loaded homes, and detached cluster homes. The extent of detached condominium ownership does not include the lot on which the building is located.
Single-family detached homes
come in a wide range of
configurations and sizes. These
homes are plotted with front doors
that take access from the street.
The primary type of single-family
detached homes within the VRSP
will be Conventional Single-Family
Homes, although Front-Loaded ZLot Homes as described below may be incorporated. Other types
of single-family detached homes
are encouraged but not required
to enhance diversity in housing
types, provided they meet the
development standards of the underlying land use designations. Sample Plotting Concepts have been provided below in Figure 6.1, Plotting Concept Examples – SingleFamily Detached Homes. • Conventional Single-Family Homes. Conventional single-family homes are plotted on a wide range of lot sizes and configurations. Access to the front entries and garages of the homes are taken from the street. • Front-Loaded Z-Lot Homes. Front-loaded Z-lot homes are designed to fit together along a shared property line by providing one home with a deeper recessed garage. Reciprocal use easements are used to maximize the side yard areas.
By Kevin L. Crook Architects
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-7
Figure 6.1, Plotting Concept Examples – Single-Family Detached Homes MHDR-SFD >4,000 SF
MHDR-SFD >3,150 SF
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-8
Cluster homes refer to a group of
detached dwellings clustered around
a common feature such as a shared
driveway, paseo, or open space
area. Detached cluster homes can
be large or small in size and are
designed to provide alternatives to
conventional single-family homes.
These homes offer single-family
detached living opportunities and
private yard areas at more attainable
costs and improve the street scene by
removing garages from the street.
There are two primary types of
detached cluster homes within the
VRSP, including front-loaded motor court homes and rear loaded paseo homes. Typical configurations of single-family detached clusters are depicted below; however, other configurations are encouraged, but not required, to provide diversity in lifestyle and housing type, provided they meet the development standards of the underlying land use designations. Common areas within a detached cluster development will be maintained by the respective homeowners association.
• Front-Loaded Cluster Homes. Front-loaded cluster homes are detached dwellings clustered around a court. The cluster group typically includes 4 to 8 units. The dwelling unit entries face either the court or the street, and the private outdoor living space occurs in the side and rear yards. Reciprocal use easements may be used to maximize the side yard areas. Resident parking spaces are provided in the garages, and guest parking is provided on adjacent local streets or adjacent to the dwelling or designated on-site parking areas.
Access to the garages is via the private courts or streets. The court may be linear or “T-shaped” and may, but are not required to, incorporate enhanced paving materials.
• Rear-Loaded Cluster Homes. Rear-loaded cluster homes are detached dwellings clustered around outdoor spaces such as courtyards, pathways, paseos or other outdoor spaces that encourage social activity and promote pedestrian connectivity. The cluster group typically includes 4 to 8 units. The dwelling unit entries face the open space, and the private outdoor living space occurs in the side and rear yards. Reciprocal use easements may be used to By Kevin L. Crook Architects
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-9
maximize the side yard areas. Resident parking spaces are provided in the garages, and guest parking is provided on adjacent local streets or adjacent to the dwelling or designated on-site parking areas. Access to the garages is via the private courts or streets. The court may be linear or “T-shaped” and may, but are not required to, incorporate enhanced paving materials.
Figure 6.2, Plotting Concept Examples – Detached Cluster Homes HDR-Detached Cluster
HDR-Detached 6-Pack Cluster
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-10
HDR-Detached Paseo Cluster
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-11
Attached residential buildings consist of two or more dwelling units that share a common wall. There are a variety of configurations within this category of residential buildings, ranging from duplexes and townhomes to stacked units. Some examples are provided on the following pages, but other configurations of attached buildings are encouraged to provide diversity and a variety of housing choices, provided they meet the development standards of the underlying land use designations. • Duplexes and Triplexes. Duplexes and triplexes are two and three individual dwelling units that are attached to each other. The dwellings’ entries face the street or paseo. Private open space is provided in yards, patios, courtyards, or upper floor balconies.
• Townhomes. Townhomes are a collection of attached homes with shared walls and individual entries leading to a sidewalk, pedestrian path, or paseo. Private open space is provided in patios, courtyard, or upper floor balconies. Resident parking spaces are provided in garages or carports and guest parking spaces are provided on local streets or in designated parking areas. Garage access is typically provided via a motor court with shared driveways. When townhomes are combined with stacked flats or carriage units, they may include private rear yards and have entries facing the motor court.
• Stacked Flats/Carriage Flats. Stacked flats are attached dwellings in multi-family buildings with shared walls and individual unit entries accessed from sidewalks, pedestrian paths, or interior hallways or courtyards. The automobile access is via a private court drives or courts. Resident parking spaces are provided in individual garages, carports, or designated on-site parking areas, and guest parking spaces are provided on local streets or in designated parking areas.
Duplexes by Architects Orange
By Kevin L. Crook Architects
Townhomes by DTJ Design
By Kevin L. Crook Architects
Stacked Flats
By Architects Orange
Note: The images above are examples in VRSP.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-12
Figure 6.3, Plotting Concept Examples – Attached Residential Buildings HDR-Triplex
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
MHDR-Duplex
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-13
VHDR-Attached Motor Court Townhomes
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
VHDR-Attached Row Townhomes
6.0 Architectural Design Guidelines
6.0-14
Note: Additional Product may be acceptable based on the discretion of the Planning Director.
Conceptual layout for Multi-Family. Actual design will occur during Site Development Permit Process.
HHDR-Multi-Family
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-15
Attractive, safe, and walkable streets will be provided throughout the community.
Although street patterns and character in Jurupa Valley may vary based on the surrounding building typologies, streets should generally be animated by active architecture with a diversity of streetscapes, parks, and open space.
Homes in Jurupa Valley may incorporate architecture forward design that addresses the streets, parks and open space to create a strong pedestrian-oriented edge and enhance the sense of security. Building designs will orient living spaces, entries, windows, front stoops, porches, courtyards, and balconies/decks toward streets and public areas.
Streets in the residential neighborhoods should have sidewalks separated from the curbs with street trees in the landscape parkway. The goal is to create intimate, socially interactive, and secure neighborhoods that encourage street activity, promote walking, and allow convenient access to parks, recreational facilities, and shopping.
To create “livable streets,” it is also necessary to control traffic and reduce speed. The roundabouts located on Pats Ranch Road at the community entries and within the community will force vehicles to slow down as they enter the community or circulate through the community and offer opportunities for landscaping and signage elements that enhance the community design aesthetic. The local street sections depicted on Figures 3.11 A, B, C, and D, Interior Road in combination with incorporating on-street parking where feasible, will help calm traffic in residential neighborhoods. Together, these design features will enhance pedestrian safety and provide a pleasant environment for walking within and between neighborhoods, as well as to the parks, open space, retail, and other focal areas within the community.
Within the VRSP, pedestrian pathways, trails, and bike routes facilitating strong connectivity among the residential neighborhoods and to the community amenities, such as parks and recreational facilities, should be provided. These pathways can be in the form of paseos or sidewalks. Mid-block pedestrian ways providing pedestrian access at mid-block points can be utilized as an alternative walking route through a neighborhood. Open-ended cul-de-sacs can also be used to enhance pedestrian connectivity without allowing auto circulation to cut through. By creating an openended bulb, the cul-de-sacs not only allow for pedestrian travel, but also provide view
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-16
corridors into and out of neighborhoods, thus creating a more open neighborhood feel.
Examples of these ideas are reflected in the figure below. In addition, the onsite sidewalks, community paths, community trails, and meandering D.G. trails provide smooth and enjoyable connections between neighborhoods, offsite and local amenities, transportation, and nearby retail.
Figure 6.4, Pedestrian Connectivity Concepts
Fronting on local Edge
Mid-Block Pedestrian Way Open Ended Cul-de-Sac
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-17
Building and Site Design
The intent of the following residential building and site design guidelines is to ensure the creation of a high quality and pedestrian friendly community, with diverse neighborhoods and a cohesive sense of place. Not only do these guidelines ensure a high level of quality in function and visual appearance, but they also encourage architectural character that creates variety and compatibility, thus enhancing the community’s overall appeal and value.
All new construction, building additions, and alterations must conform with the State of California’s Green Building Code (Cal Green) or the Building Code in effect at the time of permit issuance. Development projects should be designed and constructed to consist of energy-efficient buildings to reduce air, water, and land pollution and the environmental impacts associated with energy production and consumption. Passive design techniques should be used to improve building energy performance through use of skylights, building orientation, landscaping, natural ventilation, natural daylighting, energy-efficient light fixtures (e.g., fluorescent and LED lighting), energyefficient appliances and paint colors.
Universal design in housing is also encouraged to create accessible spaces that serve the needs of people with disabilities. Additionally, “Crime Prevention through Environmental Design” (CPTED) elements should be incorporated into building and site design to facilitate natural surveillance, access control, territorial reinforcement, and proper common area maintenance.
Buildings shall be arranged to provide room for common open space areas, courtyards, and other residential amenities consistent with Chapter 6, Architectural Objective Design Standards. Walking and biking access shall be provided within the residential development to the adjacent commercial areas.
In addition to architectural style, architectural variety is created by combining building materials, colors, and textures in conjunction with architectural features (e.g., windows, doors, facades, trim). Each residential neighborhood will provide diversity in design through considerate attention to architectural character and floor plan livability.
A diversity of architectural styles. Each single-family neighborhood/development shall provide at least three (3) architectural styles
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-18
and each multi-family development with attached units shall provide at least two (2) architectural styles.
While the landscaping, fencing, and signage will have a common design theme throughout the VRSP, a variety of architectural styles is envisioned for developments within the individual planning areas which include the following:
Adobe ranch Progressive Monterey
American Farmhouse Provence
American Traditional Santa Barbara
Italianate Spanish
Modern Farmhouse Spanish Eclectic
Modern Monterey Tuscan
Prairie Modern Urban Farmhouse
Although various architectural styles are intended to coexist in the overall community, only compatible styles should be mixed within a single Planning Area to ensure consistency in neighborhood character. Contemporary interpretation of traditional styles is permitted.
Building massing, roof forms, details, materials, and colors should demonstrate authenticity of style to avoid “stage-front” architecture.
The selection of architectural styles shall be appropriate for the building typology.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-19
Tuscan American Farmhouse American Traditional Provence By Kevin Crook Architecture
Urban Farmhouse, By KTGY Architects Italianate, By Bassenian Lagoni Architects Prairie Modern, By KTGY Architects
Spanish
Modern Farmhouse Progressive Monterrey
Adobe Ranch
By Kevin L. Crook Architects
Spanish Eclectic
By KTGY Architects
Modern Monterey, By KTGY Architects
Note: The images above are examples in VRSP
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-20
1) Orient buildings to face and frame the street to create a pedestrian friendly streetscape, as appropriate to the building typology.
2) Careful consideration shall be given to street orientation and building placement to help protect privacy, views and the visual quality of the neighborhood, and maximize solar access of the buildings where feasible and reasonable.
3) Plot buildings to emphasize diversity and scale along the street and avoid visual monotony. Interest can be achieved by varying setbacks, using different plan forms and elevations on adjacent buildings, incorporating single-story elements, and utilizing different garage placements. A sense of undulation in building setbacks can be achieved by incorporating massing offsets within a building footprint to create varied setbacks to different parts of the building, or by encouraging staggered front and/or rear setbacks on adjacent homes. The inclusion of rear-loaded homes and single-family cluster homes within the VRSP also helps increase diversity and promote a pedestrian-oriented street scene, as these home types minimize garage visibility and driveway curb cuts along the street.
4) Attached buildings shall be
arranged to provide room for
common open space areas such as
courtyards, pathways, and other
gathering spaces and connections
that encourage social activity and
promote pedestrian connectivity.
5) Arrange attached residential
buildings and site landscaping in
such a way that they screen parking
areas from public view and minimize
the impact of parking lots and
garages on the public streetscape.
1) Create simple floor plans that can be built efficiently and achieve high performance by starting with simple building forms and massing, which reflect the selected architectural style, then add smaller, secondary elements to relieve massing and break up the primary forms.
Attached Homes Oriented Toward Open Space Node
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-21
2) Avoid flat, unarticulated walls and limit the bulk of the building elevations by providing vertical and/or horizontal elements consistent with the architectural style of the building.
3) For Planning Areas 10 through 14, vary setbacks a minimum of 2 feet from the street to massing elements, to create movement and diversity in the front setback.
4) The use of a minimum of two architectural elements (wood siding, stucco, stone, etc.) within a two-story and three-story building shall be used to lessen the appearance of the building mass.
5) Incorporate at least one element such as porches, trellises, decorative shades, or others where appropriate to the architectural style, to add variety to the street scene and establish pedestrian scale.
6) Provide variation in floor plans, unit types, and roof forms to add visual interest to the neighborhood. For detached product types, each builder product line must have a minimum of three (3) floor plans and a minimum of four (4) elevations.
For attached product types, each builder product line must have a minimum of two (2) unit plans for each building, and a minimum of two (2) building plans (with the ability to reverse the plot plan and/or add elements to corner units), and two (2) elevations. A builder using the same marketing name and architectural products may build on contiguous blocks and non-adjacent blocks.
7) The front elevation of attached residential buildings should be designed to clearly delineate individual units as a way of breaking up mass. 8) Building facades shall be broken up with a design element such as, but not limited to, changes in wall planes, use of stairs, placement of roof forms and changes in architectural styles, themes, and use of materials or colors to create a varied and attractive building façade. Where feasible, buildings can be broken up into a collection of smaller, related buildings with the paseos, courtyards, or similar spaces between buildings.
By Kevin L. Crook Architects
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-22
9) Where three story multi-family buildings are located adjacent to single-family homes, minimize impacts on adjoining residences with a step-back of 20 feet to the third story element and 10 feet to the second story element.
Incorporate a variety of garage placement options in the detached residential neighborhoods, including, but not limited to, front-loaded shallow, tandem garages, and court-loaded garages. Roll-up doors are required for all garages.
The use of garage doors with windows on the top panels is encouraged for street facing garages.
In motor courts, landscape planting areas shall be provided along court drives to soften the building appearance. Garage setbacks from the adjacent court drives or courts must be two (2) to five (5) feet when no full driveway is planned or greater than or equal to 18 feet when full driveways are provided. The minimum distance between the garage doors across the court drive shall be min of 26 feet. Guest parking spaces may be located between the buildings (as shown in the photo above and the diagram below), in designated parking areas or along the street.
Parking for attached residential buildings shall be provided within attached private garages, on-street parking or in group parking areas.
Garage doors design shall have a minimum four-inch recessed door.
Garage door windows when used with a particular exterior style shall match to the window forms of the house.
Locate parking spaces within 250 feet of the residential units which they serve.
Parking area access and internal circulation for multi-family residential complexes shall be designed to ensure safety, efficiency and convenience.
Avoid conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, and provide adequate areas for maneuvering, stacking, and accommodating emergency vehicles.
Residential construction shall comply with the CALGreen Code’s Residential Mandatory Measures to facilitate future installation and use of electrical vehicle (EV) chargers.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-23
1) Select roof forms, pitches, and materials that are consistent with the architectural style of the building. Consider roof forms in relationship to the building mass to improve massing relief along public streets and on other publicly visible elevations. Roof design shall incorporate one or more of the following design features:
a) Gable
b) Hip
c) Shed
d) Parapet
2) Varied roof forms, offsets, and materials consistent with the architectural style of the building are required to create variation in the skyline and diversity in the street scene.
3) Keep roof forms simple and efficient based on the architectural style and plan shape. Avoid overly complicated roof design that detracts from the characteristics of the architectural style.
4) The location of the photovoltaic and solar panels and/or tiles, as well as any solar water heating panels, should be carefully considered when designing roof plans.
Minimize or group rooftop equipment to leave adequate, continuous space for rooftop photovoltaic systems.
Figure 6.5, Front-Loaded Garage Examples
(Examples provided for illustration purposes only; other garage placement options are permitted) Garage without Full Driveway Garage with Full Driveway Staggered Garages Court Drive
Court Drive Court Drive Court Drive
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-24
1) Side and rear elevations that are visible from public streets, parks, trails, and other highly visible areas shall incorporate enhancement features that minimize visual monotony and enhance pedestrian experience such as window treatments, accent materials, or other vertical or horizontal breaks in the wall massing. 2) Building elevations facing the motor courts shall incorporate articulation such as massing offsets, window detailing, etc. to improve the appearance of the motor courts.
3) Windows and entries are required to add articulation, break up massing, and play a key role in defining the style of a building. They also contribute to the energy performance and thermal comfort of a home. Window and entry guidelines include the following:
a) It is required to coordinate window shape, size, and location on each elevation to provide a proportional and decorative composition consistent with the architectural style.
b) Windows on the front elevations and publicly visible elevations shall incorporate enhancements, such as trim surrounds, headers or sills, shutters, or other similar elements, as appropriate to the architectural style. c) It is required to locate and size windows to respond to the conditions of the site, including solar exposure.
d) Windows shall be selected to improve energy efficiency and overall building energy performance.
e) It is required to install operable windows to improve interior thermal comfort and allow occupants to passively regulate indoor temperatures and air quality.
f) When feasible, design windows on south-facing elevations to provide passive solar heating and cooling.
g) Front doors and entryways are required to provide the focal point on the public street elevation of a building, and be protected from the sun with overhangs, recesses, or porches, consistent with the architectural style of the building.
4) Design lighting to minimize impact to adjacent properties, particularly open space areas, through careful placement and fixture selection. Lighting shall comply with the standards contained in the City’s Municipal Code Section
9.240.545.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-25
5) It is required to choose lighting locations within multi-family residential complexes for maximum visual enhancement and safety, highlight important features, and provide lighting for walkways and parking areas.
Materials and colors shall be consistent with the chosen architectural style and compatible with the character of surrounding development. 1) Provide at least two textures and colors to allow for diversified expressions of individuality on building elevations, while maintaining visual cohesiveness throughout the community. Roof and garage doors will be considered part of the color variations.
2) Materials and color blocking are required to terminate at inside corners or is otherwise wrapped to avoid the appearance of false façades. 3) It is required to apply colors and materials to enhance changes in wall plane, reinforce articulation of elevations, and enhance special features such as entries, single-story elements, etc.
4) While earth tones are preferred to blend into the surrounding area, a variety of color palettes shall be provided in order to avoid a monotonous or continuous appearance of buildings with the same color and tones. At least two colors shall be used.
5) On contiguous lots, structures with identical colors shall not be permitted. This will avoid the monotonous appearance of multiple buildings of the same colors and tones.
6) Materials should be consistently applied and work harmoniously with adjacent materials. Avoid piecemeal embellishments and frequent changes in materials. 7) Exterior building materials shall be consistent with the allowed architectural styles and details within Section 6.3.1. Additional complementary or compatible styles will be considered. In keeping with today’s homebuyer preferences, fresh/contemporary versions of the traditional styles will also be considered acceptable.
8) Material breaks, transitions, and termination shall produce complementary and clear definitions of separation, while maintaining a prescribed color and materials theme. This is especially important in changing from stucco and/or siding to masonry veneers. Trim separation shall be acceptable. 9) Select high-quality, low-maintenance, and durable materials to minimize the need for replacement that would contribute to landfill waste.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-26
10)Incorporate the use of recycled and/or rapidly renewable materials, as well as pre-finished building materials to reduce waste and conserve resources. 11)Incorporate low-VOC emitting building materials for paints, coatings, flooring, carpet, adhesives, caulks, insulations, etc. to protect air quality. 1) Work with service providers to reduce visual clutter, eliminate location conflict of utility items in the common areas, and address community aesthetics.
Techniques to be considered include undergrounding where possible, landscape screening, construction of a façade, and use of neutral or complementary colors.
2) Gas and electrical meters shall be placed in utility cabinets or otherwise screened to be integral with the architecture of the building. 3) Roof-mounted and ground-mounted mechanical equipment such as air conditioning/heating equipment, pool/spa equipment, etc. (excluding solar panels) shall be screened from view of streets, walkways, and other public spaces when possible.
4) Mechanical devices such as exhaust fans, vents, and pipes shall be painted to match the colors of the surfaces to which they are attached. 5) Exposed gutters and downspouts must be colored to match or complement the surface to which they are attached.
6) Where trash and recycling material containers are provided to individual units, space shall be provided in a side or rear yard or in the interior of the garage to accommodate a minimum of two collection containers or as required per the local Refuse Management Company.
7) Where trash and recycling material collection facilities are shared by several units/buildings, the collection facilities shall be screened by architectural enclosures. The screening enclosure materials and colors should be similar or complementary to the exterior materials and colors used on the adjacent principal buildings.
8) Trash and recycling material collection areas shall be sited for convenient access but should avoid impacting important neighborhood features such as entries, recreation areas, leasing offices, and clubhouses. 9) Varied and aesthetically pleasing rooftop solar solutions are continuously being introduced as photovoltaic technologies become increasingly efficient and reliable. Current rooftop solar systems range from the traditional rack-mounted
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-27
solar panels to solar shingles, to roof-integrated solar panels that combine the features of the rack-mounted solar panels and solar shingles. 10) For community aesthetic reasons, solar panels are encouraged to be installed on the rear roof elevation of a building. If placing the panels on the rear elevation would significantly compromise the system’s performance, then locating the solar panels on the least publicly visible elevation where at least 85 percent of optimal system performance can be achieved is preferred. 11) The installation of solar panels on the front roof elevation is discouraged. If the solar panels must be located on the front elevation, the size, shape and placement of the panels should be carefully considered as part of the overall design composition to create an aesthetically integrated solar system, as described below:
a) Solar panels shall be mounted as close to the roof plane as possible. b) Solar panels shall be set back from the roof edge by a minimum of 24 inches. c) Solar panel layout should be complementary to the geometry and proportions of the roof.
d) Solar panels should be grouped together so they are less visually distracting.
Single panel arrays should be avoided.
e) Use panels with anti-reflective coatings to minimize glare. Exposed frames and components shall have an anti-reflective surface.
f) Multi-family neighborhoods may have solar panels as part of a carport structure.
12) Residential energy storage systems shall not be installed on the exterior side wall of a corner building that is visible to the public view. 13) Lighting must meet all the requirements of the City of Jurupa Valley. 14) Pedestrian lighting should be subdued and warm-white in tone. Lighting 5000K shall not be allowed unless required for public safety. 15) Exterior light fixtures should be designed to complement the architectural style of the building. Exterior lighting shall be shielded to conceal the light source and minimize glare and light spill to adjacent properties and public rights-of-way. 16) Multi-family residential complexes shall be sufficiently lit to ensure night-time mobility and deter criminal activity. Choose lighting locations for maximum visual enhancement and safety.
17) Pedestrian walkways and building entries shall be illuminated to provide pedestrian orientation and to clearly identify a secure route between parking areas and points of entry to the building.
6.0 Architectural Objective Design Standards
6.0-28
18) Pedestrian-scale lighting should be used along pedestrian walkways and at building entries.
19)Install exterior lights to accent entrances, activity areas, steps, ramps, and special features.
20) Bollards or building lighting shall be used to supplement and enhance other pedestrian area lighting. Bollard height shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches. 21) Accommodate alternate forms of transportation including charging stations for electric cars, carpooling, and bicycles.
22) Promote the riding of bicycles, through the provision of bike racks/storage at amenity facilities.
23) Meet the most current storm water management programs, including on-site water capture methodologies.
24) Employ a recycling program.
5)
Figure 6.6, Conceptual Trash Enclosure Layout
6.0-29
Not To Scale
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-1
The VRSP will be implemented through the processing of numerous subsequent entitlements. The implementation process provides the mechanism for reviewing precise development plans and ensuring development consistency with the VRSP’s objectives.
This chapter also provides procedures for determining substantial conformity and, if necessary, amendments to the VRSP. All development within the community is subject to the implementation procedures described in this chapter. Additional information on implementation, including potential funding mechanisms, maintenance responsibilities, and monitoring activities, are also presented in this chapter.
Implementation Plan
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65451, all specific plans must contain a “program of implementation measures including regulations, programs, public works projects, and financing measures” necessary to implement the specific plan. This chapter defines the administration of the VRSP and the implementation process for approving new development, including the accompanying financing, phasing, and other necessary programs.
7.1.1. General Administration
The City of Jurupa Valley shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of the VRSP in accordance with the provisions of this document, the State of California Government Code, and the Subdivision Map Act, including processing assistance, interpretations of provisions, approval and issuance of permits, site development permits, approval of temporary or interim uses, specification of conditions of approval, and authorization of certificates of occupancy for new development.
7.1.2. Applicability
All development and uses in the VRSP shall comply with the requirements and standards set forth in this document. Where conflicts exist between the standards set forth in this document and those found in Jurupa Valley Zoning Code, the standards in the VRSP shall apply. Standards not addressed in this document are subject to the applicable City of Jurupa Valley standards.
7.1.3. Severability
If any chapter, section, subsection, sentence, provision, or phrase of this document or future amendments or additions hereto, is for any reason held to be invalid, void, unenforceable, or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction,
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-2
such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the VRSP, and the remaining provisions of the VRSP shall continue in full force and effect.
7.1.4. Interpretation
If there is a question or ambiguity regarding the interpretation of any provision of this document, the Community Development Director has the authority to interpret the intent of the provision, using the spirit and intent of the VRSP as a guide.
7.1.5. Specific Plan Modifications
Modifications to the text and exhibits may be necessary during the development of an implementing project. Any modifications to the VRSP shall occur in accordance with the amendment process described below. Depending on the nature of the amendment, additional analysis or a supplemental EIR may be required, pursuant to CEQA.
Specific Plan Amendments
Amendments as defined in this document, shall be processed according to the provisions of the zoning code. An amendment, as defined in this document, is any of the following:
• Any change to exhibits or text of the Specific Plan.
• Any change to development standards and/or design guidelines. • A new type of land use that is not specifically discussed in this Specific Plan. • Any change that would trigger the preparation of a supplemental EIR or addendum to the approved EIR.
• Changes in land use boundaries that result in an increase of more than the maximum allowable development potential, as analyzed in the certified EIR prepared for the VRSP.
Substantial Conformance
A Substantial Conformance application may be approved by the relevant decision making body with input from City departments and other agencies. Substantial Conformance allows for the approval and interpretation of minor modifications to the Specific Plan that do not change the meaning or intent of the Specific Plan. Through the review and approval process, an implementing project may be found to be in Substantial Conformance with the provisions of this document and may be approved, conditionally approved, or denied by the relevant decision making body under the circumstances listed below.:
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-3
• A modification of the project design including minor adjustments to Planning Area boundaries that does not alter the intent of the Specific Plan, that improves circulation, protects topographic features, minimizes grading, improves drainage, or improves infrastructure.
• Shifts in internal road alignments and access points that would not substantially alter the land use or circulation system set forth in this Specific Plan. • Changes to the locations and sizes of infrastructure systems, including drainage, grading, water, and wastewater plans that would not substantially alter the plans set forth in this Specific Plan, provided the changes can be supported by technical studies reviewed and approved by the City.
• Modifications of design elements such as paving treatment, colors, architectural details, signs, landscaping, as long as the relevant decision making body finds the change to be compatible with previous developments/approvals. • Any changes to the Specific Plan that are required to respond to permit requirements of applicable state or federal agencies with jurisdiction over the VRSP will be deemed in substantial conformance with the VRSP and will not require an amendment so long as the purpose of such changes is the protection of natural resources.
7.1.6. Implementation and Approval Process
Approval of the VRSP indicates acceptance by the City of Jurupa Valley City Council of a general framework of development for the approximately 153 acre VRSP site. Part of that framework establishes specific development standards that constitute the zoning regulations for the VRSP. It is further anticipated that the VRSP will be implemented through a series of final tract maps and site plans which shall be reviewed and approved by the appropriate approving body to ensure consistency with this document.
Subdivision Maps and Final Maps
Subdivision maps are employed to implement a specific plan by subdividing land into smaller parcels. The subdivision map process for Vernola Ranch may involve the preparation of a Tentative Parcel Map (TPM) or a Tentative Tract Map (TTM). The intent of the TPM is for financing and land conveyance purposes only; no infrastructure improvements, building and/or grading permits shall be issued for lots within the TPM. The individual Planning Areas will require a TTM showing internal lots and street layout and shall be in conformance with City of Jurupa Valley map requirements. The TTM may be prepared by the developer and/or the builder. In the absence of a specific builder, the master developer may choose to prepare the site plan and TTM.
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-4
During the site plan and TTM stage of the development process, the final number of dwelling units for a particular Planning Area may differ from those identified in the VRSP, so long as the density falls within the range specified by the land use designation, and the total number of units approved in the VRSP is not exceeded. After a subdivision map or a site plan receives its tentative approval, the applicant is given a period of time to provide the final improvement plans for streets, utilities, grading, landscaping and all final conditions of approval prior to commencing construction. Tentative Maps shall be reviewed and processed pursuant to Chapter 7.15 (Tentative Maps), Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
Site Development Permit
Lots requiring a Site Development Permit are outlined in Table I, Permit Process. Site Development Permits will be processed in accordance with the procedures established herein and Section 9.240.330 (Site Development Permit), Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
Variance
Variances may be granted pursuant to Section 9.240.270 (Variances), Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-5
Table I, Permit Process
Planning
Areas
Single
Family
Residential
Homes
Cluster
Homes
Attached
Residential
Buildings
Multi-Family
Housing
Institutional
Uses
Open Areas,
Recreation
Uses, and
Related Building
and Structures
1 SDP
2 SDP P
3 SDP P
4 SDP P
5 P SDP P
6 P SDP
7 P SDP
8 P SDP
9 P
10 P
11 P P
12 P
13 P P
14 P P
15 P SDP SDP
16 P SDP SDP
17 SDP
18 SDP
19A P
19B P
19C P
20A P
20B P
20C P
20D P
20E P
20F SDP P
P = Building Permit
SDP = Site Development Permit
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-6
Financing Plan
The appropriate mechanism for implementing each particular improvement shall be tied to the construction and, if applicable, a CFD area phasing, established conditions of approval, and site plan/design review approval. The following is a summary of possible methods that could be used to finance VRSP improvements. This list is not completely inclusive and there may be other sources available to finance improvement projects, such as government grants, third party construction, or various types of bonds not listed below.
The developer, or builder, shall be responsible for facilitating the construction of the infrastructure improvements required to support the VRSP, such as perimeter and internal streets, water lines, sewers, and storm drains. All necessary infrastructure improvements shall be developed in conjunction with a phasing plan. The financing of construction, operation, and maintenance of public improvements and facilities will include funding through a combination of financing mechanisms. However, the developer or builder shall be ultimately responsible for all fair share costs associated with implementing the project, including, but not limited, to the costs of providing infrastructure and complying with mitigation measures, conditions of approval, and other requirements of the project.
Financing may involve a combination of impact fees and exacting, CFD’s/Mello-Roos, special assessment districts, landscaping and lighting districts, and other mechanisms agreed to by the developer and the City as noted below. Developer or builder funded improvements may be subject to a reimbursement agreement or credits against fees pursuant to provisions of a development agreement or conditions of approval. The City and developer or builder will cooperate to ensure that the public facilities are built in accordance with all requirements of the VRSP and EIR. A development agreement and conditions of approval may be used to facilitate this process. Table J, Funding and Maintenance, below, identifies financing and maintenance responsibilities for all improvements.
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-7
Table J
Funding and Maintenance Responsibilities
Improvement Installation Financing Long-term Maintenance Lighting
Lighting (Onsite)
1 Developer HOA
Lighting (Street)2 Developer/Public/3rd
Party CFD
Open Space
Water Quality Basins Developer CFD/HOA
Pocket Parks/Dog Parks Developer HOA
Neighborhood Park4 Developer HOA/JARPD
Private Facilities
Recreation Center Campus Developer HOA
Public Facilities
Sewer System Developer/ JCSD /3rd
Party JCSD
Storm Drain3 Developer/RCFCWCD/
3rd Party RCFCWCD/CFD/CSD
Water System Developer/ JCSD /3rd
Party JCSD
Streets
Private Streets Developer HOA
Public Streets Developer/Public/3rd
Party CFD
Trails
Community Trail4 Developer HOA/JARPD
Meandering D.G. Trail Developer CFD/JARPD
Community Paths
4 Developer CFD/JARPD
Other
Signage (VRSP) Developer HOA
Notes
1. Monument lights; Common Open Space Areas, Neighborhood Park and Pocket Parks.
2. Public street lights.
3. All storm drain facilities 36 inches in diameter or less located within City of Jurupa Valley limits shall be owned and maintained by the City of Jurupa Valley.
4. Possible eligibility of maintenance by JARPD.
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-8
In many cases, certain onsite facilities are tied directly to individual neighborhoods or phases. In these cases, it is reasonable to expect the developer, builder, or property owner to pay all or a majority of the entire cost of the facility in order to secure development rights. Onsite local streets, utility connections from main trunk lines, and drainage facilities are good examples of facilities that are normally required concurrent with development of an individual parcel, funded by the developer or builder.
A special assessment district is a type of benefit district that requires a vote by the property owners to encompass a defined and limited geographic area. The City or other agencies may form collectively or individually, one or more special assessment district under one of several different statutory acts to construct public improvements, such as streets, storm drains, sidewalks, streetlights, sewers, parks landscape, and other similar capital facilities. The special assessment districts can issue bonds to finance those improvements and levy a special assessment to pay debt service on those bonds.
A special assessment district may fund improvements within the entire VRSP or smaller areas where special improvements are constructed that directly benefit only certain property owners. Special assessment districts may only be used to pay for projects that are of specific and direct benefit to the property owner being assessed. The amount of the assessment must directly relate to the amount of benefit received by the property owner.
Landscaping and lighting districts (LLD) may be used for maintenance and servicing of landscaping and lighting through annual assessments on benefiting properties. LLDs may also provide for maintenance of appurtenant features, including curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, and irrigation or drainage facilities.
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 allows the creation of special districts authorized to levy a special tax and issue tax exempt bonds to finance public facilities and services. A community facilities district may be initiated by the legislative body or by property owner petition and must be approved by a 2/3 majority of property owners or registered voters (if there are more than 12 registered voters living in the area). Because there is no requirement to show special benefit, Mello-Roos levies may be used to fund
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-9
improvements of general benefit, such as fire and police facilities, libraries, and parks, as well as improvements that benefit specific properties. The provision also allows the reallocation of cost burdens to alleviate untenable burdens on specific properties.
Other sources may be available to finance improvement projects, such as federal, state, regional (i.e. Western Riverside Council of Governments), or local government grants, public agency construction, private developer coalitions, or various types of bonds not listed above.
Maintenance Plan
Maintenance of open space areas, recreational facilities, and major roadway landscaping, among other areas, is of utmost importance to the performance and appearance of Vernola Ranch. Therefore, a comprehensive maintenance plan will be established for standards as well as guidance for the upkeep and governance of public common areas within the VRSP. Table J, Funding and Maintenance Responsibilities above, identifies both funding and maintenance responsibilities for improvements.
7.3.1. Apportionment of Cost for Maintenance of Common Areas In order to ensure timely commencement and sufficient funding for maintenance of public facilities and common areas, the VRSP will annex into an existing maintenance organization, or into an active management organization, such as a community-wide maintenance district or a neighborhood Home Owners Association (HOA). This maintenance district will be empowered to apportion costs for shared public facilities and common area maintenance within the VRSP and/or respective phase of the VRSP.
Further, prior to final map approval, the developer will provide a master maintenance authority with enumerated responsibilities.
7.3.2. Master Area Maintenance
Common areas such as sports parks, The Neighborhood Park, pocket parks, greenbelt areas, water quality basins, open space areas, and landscaped areas are identified in the VRSP as being available for the benefit of all residents of the VRSP and to the public.
Such common areas shall be maintained either by a public/private entity such as a landscaping and lighting district, or by an association which includes as its participating owners all property within the VRSP, and the responsible agency shall assume maintenance responsibility for such area. Publicly accessible parks shall be maintained by a public agency or public maintenance organization or a neighborhood HOA.
7.0 Administration and Implementation
7.0-10
7.3.3. Specific Facilities Maintenance
Within residential areas of the VRSP, smaller associations may be formed to assume ownership and maintenance responsibility for common areas and facilities that benefit only the residents in those areas. Private open space areas and private roadways are examples of facilities that could come under the jurisdiction of neighborhood HOA.
7.3.4. Plan Roadways and Roadway Landscaping
The site is currently within the boundaries of the Jurupa Community Services District. All public roadways within the VRSP will be designed and constructed to standards stated in this document and will, therefore, be entered into the City system of roads for operation and maintenance as approved by the City Council. Any private roads or accesses will be maintained by an association or other public/private entity, as described above.
Roadway landscaping within the right-of-way (such as the enhanced parkways), landscaping within raised medians, and any hardscaping outside of any roadway rightof-way, shall be maintained by a public/private entity or neighborhood HOA.
7.3.5. Private Area Maintenance
Front and side yard areas which are open to the street shall be maintained by the homeowner unless otherwise specified in the CC&R’s or Conditions of Approval.
Appendix A
A-1
ATTACHMENT D
Resolution No. 2023 – XX
Exhibit B – Amendment No. 5 to Specific Plan No. 266
Specific Plan Amendment Exhibit
Amendment No. 5 to Specific Plan No. 266 (SPA266A5)
City of Jurupa Valley
Amendment Boundary
ATTACHMENT D
Resolution No. 2023 – XX
Exhibit C - Tentative Tract Map No. 38504
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
SP
MH
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / /
/
/ / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB
N
W
E
S
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
SP
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB N WE S MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB N WE S MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
SP
X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X X X X X X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD SD / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB N WE S MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
X X X X X X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X SD / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB N WE S MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MHMH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH
MH MH
MH
MH
MH
MH SD SD SD
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / /
/ / / / / / / /
/ / / /
/ / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / /
/ / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/ /
/
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ /
/ / / / / WEBB
N
W
E
S
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / WEBB N WE S / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SD SD SD WEBB N WE S / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SD SD SD WEBB N WE S / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / SD SD SD WEBB N WE S
ATTACHMENT D
Resolution No. 2023-107
Exhibit D - Conditions of Approval
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
EXHIBIT “D”
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
1. PROJECT PERMITTED. MA22153 (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) is for an approval of the following:
a) GPA22003: Amends the General Plan Land Use designation from Medium Density Residential and Business Park to the for the proposed densities residential and open space designations (MHDR, HDR, VHDR, HHDR, OS-R, and OS-W). b) CZ22002: Amends the on-site zoning from One- (1) Family Dwellings (R-1) and Industrial Park (I-P) to Specific Plan (SP).
c) SPA266A5: Removes project site (approximate 153-acre from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan. The project site is identified as Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, & 20 of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan.
d) SP22001: Vernola Ranch Specific Plan provides the vision, permitted uses, regulations, design guidelines and standards, and development standards for the 153-acre Specific Plan Area.
e) TTM38504: Subdivides the 198.87gross acre Project site and creates Planning Areas and phasing.
f) DA22001: An agreement between the Project Applicant and the City of Jurupa Valley to provide a long-term vested right to develop residential buildings in the Specific Plan Area and to provide community benefits to the City.
2. CONFORMANCE TO APPROVED EXHIBITS. The project shall be in conformance to the approved plans (listed below) to these conditions of approval:
• Specific Plan dated November 2023
• Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 dated July 6, 2023
3. INDEMNIFY CITY. The applicant, the property owner or other holder of the right to the development entitlement(s) or permit(s) approved by the City for the project, if different from the applicant (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitor”), shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley and its elected city council, its appointed boards, commissions, and committees, and its officials, employees, and agents (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either (i) the City’s approval of the project, including without limitation any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the project, any condition of approval imposed by City on such permit or approval, and any finding or determination made and any other action taken by any of the Indemnitees in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or (ii) the acts, omissions, MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
or operations of the Indemnitor and the directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the Indemnitor with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the project and the property for which the project is being approved. The City shall notify the Indemnitor of any claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an “Action”) within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the Indemnitor defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the Indemnitor fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the obligation to do so and, if it does, the Indemnitor shall promptly pay the City’s full cost thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (ii) of the first sentence of this condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct or the sole active negligence the City.
4. Phasing of PA-19A, PA-19B, and PA-19C. During the project phasing, the termination points of the park areas leading to incomplete open-space areas shall incorporate either gates and clearly marked areas to signify the trail’s conclusion. The gates and marked areas shall be designed to promote the safe use of the trail and open areas. These features shall be maintained until the full completion of PA-19A, PA-19B, and PA-19C.
5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscaped areas shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in an orderly, attractive and healthy condition. This shall include proper pruning, mowing of turf areas, weeding, removal of litter, fertilization, replacement of plants when necessary, and the regular application of appropriate quantities of water to all landscaped areas. Irrigation systems shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in proper operating condition. Waterline breaks, head/emitter ruptures, overspray or runoff conditions and other irrigation system failures shall be repaired immediately. The applicant shall maintain canopy trees in a manner that they provide the required shade coverage and encourages the canopy to grow to provide shade. Avoid topping trees or pruning the trees in a manner that the trees do not achieve mature height and form.
6. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. The Project is subject to Ordinance No. 2022-14, Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee. Within thirty (30) days after the project's approval, the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director, in writing, the method by which the applicant proposes to satisfy the inclusionary housing unit requirement and/or the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee requirement.
7. TREES IN STREETSCAPE. All trees in the parkway and setback abutting a street shall be a minimum of 36” box in size.
8. SALE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. No structure constructed on Project site may be sold until the subject Project on which the structure is located is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations such that the structure is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
9. CONSENT TO CONDITIONS. Within thirty (30) days after project approval, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to the required conditions of approval to the Community Development Director or designee.
10. MITIGATION MEASURES. This project shall be subject to, and comply with, all of the MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
adopted mitigation measures in connection with the certification of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the project
11. FEES. The approval of MA22153 (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) shall not become effective until all planning fees associated with the entitlements have been paid in full.
12. IMPACT FEES. Notwithstanding the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), the applicant shall pay the following impact fees (unless exempt) in accordance with the Municipal Code.
• Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. The applicant shall pay any owed DIFs by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
• Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation (MSHCP) Fee. The applicant shall pay any owed MSHCP fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code.
• Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. The applicant shall pay any owed TUMFs by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.70 of the Municipal Code
13. Setback Requirement for Multi-Family at PA17. Multi-Family in PA-17 shall have a setback of 30 feet from the street frontage.
14. Southern California Gas Company Condition of Approval. A SoCalGas highpressure line is located south of the project site and is adjacent to the Limonite Avenue frontage. The following are general requirements for performing work or planning projects near SoCalGas high-pressure lines. It is highly recommended that communication be maintained with SoCalGas to address any conflicts. Depending on the specific scope of the project, there may be less or more requirements that need to receive clearance from SoCalGas. Project plans will require SoCalGas clearance. The following may be required except if SoCalGas does not deem it required:
a) Consideration must be given to the safety of our pipeline(s) during all project stages.
b) SoCalGas must have continuous and uninterrupted access to the pipeline(s) and easement(s). In addition, SoCalGas conducts routine patrols and surveys of the pipeline(s); SoCalGas needs drivable access along the pipeline(s)/easement(s). c) Buried pipelines must have a minimum cover of 3 feet and a maximum cover of 7 feet below finished grade. No change of grade whatsoever, even within these parameters, shall be made without prior approval of SoCalGas. d) Prior to SoCalGas approving encroachment onto its easement(s), SoCalGas must be furnished with final grading plans showing the depth of the pipeline(s) below the existing surface and the depth of the pipeline(s) below the proposed finished grade. These elevations must meet SoCalGas’ requirements for buried pipelines. e) No permanent structures, such as buildings, block walls, foundations, gates, etc., shall be constructed within the easement or over the pipeline(s).
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
f) There shall be no planting of trees or other deep-rooted plants within the easement(s) or over the pipeline(s).
g) Substructures shall cross perpendicular to the easement(s). Substructure crossings must provide a minimum of 18-inches vertical clearance from the pipeline(s). Additional separation is required for leach lines, fuel lines, etc. h) Parallel encroachments within the easement(s) are prohibited. In areas where a parallel substructure is being constructed outside of the easement(s), SoCalGas requires five feet of separation, with three feet of undisturbed fill, in order to protect the integrity of our facilities and allow the facilities to be safely accessed during inspection, maintenance, and repair. Additional separation may be needed for leach lines, fuel lines, high voltage electric, etc.
i)All encroachments onto SoCalGas’ easement(s) must have written approval of SoCalGas prior to construction or encroaching onto the easement(s). j)All work within the SoCalGas easement(s) and/or within 10 feet of the pipeline(s) must be witnessed by a SoCalGas representative, and no work will be allowed without the SoCalGas representative on site.
k) No heavy equipment shall cross the pipeline(s) without SoCalGas’ approval.
Additional protective measures may be required where heavy equipment is expected to cross the pipeline(s).
l)No mechanical equipment shall operate within three horizontal feet of the pipeline(s), and any closer work must be performed by hand. m) No mechanical equipment shall operate within two vertical feet of the pipeline(s), and any closer work must be performed by hand. n) Buried pipeline(s) shall not be left exposed, and exposed pipeline(s) shall not be buried, without prior inspection and approval by SoCalGas. If the pipeline(s) are exposed during construction (e.g. substructure crossings, etc.), the pipeline must be backfilled with sand or zero-sack slurry only.
o) No vibratory compaction is permitted over the pipeline(s). In rare cases, vibratory compaction may be approved by SoCalGas’ Engineering Department following review of detailed site conditions, pipeline data, and equipment specifications. p) All contractors and subcontractors must be notified of the presence of the pipeline(s).
q) Contractors and subcontractors must call DigAlert (811) at least 2 working days prior to construction, grading, or excavation.
r) Once approved, encroachments within SoCalGas’ easement(s) shall be documented in an easement amendment or other document, as deemed appropriate by SoCalGas’ Land Services Department.
s) Potholes should be made, as necessary, to establish the horizontal and vertical alignment of the pipeline(s) within the project area. This information should be indicated on the plans, as needed. CAUTION: SoCalGas personnel must be present during potholing operations. Arrangements for SoCalGas personnel to MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
stand by during potholing activities can be made by calling DigAlert at 811. t) Consideration should be given to building setbacks from the easement lines. A minimum 15-foot setback is recommended whenever possible. u) All potential buyers or tenants of the property should be made aware of the presence of the pipeline(s) and easement restrictions.
PLANNING – PRIOR TO THE RECORDATION OF FINAL MAP
15.OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF THE COMMON AREA. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer. The CC&Rs shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the recordation of the final map, providing for maintenance of the property in perpetuity.
The CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, include provisions for the following items unless it is deemed unnecessary by the Community Development Director:
a) Formation of a Permanent Organization for the ownership and maintenance of all common areas including, but not limited to, landscaping, open space, common recreation, common parking areas, and circulation systems (areas) in perpetuity. b) The CC&Rs shall identify the common areas for ownership and maintenance, whether by the HOA, POA or City. The common areas shall include the following applicable items:
• Access and Circulation Areas
• Drainage Facilities
• Reciprocal Access
• Private and/or public utility easements
• Identify Common Areas (including tot lots, recreational areas, etc.) • Allowed users of common areas
• Landscaping and Irrigation
• On-site Lighting Fixtures
• Walls and Fences
• Community signage
• All on-site storm water and water quality management post-construction facilities and features (BMPs) shall require maintenance by the property owner(s) or City. Regulations for operations and maintenance shall be clearly stated in the CC&Rs
• Other items the Community Development Director and City Engineer deem appropriate
PLANNING - PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY GRADING PERMIT
16. PLANNING REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS. Prior to the issuance of any grading MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
permit, the aesthetic impact of slopes and grade differences where the project adjoins streets or other properties shall be approved by the Community Development Director or designee.
PLANNING - PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT
17. INCORPORATE CONDITIONS. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the project’s final approval.
18. JURUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (JARPD). Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project, the applicant shall annex into the existing Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD) District-Wide Community Facilities District (CFD) or form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) to contribute to the cost of park or other maintenance facilities as applicable.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING)
1.1. The use hereby conditioned is for Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 (“TTM38504”) being a subdivision of portions of land described in Line Adjustment No. 4133 per Document recorded June 6, 2005, as Instrument No. 2005-047 of Official Records of Riverside County, California and re-recorded April 25,2006 as Instrument No. 2006-0296026 of Official Records of said Riverside County, California, a portion of Grant Deed recorded October 5, 2007, as Instrument No. 2007-0623246 of Official Records, a portion of Grant Deed recorded September 17, 1968, as Instrument No. 89577 of Official Records, a portion of the west half of Fractional Section 19, Township 2 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Meridian, as shown by map on file in Book 9, Page 33 of maps, records of San Bernardino County, California, also described in Lot Line Adjustment No. LLA15-004, recorded April 19, 2016 as Instrument No. 2016-154093 of official Records.
Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 is a proposal to subdivide 198.87 acres into 30 lots, which consists of eight (8) lettered lots and thirty (30) numbered lots. Lots A through H, inclusive, shall be for streets and public utility purposes. Lots 1 through 8, 15 and 16 shall be for condominium purposes. Lots 22 through 27, inclusive, shall be for water quality purposes.
No buildings or developments are proposed under this entitlement.
Exhibit titled Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 prepared by Webb Associates, dated July 6, 2023, is hereby referenced.
1.2. The Tract Map preparation shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act, the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, the provisions of the Development Agreement No. 22001 (“DA22001”) and Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (“SP22001”), unless otherwise modified by the conditions listed herein.
1.3. It is assumed that the tentative map exhibit is all inclusive of a parcel or parcels of land legally subdivided in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinance.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
1.4. It is assumed that any easements shown on the referenced exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. The Applicant shall secure approval from all (if any) easement holders for all grading and improvements which are proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect. Should such approvals or alternate action regarding the easements not be provided, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise the permit.
1.5. A Vernola Ranch Specific Plan Traffic Impact Analysis, dated March 2023, was prepared by Webb Associates and is hereby referenced for preliminary planning purposes only. The study analyzed a planned timeline for development within the Specific Plan in four phases.
Phase 1 (2027) consists of 604 apartments and 583 single-family dwelling units, which is equivalent to 8,682 daily trips. Phase 1 corresponds to Phase 1 identified in the Specific Plan.
Phase 2 (2029) consists of 389 single-family dwelling units, which is equivalent to 3,189 daily trips. Phase 2 includes Phase 2 and 3 identified in the Specific Plan.
Phase 3 (2031) consists of an elementary school with 700 students, which is equivalent to 1,493 daily trips. Phase 3 includes Phase 4 identified in the Specific Plan.
If the developer chooses to construct the project in sub-phases or modify the phasing plan, a Construction Phasing Plan for the construction of on-site public or private improvements shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer. Additional requirements may apply.
1.6. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Jurupa Valley.
1.7. The Applicant is responsible for obtaining a Caltrans encroachment permit prior to performing any work within Caltrans right-of-way.
1.8. The site is within RCFC&WCD Day Creek Master Drainage Plan (“MDP”) and is adjacent to Line J of this MDP. In existing conditions, offsite flows from the north are collected by the Bellegrave Basin, a detention basin located at the southeast corner of Bellegrave Avenue and Pats Ranch Road. The basin discharges into Line J of the MDP located along Pats Ranch Road. The proposed development of this site will impact downstream drainage infrastructure by increasing the rate and volume of runoff. The project will consist of five drainage areas and will use four detention/water quality basins and one subsurface infiltration system. Onsite storm drain facilities shall collect and convey runoff into the proposed basins and subsurface systems to mitigate for both water quality and increased runoff prior to discharging into Line J via five storm drain laterals.
1.9. An encroachment permit shall be required for any work within Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“RCFC&WCD”) right-of-way or involving MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
RCFC&WCD facilities. The encroachment permit application shall be processed after the improvement plan is approved by the City of Jurupa Valley.
1.10. All flood control and drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to RCFC&WCD engineering and maintenance standards. The Applicant shall consult with RCFC&WCD early in the design process regarding materials, hydraulic design, regulatory permitting, transfer of right-of-way, and reimbursement schedules which may apply.
1.11. An encroachment permit shall be required for any work within Jurupa Community Service District (“JCSD”) right-of-way or involving JCSD facilities. The encroachment permit application shall be processed after the improvement plan is approved by the City of Jurupa Valley.
1.12. All water (for potable, recycled water and fire protection purposes) and sanitary sewer facilities shall be designed and constructed in accordance with JCSD Master Plans, ordinances, resolutions, and/or latest JCSD standards specifications. The Applicant shall consult with JCSD regarding materials, design, regulatory permitting, and transfer of rightof-way.
1.13. All required mitigations for any shall be satisfied in accordance with the Environmental Mitigation & Monitoring Reporting Program.
2. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)
2.1. In compliance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70, no grading permit shall be issued until the Tentative Tract Map (TTM38504) and/or all other pertinent Planning permits are approved and are in effect.
2.2. A grading permit shall be required. All grading shall conform to the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley, the City’s Municipal Code Title 8, Riverside County Ordinance 787 Section 7701, the Specific Plan, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Jurupa Valley and State of California. Grading shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of the approved project specific geotechnical report and grading plan.
2.3. The 10-year storm flow shall be contained within the curb and the 100-year storm flow shall be contained within the street right-of-way. When either of these criteria are exceeded, additional drainage facilities shall be installed.
2.4. An emergency escape path shall be provided for the stormwater runoff at all inlets for the proposed drainage and flood control facilities in the event that the inlets become blocked with debris. To prevent flood damage to the proposed structures, all proposed structures in the vicinity of the inlets and along the emergency escape path shall be protected from flooding by properly elevating the finished floor in relation to the inlets and flow paths.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.5. The Applicant shall submit a “mass” grading plan in conformance with the Specific Plan for review and approval of the City Engineer. Securities, in the form of a cash deposit (preferable), bond, or letter of credit shall be submitted as a guarantee of the completion of the grading operations for the project and the implementation and maintenance of erosion control measures. Upon approval of the of the foregoing together with Conditions 2.5.1 thru
2.12.5 below a Mass Grading Permit can be attained.
2.5.1. The grading plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer licensed in the state of California (Project Civil Engineer) and he/she must sign the plan. The printed name and contact information of the Project Civil Engineer shall be included on the face of the grading plan. The grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2.5.2. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all offsite drainage flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities of flow exceed the capacity of the conveyance facility, the Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.
2.5.3. The grading plan shall provide for protection of downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.
2.5.4. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following grading to prevent transport and deposition of earthen materials onto downstream/downwind properties, public rights-of-way, or other drainage facilities.
Erosion Control Plans showing these measures shall be submitted along with the grading plan for approval by the City Engineer.
2.5.5. Applicant shall provide written proof and authorization from easement holders (if any) for work proposed over easements.
2.6. If grading is required offsite, the Applicant shall obtain a written notarized letter of authorization from the property owner(s) to grade as necessary and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or authorizations necessary to perform the grading shown on the site plan and grading exhibits.
2.7. Drainage easements shall be obtained from any affected property owners for the release of any concentrated or diverted storm flows. A copy of the recorded drainage easement shall be submitted to City and RCFC&WCD for review and approval.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.8. Lots which propose any retaining walls and/or free-standing walls will require separate permits.
2.9. A hauling permit shall be required for the import/export of more than five hundred (500) cubic yards of earth material using City streets. The import/export location and the haul route shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. If the import/export location is outside of City limits, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the jurisdictional agency has provided all necessary approvals for import/export to/from the site.
2.10. Prior to approval of the grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a project specific geotechnical report for review and approval of the City Engineer for TTM38504. The report shall be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County guidelines and include the following:
2.10.1. Pavement design recommendations for frontage and internal streets;
2.10.2. Appropriate liquefaction analysis and recommendations;
2.10.3. Detailed description of the planned grading and construction including maximum depth of proposed cut and fill, a summary of the proposed cut and fill slopes and their maximum heights, and site-specific remedial grading recommendations.
2.11. Prior to approval of the grading plan, a final hydrology and hydraulics report (F-HHR) for the entire subdivision area shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and RCFC&WCD. Hydraulic calculations are required for all drainage control devices, basins, and storm drain lines.
2.11.1. The Developer shall comply with the requirements of the City Engineer based on recommendations of the Riverside County Flood Control District regarding the connections and/or extensions of County Master Plan Facilities.
2.12. Prior to the approval of the grading plan, a Final Water Quality Management Plan (F-WQMP) for the entire Specific Plan boundary shall be submitted in conformance with the requirements of RCFC&WCD for the Santa Ana River Watershed for review and approval of the City Engineer. Each planning area shall be subject to site specific WQMPs for their proposed developments.
2.12.1. The Specific Plan identifies four phases of construction. A F-WQMP shall be required for individual phased development within the Specific Plan and shall be in conformance with the Specific Plan’s approved F-WQMP.
2.12.2. Any BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the F-WQMP and FHHR. Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.12.3. The maintenance access road for the basins shall comply with Appendix C: Basin Guidelines of the Riverside County Santa Ana Water Shed Region Design Handbook for LID BMPs.
2.12.4. F-WQMP shall include the property owner’s acceptance for the interim BMP operation and maintenance from the time is constructed until the responsibility for operation and maintenance is legally transferred.
2.12.5. All stormwater and water quality management facilities and features (i.e., BMPs) will require maintenance by a public agency or Home Owner’s/Property Owner’s Association (HOA/POA).
1.1. Any required post-construction water quality surface features and facilities such as basins and bio-swales shall be designed and installed per approved project specific WQMP and approved by the Engineering Inspector.
1.2. Prior to approval of the grading plan, Applicant shall obtain a permit from Riverside County Department of Environmental Health, for the construction of proposed dry wells and abandonment of existing wells. Wells shall be designed in conformance with the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 15.20 (Water Wells).
1.3. All improvements plans required for this project and contained herein shall be submitted and substantially complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
1.4. For disturbance of one or more acres, the Applicant shall provide evidence that it has prepared and submitted to the SWRCB a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The SWRCB issued WDID number shall be included on the face of the grading plan.
2. PRIOR TO TRACT MAP RECORDATION (ENGINEERING)
2.1. No Final Tract Map shall be recorded until all other related Planning cases to TTM38504 are approved, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.
2.2. After approval of the tentative map and prior to the expiration of said map, the Applicant shall cause the real property included within the tentative map exhibit, or any part thereof, to be surveyed; and a Final Tract Map thereof shall be submitted for approval in accordance to the City Engineer’s requirements, conditions of tentative map approval, the Specific Plan, and in accordance with the provisions of the Development Agreement, City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.20, and the Subdivision Map Act. All processing shall be through the City of Jurupa Valley.
2.3. After recordation, a digital (PDF) copy of the recorded map shall be submitted to the City.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.4. Easements for necessary streets, public utilities, and emergency access shall be dedicated and shown on the final map in accordance with Title 7 of the Municipal Code and these conditions of approval. It is understood that the tentative map exhibit correctly shows acceptable centerline, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or revise the tentative map as may be necessary to allow a finding on the final map of substantial conformance.
2.5. Four (4) phases or subdivision units of this land division have been proposed in the Specific Plan. Any approval of recording phases or subdivision units differing from what is proposed, is at the discretion of the City. The City Engineer may require additional conditions of approval for necessary improvements and plans associated with each phase, specifically the dedication and construction of necessary utility, street or other improvements beyond the project boundary, if the improvements are needed for circulation, parking, access, or for the welfare or safety of the public. Financial security shall be provided for all improvements associated with each phase of the map.
2.6. A copy of the Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be submitted for review and approved by the City Engineer. The CC&R's shall include, but not be limited to, access easements, reciprocal access, private and/or public utility easements as may be relevant to the project.
2.7. The developer shall enter into a Cooperative Agreement with the City and Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District establishing the terms and conditions covering the inspection, operation and maintenance of Master Drainage Plan facilities required to be constructed as part of the project.
2.8. Prior to map approval, all street dedications shall be irrevocably offered to the public and shall continue in force until the City accepts or abandons such offers, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. All dedications shall be free of all encumbrances as approved by the City Engineer and shall be shown on the Final Map in accordance with these conditions of approval and Title 7 of the Municipal Code.
2.9. Ultimate improvements along Pats Ranch Road shall be within the existing 118-ft ultimate right-of-way. No additional dedication, with the exception of the additional right-of-way for the roundabout improvements, are required.
2.10. Bellegrave Avenue is classified as a Major Street and shall be dedicated to achieve a 59-ft half-width right-of-way on the Final Tract Map.
2.11. Access rights along the subdivision’s boundary shall be relinquished on the Final Tract Map along Pats Ranch Road, with the exception of the four access points identified in the tentative tract map and Specific Plan, Bellegrave Avenue, and Interstate 15.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.12. Park Center Drive, identified as Street “F” on the tentative tract map, shall be dedicated with a 70-ft ultimate right-of-way on the Final Tract Map
2.13. Internal public streets to the subdivisions identified as Street “A” through Street “H”, with the exception of Street “F”, shall be dedicated with a 60-ft ultimate right-of-way on the Final Tract Map.
2.14. A 60-ft access easement over Lot 30, as shown on the tentative tract map, shall be dedicated on the map for utility and emergency vehicle access purposes.
2.15. All public improvements plans required for the final map shall be approved by the City Engineer or in substantial completion for Engineer’s Cost Estimates in order to execute the Subdivision Improvement Agreement.
2.16. All public improvements shall be constructed in conformance with current City standards to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In the event that improvements are not completed prior to the map approval, the Applicant shall guarantee the completion of all perimeter, in-tract, Phased Improvements and offsite improvements required to support the development(s) within the boundaries of the final map by executing a Subdivision Improvement Agreement with the City and posting the required security. Provide a monument bond (i.e. cash deposit) in an amount determined by the City or as specified in writing by the Applicant’s Engineer or Surveyor of Record and approved by the City.
2.17. The Applicant shall submit improvement plans for all improvements associated with the phase including, but not limited to, street improvements, signing and striping, traffic signal, signal interconnect, streetlights, landscape and irrigation system, BMP facilities, storm drain, water system, and sanitary sewer system. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Department “Improvement Plan Check Policies and Guidelines” as adopted by the City Engineer. All improvements plans shall be processed through the City for approval of the City Engineer.
2.17.1. Separate street improvement plans shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. Street improvements shall include, but not limited to, pavement, base, curb and/or gutter, cross gutters, spandrel, sidewalks, driveway approaches, curb ramps, under sidewalk drains, medians, and pavement tapers/transitions as appropriate.
2.17.2. Signing and striping plans may be shown on the street improvement plans and shall be prepared to extend a minimum of 300 feet beyond the project limits or the limits of striping removal necessary to join existing, as approved by the City Engineer. The Applicant shall be responsible for any additional paving and or removal of existing striping.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.17.3. Separate traffic signal and interconnect plans shall be submitted, as applicable, per the latest Caltrans standards and City standards.
2.17.4. Separate streetlight plans shall be prepared in accordance with Title 7 of the City’s Municipal Code. Streetlights shall be provided in all public streets within the project area in conformance with Riverside County Standard Plan No. 1000. Modified street lighting shall include pedestrian lighting in the parkway and shall be approved by the City Engineer.
2.17.5. Separate plans must be submitted for the water quality features and facilities improvements for the approval of the City Engineer. The water quality/retention BMPs shall be designed in accordance with applicable requirements of the RCFC&WCD and the City Engineer. Water quality basins shall be designed for public passive use. 6-ft tubular steel or alternative fence approved by the City Engineer shall be required for any basin slope greater than 4:1.
2.17.6. Separate plans for landscaping and irrigation within the public right-of-way and water quality BMPs shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer.
Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed within a water quality basin that is compatible with the primary function of the BMP. The improvements shall comply with Riverside County Ordinance 461, as adopted by the City, “Comprehensive Landscaping Guidelines and Standards”, and Riverside County Ordinance 859, as adopted by the City. Adequate sight distance shall be provided per Riverside County Standard Plan No. 821.
2.17.7. Separate storm drain plans be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer and RFC&WCD as applicable. Necessary easements for storm drain systems, as determined by RFC&WCD shall be shown on the final map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”. Flood control and drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed to RCFC&WCD engineering and maintenance standards including those pertaining to facility alignment and maintenance access to both, inlet and outlet, points.
2.17.8. Separate sanitary sewer and water system plans shall be submitted for review approval of the City Engineer and JCSD by phase. Water improvement plans showing location of fire hydrants shall be approved by the Fire Department.
Necessary easements for sewer and water systems on-site, as determined by JCSD, shall be shown on the Final Tract Map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”.
2.17.9. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be designed to be placed underground in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Title 7. The Applicant is responsible for coordinating the MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
work with the serving utility company and City of Jurupa Valley. A disposition note describing the above shall be reflected on design improvement plans whenever those plans are required.
2.18. Prior to the approval of improvement plans and issuance of an encroachment permit, a temporary traffic control plan shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer for improvements within existing City Right of Way.
Perimeter Improvements
2.19. Pats Ranch Road (Between Limonite Avenue and Boca Place)
2.19.1. Two travel lanes within a 30-ft paved section both in the northbound and southbound direction.
2.19.2. 12-ft landscaped, raised median.
2.19.3. 25-ft westerly parkway to include a 5-ft curb-adjacent landscaped area, 1.5-ft landscape area between a 12-ft two-way Class I bikeway and 6-ft decomposed granite trail, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, pedestrian lighting, and streetlights.
2.19.4. Existing 21-ft easterly parkway shall remain as is.
2.19.5. No on-street parking shall be permitted.
2.19.6. Fiber interconnect shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.20. Pats Ranch Road (Between Boca Place and Bellegrave Avenue)
2.20.1. One 12-ft travel lane within a 20-ft paved section both in the northbound and southbound direction.
2.20.2. 12-ft landscaped, raised median.
2.20.3. 45-ft westerly parkway to include a 7-ft curb-adjacent landscaped area, landscape area between a 12-ft two-way Class I bikeway and a meandering 6- to 10-ft decomposed granite trail, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, pedestrian lighting, and streetlights.
2.20.4. Existing 21-ft easterly parkway shall remain as is.
2.20.5. No on-street parking shall be permitted.
2.20.6. Fiber interconnect shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.20.7. Pats Ranch Road between Park Center Drive and Shearwater Drive and the extensions of Pats Ranch Road between Bellegrave Avenue and Shearwater Drive MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
shall be completed prior to the first occupancy of Phase 2, as identified in Specific Plan.
2.20.8. Pats Ranch Road between Park Center Drive and Limonite Avenue shall be completed prior to the first occupancy of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan.
2.21. Bellegrave Avenue
2.21.1. 38-ft paved section, south of street centerline, to include a Class II bike lane.
2.21.2. 21-ft southerly parkway to include a 5-ft meandering sidewalk, curb & gutter, pedestrian lights, and streetlights.
2.21.3. Existing 21-ft easterly parkway shall remain as is.
2.21.4. No on-street parking shall be permitted.
2.21.5. Fiber interconnect shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.22. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Limonite Avenue (EW)
2.22.1. North leg shall be reconfigured to provide one southbound left-turn lane, one southbound shared through/right-turn lane, and one exclusive right-turn lane.
2.22.2. Any necessary traffic signal modification shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.22.3. Improvement shall be completed prior to the 250th occupancy of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan.
2.23. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Planning Area 17 Driveway (EW)
2.23.1. Configure lanes to provide:
• Northbound: One left-turn lane and two through lanes. • Southbound: One through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. • Eastbound: One shared left-turn/right-turn lane
• Westbound: N/A
2.23.2. A stop sign shall be installed on the west leg, facing eastbound traffic.
2.24. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Boca Place (EW) MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.24.1. Applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four-legged, single-lane roundabout prior to the first occupancy of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan. Design shall be consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Any modifications to the existing infrastructure including relocation of utilities and appurtenances to construct the approved design will be the sole responsibility of the Applicant.
If applicable, Applicant shall be responsible to acquire public right-of-way for the intersection improvements.
2.25. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Park Center Drive (EW)
2.25.1. Applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four-legged, single-lane roundabout prior to the first occupancy of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan. Design shall be consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Any modifications to the existing infrastructure including relocation of utilities and appurtenances to construct the approved design will be the sole responsibility of the Applicant.
If applicable, Applicant shall be responsible to acquire public right-of-way for the intersection improvements.
2.26. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Shearwater Place (EW)
2.26.1. Applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four-legged, single-lane roundabout prior to the first occupancy of Phase 2, as identified in the Specific Plan. Design shall be consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Any modifications to the existing infrastructure including relocation of utilities and appurtenances to construct the approved design will be the sole responsibility of the Applicant.
If applicable, Applicant shall be responsible to acquire public right-of-way for the intersection improvements.
2.27. Intersection of Pats Ranch Road (NS) and Bellegrave Avenue (EW)
2.27.1. Intersection shall be signalized prior to first occupancy of Phase 4, as identified in the Specific Plan.
2.27.2. Configure lanes to provide:
• Northbound: One shared left-turn/right-turn lane.
• Southbound: N/A.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
• Eastbound: One through lane and one shared through/right-turn lane. • Westbound: One through lane and one left-turn lane
2.27.3. Property line, corner cut-back, and curb return radius shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 805.
In-Tract Improvements
2.28. Park Center Drive (Street “F”)
2.28.1. One 20-ft paved section both in the westbound and eastbound direction.
2.28.2. 6-ft raised median.
2.28.3. 12-ft southerly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, 1-foot parkway and separation from private property, and 6-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.28.4. 12-ft northerly parkway includes a 5-ft decomposed granite trail, a 1-foot parkway and separation from private property, and 6-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.28.5. No on-street parking shall be permitted.
2.29. Street “A” and Street “G”
2.29.1. 36-ft paved section (18-ft northerly and 18-ft southerly of centerline measured from curb face to curb face).
2.29.2. 12-ft southerly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, a 1.5-ft parkway and separation from private property, and 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.29.3. 12-ft northerly parkway to include a 5-ft decomposed granite trail, a 1.5-ft parkway and separation from private property, and 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.30. Street “B”
2.30.1. 36-ft paved section (18-ft westerly and 18-ft easterly of centerline measured from curb face to curb face).
2.30.2. 13.5-ft westerly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, 3-ft parkway and separation from private property, and 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.30.3. 10.5-ft easterly parkway to include a 5-ft decomposed trail, 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.31. Street “C” (East of Street “E”) and Street “D”
2.31.1. 36-ft paved section (18-ft westerly and 18-ft easterly of centerline measured from curb face to curb face).
2.31.2. 12-ft westerly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, 1.5-ft of parkway and separation from private property, and 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.31.3. 12-ft easterly parkway to include a 5-ft decomposed trail, 1.5-ft of parkway and separation from private property, and 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.32. Street “C” (West of Street “E”) and Street “H”
2.32.1. 36-ft paved section (18-ft northerly and 18-ft southerly of centerline measured from curb face to curb face).
2.32.2. 12-ft northerly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.32.3. 12-ft southerly parkway to include a 5-ft decomposed trail, 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.33. Street “E”
2.33.1. 36-ft paved section (18-ft westerly and 18-ft easterly of centerline measured from curb face to curb face).
2.33.2. 12-ft easterly parkway to include a 5-ft sidewalk, 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.33.3. 12-ft westerly parkway to include a 5-ft decomposed trail, 5.5-ft curb-adjacent landscaping, 3-rail fence, curb & gutter, and streetlights.
2.34. Intersection of Park Center Drive/Street “F” (NS) and Street “E” (EW)
2.34.1. Applicant shall be responsible for the design and construction of a four-legged, single-lane roundabout. Design shall be consistent with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Any modifications to the existing infrastructure including relocation of utilities and appurtenances to construct the approved design will be the sole responsibility of the Applicant.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
2.35. Proposed knuckles shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 800.
Other Improvements
2.36. Installation of trash full capture systems, certified by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), will be required at all new and existing catch basins within the project site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
2.37. The construction of ADA compliant depressed curbs and access ramps shall be required at all new intersections.
2.38. Improvements shall provide appropriate transition to adjacent existing and future infrastructure; design of transition shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
2.39. Any damages caused by the construction of improvements shall be replaced or repaired in kind to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
L&LMD, CFD, and Special Districts
2.40. Prior to recordation of any phased final map of Tentative Tract Map No. 38504, Applicant shall annex into or form a community facilities district to provide funding for the operation and maintenance of traffic signals, open space, landscaping and irrigation systems, BMPs features and facilities, trails, lighting, entry monuments, graffiti abatement and/or other improvements in the public right-of-way within and/or adjacent to the phased final map boundary, as approved by the City Engineer. The annexation to or formation of the CFD shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney.
2.41. Prior to final map recordation, Applicant shall annex into a community service district for public safety services. The agreement to annex to a CFD for Public Safety Services shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Participation in a CFD is intended to fully mitigate the incremental impact of new development on City public safety costs and maintain such levels of service at the standards established in the City’s General Plan.
2.42. Should this project be within any assessment/benefit district, the Applicant shall make application for and pay any reapportionment of the assessments or pay the unit fees in the assessment/benefit district.
Utilities
2.43. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be designed to be placed underground in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Title 7. The Applicant is responsible for coordinating the work with the serving utility company. A disposition note describing the above shall be reflected on design improvement MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
plans whenever those plans are required. Written proof confirming initiation of the design and/or application or the relocation, issued by the utility company, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department for verification purposes.
3. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)
3.1. All grading in accordance with the approved plan, the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.70, and all other applicable requirements for each Phase of Development, shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3.2. The Project geotechnical/soils engineer shall provide a Final Grading Certification, certifying to the completion of the grading in conformance with the approved grading plans, the recommendation of the Geotechnical/Soils report approved for this project and the California Building Code.
3.3. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans.
3.4. The Project Civil Engineer shall provide Record ("As-built") Drawings of grading plan.
3.5. The Applicant is responsible for completing construction of any required post-construction water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) facilities and features.
3.6. All utility extensions required shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by these conditions of approval.
3.6.1. Utility extensions from the mainline or other points of connection within the public right-of-way require that the Applicant obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Department. The City shall make a final inspection of work to verify that any impacts that the work might have had to other City owned infrastructure is restored or repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3.7. The subdivision is within Zone E of the Riverside County Mira Loma Road and Bridge Benefit District and shall pay applicable road improvement fees prior to building permit issuance.
4. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION/ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (ENGINEERING)
4.1. Prior to the first occupancy, all perimeter, in-tract, and necessary offsite improvement shall be completed and accepted by the City to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
4.2. Prior to the first occupancy, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within the public right of way and associated with the individual development are energized.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
4.3. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall obtain acceptable inspection of applicable water and sewer improvements by JCSD. Written proof shall be provided to the Engineering Department.
4.4. Prior to the first occupancy, Applicant shall obtain acceptable inspection of applicable improvements by RCFC&WCD. Written proof shall be provided to the Engineering Department.
4.5. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Chapter 3.75 of the Municipal Code (Development Impact Fees, DIF), which requires the payment of the appropriate fee set forth in the Ordinance in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of the final inspection.
4.6. The Applicant shall pay the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of the final inspection.
4.7. Prior to issuance of a building permit final for a single-family dwelling unit, a 208/240-volt branch circuit (40 amperes minimum) shall be installed in the garage of each single-family dwelling unit.
4.8. Prior to issuance of a building permit final for multi-family dwelling unit, electric vehicle (EV) capability shall be provided in at least 40% of units, including 5% installed, 15% ready (breakers and wires installed), and 25% future capability with conduit/breaker space.
Offsite Improvements
4.9. Traffic signal interconnect associated with each Phase of Development shall be installed along Pats Ranch Road or Wineville Avenue between Limonite Avenue and Bellegrave Avenue and along Bellegrave Avenue it shall be extended to Wineville. It shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the occupancy of such Phase, as identified in the Specific Plan.
4.10. Traffic signal interconnect along Pats Ranch Road between Limonite Avenue and future Commercial signalized intersection shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to the 250th occupancy permit of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan.
4.11. The Applicant shall install four new bus shelters or provide equivalent funding to the City of Jurupa Valley prior to the occupancy of Phase 1, as identified in the Specific Plan.
4.12. A traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Pats Ranch Road and Bellegrave Avenue prior to the first occupancy of Phase 4, as identified in the Specific Plan. Prior to the extension of Pats Ranch Road, a signal warrant analysis shall be prepared to determine the timing of the signal installation and improvement shall be completed prior to occupancy determined by said analysis.
MA22153 THE VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2023-__
DECEMBER 21, 2023
4.13. A right-turn overlap phase for the northbound right-turn lane at the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Hamner Avenue shall be implemented prior to occupancy of Phase 4, as identified in the Specific Plan. The Applicant shall prepare a cost estimate for the City of Jurupa Valley Engineer’s approval for addition of the right-turn overlap phase. The applicant shall pay cash-in-lieu to the City of Jurupa Valley for the proposed traffic signal improvements if not already implemented.
4.14. Individual development permits processed in the future within the Specific Plan area shall pay its portion of the fair share of the cost of the offsite improvements, if applicable. Fairshare contributions will be determined on a building-by-building basis as a share of the impact of the Project as a whole as determined and will be due prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy. Project Applicant responsible for constructing offsite improvements shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City.
ATTACHMENT E
Adopted Planning Commission
Resolution No. 2023-24
ATTACHMENT F
1,000 Foot Radius Map
Parcels Within 1,000 ft. of Project Source: Riverside Co. GIS, Oct. 2021.
I 15
HAMNER AVE
LIMONITE AVE
WINEVILLE AVE
BELLEGRAVE AVE
64TH ST
PATS RANCH RD
OCASA DR
CROWN DR
SULPHUR DR
CONCHA DR
WINEVILLE RD
AURORA AVE
LANDON DR
PANSY PL
BOCA PL
DEL SUR DR
EVERGREEN DR
DAYBREA
K
DR
CAMBRIA DR
HUMBER DR
PARKCENTER DR
JURUPA RD
58TH ST
EDISON AVE
SALVIA ST
AVOCET DR
OAKDALE ST
FORSYTHIA
ST
HARMONY DR
DANA AVE
GEYSER DR
ARGUELLO DR SMITH AVE
H A LDOR DR
NIAGARA DR
STARLING D
R
YARROW ST
G OLDEN DR
FRANK AVE
CELEBRATION DR
AMBERHILL AVE
BANTA DR
JUBILEE PL
PALM CIR
O AK CR EST CIR
A
N
TIGUA DR
HOME
C
O
MIN
G
CIR
RANGE VIEW RD
ARBOR CIR
PAMPUS DR
SKIMMER DR
IRIS CT
MANLINE
DR
BARWOOD DR
AMBER DR
MOJAVE D R
GLORY DR
CHAP A RRAL DR
MAYFAIR CIR
SHADY DR
POTRERO DR
CAXTON ST
PEREGRINE DR
ROSEWOOD CIR
LONGHOR NE DR
RUBY CREST
WA
Y
FUL
MER
C
T
G
RA
P
HI
TE
C
R
EEK
R
D
DRAKE DR
SHEARWATER DR
CAMINO DE MADERA
FIREBUSH
ST
WOODLAND DR
WIND CHIME PL
DUSK L N
PEA CH TREE DR
M
O
R
NIN
G
D
O
VE
DR
PLANETARY RD
TIOGA CT
BLUEBEARD CT
SILAS PHELPS DR
BREEZE LN
SILVER LOOP
LAUREL DR
BRIDGEWATER DR
SWAN LAKE AVE
C
O
R
M
O
RA
N
T
C
T
AVENIDA
S
D
EL
RANCHOS
PRA
IR
IE
R
UN
R
D
COOPERS HAWK DR
BOXWOOD DR
LYRA RD
SANDERLING WAY
PARK CIR
CROSSBILL WAY
PEPPERWOOD CIR
ROUND TREE CT
PUERTA PL
GENIL CT
REDBUD LN
LARK SPARROW CT
I 15
LEGEND
Project Site
Radius Within 1,000 FT
Included Parcels
Remaining Parcels
H:\2021\21-0128\GIS\MyProject\MyProject.aprx; Map created 24 Feb 2022 Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
I
0 500 1,000 1,500
Feet
1,000 Feet
ATTACHMENT G
Planning Commission November 29, 2023 Minutes
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
SPECIAL PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
November 29, 2023
CALL TO ORDER Chair Laura Shultz called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order at 6:15 P.M.
ROLL CALL Members Present:
• Laura Shultz, Chair
• Arleen Pruitt, Commission Member
• Hakan Jackson, Commission Member
• Yesenia Villagomez, Commissioner Member
Absent:
• Penny Newman, Chair Pro Tem (arrived at 6:45 pm)
PLEDGE OF Arleen Pruitt led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ALLEGIANCE
PUBLIC COMMENTS/ No Comments Received.
APPEARANCE
CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Item No. 1 was approved by the motion of Commissioner Pruitt and seconded by Commissioner Jackson thereby moving Item No. 3 to be after Item No. 6. The motion carried (3-1-1).
Ayes: Pruitt, Jackson, and Schultz
Noes: Villagomez
Abstained: None
Absent: Newman
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM # 5 MASTER APPLICATION NO. 21256: (GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21008 & TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
(TTM) NO. 38171 - SADDLEHORN RANCH RESIDENTIAL. A
19.36-ACRE SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF 31 SINGLE
FAMILY LOTS AND CERTIFYING AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT, MAKING FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT
OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTING A
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
FOR SADDLE RANCH RESIDENTIAL.
Community Development Director Perez mentioned that there is Spanish translation available and provided an overview of the public hearing process for the public.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Melissa Gonzalez, property owner, stated her opposition to the project. We also received her email and read for the record.
Carmen Silva, resident, stated her opposition to the project by email and it was read for the record.
Violet, resident, stated her opposition to the project by email and it was read for the record.
Adriana Gonzalez, resident, stated her opposition to the project by email and it was read for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Chair Shultz approved to continue the public hearing for Master Application (MA) No. 21256 to the December 13, 2023 Planning Commission Meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM # 6 MASTER APPLICATION NO. 22153: (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001, TTM38504, DA22001) VERNOLA RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Roberto Gonzalez, Senior Planner, provided a PowerPoint presentation on the proposed Vernola Ranch Specific Plan project.
Joe Perez, Community Development Director, continued the presentation and discussed the community benefits associated with the proposed project.
Commissioner Newman arrived at 6:43 pm.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
Commissioner Villagomez mentioned that she sees no dumping in the area. Commissioner Villagomez asked when the community will know if there will be a school in the area.
Senior Planner Gonzalez responded that the decision for the new school will be up to Jurupa Unified School District and the deadline would be prior to the 100th Certificate of Occupancy of the project.
Commissioner Villagomez asked about the Development Agreement to get clarification on the community benefits.
Community Development Director Perez provided clarification that the applicant will receive entitlement security for the next 20 years, so they can complete the project per the Specific Plan.
Commissioner Villagomez asked if there will be affordable housing units within the project and asked if there will be an HOA for maintenance.
Senior Planner Gonzalez mentioned that if the project is approved, the developer can pay the in-lieu fee or construct on-site affordable housing units.
Octavio Duran, Assistant City Engineer, responded that there is a diagram in the Staff Report that identifies CFD and HOA areas. The City will make the final determination of which is the best maintenance organization for the areas. It will be determined during the permitting process.
Commissioner Villagomez asked why only a few people were notified about the project since a large number of people will be
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
impacted by this development. Only owners within a 1,000 ft. radius of the project were notified.
Community Development Director Perez mentioned that it has been a long term City practice to provide notices to owners within 1,000 feet of the project site. The Department has introduced a new component to public noticing and have begun posting information for public meetings on the City’s website and will continue to do so.
Deputy City Attorney Marroquin added that State law only requires a 300 ft. radius, and the City’s 1,000’ noticing greatly exceeds the requirements of State law.
Commissioner Villagomez asked if there has been a detailed traffic analysis.
Assistant City Engineer Duran mentioned that there are two traffic components. One component is the EIR and the other is the General Plan conformance (Traffic Impact Analysis). These are
comprehensive studies. Everything has been analyzed and addressed, and approved by City Engineer Department. Traffic impacts were addressed. For example, there will be a requirement to install a traffic light at Pats Ranch Road and Bellgrave intersection to address an impact. Pats Ranch Road and Limonite intersection would be modified due to the reports. All the mitigations would be added in the Conditions of Approval. The 15 freeway interchange was also recently constructed. Caltrans was contacted through the environmental review process.
Commissioner Villagomez asked if there would be sufficient parking for the new residents.
Senior Planner Gonzalez mentioned that single-family detached homes would have 2-car garages and there are parking requirements for multi-family projects. These projects would be further reviewed by staff to ensure compliance with the objective standards in the Specific Plan including parking requirements.
Commissioner Villagomez stated her concern that the project does not have enough detail or clarity and it isn’t ready to be reviewed.
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Community Development Director Perez mentioned that this project has been thoroughly reviewed and analyzed through related technical studies, environmental impact report and specific plan. The City has addressed many of the residents’ concerns expressed at the community meeting. Community Development Director Perez mentioned that this project is not being rushed and it is ready to be presented for the Planning Commission’s consideration.
Senior Planner Gonzalez explained that the Specific Plan would provide a general framework and includes the land use and zoning component in order to review Site Development Permits against.
Commissioner Villagomez asked if there is a plan to get people out of the project in case of an emergency.
Community Development Director responded that CalFire reviewed the proposal, including the access points, and deemed the proposal adequate and safe in case of an emergency. A potential benefit of this project would be a funding source to secure a new location for a new fire station to serve the nearby area.
Commissioner Villagomez asked how many additional resources would be allocated for law enforcement.
Community Development Director provided the estimate of funding that would provide for additional public safety resources through the proposed public safety community financing district.
Commissioner Villagomez asked about the size of the pocket parks, the number of people that can fit in the parks, and what the parks provide.
Senior Planner Gonzalez responded there would be a total of 10.23 acres of all open space areas. Pocket parks would vary in size and would be located at the corners of the street.
Commissioner Villagomez asked about the width of the linear park and if there would be any acres designated for the migrating geese.
Senior Planner Gonzalez said the linear park is at least 100 feet in width and it serves as a buffer and open space with amenities for the public.
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Community Development Director Perez stated that the EIR addressed wildlife and that the specific section of the EIR would be referenced by staff.
Commissioner Jackson asked how this affects our efforts to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) requirements.
Community Development Director Perez mentioned that this project will meet the requirements for RHNA and explained that the challenge is to provide sufficient units in the very-low and low income categories. This project would add units to those areas. The proposed apartment project is proposed onto the area that would allow industrial uses under the existing Specific Plan.
Commissioner Pruitt asked if the utilities would be undergrounded.
Commissioner Pruitt mentioned if we could add an provision to the Development Agreement to allow that the land within the school overlay can only be developed for a school.
Deputy City Attorney Marroquin added that it would be a negotiating term with the Applicant and it can be added as a recommendation to the City Council.
Commissioner Pruitt made a recommendation that if there are large vacant areas within the 1,000 foot radius, that staff would expand the noticing radius to include properties in other directions so that more populated areas are informed of public hearings.
Commissioner Pruitt would like to add provisions to the proposed development agreement to prohibit warehouses.
Commissioner Newman mentioned that the project is very clear and is pleased that it is not industrial. She also asked clarity of the fees in the development agreement.
Chair Shultz asked for confirmation of the existing regulations of the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan and the process of approving projects under the existing Specific Plan and other applicable codes. Chair Shultz asked for confirmation if industrial use is permitted in the existing SP and if the future residential units are subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Community Development Director Perez confirmed the process and said that the existing Specific Plan allows industrial uses. He also said the proposed project is subject to the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
5 minute break
In response to Planning Commissioner Villagomez’ previous inquiry, Senior Planner Gonzalez referenced Section 4.4 of the Environmental Impact Report that addresses migratory and nesting birds. It also includes mitigation measures that addresses migratory and nesting birds.
Fayres Hall, applicant’s representative, gave a presentation about the proposed project.
Jeff Smith, applicant’s representative from Lennar Homes, gave a presentation about the proposed project.
Commissioner Villagomez asked for clarification on how many BBQs will be available for the residents and will the dog parks be available for the public.
Mr. Smith answered that they will not know the answer of how many BBQ pits will be available until the project is approved. The dog parks will be open for the public.
Commissioner Villagomez asked what would happen to the water wells.
Rick Bondar, applicant’s representative, mentioned that it is anticipated that three wells will be removed.
Commissioner Pruitt inquired if the HHDR site would be gated.
Rick Bondar, applicant’s representative, confirmed the apartment development would be a gated community, but it would include pedestrian gates to allow the apartment residents to travel to the commercial site and linear park.
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Commissioner Pruitt asked for confirmation if this is the only site for three story buildings, and if there are any units dedicated to seniors.
Rick Bondar, applicant’s representative, confirmed this is the only site for 3-story buildings, and are unaware if any units are dedicated to seniors. He also confirmed and clarified the total residential units for the project, proposed street improvements, and maintenance of sites.
Heriberto Perez stated opposition to the project.
Gary Conner stated opposition to the project.
Marty Hundley stated opposition to the project.
Betty Anderson stated opposition to the project.
Richard Thomas stated opposition to the project.
Mari Anaya stated opposition to the project.
Mirna Torres stated support for the project.
Ben Valenzuela, resident, stated his support for the project by email and it was read for the record.
Karrie Casadea, resident, stated her opposition to the project by email and it was read for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Villagomez mentioned her concerns of too many units, environmental impacts, traffic impact, and the project would change the character of the neighborhood.
Commissioner Jackson mentioned that we need to build more homes and the dedicated bike lanes and roundabouts are beneficial for public safety.
Chair Shultz added that she likes the project and that this project would provide opportunity for people to buy homes because they will be more affordable.
Commissioner Pruitt really likes the project and feels that we need more housing, particularly apartment rentals, in this area by the freeway. Commissioner Pruitt would like to make a recommendation to the City Council if there could be an arrangement made to save the site for the school.
Commissioner Newman moved and Commissioner Jackson
seconded to approve staff’s recommendation to adopt Resolution No.
PC-2023-24, recommending that the City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; 2) approve General Plan No. 22003; 3) approve Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan; 4) Change of Zone No. 22002 to apply the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan zoning; 5) Specific Plan No. 22001 providing development standards and design guidelines to the project area; 6) Development Agreement No. 22001; and 7) Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 to allow the residential development of up to1,576 residential dwelling units (single-family, multi-family, townhomes, and other housing types), recreation areas, a network of trails & parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements, and an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area (the “Project”).
Ayes: Shultz, Jackson, Pruitt, and Newman
Noes: Villagomez
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Abstained: None
Absent: None
ITEM #3 MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 17132 (CZ21003,
TPM37677, SDP19008, & DA19001): RUBIDOUX COMMERCE
PARK- 1.18 MILLION-SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL PARK
WITH 5 BUILDINGS.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
None.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
COMMISSION DISCUSSION:
Chair Pro Tem Newman requested clarity of the concerns expressed at the previous Planning Commission meeting since the proposed project is for manufacturing and not for a proposed warehouse use.
Community Development Director Perez clarified the concerns that were expressed by the Planning Commission: buffer to residential, number of dock doors, and traffic and air quality impacts.
Commissioner Shultz clarified the difference between a warehouse distribution center use and an area to store finished goods and raw materials. She suggested further clarification during the presentations.
Chair Pro Tem Newman stated her support for the project.
Commissioner Pruitt moved and Commissioner Villagomez
seconded to adopt Resolution No. PC-2023-21 recommending that the City Council deny MA17132, consisting of Change of Zone No. 21003, Site Development Permit No. 19008, Tentative Tract Map 37677, and Development Agreement No. 19001, to allow the construction of an industrial park.
Ayes: Pruitt, Villagomez, and Jackson
Noes: Shultz, and Newman
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Abstained: None
Absent: None
CONSENT CALENDAR Agenda Item No. 2 was unanimously approved by the motion of Commissioner Pruitt and seconded by Commissioner Jackson. The motion carried (5-0).
Ayes: Pruitt, Newman, Jackson, Schultz, and Villagomez
Noes: None
Abstained: None
Absent: None
COMMISSION None.
BUSINESS
PUBLIC COMMENTS/ No comments received.
APPEARANCE
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS’
REPORTS/COMMENTS Chair Shultz expressed her appreciation for the residents who attended the Planning Commission meetings. Commissioner Jackson requested an update on Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee.
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT Community Development Director Joe Perez provided (1) information regarding the Tree Lighting Ceremony on December 1st and (2) an update on the Inclusionary Housing In-Lieu Fee.
ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Shultz adjourned the meeting at 10:49 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________________
Planning Commission Minutes
11/29/23
Joe Perez, Community Development Director
Secretary of the Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT I
Final EIR and Draft EIR
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Documents
Vernola Ranch Specific Plan
Note: Please click the link or scan the QR code with a smart device to access CEQA documentation.
MA22153
Notice of Preparation (NOP)
MA22153---Notice-of-Preparation---EIR (jurupavalley.org) Notice of Availability (NOA)
One Push Scan aecb-cac0-0a77-cd1920231016141527 (jurupavalley.org) Draft Environmental Impact Report
VRSP-Draft-EIR_w_Graphics_2023-10-16 (jurupavalley.org) Final Environmental Impact Report
Final-EIR-VRSP_2023-12-11 (jurupavalley.org)
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.D
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
BATCH:
(1) LAS PALMAS - MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 21272:
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21009; CHANGE OF ZONE
(CZ) NO. 21011 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 37857 AND
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM; LAS
PALMAS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT - SUBDIVIDE
3.84 ACRES OF LAND INTO 36 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED HOMES LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET BETWEEN
OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APNs: 182-190-015, 182-190- 016, and 182-190-017); APPLICANT: RC HOBBS COMPANY
(2) VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN - MASTER APPLICATION
(MA) NO. 22153: (GPA22003, SP266A5, CZ22002, SP22001,
TTM38504, DA22001) TO ESTABLISH THE VERNOLA RANCH
SPECIFIC PLAN TO ALLOW UP TO 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING
UNITS (SINGLE-FAMILY, MULTI-FAMILY, TOWNHOMES, AND
OTHER HOUSING TYPES), RECREATION AREAS, A NETWORK OF
TRAILS AND PARKS, INTERNAL STREET NETWORK, OPEN SPACE,
LANDSCAPING, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON 153-ACRES;
SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 266A5 TO REMOVE PLANNING
AREAS 10, 13, 15, AND 20 FROM THE I-15 CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN; CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 22002 TO APPLY THE VERNOLA
RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN ZONE; DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
22001; AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38504 TO SUBDIVIDE
198.87 GROSS ACRES TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT, AND
CERTIFY AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, MAKING
FINDINGS, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, AND ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
AND REPORTING PROGRAM; LOCATION: GENERALLY BOUNDED
BY I-15 FREEWAY TO THE WEST, PATS RANCH ROAD TO THE
EAST, AND BELLEGRAVE TO THE NORTH, LIMONITE TO THE
SOUTH; APPLICANT: MCCUNE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and; 2) Receive staff report and adopt Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS
PARK (BP) AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160-050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067 FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160- 050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH
ROAD, SOUTH OF BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL
DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL
PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND
PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED
HOMES (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
BACKGROUND
Government Code section 65358(b) states that “Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (c) or (d), no mandatory element of a general plan shall be amended more frequently than four times during any calendar year. Subject to that limitation, an amendment may be made at any time, as determined by the legislative body. Each amendment may include more than one change to the general plan.” Due to the amount of project applications and advance planning efforts the City has undertaken that would require General Plan Amendments, the Community Development Department is “batching” or “grouping” multiple amendments to comply with the limitation set forth in Government Code section 65358(b).
Page | 3
OVERVIEW OF PROCESS
The General Plan Amendment projects will be presented to the City Council individually.
There is allotted time for discussion and public participation for each individual project. The City Council will take an action/vote at the conclusion of each individual project. The final decision on the General Plan Amendments is contained in one resolution included as Attachment 1.
On May 4, 2023, the City Council took action on the first batch of 2023 General Plan Amendments and approved the following:
A. MA20219 Proposed Mini-Storage Facility (Van Buren Blvd. & Clay St.): A ministorage facility on 4.73 acres of vacant land (APN: 163-400-046) located on the east side of Van Buren Blvd. and north of Clay St.
B. Shopping Center at Van Buren Blvd. & Jurupa Rd. Approved a Commercial Retail designation and C-P-S zone for an existing shopping center, located on east of Van Buren Blvd, north of Jurupa Road, and west of Felspar Street.
C. Amendments to Implement the 6th Cycle Housing Element. Approved amendments to the 1) Zoning Code, 2) General Plan Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element; and 3) General Plan Land Use Map, the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan Land Use Map and the Zoning Map.
On July 20, 2023, the City Council took action on the second batch of 2023 GPAs and approved the following:
A. MA21245 Serrano Oaks (east side of Clay Street between Haven View Drive and Linares Avenue). A residential community consisting of 66 townhomes (13 two-story buildings) on 4.13 acres on the east side of Clay Street between Haven View Drive and Linares Avenue (APN: 163-400-029; 026 & 028).
B. Proposed Amendments to ensure Compliance with the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Approved amendments to the General Plan land use designation and rezones on portions of Sites 5a and 14a to accommodate the RHNA. On December 2, 2021, the City Council approved the 6th Cycle General Plan Housing Element which included the identification of 19 sites to be redesignated and rezoned to higher density residential to meet the City’s required Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). However, on January 19, 2023, the City Council approved two projects within Paradise Knolls at densities lower than assumed in the Housing Element which caused the City to fall below its low-income housing RHNA requirement. Per State law, a jurisdiction has up to 180 days from the date of the approval to redesignate/rezone additional sites to accommodate the shortfall. Thus, on April 6, 2023, the City Council initiated General Plan Land Use and Zoning map amendments on portions of Sites 5a and 14a to accommodate the RHNA.
On September 7, 2023, the City Council took action on the third GPA and approved The District of Jurupa Valley Specific Plan project. The District at Jurupa Valley Specific Plan replaced the part of the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan (SP-337) that was adopted
ATTACHMENT 1:
Resolution No. 2023-108 for GPA
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-108
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION
OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160-050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067 FROM BP AND MDR
TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND
APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL
(OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15),
WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF BELLEGRAVE AVENUE,
AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND
USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE
LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND
PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY
DETACHED HOMES (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Government Code section 65358 limits the number of times a city can amend a mandatory element of its General Plan to no more than four amendments per year. In compliance with the Government Code, the City Council is considering General Plan amendments for several projects as part of this Resolution.
Section 2. Projects.
(a) McCune & Associates (“McCune”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 22003; Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan to provide development standards and design guidelines for the Project area; Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan; Change of Zone No. 22002 to apply Specific Plan zoning; Development Agreement No. 22001; and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 to implement the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan which consists of approximately 1,567 residential units (single-family, multi-family, townhomes, and other housing types), recreation areas, a network of trails and parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements, and an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area (the “Project”). The Specific Plan area consists of 153 acres, and the subdivision area 198.87 acres, located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue. General -2-
Plan Amendment No. 22003 is the subject matter of this Resolution. Change of Zone No. 22002 and Development Agreement No. 22001 will be considered by separate ordinances. The adoption of the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 22001), Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5, and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 will be considered by separate resolution. (b) RC Hobbs Company (“RC Hobbs”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21009, Change of Zone No. 21011, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, (Master Application No. 21272 or MA No. 21272) to permit the construction 36 single-family detached homes on a 3.84-acre site located north of 45th Street, between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017) (the “Project”). General Plan Amendment No. 21009 is the subject matter of this Resolution. Change of Zone No. 21011 will be considered by separate ordinance. Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 will be considered by separate resolution.
Section 3. General Plan Amendments.
(a) McCune is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22003 to change the General Plan land use designation of 153 acres generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue from Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR), Recreation (OS-R) and Water (OSW) as follows:
1) APN 160-050-005 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR); 2) APN 160-050-029 is changing from Business Park (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR);
3) APN 160-050-063 is changing from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR);
4) APN 160-050-067 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); and
5) APN 160-050-070 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR) and Open Space Residential (OS-R).
The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22003 are set forth in Exhibit “A” and the General Plan amendment is depicted in Attachment A-1 to Exhibit “A”. (b) RC Hobbs is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009 to change the General Plan land use designation of APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190- 017 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). MDR allows for a maximum of five (5) dwellings units per acre and HDR allows for a maximum of fourteen (14) dwellings units per acre. The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009 -3-
are set forth in Exhibit “B” and the General Plan amendment is depicted in Attachment B-1 to Exhibit “B”.
Section 4. Approval of General Plan Amendments. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 22003 to change the General Plan land use designation of 153 acres generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue from Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR), Recreation (OS-R) and Water (OS-W) as follows:
1) APN 160-050-005 is changed from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR); 2) APN 160-050-029 is changed from Business Park (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR);
3) APN 160-050-063 is changed from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR);
4) APN 160-050-067 is changed from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); and
5) APN 160-050-070 is changed from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR) and Open Space Residential (OS-R).
The above referenced changes in land use designations are depicted in Attachment A-1 to Exhibit “A”. The City Council’s approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22003 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 22002 and Development Agreement No. 22001.
(b) General Plan Amendment No. 21009 to change the General Plan land use designation of APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR), as depicted in Attachment B-1 to Exhibit “B”. The City Council’s approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 21011.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
-4-
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-5-
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. 2023-108 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 21st day of December, 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 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
-6-
Exhibit “A”
General Plan Amendment No. 22003
Section 1. Project.
(a) McCune & Associates (“McCune”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 22003; Specific Plan No. 22001 establishing the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan to provide development standards and design guidelines for the Project area; Specific Plan Amendment No. 266A5 to remove Planning Areas 10, 13, 15, and 20 from the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan; Change of Zone No. 22002 to apply Specific Plan zoning; Development Agreement No. 22001; and Tentative Tract Map No. 38504 to implement the Vernola Ranch Specific Plan which consists of approximately 1,567 residential units (single-family, multi-family, townhomes, and other housing types), recreation areas, a network of trails and parks, internal street network, open space, landscaping, and street improvements, and an overlay for a potential school site located at the northeast portion of the Specific Plan Area (the “Project”). The Specific Plan area consists of 153 acres, and the subdivision area 198.87 acres, located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue. (b) McCune is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22003 to change the General Plan land use designation of 153 acres generally located east of Interstate 15 (I-15), west of Pats Ranch Road, south of Bellegrave Avenue, and north of Limonite Avenue from Business Park (BP), Commercial Retail (CR) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR), Recreation (OS-R) and Water (OSW) as follows:
1) APN 160-050-005 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Very High Density Residential (VHDR); 2) APN 160-050-029 is changing from Business Park (BP) to High Density Residential (HDR);
3) APN 160-050-063 is changing from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR);
4) APN 160-050-067 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) and Medium High Density Residential (MHDR); and
5) APN 160-050-070 is changing from Business Park (BP) and Medium Density Residential (MDR) to Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), High Density Residential (HDR), Highest Density Residential (HHDR) and Open Space Residential (OS-R).
The revised land use designations, as set forth above, are depicted in Attachment A-1 to Exhibit “A”.
(c) Section 9.30.010 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that any amendment to any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan, shall be adopted in accordance -7-
with the provisions of Section 65300 et seq. of the Government Code, as written or hereafter amended, and Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (d) Section 9.30.010 (B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the initiation of proceedings for the amendment of any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(e) Section 9.30.040 (D) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property, shall have the right to apply for a General Plan amendment without having to request that the City Council adopt an order initiating proceedings for an amendment as detailed in Section 9.30.040. Instead, the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property may apply for a General Plan amendment through the Planning Department and pay the required fee.
Upon submittal of an application, the amendment shall be processed, heard and decided in accordance with Sections 9.30.010 and 9.30.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (f) Section 9.30.100 (1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (g) Section 9.30.040 (F) (2) provides that the Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of an Entitlement/Policy Amendment to the General Plan shall make the first two findings listed below and any one or more of the subsequent findings:
1) The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with: the Riverside County Vision; any General Planning Principle set forth in General Plan Appendix B; or any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. 2) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. 3) Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan.
4) A change in policy is required to conform to changes in state or federal law or applicable findings of a court of law.
5) An amendment is required to comply with an update of the Housing Element or change in Sate Housing Element law.
6) An amendment is required to address changes in ownership of land or land not under the land use authority of the City Council.
-8-
7) An amendment is required to expand basic employment job opportunities (jobs that contribute directly to the city’s economic base) and that would improve the ratio of jobs-to-workers in the city.
(h) Section 9.30.100 (2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(i) Section 9.30.100 (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
(j) Section 9.30.100 (4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time. A decision to adopt or amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof, shall be made by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the City Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any substantial modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Commission shall first be referred to the Commission for its recommendation.
Further, Government Code Section 65356 provides that the legislative body must adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any. However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning commission for its recommendation.
(k) Section 9.30.100 (5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a proposal to adopt or amend any part or element of the General Plan shall not be approved by the City Council until all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley CEQA implementing procedures to approve a matter have been completed.
Section 2. Procedural Findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21009. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
-9-
(a) The application for MA No. 21272 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On November 29, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21272, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 4 to 1 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21272 at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing. (d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21009. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(b) On December 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-102, certifying the environmental impact report (“EIR”), making findings, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project. Resolution No. 2023-102 is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 4. Findings for Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22003. In adopting General Plan Amendment No. 22003, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with the City’s Vision or any General Plan Principle outlined in the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s Vision and does not present any conflicts with the General Plan Principles outlined in the City’s General Plan. The Specific Plan aligns with the qualities highlighted in the Jurupa Valley Community Values Statement. The specific plan's design also integrates numerous elements to foster a small-town atmosphere, promote open space and aesthetic appeal, encourage an active outdoor lifestyle, improve mobility, and contribute to the community's well-being.
-10-
(b) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. The subject site has various General Plan Land Use Designations associated with the existing I-15 Corridor Specific Plan No. 266. The proposed General Plan amendment will change the existing Medium Density Residential (MDR) Business Park (BP) and Commercial Retail (CR) to land use designations to correspond with the proposed Vernola Ranch Planning Areas. The General Plan Amendment proposes to change the land use designations to Open Space Recreation (OS-R), Open Space Water (OS-W), Medium Density Residential (MDR), Medium High-Density Residential (MHDR), High-Density Residential (HDR), Very High Density Residential (VHDR), and Highest Density Residential (HHDR). These amendments will ensure consistency between the General Plan and the proposed Specific Plan and the goals and policies within each applicable General Plan Land Use Designation applied for the project site. These amendments will contribute to the goals in the Housing Element in that:
1. Policy LUE 2.2, Higher Density Residential, to accommodate higher density residential development in walkable, pedestrian oriented areas near major transportation corridors, concentrated employment areas, and community and town centers, and promote the development of high quality apartments and condominiums that will encourage local investment and pride of ownership. The proposed project is for a higher density residential development and will provide a high quality residential project that will create pride of ownership and can encourage local investment.
2. Policy LUE 2.3, Infrastructure, to ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. All street improvements, drainage infrastructure, and other utilities are found to be adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents.
3. Policy LUE 2.4, Housing Quality and Variety, to accommodate the development of a variety of highest quality housing types, styles and densities that are accessible to and meet the needs of a range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels. The proposed project introduces a varied high quality housing type from what is available in the vicinity that allows for diverse housing styles and a higher density to meet the needs of a specific niche of people with a distinct lifestyle and income level.
4. Policy LUE 2.5, Connectivity, to integrate residential development with a continuous network of parks, open space, public areas, bicycle trails, equestrian trails, public transit routes, and pedestrian paths to connect neighborhoods and communities with key nodes. Key nodes include parks and recreation facilities, schools, town and neighborhood centers, and other in-city communities and surrounding cities and points of interest. The proposed project provides open space and public areas.
5. Policy LUE 2.9, Design Compatibility, to ensure that the new residential developments are designed to be compatible with their surroundings and to enhance visually the appearance of neighborhoods and adjacent structures. The -11-
proposed project successfully incorporates Spanish, French, and Farmhouse architectural styles that are compatible with the surrounding area.
6. Policy LUE 10.9, Promote Unique Community Character, to Use community plans to promote the development and preservation of unique communities in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design. The proposed project provides a unique community that exhibits a special sense of place with high quality design.
7. Policy LUE 11.1, Small Town Character, to protect and enhance Jurupa Valley’s small-town character, maintain or improve walkability, provide bike and equestrian trails, and social connectivity and “sense of place.” The project improves walkability through the use of internal and external trails and introduces an area for social connectivity all while creating sense of place in the neighborhood.
8. Policy LUE 13.1, Fair Share Infrastructure Funding, to require that new development contribute its fair share to fund infrastructure and public facilities, such as police and fire facilities, parks, streets, and trail improvements. The applicant would be required to contribute Development Impact Fees (DIFs) which would be allocated to fund fire services, roads, parks, schools, libraries, and other public facilities.
(c) The amendment is required to expand housing opportunities and that would improve the ratio of jobs-to-workers in the city. The amendment and the development of the Specific Plan have several benefits to the city that would improve the economic base and the ratio to workers. Residential development offers significant advantages to a city by bolstering housing availability, attracting more residents, and consequently enhancing the job-to-worker ratio. Additionally, as the population increases, local businesses thrive, fostering entrepreneurship and creating job opportunities across various sectors. An increase in population typically leads to increased consumer spending on goods and services, benefiting local businesses and driving economic growth. Finally, the development of residential areas often results in increased property values, leading to higher property tax revenue. This additional revenue can be reinvested in infrastructure, public services, and economic development initiatives. -12-
Attachment A-1
-13-
Exhibit “B”
General Plan Amendment No. 21009
Section 5. Project.
(a) RC Hobbs Company (“RC Hobbs”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21009, Change of Zone No. 21011, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, (Master Application No. 21272 or MA No. 21272) to permit the construction 36 single-family detached homes on a 3.84-acre site located north of 45th Street, between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (the “Project”).
(b) RC Hobbs is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009 to change the General Plan land use designation of APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190- 017 from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR). The change to the General Plan land use designation is depicted in Attachment B-1. (c) Section 9.30.010 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that any amendment to any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan, shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 65300 et seq. of the Government Code, as written or hereafter amended, and Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (d) Section 9.30.010 (B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the initiation of proceedings for the amendment of any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
(e) Section 9.30.040 (D) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property, shall have the right to apply for a General Plan amendment without having to request that the City Council adopt an order initiating proceedings for an amendment as detailed in Section 9.30.040. Instead, the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property may apply for a General Plan amendment through the Planning Department and pay the required fee.
Upon submittal of an application, the amendment shall be processed, heard and decided in accordance with Sections 9.30.010 and 9.30.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (f) Section 9.30.100 (1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (g) Section 9.30.040 (F) (2) provides that the Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of an Entitlement/Policy Amendment to the General Plan shall make the first two findings listed below and any one or more of the subsequent findings:
-14-
8) The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with: the Riverside County Vision; any General Planning Principle set forth in General Plan Appendix B; or any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. 9) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. 10) Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan.
11) A change in policy is required to conform to changes in state or federal law or applicable findings of a court of law.
12) An amendment is required to comply with an update of the Housing Element or change in Sate Housing Element law.
13) An amendment is required to address changes in ownership of land or land not under the land use authority of the City Council.
14) An amendment is required to expand basic employment job opportunities (jobs that contribute directly to the city’s economic base) and that would improve the ratio of jobs-to-workers in the city.
(h) Section 9.30.100 (2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(i) Section 9.30.100 (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
(j) Section 9.30.100 (4) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time. A decision to adopt or amend the General Plan, or any part or element thereof, shall be made by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the City Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any -15-
substantial modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Commission shall first be referred to the Commission for its recommendation.
Further, Government Code Section 65356 provides that the legislative body must adopt or amend a general plan by resolution, which resolution shall be adopted by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the legislative body. The legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the planning commission, if any. However, any substantial modification proposed by the legislative body not previously considered by the commission during its hearings, shall first be referred to the planning commission for its recommendation.
(k) Section 9.30.100 (5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a proposal to adopt or amend any part or element of the General Plan shall not be approved by the City Council until all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley CEQA implementing procedures to approve a matter have been completed.
Section 6. Procedural Findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21009. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 21272 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21272, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing and voted 3 to 1 (Penny Newman was absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21272 at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing. (d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Findings for General Plan Amendment No. 21009. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in the Initial Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
-16-
(b) On December 21, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-102, adopting the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) for the Project. Resolution No. 2023-102 is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 8. Findings for Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21009. In adopting General Plan Amendment No. 21009, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that:
(a) The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with the City’s Vision or any General Plan Principle outlined in the General Plan. The proposed amendment is consistent with the City’s Vision and does not present any conflicts with the General Plan Principles outlined in the City’s General Plan. (b) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. The density of the proposed Project (9.3 du/ac) is consistent with the proposed High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation for the Project site, which permits up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre (du/ac).
In addition, General Plan Amendment No. 21009 is consistent with the following Land Use Element Policies:
1) Policy LUE 2.1, Residential Development, to accommodate the development of single-family and multi-family residential units in areas appropriately designated by the General Plan, specific plans, the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay, and community and town center plans land use maps. The proposed project is for a residential development on land that is proposed to have a General Plan Land Use Designation of High Density Residential (HDR).
2) Policy LUE 2.2, Higher Density Residential, to accommodate higher density residential development in walkable, pedestrian oriented areas near major transportation corridors, concentrated employment areas, and community and town centers, and promote the development of high quality apartments and condominiums that will encourage local investment and pride of ownership. The proposed project is for a higher density residential development in a pedestrian oriented area near an elementary school (Pacific Avenue Elementary School) and will provide a high quality residential project that will create pride of ownership and can encourage local investment.
3) Policy LUE 2.3, Infrastructure, to ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. All street improvements, drainage infrastructure, and other utilities are found to be adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents.
4) Policy LUE 2.4, Housing Quality and Variety, to accommodate the development of a variety of highest quality housing types, styles and densities that are accessible to and meet the needs of a range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels. The proposed -17-
project introduces a varied high quality housing type from what is available in the vicinity that allows for diverse housing styles and a higher density to meet the needs of a specific niche of people with a distinct lifestyle and income level.
5) Policy LUE 2.5, Connectivity, to integrate residential development with a continuous network of parks, open space, public areas, bicycle trails, equestrian trails, public transit routes, and pedestrian paths to connect neighborhoods and communities with key nodes.
Key nodes include parks and recreation facilities, schools, town and neighborhood centers, and other in-city communities and surrounding cities and points of interest. The proposed project provides open space, public areas, and improves a pedestrian path near an existing elementary school (Pacific Avenue Elementary School).
6) Policy LUE 2.9, Design Compatibility, to ensure that the new residential developments are designed to be compatible with their surroundings and to enhance visually the appearance of neighborhoods and adjacent structures. The proposed project successfully incorporates Spanish, French, and Farmhouse architectural styles that are compatible with the surrounding area.
7) Policy LUE 10.9, Promote Unique Community Character, to Use community plans to promote the development and preservation of unique communities in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design. The proposed project provides a unique community that exhibits a special sense of place with high quality design. 8) Policy LUE 11.1, Small Town Character, to protect and enhance Jurupa Valley’s small-town character, maintain or improve walkability, provide bike and equestrian trails, and social connectivity and “sense of place.” The project improves walkability along 45th street and introduces an area for social connectivity all while creating sense of place in the neighborhood.
9) Policy LUE 13.1, Fair Share Infrastructure Funding, to require that new development contribute its fair share to fund infrastructure and public facilities, such as police and fire facilities, parks, streets, and trail improvements. The applicant would be required to contribute over $260,000 in Development Impact Fees (DIFs) which would be allocated to fund fire services, roads, parks, schools, libraries, and other public facilities. (c) An amendment is required to expand basic employment job opportunities (jobs that contribute directly to the city’s economic base) and that would improve the ratio of jobs-to-workers in the city. Residential development offers significant advantages to a city by bolstering housing availability, attracting more residents, and consequently enhancing the job-toworker ratio. Additionally, as the population increases, local businesses thrive, fostering entrepreneurship and creating job opportunities across various sectors. An increase in population typically leads to increased consumer spending on goods and services, benefiting local businesses and driving economic growth. Finally, the development of residential areas often results in increased property values, leading to higher property tax revenue. This additional revenue can be reinvested in infrastructure, public services, and economic development initiatives. -18-
Attachment B-1
WEBB
N
W E
S
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT EXHIBIT #22003
LEGEND
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: DECEMBER 21, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 17.B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO.
21272 LAS PALMAS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21009; CHANGE OF ZONE (CZ) NO. 21011 AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 37857 AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM; PROJECT: LAS PALMAS PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT - SUBDIVIDE 3.84 ACRES OF LAND INTO 36 LOTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES; LOCATION: NORTH OF
45TH STREET BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APNs:
182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017); (APPLICANT: RC HOBBS
COMPANY)
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and:
1) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-104, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JURUPA VALLEY ADOPTING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND
DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017) (LAS
PALMAS PROJECT)
2) Conduct the first reading and introduce Ordinance No. 2024-03, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 21011 CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 3.84 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET,
BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182- 190-016, and 182-190-017) CHANGING THE ZONING MAP FROM ONE FAMILY
RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2
DWELLINGS (R-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (LAS PALMAS
PROJECT)
3) Adopt Resolution No. 2023-105, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37857 TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182- 190-016, and 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
BACKGROUND
Planning Commission Public Hearing
At its November 8, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and considered the proposed project. During the public hearing, a member of the public stated support for the project and two (2) members of the public stated opposition to the project. During deliberation, the Planning Commission discussed the following items:
1. Density
2. Traffic
3. Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
4. Trash Bins
5. Mini Roundabout
6. Orientation of single story homes
The Planning Commission then, on a 3-1 vote, (Penny Newman was absent) recommended approval of the project.
An excerpt of the meeting minutes are provided as Attachment H.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of the subdivision of 3.84 acres of land into 36 lots for single-family detached homes. The site is located on 45th Street between Pacific Avenue and Opal Street. See Exhibit A. The average lot size would be 2,403 square feet and the proposed single-family homes would include a combination of one- and two- story floor plans ranging in size from 1,735 to 2,235 square feet in floor area. The proposed development would also include the following site improvements: residential amenities including open play areas, playground, basketball court, raised vegetable boxes, covered BBQ area, private street improvements, individual lot and streetscape landscaping, retention basin, and walls and fences.
The project will require approval of the following entitlement:
1. General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21009: Change the Land Use Designation from Medium Density Residential (MDR) to High Density Residential (HDR) to allow for the proposed small lot single-family detached dwellings at a density of 9.3 dwelling units Page | 3
per acre. MDR allows for a maximum of five (5) dwelling units per acre and HDR allows for a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre.
2. Change of Zone (CZ) No. 21011: Change the underlying zoning classification from One Family Dwellings (R-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone to accommodate the proposed small lot single-family detached dwellings.
3. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37857: Subdivide the 3.84 acres site into 36 lots for single-family detached homes, common areas, and private streets.
This project is part of the fourth General Plan Amendment batch of 2023. The General Plan Amendment projects will be presented to the City Council individually. There is allotted time for discussion and public participation for each individual project. The City Council will take an action/vote at the conclusion of each individual project. The final decision on the General Plan Amendments will be contained in one resolution.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA
The project site is located north of 45th street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue with existing single-family residential uses to the north, west, and south and vacant residentially zoned land to the east. Table 1 outlines the General Plan land use designation, and zone classifications, and current uses.
EXHIBIT A: PROJECT SITE
Page | 4
Table 1: Project Information and Surrounding Land Uses
Location Current
Land Use
General Plan
Land Use Designation Zoning
Project
Site Vacant land MDR (Medium Density Residential)
R-1 (Single Family
Detached)
North
Single Family
Residential
Rubidoux High
School
MDR (Medium Density
Residential)
R-1 (Single Family
Detached)
South
Single Family
Residential
Pacific Avenue
Elementary School
MDR (Medium Density
Residential)
R-1 (Single
Family Detached)
R-3 (General
Residential)
East
Single Family
Residential
Veterans Memorial
Park
OS-R (Open Space,
Recreation
CR (Commercial Retail)
MDR (Medium Density
Residential)
R-5 (Open Area
Combining Zone
– Residential
Developments
C-P-S (Scenic
Highway
Commercial)
R-3 (General
Residential)
West Single Family
Residential
MDR (Medium Density
Residential)
R-1 (Single Family
Detached)
PROJECT DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT
Overall Plan.
The proposed project consists of a 36 unit planned residential development of one (1) and two (2) story single family detached homes with floor plans ranging from 1,735 to 2,235 square in area, with an average lot size of 2,403 square feet. See Exhibit B for proposed plan.
Thirty-four (34) homes are proposed to be two-story while the remaining two (2) homes are proposed at one (1) story. The homes will be available in three (3) plans ranging in size, number of bedrooms, and number of stories. The three (3) plans are summarized below. Table 3 provides additional information regarding the three (3) floor plans. Plan 1 is a three (3) bed, two (2) bath single-story home of 1,735 square feet in size.
This plan includes a front-loading two (2) car attached garage, front porch, laundry room, walk-in pantry, great room, and master suite with a walk in closet. Plan 2 is a three (3) bed, two and a half (2.5) bath home with option for a fourth bedroom. The home is two (2) stories and 2,005 square feet in size or 2,118 square feet in size if the fourth bedroom is constructed. Amenities located on the first floor include a front-loading two (2) car garage, front porch, walk in-pantry, and half Page | 5
bathroom. Second story amenities include a laundry room, loft, and master suite with walk-in closet.
Plan 3 is a five (5) bed, three (3) bath, two (2) story home of 2,235 square feet in size.
This plan includes a side-loading two (2) car garage, walk-in pantry, bedroom and full bathroom on the first floor. Second floor amenities include a bonus room, laundry room, and master suite with walk-in closet.
EXHIBIT B: SITE PLAN
Page | 6
Table 3: Home Plan Summary
Plan
No.
Storie
s
Floor
Area
Bed/Bath Height Garage Lots Tot
al
1 1 1,735 SF 3 Bed/2
Bath 18 ft Front 1,28 2
2 2 2,005 SF 3 Bed/2 ½
Bath 27 ft Front
3,4,7,8,11,12,14,17
,18,
21,22,25,26,29,32,
33, 36
17 3 2 2,235 SF 5 Bed/3
Bath 24 ft Side
2,5,6,9,10,13,15,16
,19,
20,23,24,27,30,31,
34, 35
17 Access, Circulation, and Parking. The development would have one access point from 45th Street to internal, private Street “A.” All internal streets are private and would be maintained by the homeowner’s association. Street A is part of an interior loop of streets (Streets B, C, and D) that provides internal circulation. These internal streets provide access (pedestrian and vehicular) to eight (8) courts (Courts A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H) which connect to the homes.
The main entry would include decorative paving, decorative block walls, monument sign, and abundant landscaping. All private interior streets would be publicly accessible. This is not a gated community. The interior private streets range between thirty-six (36) feet wide and forty (40) feet wide, both with four (4) foot sidewalks on either sides of the street.
Decorative streetlights would be placed along 45th Street.
All units would have a two-car attached garage. Lots 1 and 28 incorporate driveways that allow for off-street parking. On-street parking would be permitted on one the north side of Streets B and the south side of Street D providing approximately eight (8) parking on these streets. In addition, fourteen (14) parking spaces inclusive of four (4) ADA parking spaces are provided on the east and west side of the open space lot for guest and deliveries. Pedestrian circulation elements include four (4) foot sidewalks connecting to the open space recreational lot and public amenities. Sidewalk access would also connect to a new offsite public sidewalk with a landscaped parkway along 45th Street to connect residents to nearby schools, parks and other community amenities.
Landscaping. Abundant landscaping will be installed throughout the proposed project.
The plan includes twenty-five (25) 36-inch box trees that surround the central common space and seven (7) additional 36-inch box trees located near the main entry along Street.
Along the interior streets, sixty-one (61) 24-inch box trees are provided that also serve as side yard trees for nineteen (19) homes. This results in an average of two and a half (2.5) street trees per single family home that is located adjacent to the interior streets. An additional eleven (11) 24-inch box trees are located within the interior courts. At the end of each of the eight (8) interior courts, one (1) 24-inch box tree would be provided along with a small yard that serves as a front yard for homes located at the end of each court.
Page | 7
These 36-inch and 24-inch box trees vary in species from Chinese Pistache, Crape Myrtle, California Sycamore, Olive, and Australian Willow to name a few.
Along 45th Street, seven (7) 48-inch box Coast Live Oak trees would be provided as part of the project frontage, which are part of a generously landscaped front entry feature that will be provided in addition to the seven (7) existing palm trees that are located along the existing seven and a half (7 ½) foot landscaping strip that is located adjacent to the existing curb on the north side of 45th Street.
The total amount of landscaped areas throughout the proposed development, including yard, streetscape, and recreation/open space landscaping totals 27,343 square feet. The final landscape and irrigation plan would be required to include details that demonstrate compliance with the water efficiency landscape design requirements of the zoning code.
Open Space and Recreational Amenities. The proposed project includes 17,101 square feet of common recreation and open space area. Exhibit C presents the common recreation area that is located in the center of the development and includes the following:
Open space play area that accommodates passive play opportunities and smallscale activities. Covered barbecue areas with picnic tables, freestanding barbecues (standard stove grill), hot coal containers, and trash containers. Exhibit E presents these amenities.
Tot Lot with play structures and equipment for various age groups. See Exhibit D for the proposed play structures and equipment.
Half-court basketball court.
Raised vegetable boxes.
Exhibit D shows the proposed tot lot play area, and Exhibit E shows the equipment used on the recreational area site.
EXHIBIT C: RECREATIONAL AMENITIES
Page | 8
EXHIBIT D: TOT LOT PLAY AREA
EXHIBIT E: COMMON RECREATION AREA AMENITIES
Architecture and Building Design. The architectural character of the project is intended to reflect the City’s equestrian and agricultural heritage. The project proposes three (3) architectural styles. They are Spanish, Cottage, and Farmhouse with the following architectural standards:
Three (3) different floor plans each with three (3) different architectural styles that incorporate defining architectural features to create variety and interest in the neighborhood.
Streets that incorporate multiple architectural styles and are diverse as to form, massing, features, windows, front doors, materials, and colors. Design articulation that includes articulation of building facades, variation of rooflines, balance of roof form, and changes in vertical and horizontal plane to create visual interest and avoid monotonous patterns.
Varying roof materials, colors, and pitches of adjacent homes to create a variety of silhouettes and ridge heights.
Garages designed to de-emphasize the storage of vehicles and achieves an attractive street scene by incorporating varying architectural treatments that include trellises, corbels, windows, and arches.
Page | 9
Window treatments that are applied to all sides of the home and include decorative trim and accent shutters in certain architectural styles. A mixture of colors, textures, and building materials that are representative of the architectural style and are distinctive from adjacent homes to promote variation. Exterior walls that incorporate accent materials appropriate to their architectural style. Flat tile, low profile “S” tile, and metal roof styles to match the architectural style Varied building plane setbacks to promote variety and articulation within building planes
Walls and Fences. The wall and fences for the development would be made of decorative materials to be compatible with the overall architectural character of the development and surrounding neighborhoods. Details on the walls and fences are contained in the Development Plan. A summary of the proposed fences and walls is as follows:
North, East, and West Property Line – 6-feet high split faced block wall with pilasters spaced 40 feet on center on top of retaining wall.
45th Street:
o West of Street A (along the rear and sides of residential lots) – 6-foot high single-sided split face masonry block walls.
o East of Street A (along the south of the water basin) – 6 foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters spaced 40 feet on center on top of retaining wall. Yard Fence
o Visible from public right-of-way – 6-foot high single sided split faced masonry block wall.
o Not visible from public right-of-way – five (5) foot high vinyl fence with five (5). Water Basin Fence
o Six (6) foot high wrought iron fencing on top of retaining wall with pilasters spaced 40 feet on center along the south property line (along 45th Street). o Six (6) foot wrought iron fencing along the west side of basin. o Six (6) feet high split faced block wall with pilasters spaced 40 feet on center on top of retaining wall
The property is proposed at a higher grade than the surrounding properties for drainage purposes. On the southeast area of the site the finished grade is proposed to be approximately nine (9) feet higher than the adjacent property to the east. The northeast area of the site is proposed to be approximately thirteen (13) feet higher than the adjacent property to the east. The northwest area of the site is proposed to be approximately three (3) feet lower than the adjacent property to the west, and the southwest area of the site is proposed to be approximately four (4) feet lower than the adjacent property to the west.
Below are exhibits illustrating the proposed grades and retaining walls proposed to accomplish the grade separations.
Page | 10
EXHIBIT F: PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
PLAN 1 WITH SPANISH ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
PLAN 1 WITH COTTAGE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
Page | 11
PLAN 1 WITH FARMHOUSE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
ANALYSIS
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The City of Jurupa Valley has conducted an Initial Study and developed a Mitigated Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the project. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a preliminary analysis was carried out to determine the appropriate level of environmental review for the project, such as a Negative Declaration, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report.
Based on the Initial Study conducted for this project, it is recommended that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a formal statement indicating that the Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects of the project. However, through project revisions and the implementation of mitigation measures, these impacts can be eliminated or reduced to below-significant levels. The Initial Study identified specific environmental impacts that require mitigation, including Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. Based on the Initial Study findings, all other aspects were determined to have either no or less than significant impact.
For a more detailed understanding of the mitigation measures, please refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program included in this document.
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and supporting documents were made available to the general public at City Hall and online for review from October 13, 2023 to November 1, 2023. Notice of the availability of this document was published in The Press-Enterprise newspaper on October 13, 2023 and a notice was mailed to various agencies including Riverside County Clerk, State Clearing House, and certain Native American Tribes. On October 31, 2023, we received a comment from Amy Mcneill, Engineering Project Manager, at the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC & WCD) requesting that the applicant obtain an encroachment permit from the RCFC & WCD if the project proposes to conduct any construction related activities within the RCFC right of Page | 12
way facilities emphasizing the Sunnyslope Channel. Additionally, RCFC communicated that they would consider accepting ownership of proposed channels, storm drains larger than thirty-six (36) inches in diameter, or other facilities that could be considered an extension of a RCFC & WCD facility. Details on this considered ownership of facilities is outlined in the letter provided as Attachment G.
II. GENERAL PLAN. The project is consistent with the General Plan.
A. Land Use Designation. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of MDR (Medium Density Residential) and allows for a maximum density of 5 units per acre. The proposed General Plan land use designation is HDR (High Density Residential) to allow for the proposed small lot single-family detached dwellings at a density of 9.3 dwelling units per acre. HDR allows for a maximum of fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is consistent with the HDR land use as it allows for high density, small lot single family dwellings. The project demonstrates consistency with the residential section of the Land Use Element, in the General Plan including the following policies:
LUE 2.1 Residential Development. Accommodate the development of single-family and multi-family residential units in areas appropriately designated by the General Plan, specific plans, the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay, and community and town center plans land use maps.
The proposed project is for a residential development on land that is proposed to have a General Plan Land Use Designation of High Density Residential (HDR).
LUE 2.2 Higher Density Residential. Accommodate higher density residential development in walkable, pedestrian oriented areas near major transportation corridors, concentrated employment areas, and community and town centers, and promote the development of high quality apartments and condominiums that will encourage local investment and pride of ownership.
The proposed project is for a higher density residential development in a pedestrian oriented area near an elementary school (Pacific Avenue Elementary School) and will provide a high quality residential project that will create pride of ownership and can encourage local investment.
LUE 2.3 Infrastructure. Ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses.
Page | 13
All street improvements, drainage infrastructure, and other utilities are found to be adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents.
LUE 2.4 Housing Quality and Variety. Accommodate the
development of a variety of highest quality housing types, styles and densities that are accessible to and meet the needs of a range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels.
The project introduces a varied high quality housing type from what is available in the vicinity that allows for diverse housing styles and a higher density to meet the needs of a specific niche of people with a distinct lifestyle and income level.
LUE 2.5 Connectivity. Integrate residential development with a continuous network of parks, open space, public areas, bicycle trails, equestrian trails, public transit routes, and pedestrian paths to connect neighborhoods and communities with key nodes. Key nodes include parks and recreation facilities, schools, town and neighborhood centers, and other in-city communities and surrounding cities and points of interest.
The project provides open space, public areas, and improves a pedestrian path near an existing elementary school (Pacific Avenue Elementary School).
LUE 2.9 Design Compatibility. Ensure that the new residential developments are designed to be compatible with their surroundings and to enhance visually the appearance of neighborhoods and adjacent structures.
The proposed project successfully incorporates Spanish, Cottage, and Farmhouse architectural styles that are compatible with the surrounding area.
LUE 10.9 Promote Unique Community Character. Use community plans to promote the development and preservation of unique communities in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design.
The proposed project provides a unique community that exhibits a special sense of place with high quality design.
LUE 11.1 Small Town Character. Protect and enhance Jurupa Valley’s small-town character, maintain or improve walkability, provide bike and equestrian trails, and social connectivity and “sense of place.”
The project improves walkability along 45th street and introduces an area for social connectivity all while creating a sense of place in the neighborhood.
Page | 14
LUE 13.1 Fair Share Infrastructure Funding. Require that new development contribute its fair share to fund infrastructure and public facilities, such as police and fire facilities, parks, streets, and trail improvements.
The applicant would be required to contribute over $260,000 in Development Impact Fees (DIFs) which would be allocated to fund fire services, roads, parks, schools, libraries, and other public facilities.
III. Title 7 – SUBDIVISIONS. The proposed Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37857 complies with all applicable provisions of Title 7 and the Subdivision Map Act. The Engineering Department has reviewed the project for required travel lanes, access, circulation, traffic impacts, grading, and drainage. The recommended conditions address areas such as subdivision, circulation, access, grading, drainage, and water quality.
A. Improvement Plans. The applicant shall be responsible for on-site and offsite improvements including street improvements, storm drain/drainage improvements, signing, striping and pavement markings, streetlights, landscape and irrigation systems, water systems, and sanitary sewer systems.
B. Right-of-Way Improvements.
45th Street. 45th Street is planned to be improved as an Enhanced Local Road with an ultimate right-of-way width of 70 feet. Exhibit G illustrated the proposed street.
Page | 15
EXHIBIT G: 45TH STREET CROSS-SECTION
The applicant would be required to dedicate half-width right-of-way for public street and utility purposes. The applicant would be required to improve 44 ft. right-of-way northerly from the centerline of the street. The 44 ft. right-of-way would include a 16 ft. wide travel lane, curb and gutter, 7.5 ft. wide landscape planter adjacent to the curb.
Between the landscape strip and the project’s southerly property line would be a 20.5 ft. wide landscape strip with a sidewalk that is conditioned to match in width and tie into the existing sidewalk located west of the project site. Additionally, the project would include the following improvements:
1. Bicycle sharrows and appropriate signage to both eastbound and westbound lanes on 45th street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue.
2. A single lane neighborhood traffic circle on the corner of 45th Street and Saxon Court.
Interior Private Streets. The interior private streets “A” and “C” will have a 36’ ultimate right-of-way width with one 14’ wide travel lane in each direction and 4’ sidewalk adjacent to curb. No landscaping is part of the right-of-way. On-street parking will not be permitted.
Exhibit H illustrated the proposed streets.
Access into the community is via Street A. At the entry point where Street “A” meets 45th Street, Street “A” has an ultimate right-of-way width of 50’ with 18’ wide travel lanes, 4’ wide sidewalks adjacent to curb, and 6’ wide landscaping on one side. Exhibit I illustrated the proposed street.
Streets “B” and “D” would have a 40’ ultimate right-of-way width of with 16’ lanes and 4’ sidewalks adjacent to curb. On-street parking would be permitted on one side of the street. Exhibit J illustrated the proposed streets.
Page | 16
EXHIBIT H: PRIVATE STREETS “A” & “C” CROSS-SECTION
EXHIBIT I: PRIVATE STREETS “A” ENTRY
EXHIBIT J: PRIVATE STREETS “B” & “D” CROSS-SECTION
Interior Private Courts. Interior courts “A” through “H” have an ultimate right-of-way width of 24’ with 12’ drive aisles. No parking is permitted. Exhibit K illustrated the proposed courts.
Page | 17
EXHIBIT K: PRIVATE COURTS “A” THROUGH “H” CROSS-SECTION The applicant submitted a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) memorandum stating that the project could be considered to have less than significant traffic impacts. However, the City’s analysis determined that the project would have residential trip lengths that are projected to be higher than the City’s baseline per-capita average of 15.7 vehicle miles per capita. The City determined that the proposed project is projected to have 16.3 vehicle milled traveled per capita which is 3.8% above the City’s baseline average. As such, the City recommended mitigation measures based on the factors like the scale of the project, the level of VMT impact, and the proximity to community uses that generate nonmotorized travel. The proposed VMT mitigation is to provide a new mini roundabout at the intersection of 45th Street and Saxon Court which is located near the southeast corner of the project site, and to add bicycle sharrows to both directions of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue. The proposed mitigation measures will act as both a traffic-calming device to promote slower traffic, and a more walkable environment while adding bicycle facilities to the street to strengthen the City’s bicycle network.
IV. Title 9 – Zoning Ordinance.
A. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone. The Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone allows and encourages innovative development projects that exemplify high quality site planning, landscaping, and architectural design.
The zone allows flexibility of development standards in order to help projects achieve general plan goals and the best use of the land while incorporating significant community benefits within the project.
Due to the small lot size, there is no zone that would allow a minimum lot size of 1,885 square-feet. The zone with the smallest minimum lot size is R4: 3,600 square-feet with a minimum lot width of 40 feet and a minimum depth of 80 feet. Thus, the applicant proposes a PUD-04 zone that would allow proposed requested modifications for the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setbacks.
B. Proposed PUD-04 Zone. The proposed PUD-04 Zone requires the processing and approval of a PUD Development Plan. The Development Plan contains all proposed rules and regulation of the proposed PUD Zone including development standards, architectural design guidelines, Page | 18
landscape requirements, etc. The Development Plan for PUD-04 outlines overall rules and regulations that allow for the requested modifications to the minimum lot size, lot width, lot depth, and setbacks as described above.
As proposed, the proposed project complies with all rules and regulations of the PUD-04 Development Plan.
Table 4 provides all modified development standards and the proposed subdivision’s compliance to said modified development standards. The project complies with the proposed PUD-04 zone.
Table 4: PUD-04 Development Standards
Minimum Lot Requirements
Compliance
with
Requirements
Lot Area 1,885 square feet Yes
Lot Width 45 feet Yes
Lot Depth 42 feet Yes
Minimum Setback Requirements
Front Elevation (excluding
garage) 3 feet Yes
Front Entry Garage 3 feet Yes
Side Entry Garage 3 feet Yes
Side Elevation (Interior and
Through Lot) 3 feet Yes
Side Elevation (Corner and
Reverse Corner Lot) 3 feet Yes
Rear Elevation 3 feet Yes
Other
Maximum Building Height 40 feet Yes
C. Requirements for Approval of a PUD Zone. The PUD zoning district may be approved only for a project that incorporates at five (5) out of the nine (9) features listed in Section 9.238.080 (PUD Decisions and Findings) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code:
1. Residential clustering that will provide for new neighborhoods combined with abundant open space.
The proposed project incorporates clustering through the inclusion of smaller lots ranging in size from 1,885 to 6,249 square feet combined with abundant open space in the form of public open space recreation area, and landscaped public space.
2. Commercial development that provides products or services not currently available within the city.
Not applicable.
3. Preservation of abundant natural open space
Page | 19
Not applicable.
4. The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, trails or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long-term maintenance not at the expense of the city.
The proposed project provides substantial public amenities including a 17,101 square foot common recreation and open space area that incorporates barbeque areas, picnic tables, hot coal containers, patio covers, tot lot play area, basketball court, and raised vegetable boxes all to be maintained by the HOA for the site.
5. Additional public benefits and project amenities that advance the City’s identified objectives and evolving vision as identifies in the General Plan and Community Plans.
The project enhances the City’s vison by contributing to the desired small-town feel, active outdoor life, diversity, environmental justice, and health by providing a project that introduces a varied high quality housing type along with open space that meets the needs of a broader group of people with distinct lifestyles and income levels. The project provides a unique community that exhibits high quality design, architecture, and sense, of place.
6. The project will achieve greater energy efficiency that standard developments throughout the incorporation of green building techniques, scoring at least a silver rating on the LEED or other equivalent rating on the LEED or other equivalent rating system, or achieving a minimum of thirty (30) percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24.
The project is subject to the California Building Code which ensures that this project score at least a silver rating on the LEED or achieve a minimum of thirty (30) percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by Title 24.
7. The project provides for a significant saving of water usage over the life of the project.
All landscape areas within the proposed project would include drought-tolerant trees and shrubs with a permanent irrigation system to minimize water use and runoff for the life of the project.
8. Stormwater runoff controls.
The proposed project provides for stormwater water runoff controls through the preservation of natural open space, and the development of off-street concrete channels, gutters, and stormwater basins.
Page | 20
D. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
Per Section 9.238.080 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, “Prior to the approval of a zoning amendment to add the PUD designation to a property, the following findings shall be made:”
1) The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific and Community Plans;
2) The project complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter, except for those provisions modified by the PUD rezoning;
3) The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the density and superior design of the proposed project;
4) The proposal would benefit the area surrounding the project to a greater degree than development allowed within the underlying zoning district(s), including improved pedestrian or transit access to jobs, goods and services;
5) The proposal would provide mixed land use and/or site design flexibilities while enhancing site or building aesthetics to achieve an overall, workable, higher quality of development than would otherwise be possible under conventional zoning standards;
6) The project is compatible in use, size and type of structure, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout, with adjoining land uses, mitigates environmental impacts and can be integrated into the neighborhood;
7) The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary;
8) The project does not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas;
9) All affected public facilities, services and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; and
10)The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.
The proposed development complies with all requirements for the application of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) zone, and is entirely consistent with the General Plan. The proposed modifications to the development standards are required to facilitate clustering, thus incorporating public open space and recreational opportunities. The proposed project would not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other Page | 21
adverse effects on the surrounding area as it is an entirely residential development, and would provide for the adequate public facilities, services, and utilities to serve the community.
V. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF A TENTATIVE LAND DIVISION MAP.
Per Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, “A tentative map shall be denied if it does not meet all requirements of this ordinance, or if any of the following findings are made:”
1) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans;
3) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development;
4) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development;
5) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat;
6) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems;
7) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternative easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; and
8) Notwithstanding subsection (5) of this section, a tentative map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37857 is consistent with all applicable provisions of Title 7 and the Subdivision Map Act for standards and process.
Furthermore, the City’s Engineering Department has reviewed the project for access, circulation, grading, and drainage and has recommended conditions that would require the project to comply with mandated regulations.
Page | 22
The land is suitable for the proposed residential subdivision. The project will not cause any substantial environmental damage or impacts to wildlife and their habitats with recommended conditions and mitigation measures. The project will not be a danger to the welfare of the general public. The project will not cause serious public health problems. A Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared and findings have been made pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act. None of the findings for the denial of the TTM have been made. It is recommended for approval.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet from the boundaries of the project site on December 8, 2023. Additionally, legal advertisements were published in the Press Enterprise on Saturday, December 9, 2023. On December 9, 2023, the City received one (1) email in opposition of the project. The main concerns are higher density, traffic, and crime. The email is provided as Attachment I.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The time to process this application will be covered by a developer application deposit.
No additional costs to the City are anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2023-104, introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-03, and Resolution No. 2023-05, to do the following:
a. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and
b. Approve MA21272 (GPA21009, SPA, CZ21011, & TTM37857) subject to the conditions of approval.
2. Deny MA21272 (GPA21009, SPA, CZ21011, & TTM37857)
3. Continue the public hearing and provide direction to staff.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Joe Perez Rod B. Butler
Community Development Director City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
Resolution No. 2023-104 adopting a Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program -1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-104
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW
FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36
SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE
SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN
OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015,
182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project. RC Hobbs Company (“RC Hobbs”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21009, Change of Zone No. 21011, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, (Master Application No. 21272 or MA No. 21272) to permit the construction 36 single-family detached homes on a 3.84-acre site located north of 45th Street, between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (the “Project”).
Section 2. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for the Project was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, and voted 3 to 1 (Penny Newman was absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. (c) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing.
(d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings for Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
(a) The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental -2-
Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as “CEQA”). (b) Pursuant to CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study.
(c) Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(d) Thereafter, City staff provided the public with notice of the public comment period and of City’s intent to adopt the MND as required by law. Supporting documents and the MND were made available to the general public for review from October 13, 2023 to November 1, 2023. Copies of the documents are available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509. The City received one (1) comment from Amy Mcneill, Engineering Project Manager, at the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (“RCFC”) requesting that the applicant obtain an encroachment permit from the RCFC if the Project proposes to conduct any construction related activities within the RCFC right of way facilities.
(e) The City Council has reviewed the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”), attached as Exhibit “A,” and all comments received regarding the MND and, based on the whole record before it, finds that:
1) The MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA;
2) With the incorporation of mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and 3) The MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council.
(f) Based on the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the MND and MMRP attached as Exhibit “A” for the Project. (g) The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
-3-
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-4-
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-104 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 21st day of December, 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 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
ATTACHMENT A
Exhibit A – Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Las Palmas Residential Project
City of Jurupa Valley Master Application MA 21272
General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21009
Change of Zone (CZ) No. 21011
Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 37857
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Contact: Miguel Del Rio, Associate Planner
(951) 332-6464 ext. 222
[email protected]
Applicant:
RC Hobbs Company.
1428 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92866
(714-) 914-2500
October 5, 2023
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas i
Table of Contents
2.0-Introduction2
2.2- Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation ........................................................................................... 2
2.3 -Public Review of the Document........................................................................................................................3
3.0-Project Description/Environmental Setting.............................................................................................4
3.1 - Project Location .....................................................................................................................................................4
3.2 -Project Description ................................................................................................................................................4
3.3-Proposed Improvements......................................................................................................................................4
3.4- Construction and Operational Characteristics........................................................................................... 5
3.5-Environmental Setting...........................................................................................................................................8
4.0-Environmental Analysis...................................................................................................................................9
4.1 Aesthetics.................................................................................................................................................................. 10
4.2 Agriculture Resources......................................................................................................................................... 13
4.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................................................................. 15
4.4 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 24
4.5 Cultural Resources................................................................................................................................................ 31
4.6 Energy ........................................................................................................................................................................ 35
4.7 Geology And Soils.................................................................................................................................................. 37
4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................................... 44
4.9 - Hazards And Hazardous Materials.............................................................................................................. 48
4.10 Hydrology And Water Quality................................................................................................................... 55
4.12 Mineral Resources.......................................................................................................................................... 62
4.13 Noise......................................................................................................................................................................... 63
4.14 Population And Housing.................................................................................................................................. 69
4.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................................... 70
4.16 Recreation.............................................................................................................................................................. 73
4.17 Transportation..................................................................................................................................................... 75
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 78
4.19 Utilities And Service Systems .................................................................................................................... 82
4.20 Wildfire................................................................................................................................................................ 86
4.21 Mandatory Findings Of Significance....................................................................................................... 88
5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM ...........................................................................M1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas ii
Figures
Figure 3.1- Vicinity Location Map.......................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3.2 - Aerial Photo.........................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3.3- Conceptual Site Plan .........................................................................................................................................7 Tables
Table 3.1: Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications............................8 Table 4.3-1: South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds ............ 16 Table 4.3-2- Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin.................................. 16 Table 4.3-3: Summary of Peak Construction Emissions......................................................................................... 20 Table 4.3-4: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions .......................................................................................... 21 Table 4.3-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds ............................................................................ 22 Table 4.3-6: Summary of Localized Significance Construction Emissions..................................................... 22 Table 4.3-7: Summary of Localized Significance Operational Emissions ....................................................... 23 Table 4.4-1: MSHCP Consistency Analysis .................................................................................................................. 29 Table 4.8-1: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions ....................................................................................................... 45 Table 4.8.2. Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures ...................................................................................... 47 Table 4.9-1: Summary of Site Reconnaissance ......................................................................................................... 50 Table 4.13-1. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels.............................................................................. 64 Table 4.13-3 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ............................................................... 67 Table 4.19-1. Capacity of Landfills Serving Jurupa Valley..................................................................................... 85 Table 4.19-2: Project Waste Generation Compared to Landfill Daily Throughput.................................... 85 Appendices(Available online at: ) https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68 Appendix A Air Quality CalEEMod Datasheets, July 12, 2023.
Appendix B Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, TTM 37857, Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC., March 28, 2022
Appendix B-1 Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment, Cadre Environmental Consulting, September 29, 2023.
Appendix C Focused Survey for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, Powell Environmental Consultants, September 24, 2020
Appendix D Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation; McKENNA et al., March 24, 2020 Appendix E Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, Robin Environmental Management (REM), April 26, 2022
Appendix F Preliminary Soils Investigation, Infiltration Tests, and Liquefaction Evaluation Report, Soil Exploration Company, Inc., August 4, 2022.
Appendix G Soil Sampling Evaluation Report, TRC dated January 4, 2023.
Appendix H Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review Determination Letter, February 10, 2022.
Appendix I Hydrology Report for Tract 37857; Adkan Engineers, August 17, 2021, Revised June 13, 2023.
Appendix J Preliminary WQMP; Adkan Engineers, August 17, 2021, Revised June 14, 2023.
Appendix K Noise Impact Study, RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated April 29, 2022 Appendix L Trip Generation & VehicleMiles Traveled (VMT) Screening Study, RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 9, 2023
Appendix M MA21272 -Las Palmas VMT Review Memorandum, Rob Olson, Traffic Analyst City of Jurupa Valley, April 17, 2023
Appendix N Water, Sewer, Fire, and Street Lighting “Will-Serve Letter” Rubidoux Community Services District, dated December 3, 2021.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 1 1.0 Finding
Based on this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed use COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended for adoption. ¨ I find that although the proposal could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the Project Applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be recommended for adoption.
þ
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ¨
I find that the proposal MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets if the effect is a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated.” An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
¨
I find that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, pursuant to all applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed Project, nothing further is required. ¨
City of Jurupa Valley
Signature Agency
Joe Perez, Community Development Director October 5, 2023 Printed Name/Title Date
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 2 2.0-Introduction
2.1-Purpose of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that for a project that is not exempt from CEQA, that a preliminary analysis of the proposed project be conducted to determine whether a Negative Declaration, Mitigated Negative Declaration, or an Environmental Impact Report should be prepared for the project. This preliminary analysis is called an “Initial Study”.
Based on the Initial Study prepared for this Project, the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department is recommending that a Mitigated Negative Declaration be adopted for this Project by the City Council. A Mitigated Negative Declaration is a written statement by the City that the Initial Study identified potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, but the Project is revised or mitigation measures are required to eliminate or mitigate impacts to less than significant levels.
2.2- Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation
Table 2-1 identifies the environmental impacts that require mitigation. All other topics either have “No Impact” or a “Less than Significant Impact” as identified throughout this Initial Study.
Table 2.1 Summary of Environmental Impacts Requiring Mitigation Environmental Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
4.4 (a) Biological Resources Grading and Vegetation removal may impact nesting birds protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
BIO-1: Nesting Bird Protection
survey is required prior to any
vegetation clearing and ground
disturbance.
4.5 (b) Cultural Resources Sub-surface archaeological resources may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring
required.
CR-2: Archaeological Inadvertent
Discovery procedure.
CR-3: If resource significant, an
archaeological treatment plan is
required.
4.7 (f) Geology and Soils Sub-surface archaeological resources may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring.
GEO-2: If resource significant, a
paleontological treatment plan is
required.
4.13 (a) Noise Construction noise will impact adjacent
residences.
NOI-1: Requires construction noise
mitigation measure notes be placed
on grading plans.
4.17 ( ) Transportation Project’s per capita VMT exceeds the City’s baseline average VMT per
capita.
VMT-1: Traffic calming measures.
4.18 (b) Tribal Cultural Resources Sub-surface tribal cultural resources may be encountered during ground
disturbance.
TCR-1 through TCR-3 requires
monitoring during ground
disturbance and treatment plan if
significant resources are found.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 3 Environmental Topic Section Description of Impact Mitigation Measure
4.19 (a) Utilities and Service Systems Undergrounding of utilities and service systems may impact Biological, Cultural,
Paleontological, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and generate excessive noise.
Mitigation Measures BIO-1, CR-1,
CR-2, GEO-1, GEO-2, NOI-1, TCR 1
through TCR-3 are required.
A more detailed description of the mitigation measures can be found in Section 5.0-Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program of this document.
2.3 -Public Review of the Document
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Notice of Intent to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration was distributed to the following entities for a 20-day public review period:
1) Organizations and individuals who have previously requested such notice in writing to the City of Jurupa Valley;
2) Responsible and trustee agencies (public agencies that have a level of discretionary approval over some component of the proposed Project); and
3) The Riverside County Clerk.
The Notice of Intent also was noticed to the general public in the Riverside Press-Enterprise, which is a primary newspaper of circulation in the areas affected by the Project.
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15204 (b), in reviewing this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, persons and public agencies should focus on the proposed finding that the Project will not have a significant effect on the environment. If persons and public agencies believe that the Project may have a significant effect, they should: (1) Identify the specific effect, (2) Explain why they believe the effect would occur, and (3) Explain why they believe the effect would be significant.
Comments are to be submitted to:
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Contact: Miguel Del Rio, Associate Planner
(951) 332-6464
[email protected]
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 4 3.0-Project Description/Environmental Setting
3.1 - Project Location
The Project site is located on approximately 3.84 acres on the north side of 45th Street and west of Pacific Avenue, and east of Opal Avenue. The Project site is identified by the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 182-190-015, -016, and -017. The Project is mapped on the U.S. Geological Survey Riverside West, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle in Section 17, Range 5 West, Township 2 South. (See Figure 3.1- Vicinity Location Map and Figure 3.2- Aerial Photo, Figure 3.3 – Conceptual Site Plan).
3.2 -Project Description
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential), and a zone change (ZC) from R-1 (Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The Project proposes to construct a
3.84-acre PUD consisting of 36 single family lots, internal roadways and sidewalks, a bio-retention water quality basin, and a recreational area lot.
3.3-Proposed Improvements
45th Street Improvements and Access
45th St. is a local road and is planned to be improved as an Enhanced Local Road to generally provide the following:
a. Dedication along the project frontage to provide ultimate half-width will be required. b. 11-ft parkway and 22-ft road section, within a 33-ft half-ultimate right-of-way width. c. Parkway improvements include, but are not limited to, curb adjacent landscaping and 6- ft sidewalk.
d. Any existing driveways (if any) that will no longer be used shall be replaced by full height curb and gutter.
e. Improvements shall transition and tie into existing improvements east and west of proposed site.
f. Applicant will be required to do any updates, upgrades, and necessary restoration of sidewalk panels along 45th Street.
Internal Streets
Proposed internal streets will be private roads. Dedication at entrance to accommodate public improvements will be required (i.e., curb ramps).
Water and Sewer Improvements
Water Service
The Project will connect to the existing 8-inch diameter waterline in 45th Street.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 5 Sewer Service
The Project will connect to the existing 8-inch diameter sewer line in 45th Street.
Storm Drainage Improvements
In the proposed condition, the proposed drainage pattern will mimic the existing patterns, directing runoff to the easterly boundary of the site. The site will be treated with a Bio-retention Basin located at the southeast corner of the site. There are five (5) drainage management areas for the Project site and storm water runoff will sheet across proposed landscape and AC pavement to be intercepted by proposed concrete gutters throughout the drainage areas. The gutters coveys flow southeasterly to the bio-retention basin. Overflows will be conveyed through existing stormwater systems to the Sunnyslope Channel east of Pacific Avenue.
3.4- Construction and Operational Characteristics
Construction
Construction of the Project is expected to take approximately 13 months (279 workdays). The natural topography of the Project site gently slopes from the northeastern portion of the site to the southwest and ranges in elevation from roughly 830 to 849 feet above mean sea level (msl).
Heavy equipment used for grading is estimated to require 1 excavator, 1 grader, 1 rubber tired dozer, and 3 tractors/loaders/backhoes. Heavy equipment used for building construction is estimated to require 1 crane, 3 forklifts, 3 tractors/loaders/backhoes, 1 generator set, and 1 welder.
During all phases of construction, all construction equipment and materials storage would occur within the Project site. No off-site staging area for trucks or equipment would be required during construction activities. To avoid or minimize temporary construction-related traffic impacts throughout site preparation and construction activities, the Project Applicant would be required to prepare and implement a City-approved construction traffic management plan.
Operations
Typical operations include vehicle trips from residents, visitors, service and delivery vehicles, and the operation of lawnmowers, leaf blowers, air conditioning units, and maintenance equipment associated with single-family residential neighborhoods.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 6 Figure 3.1- Vicinity Location Map
Figure 3.2 - Aerial Photo
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 7 Figure 3.3- Conceptual Site Plan
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 8 3.5-Environmental Setting
CEQA Guidelines §15125 establishes requirements for defining the environmental setting to which the environmental effects of a proposed project must be compared. The environmental setting is defined as “…the physical environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project, as they exist at the time the Notice of Preparation is published, or if no Notice of Preparation is published, at the time the environmental analysis is commenced…” (CEQA Guidelines §15125[a]). Because a Notice of Preparation was not required, the environmental setting for the Project is October 4, 2021, which is the date that the Project’s environmental analysis commenced.
The Project site is vacant on the north side of 45th Street which is a paved 2-lane roadway and west of Pacific Avenue a paved 2-lane roadway with left hand turn lane onto 45th Street.
Project site gently slopes from the northeastern portion of the site to the southwest and ranges in elevation from roughly 830 to 849 feet above mean sea level (msl).This represents an elevational change across the site of 19± feet. The site contains no native vegetation communities, as a result of decades of site disturbance. Previous and current anthropogenic activities and invasion of nonnative plant species have contributed to the disturbed condition of many vegetation communities within the site.
1 Onsite and adjacent land uses, General Plan land use designations, and zoning classifications are shown in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1: Land Uses, General Plan Land Use Designations, and Zoning Classifications Location
Current
Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning
Site Vacant Land MDR (Medium Density Residential) R-1 (Single Family Detached) North Vacant Land MDR (Medium Density Residential) R-1 (Single Family Detached) South
Single-family detached residences
and Pacific Avenue Academy of
Music School.
MDR (Medium Density Residential) R-1 (Residential Agriculture) R-3 (General Residential)
East Vacant Land and Free Church of
Tonga.
MDR (Medium Density Residential) R-1 (Single Family Detached) West Single-family detached residences. MDR (Medium Density Residential) R-1 (Single Family Detached) Source: Field inspection, City of Jurupa Valley-General Plan Land Use Map August 2020, Google Earth Pro. 1 Habitat Assessment (Appendix B).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 9 4.0-Environmental Analysis
The Project is evaluated based on its potential effect on twenty-one (21) environmental topics.
Each of the above environmental topics are analyzed by responding to a series of questions pertaining to the impact of the Project on the particular topic. Based on the results of the Impact Analysis, the effects of the Project are then placed in one of the following four categories, which are each followed by a summary to substantiate the factual reasons why the impact was placed in a certain category.
Potentially Significant or
Significant Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact with Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than Significant
Impact No Impact
Significant or Potentially
significant impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated that
cannot be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. An Environmental
Impact Report must therefore be
prepared.
Potentially significant
impact(s) have been
identified or anticipated,
but mitigation is possible to
reduce impact(s) to a less
than significant category.
Mitigation measures must
then be identified.
No “significant”
impact(s) identified or
anticipated. Therefore,
no mitigation is
necessary.
No impact(s) identified or
anticipated. Therefore, no
mitigation is necessary.
Throughout the impact analysis in this Initial Study, reference is made to the following:
• Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) - These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts. If applicable, they will be identified in the Analysis section for each topic. • Mitigation Measures (MM) - These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts. Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts to less than significant levels in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
If applicable to the analysis for a certain environmental topic, Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each issue area. Mitigation Measures were formulated only for those issue areas where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts. Both types of measures described above will be required to be implemented as part of the Project if so, indicated in the analysis.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 10 4.1 Aesthetics
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, and Programs
PPP 4.1-1 Asrequired by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code sections 9.238, Planned Unit Develop Zone (PUD) allows for flexible application of development standards include, but is not limited to, development standards for structures, lot sizes, and yard requirements.
PPP 4.1-2 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section 7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this section.
The City’s General Plan defines scenic vistas as “points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes.” Specifically, the City identifies publicly accessible vantage points of the Santa Ana River, Jurupa Mountains, and the Pedley Hills as scenic vistas2.
From the Project site, the Santa Ana River is located approximately 1.4 miles south, the Jurupa Mountains are located approximately 2 miles north, and the Pedley Hills which are located approximately 0.5 miles northwest.
The Project site provides limited views Pedley Hills along 45th Street and limited views of the Jurupa Mountains and in the distant horizon. PPP 4.1-1 and 4.2-2 above will limit building height and provide building setbacks between structures that would serve to limit blocking the existing views. Views of the Santa Ana River are not available because of intervening development, and topography. Based on the preceding analysis, public views of a scenic vista would not be significantly or permanently blocked with implementation of the Project. 2 General Plan pps. 1-17 to 1-19.
Threshold 4.1 (a). Would the
Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect on
a scenic vista? ü
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 11 Threshold 4.1 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than Significant
Impact
with Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
ü
Impact Analysis
According to the California Department of Transportation, the Project site is not located along a State scenic highway3. Additionally, no trees, rock outcroppings, historic buildings or other kinds of scenic resources of significant value are located on the Project site. As such, there is no impact.
In addition, according to the General Plan, the Project site is not located within or adjacent to a scenic corridor or roadway4.
Threshold 4.1 (c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
If located in an Urbanized Area, conflict
with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality? ü
Impact Analysis
According to Census 2010, the Project site is in the Riverside-San Bernardino, CA Urbanized Area5.
As such, the Project is subject to the City’s applicable regulations governing scenic quality.
Plans, Policies, and Programs
The following apply to the Project and would help reduce impacts related to scenic quality. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.1-1 and PPP 4.1-2 shall apply.
The Community Development Department has reviewed the Project Site and Development Plans submitted by the Applicant and determined that all applicable design and development standards have been met.
3 California Department of Transportation, State Scenic Highway Program, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/lap-landscapearchitecture-and-community-livability/lap-liv-i-scenic-highways, accessed February 22, 2023. 4City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure 4-23: Jurupa Valley scenic corridors and roadways
5 United States Census Bureau, 2010 Census Urban Area Reference Maps, https://www.census.gov/geographies/referencemaps/2010/geo/2010-census-urban-areas.html, accessed February 22, 2023.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 12 With implementation of PPP 4.1-1 and 4.1-2 the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality.
Threshold 4.1 (d). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare, which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area? ü
The following apply to the Project and would help reduce impacts related to light and glare. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Outdoor Lighting and Glare
The Project would increase the amount of light in the area above what is being generated by the vacant site by directly adding new sources of illumination including security and decorative lighting for the proposed structures. With implementation of PPP 4.1-4, impacts relating to light and glare are less than significant.
Building Material Glare
The primary exterior of the future structures will be typical of residential structures hand consist of non-reflective materials including stucco exterior and tile roofing material. Therefore, potential glare from the proposed Project is considered to be less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 13 4.2 Agriculture Resources
Note: Because there are no forestry resources located in the City of Jurupa, the topic of Forestry Resources is not addressed.
Threshold 4.2 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is designated as “Area Not Mapped” with properties adjacent to the north and west designated as “Urban and Built-Up Land” by the State Department of Conservation6. As such, the Project site does not contain any lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as mapped by the State Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. In addition, no properties abutting the Project site are being used as farmland. The City of Jurupa Valley’s General Plan considers agricultural land to be an appropriate use of land until such time as a property owner considers farming to be no longer economically viable which is why the General Plan designates agricultural land for eventual suburban and urban uses. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the conversion of any Farmland to non-agricultural use. Therefore, there are no impacts.
Threshold 4.2 (b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ü
Impact Analysis
Agricultural Zoning
The current zoning classification for the site is R-1 (One Family Dwellings) and classified as MDR (Medium Density Residential) in the General Plan Land Use Element, the Project is proposing a 6 California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, https://databasin.org/datasets/b83ea1952fea44ac9fc62c60dd57fe48 , accessed February 3, 2023.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 14 Change of Zone (CZ) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) and a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to High Density Residential (HDR). As such, the current and proposed zoning and land use designations are not considered a primary agricultural zone. Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use.
Williamson Act
A Williamson Act Contract enables private landowners to voluntarily enter contracts with local governments for the purpose of establishing agricultural preserves. According to the County of Riverside, the site is not within an agricultural preserve. 7 The Project site and surrounding
properties are listed as Urban and Built-Up Land. The Project will not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. The Project therefore will have no impacts on existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract.
Threshold 4.2 (c) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located in an area largely characterized residential uses and vacant land. There is no land being used primarily for farmland purposes in the vicinity of the site; therefore, development of the site would not convert existing farmland to non-agricultural uses. 7 California Department of Conservation Riverside County Important Farmland Data Availability, Important Farmland Maps Riverside West 2018, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Riverside.aspx, accessed February 22, 2023.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 15 4.3 Air Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical data:
Air Quality CalEEMod Datasheets, dated: July 12, 2023, and is included as Appendix A.
Background
Air Pollutants
Air Pollutants are the amounts of foreign and/or natural substances occurring in the atmosphere that may result in adverse effects to humans, animals, vegetation and/or materials. The Air Pollutants regulated by the SCAQMD are described below.8 Carbon Monoxide (CO). A colorless, odorless gas resulting from the incomplete combustion of hydrocarbon fuels. Over 80 percent of the CO emitted in urban areas is contributed by motor vehicles.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NOx). Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a byproduct of fuel combustion. The principal form of nitrogen oxide produced by combustion is nitric oxide (NO), but NO reacts quickly to form NO2, creating the mixture of NO and NO2 commonly called NOx.
Particulate Matter (PM 2.5 and PM10): One type of particulate matter is the soot seen in vehicle exhaust. Fine particles — less than one-tenth the diameter of a human hair — pose a serious threat to human health, as they can penetrate deep into the lungs. PM can be a primary pollutant or a secondary pollutant from hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxides. Diesel exhaust is a major contributor to PM pollution.
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2). A strong smelling, colorless gas that is formed by the combustion of fossil fuels. Power plants, which may use coal or oil high in sulfur content, can be major sources of SO2.
Ozone: Ozone is formed when several gaseous pollutants react in the presence of sunlight. Most of these gases are emitted from vehicle tailpipe emissions.
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs): VOCs contribute to the formation of smog and/or may themselves be toxic. VOCs often have an odor and some examples include gasoline, alcohol and the solvents used in paints.
Federal and State Air Quality Standards
Under the federal Clean Air Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) establishes healthbased air quality standards for the above-described air pollutants that all states must achieve.
The California Clean Air Act also establishes requirements for cities and counties to meet.
South Coast Air Quality Management District Standards
South Coast AQMD was created by the state legislature to facilitate compliance with the federal Clean Air Act and to implement the state air quality program. Toward that end, South Coast AQMD develops regulations designed to achieve these public health standards by reducing emissions from business and industry. The City of Jurupa Valley is located within the South Coast 8 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 16 Air Basin which is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast AQMD. Table 4.3-1 describes the regional significance thresholds established by the South Coast AQMD to meet national and state air quality standards.
Table 4.3-1: South Coast Air Quality Management District Regional Significance Thresholds Pollutant Emissions (Construction)
(pounds/day)
Emissions (Operational)
(pounds/day)
NOx 100 55
VOC 75 55
PM10 150 150
PM2.5 55 55
Sox 150 150
CO 550 550
Source: South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Significance Thresholds, March 2015.
Attainment Designation
An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that criteria pollutant concentrations did not exceed the established standard. In contrast to attainment, a “nonattainment” designation indicates that a criteria pollutant concentration has exceeded the established standard. Table
4.3-2 shows the attainment status of criteria pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
Table 4.3-2- Attainment Status of Criteria Pollutants in the South Coast Air Basin Criteria Pollutant State Designation Federal Designation Ozone – 1-hour standard Nonattainment No Standard
Ozone – 8-hour standard Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10) Nonattainment Attainment Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide (CO) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide (N0x) Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) Unclassified /Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment
Source: California Air Resources Board, 2015.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 17 Threshold 4.3 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? ü
Impact Analysis
The South Coast Air Quality Management District is required to produce air quality management plans directing how the South Coast Air Basin’s air quality will be brought into attainment with the national and state ambient air quality standards. The most recent air quality management plan is 2022 Air Quality Management Plan9 and it is applicable to City of Jurupa Valley. The purpose of the plan is to achieve and maintain both the national and state ambient air quality standards described above.
Consistency with 2022 AQMP
The 2022 AQMP was been prepared by SCAQMD and adopted on December 2, 2022. The 2022 AQMP builds upon measures already in place from previous AQMPs and includes a variety of additional proposed strategies such as regulation, accelerated deployment of available cleaner technologies (e.g., zero emission technologies, when cost-effective and feasible, and low NOx technologies in other applications), best management practices, co-benefits from existing programs (e.g., climate and energy efficiency), incentives, and other CAA measures to achieve the 2015 8-hour ozone standard, which is the most stringent standard to date.
The SCAG region is diverse and large, and the types and classifications of land use used by one jurisdiction often differ from those used by another. The result is that there are many different land use types and classifications that SCAG must organize for its own analyses.
Given the number of square miles the SCAG region encompasses, SCAG developed a simplified series of Land Development Categories (LDCs) to represent the dominant themes taken from the region’s many General Plans. This was developed in order to facilitate regional modeling of land use information from nearly 200 distinct jurisdictions. The LDCs employed in the RTP/SCS are not intended to represent detailed land use policies, but are used to describe the general conditions likely to occur within a specific area if recently emerging trends, such as transit-oriented development, were to continue in concert with the implementation of the 2016 RTP/SCS.
SCAG then classified the Place Types into three LDCs. The agency used these categories to describe the general conditions that exist and/or are likely to exist within a specific area. They reflect the varied conditions of buildings and roadways, transportation options, and the mix of housing and employment throughout the region. The three LDCs that SCAG used are:
9 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 18 1. Urban: These areas are often found within and directly adjacent to moderate and high-density urban centers. Nearly all urban growth in these areas would be considered infill or redevelopment. The majority of housing is multifamily and attached single-family (townhome), which tend to consume less water and energy than the larger types found in greater proportion in less urban locations. These areas are supported by high levels of regional and local transit service. They have well-connected street networks, and the mix and intensity of uses result in a highly walkable environment. These areas offer enhanced access and connectivity for people who choose not to drive or do not have access to a vehicle.
2. Compact: These areas are less dense than those in the Urban LDC, but they are highly walkable with a rich mix of retail, commercial, residential and civic uses. These areas are most likely to occur as new growth on the urban edge, or as large-scale redevelopment. They have a rich mix of housing, from multifamily and attached single-family (townhome) to small- and medium lot single-family homes. These areas are well served by regional and local transit service, but they may not benefit from as much service as urban growth areas and are less likely to occur around major multimodal hubs. Streets in these areas are well connected and walkable, and destinations such as schools, shopping and entertainment areas can typically be reached by walking, biking, taking transit, or with a short auto trip.
3. Standard: These areas comprise the majority of separate-use, auto-oriented developments that have characterized the American suburban landscape for decades. Densities in these areas tend to be lower than those in the Compact LDC, and they are generally not highly mixed.
Medium- and larger-lot single-family homes comprise the majority of this development form.
Standard areas are not typically well served by regional transit service, and most trips are made by automobile.
According to Exhibit 29, Forecasted Regional Development Types by Land Development Categories (2012)-Western Riverside County, the City of Jurupa Valley is classified as being within the Standard LDC.10
The zone change does not result in the site being considered as being in the Urban or Compact LDC for purposes of growth projections used for modeling air quality emission assumptionsin the 2022 AQMP. As such, the Project is consistent with the growth projections in City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and is considered to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP.
Buildout of the Project is consistent with the Standard LDC and would not be greater than assumed by SCAG’s regional forecast projections and also the AQMP growth projections. In order to exceed the growth assumptions, the Project would have to increase the intensity of development to the degree it would result in the entire city to be reclassified to the Urban or Compact LDC. As detailed in Section 5.13, Population and Housing, the development of up 36 dwelling units would increase the City’s population by approximately 132 persons assuming all residents came from outside the City (3.66 persons/du with 36 units). An increase of 132 in relation to the current population of 104,983 represents an increase of 0.13 % and would not induce substantial population growth. As such, the zone change does not result in the site being 10 https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/2a7e374a-5c53-4db8-8ea1-a75f12a73b31/Appendix_L_SCAGs_2016- 2040_RTP_SCS_Background_Documentation.pdf
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 19 considered as being in the Urban or Compact LDC for purposes of growth projections used for modeling air quality emission assumptions in the 2022 AQMP. As such, the Project is consistent with the growth projections in City of Jurupa Valley General Plan and is considered to be consistent with the 2022 AQMP.
Threshold 4.3 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase
of any criteria pollutant for which the project
region is non-attainment under an applicable
federal or state ambient air quality standard?
ü
Regional Air Quality Impacts
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) - Construction Related Impacts The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to construction related air quality impacts. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.3-1 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.
PPP 4.3-2 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality District Rule 431.2, “Sulphur Content and Liquid Fuels.” The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
PPP 4.3-3 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings” Rule 1113 limits the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere during painting and application of other surface coatings.
PPP 4.3-4 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “Less-Polluting Street Sweepers.” Adherence to Rule 1186 and Rule 1186.1 reduces the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 20 Impact Analysis
The Project has the potential to generate pollutant concentrations during both construction activities and long-term operation. Both construction and operational emissions for the Project were estimated by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) which is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies to quantify potential criteria pollutant emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model can be used for a variety of situations where an air quality analysis is necessary or desirable such as California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents and is authorized for use by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Construction activities associated with the Project will result in emissions of VOCs, NOX, SOX, CO, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction related emissions are expected from the following construction activities:
• Site Preparation
• Grading
• Building Construction
• Paving
• Architectural Coating
Construction is expected to last approximately 13 months. Table 4.3-3 summarizes the construction emissions considering the application of PPP 4.3-1 through 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-3: Summary of Peak Construction Unmitigated Emissions Year Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC/ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Year 1 4.04 39.8 36.7 0.05 21.7 11.8
Year 2 24.6 11.4 14.0 0.02 0.70 0.51
Maximum Daily Emissions 24.6 39.8 36.7 0.05 21.7 11.8
SCAQMD Regional Threshold 75 100 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod Datasheets (Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4.3-3, emissions resulting from the Project construction will not exceed criteria pollutant thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.
Long-Term Regional Operation Related Impacts
Long-term emissions are categorized as area source emissions, energy demand emissions, and operational emissions. Operational emissions will result from automobile, truck, and other vehicle sources associated with daily trips to and from the Project site. Area source emissions are Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 21 the combination of many small emission sources that include use of outdoor landscape maintenance equipment, use of consumer products such as cleaning products, and periodic repainting of the proposed residences. Energy demand emissions result from use of electricity and natural gas. The results of the CalEEMod model for operation of the Project site are summarized in Table 4.3-4.
Table 4.3-4: Summary of Peak Operational Emissions
Source Emissions (lbs/day)
VOC/ROG NOX CO SOX PM10 PM2.5
Area Source 11.2 0.77 20.3 0.05 2.57 2.52
Energy Source 0.02 0.32 0.14 <0.01 0.03 0.03
Mobile Source 1.40 1.11 9.94 0.02 1.96 0.51
Total Maximum Daily Emissions 12.62 2.20 30.38 0.08 4.56 3.06 SCAQMD Regional Threshold 55 55 550 150 150 55
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod Datasheets, (Appendix A).
As shown in Table 4.3-4, Project related air emissions do not exceed SCAQMD regional thresholds.
Threshold 4.3 (c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
(Refer to PPP 4.3.1 through PPP 4.3-4 under Issue 4.3(b) above).
Localized Air Quality Impacts
The South Coast Air Quality Management District has established Localized Significance Thresholds (LST) which are used to determine whether or not a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts for both construction and on-site operations. For the purposes of a CEQA analysis, the SCAQMD considers a sensitive receptor to be to be a receptor such as residence, hospital, convalescent facility where it is possible that an individual could remain for 24 hours If the calculated emissions for the proposed construction or operational Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 22 activities are below the LST emission thresholds then the proposed construction or operation activity is not significant for air quality. For purposes of this analysis, the nearest offsite sensitive receptors are a senior living facility located north and single-family homes on the east side of the area of the project site that will be disturbed during construction or subsequent occupation.
Table 4.3-5 identifies the maximum daily localized emissions thresholdsthat are applicable to the Project.
Table 4.3-5 Maximum Daily Localized Emissions Thresholds Pollutant Construction Operations
Localized Thresholds (pounds per day)
NOX 270 270
CO 1,577 1,577
PM10 13 4
PM2.5 8 2
Source: Localized Thresholds presented in this table are based on the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology, July 2008.
Localized Construction Emissions
Construction is expected to last approximately 226 days (11 months). Table 4.3-6 summarizes the localized construction emissions considering the application of PPP 4.3-1 through 4.3-4. As shown in Table 4.3-6, localized construction emissions would not exceed the applicable SCAQMD LSTs for emissions for construction activities.
Table 4.3-6: Summary of Localized Significance Construction Emissions Construction Emissions
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 6.95 12.82 7.94 4.14
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 13 8
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod Datasheets, (Appendix A).
Localized On-Site Operational Emissions
Typical operational activities include on-site sources such as energy use and vehicle trips associated with residential development. As shown on Table 4.3-7, operational emissions will not exceed the LST thresholds for the nearest sensitive receptor. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for Project-related operational-source emissions and no mitigation is required.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 23 Table 4.3-7: Summary of Localized Significance Operational Emissions Operational Activity
Emissions (lbs/day)
NOX CO PM10 PM2.5
Maximum Daily Emissions 1.82 3.57 0.46 0.46
SCAQMD Localized Threshold 270 1,577 4 2
Threshold Exceeded? NO NO NO NO
Source: CalEEMod Datasheets, (Appendix A).
CO Hot Spot Analysis
CO Hot Spots are typically associated with idling vehicles at extremely busy intersections (i.e., intersections with an excess of 100,000 vehicle trips per day). There are no intersections in the vicinity of the Project site which exceed the 100,000 vehicle per day threshold typically associated with CO Hot Spots. In addition, the South Coast Air Basin has been designated as an attainment area for CO since 2007. Therefore, Project-related vehicular emissions would not create a Hot Spot and would not substantially contribute to an existing or projected CO Hot Spot.
Threshold 4.3 (d). Would the Project
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people? ü
Impact Analysis
According to the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The Project does not propose any of the above-described uses.
Potential odor sources associated with the proposed Project may result from construction equipment exhaust and the application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities and the temporary storage of typical solid waste (refuse) associated with the proposed Project’s long-term operational uses.
The construction odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature and would cease upon completion of the respective phase of construction and is thus considered less than significant. It is expected that Project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City’s solid waste regulations.
Therefore, odors associated with the proposed Project construction and operations would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 24 4.4 Biological Resources
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:
Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis, TTM 37857, Gonzales Environmental Consulting, LLC., March 28, 2022, and is included as Appendix B.
Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment, Cadre Environmental, September 29, 2023, included as Appendix B-1.
Focused Survey for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, Powell Environmental Consultants, September 24, 2020, and is included in Appendix C.
Threshold 4.4 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts related to candidate, sensitive, or special status species. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to pay mitigation fees pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) as required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.80.
Existing Conditions
The topography of the Project site is moderately sloping land from southwestern to northeastern portion of the project site with elevations on the site range from approximately 830 feet above mean seal level (MSL) to 849 feet above MSL. Land use in the surrounding area is primarily single family residential, with a local church to the east and school to the south The vegetation community within the Project impact is characterized as California Annual Grassland Alliance, Tamarisk, and ornamental. Previous and current anthropogenic activities and invasion of nonnative plant species have contributed to the disturbed condition of many vegetation communities within the project vicinity.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 25 The Project Site is located within the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Jurupa Area Plan. The site is not located within a MSHCP Core, Criteria Cell, Subunit, or Linkage. The project site is not located within identified Survey Areas including: MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant, Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly, and Burrowing Owl Survey Areas.
Sensitive Plant Communities/Species
The Project Site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The Project site does not occur within a Criteria Cell and/or Cell Group, Core and/or Linkage Area, Burrowing Owl Survey Area, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA)Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), Mammal Survey Area, Invertebrate/Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Survey Area, or Amphibian Survey Area.
Narrow Endemic Plants
The Project site is not in the MSHCP designated Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA). The Habitat Assessment determined that no habitat for these or any other special status plant of the area is present and as such no additional plant surveys were required.
Sensitive Wildlife Species
Habitat for the Burrowing Owl (Athene canicular), which is classified as a Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), was not observed on the Project site during the field survey. No burrowing owls were detected during the habitat assessment, additionally the Project site is not listed within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
Although the Project site is not located in the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Survey Area, delhi soils were mapped in the northern portion of the site as a result a Focused Survey for the Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly was conducted by Powell Environmental Consultants, dated September 24, 2020, and is included in Appendix C. The survey concluded there were no DSFLF on the site and no further surveys or mitigation was required.
Vegetation within and surrounding the project site has the potential to provide refuge cover from predators perching sites and favorable conditions for avian nesting that could be impacted by construction activities associated with the project. Nesting birds are protected pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Fish and Game Code (Sections 3503, 3503.3, 3511, and 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests or eggs). In order to protect migratory bird species, a nesting bird clearance survey is required to be conducted prior to any ground disturbance or vegetation removal activities occur. season. Mitigation Measure (MM) BIO-1 is required.
No other habitat supporting species that are classified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species was present on the Project site area proposed for disturbance and development.
Mitigation Measures
MM- BIO-1: Migratory / Nesting Bird Survey and Protection:
To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 26 construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading.
The survey area will include the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required. The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in:
identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities. Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.
If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned.
The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologistshall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found. Upon completion of Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 27 the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
Threshold 4.4 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Habitat Assessment and Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment concluded that the Project site does not contain any native vegetation communities, including special-status vegetation communities, or riparian habitat. Additionally, jurisdictional wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. and riparian and streambed waters of the State are not present within the Project site. No riparian/riverine resources subject to the MSHCP are present on the Project site. No evidence of vernal pools or seasonal depressions were observed within the Project Site and no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp is present within or adjacent to the Project Site. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impacts on special-status vegetation communities or riparian habitat.
Threshold 4.4 (c) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to,
marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
ü
Impact Analysis
Jurisdictional Waters regulated by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are not located within or adjacent to the Project Site. The Habitat Assessment and Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment concluded that the Project site does not contain any state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 28 pool, coastal, etc.). The Project site does not contain jurisdictional waters. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact on state or federally protected wetlands. 11 Threshold 4.4 (d). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Interfere substantially with the movement of any
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species
or with established native resident or migratory
wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native
wildlife nursery sites?
ü
Impact Analysis
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. The Project Site proposed for development does not represent a wildlife travel route, crossing or regional movement corridor between large open space habitats. The Project Site is bordered by existing roads, residential uses, vacant land, a church and school. As such, the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident wildlife corridors.
The site supports nesting opportunities for common migratory bird species. All migratory bird species, whether listed or not, also receive protection under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 191812. The MBTA prohibits individuals to kill, take, possess, or sell any migratory bird, bird parts (including nests and eggs) except per regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Department (16 U. S. Code 7034).
Therefore, prior to ground disturbance or vegetation being removed, a pre-construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted, and avoidance measures taken to ensure that no take of birds or their nests will occur per Mitigation Measure MM-BIO-1.
Threshold 4.4 (e) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
ü
Impact Analysis
11 Habitat Assessment: Appendix B 12 United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, August 8, 2017, Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations/laws-legislations/migratory-bird-treaty-act.php Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 29 According to the General Plan, significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban landscape due to their species, size, or rarity. In particular, California native trees should be protected.13 According to the General Plan, other significant vegetation includes agricultural wind screen plantings, street trees, stands of mature native and non-native trees, and other features of ecological, aesthetic, and conservation value14.
The proposed Project Site has for years been disturbed and according to the Habitat Assessment and Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment there are no protected trees, therefore there is no impact.
Threshold 4.4 (f) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state
habitat conservation plan?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.15 The plan provides coverage (including take authorization for listed species) for special-status plant and animal species, as well as mitigation for impacts to sensitive species.
The conclusions and recommendations from the Habitat Assessment and Updated MSHCP/CEQA Comparative Compliance Assessment, prepared for the Project (Appendix B & B-1) are listed in Table 4.4-1.
Table 4.4-1: MSHCP Consistency Analysis 16
MSHCP Element/Requirements Project Site Status
Criteria Cell/Cell Group The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area or Criteria Cell Group.
Area Plan Subunit The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Area Plan Subunit.
Habitat Management Unit The Project site is located within the Santa Ana River Habitat Management Unit. The Project site is not located within or adjacent to MSHCP Conserved Lands. No requirements are imposed on the Project based on its presence in this habitat management unit.
MSHCP Conservation Areas The Project site is not located within a MSHCP Conservation Area.
Public/Quasi Public (PQP) Conservation
Land
The Project site is not located within Public/Quasi Public Conservation Land.
13 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy COS-1.2. 14City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element, Policy COS-1.3. 15 Regional Conservation Authority, Western Riverside County, Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, June 17, 2003. 16 Habitat Assessment, Appendix B.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 30 Narrow Endemic Plants (MSHCP Section
6.1.3)
The Project site is not located within the NEPSSA. The Project site has no suitable habitat therefore, because no impacts will occur within the NEPSSA, focused narrow endemic plant surveys are not required for the Project.
Additional Species Surveys
(including Burrowing Owl, Criteria Area
Species, Amphibians, and Mammals)
[MSHCP Section 6.3.2]
The Project site is not located within the Burrowing Owl Survey Area.
However, for the protection of nesting birds prior to ground disturbance and vegetation clearing a nesting bird survey is required.
Riparian/Riverine Resources (MSHCP
Section 6.1.2)
Riparian/riverine resources are not present within the Project Site. No changes in hydrology are expected as a result of this Project.
Additionally, no impacts are proposed to riparian/riverine resources and none of the riparian/riverine species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were observed within the Project Site.
Vernal Pools (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) No vernal pools or seasonal depressions are present onsite, as previously described in Section 5.6.3 of this report. No vernal pools were identified within the immediate vicinity of the Project and therefore no indirect impacts to vernal pools are anticipated.
Fairy Shrimp (MSHCP Section 6.1.2) Three species are covered by the MSHCP including the Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). According to the MSHCP, vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat is limited to vernal pools and alkali vernal pools, and Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp are limited to vernal pools formed on basalt flows. No portion of the Project site is described as having an alkali complex or basalt flows. In addition, no vernal pools are considered to be present on the Project site and therefore Santa Rosa Plateau and vernal pool fairy shrimp are not either.
No potential fairy shrimp habitat was detected and due to the lack of suitable habitat on the Project site, no impacts to fairy shrimp are anticipated.
Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly Although the Project site is not located within the Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly Survery Area, delhi soils were identified in the northern portion of the site. A Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly focused survey was conducted on site and results were negative. No impacts to Delhi-Sands flower-loving fly are anticipated.
Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/
Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section
6.1.4)
The Project site is not located in or near a Conservation Area.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 31 4.5 Cultural Resources
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:
Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation; McKENNA et al., March 24, 2020, and is included as Appendix D.
Phase I Environmental Assessment Report, Robin Environmental Management (REM), April 26, 2022, and included as Appendix E.
Threshold 4.5 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
ü
Impact Analysis
Historic resources generally consist of buildings, structures, improvements, and remnants associated with a significant historic event or person(s) and/or have a historically significant style, design, or achievement. Damaging or demolition of historic resources is typically considered to be a significant impact. Impacts to historic resources can occur through direct impacts, such as destruction or removal, and indirect impacts, such as a change in the setting of a historic resource.
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a) clarifies that historical resources include the following:
1. A resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.
2. A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code, or identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements [of] section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code.
3. Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California.
Historic Setting
The Project site is located in a general location associated with Native American occupation and/or use during prehistoric and protohistoric periods. It is also an area associated with historic Mexican period rancho activity, American period ranching and farming activity, and, more recently, residential and recreational activity.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 32 Research and Conclusions
As part of the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation (Cultural Investigation) an Archaeological Resources Check and Historic Research data repository search was conducted by McKENNA et al.
Additionally, a historic city directory records search was conducted as part of the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase 1 for the site by Robin Environmental Management, which included reviewing historic topographical maps, historic aerial photographs, and site development/occupancy history.
Based on the research prior to 1950 the site was vacant and undeveloped, from the 1950’s until the 1980’s the site was mainly vacant with a residential dwelling unit and detached parking garage, the site was again vacant in the 1990’s until the early 2000’s, starting in 2005 the property has been occupied by various plant nurseries. As there are no identified historic objects or structures on the site there is no impact to historical resources.
Threshold 4.5 (b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
ü
Impact Analysis
Archaeological Setting
Archaeological sites are locations that contain resources associated with former human activities, and may contain such resources as human skeletal remains, waste from tool manufacture, tool concentrations, and/or discoloration or accumulation of soil or food remains.
Research and Conclusions
As a result of the surveys conducted for the Cultural Investigation a minimum of 10 cultural resources have been reported withing one-mile radius of the Project area. All reported resources are historic period resources, with the exception of one property (CA-RIV-559) with a prehistoric archaeological component. None of the identified resources were found to be impacted by the proposed development of the Project.
While there is always a potential for buried resources, the potential is relatively low and, with no evidence of bedrock outcroppings and the extensive anthropogenic activities conducted over decades, it is unlikely buried resources will be identified within the Project site. However, since the area is still considered slightly sensitive (resources have been recorded within one mile), should any evidence of prehistoric archaeological resources be encountered during grading activities, the following mitigation measures are required:
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 33 Mitigation Measure(s)
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes shall be placed on the grading plan:
MM-CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to implement Archaeological Monitoring for the area of impact for the Project. Monitoring shall be conducted in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s), defined as a Tribe that initiated the tribal consultation process for the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b) (“AB52”) and has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City. Monitoring shall address the details of all ground-disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts on cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.
A fully executed copy of the Archaeological Monitoring Agreement shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this measure.
If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall apply.
MM-CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan. The Project Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a treatment plan to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan shall be per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementing archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource and subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
MM-CR-3: Final Plan. A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 34 Threshold 4.5 (c) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries? ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to disturbing human remains. This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.5-1 The project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq.
The Project site does not contain a cemetery and no known formal cemeteries are located within the immediate site vicinity. If human remains are discovered during Project grading or other ground disturbing activities, the Project would be required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin. Pursuant to California Public Resources Code Section 5097.98(b), remains shall be left in place and free from disturbance until a final decision as to the treatment and disposition has been made by the Coroner. If the Coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) must be contacted and the NAHC must then immediately notify the “most likely descendant(s)” of receiving notification of the discovery. The most likely descendant(s) shall then make recommendations within 48 hours and engage in consultations concerning the treatment of the remains as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 35 4.6 Energy
Threshold 4.6 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
ü
Impact Analysis
Construction Energy Analysis
Construction of the Project would require the use of fuel and electric powered equipment and vehicles for construction activities. The majority of activities would use fuel powered equipment and vehicles that would consume gasoline or diesel fuel. Heavy construction equipment (e.g., dozers, graders, backhoes, dump trucks) would be diesel powered, while smaller construction vehicles, such as pick-up trucks and personal vehicles used by workers would be gasoline powered. The majority of electricity use would be from power tools. The anticipated construction schedule assumes the Project would be built in approximately 11 months. The consumption of energy would be temporary in nature and would not represent a significant demand on available supplies. There are no unusual characteristics that would necessitate the use of fuel or electricity that would be less energy efficient than at comparable construction sites in the region or State.
Starting in 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) adopted the nation's first regulation aimed at cleaning up off-road construction equipment such as bulldozers, graders, and backhoes.
These requirements ensure fleets gradually turnover the oldest and dirtiest equipment to newer, cleaner models and prevent fleets from adding older, dirtier equipment. As such, the equipment used for Project construction would conform to CARB regulations and California emissions standards as fuel efficiencies gradually rise. It should also be noted that there are no unusual Project characteristics or construction processes that would require the use of equipment that would be more energy intensive than is used for comparable activities; or equipment that would not conform to current emissions standards (and related fuel efficiencies). Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
In addition, as required by state law17, idling times of construction vehicles is limited to no more than five minutes, thereby minimizing, or eliminating unnecessary and wasteful consumption of fuel due to unproductive idling of construction equipment. Equipment employed in construction of the Project would therefore not result in inefficient wasteful, or unnecessary consumption of fuel.
17 California Code of Regulations Title 13, Motor Vehicles, section 2449(d)(3) Idling.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 36 Operational Energy Analysis
Energy consumption in support of or related to Project operations would include transportation energy demands and operational energy demands.
Transportation Energy Demands
Energy that would be consumed by Project-generated traffic is a function of total vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and estimated vehicle fuel economies of vehicles accessing the Project site. Using the value calculated using the CalEEMod Program the Project will result in 976,535 annual VMT and an estimated annual fuel consumption of 37,55 gallons of fuel.18 Enhanced fuel economies realized pursuant to federal and state regulatory actions, and related transition of vehicles to alternative energy sources (e.g., electricity, natural gas, biofuels, hydrogen cells) would likely decrease future gasoline fuel demands per VMT. Location of the Project proximate to regional and local roadway systems tends to reduce VMT within the region, acting to reduce regional vehicle energy demands. As supported by the preceding discussions, Project transportation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
Operational Energy Demands
Occupancy of the residences would result in the consumption of natural gas and electricity.
Energy demands are estimated at 1,280,315 kBTU/year of natural gas and 336,213 kWh/year of electricity. 19 Natural gas would be supplied to the Project by SoCalGas and electricity would be supplied by SCE. The Project proposes multi-family townhomes reflecting contemporary energy efficient/energy conserving designs and operational programs. The Project does not propose uses that are inherently energy intensive and the energy demands in total would be comparable to other single-family land use projects of similar scale and configuration. Lastly, the Project will comply with the applicable Title 24 standards. Compliance itself with applicable Title 24 standards will ensure that the Project energy demands would not be inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary.
In summary, as supported by the preceding analyses, neither construction nor operation of the Project would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy, or wasteful use of energy resources.
18 Appendix A, CalEEMod Datasheets.
19 Appendix A, CalEEMod Datasheets. (avg 26 mpg passenger car) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 37 Threshold 4.6(b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? ü
Impact Analysis
The California Energy Commission provides oversight for the preparation of rules and regulations for the conservation of energy such as Appliance Energy Efficiency, Building Energy Efficiency, Energy Supplier Reporting, and State Energy Management. The regulations directly applicable to the Project are Building Energy Efficiency Standards, Title 24, Part 6, and CALGreen Title 24, Part
11. These regulations include, but are not limited to the use of energy efficient heating and cooling systems, water conserving plumbing and water-efficient irrigation systems. The Project is required to demonstrate compliance with these regulations as part of the building permit and inspection process.
4.7 Geology And Soils
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report: Preliminary Soil Investigation, Infiltration Tests, and Liquefaction Evaluation Report; Soil Exploration Company, Inc., August 4, 2022, included as Appendix F.
Note: There are no Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zones located in Jurupa Valley, therefore, this topic is not addressed in the Initial Study.
Threshold 4.7(a1). Would the Project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Strong seismic ground shaking? ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to seismic ground shaking.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.7-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010, the Project shall comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code which requires the Project to comply with the approved recommended seismic design requirements contained in the Project Specific Geotechnical Evaluation, and be incorporated in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 38 construction of each structure, to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
The Project site is in a seismically active area of Southern California and is expected to experience moderate to severe ground shaking during the lifetime of the Project. This risk is not considered substantially different than that of other similar properties in the Southern California area. As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the Project.
Threshold 4.7(a2). Would the Project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ü Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to seismic ground shaking.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
According to General Plan20 the Project site has a high potential for liquefaction. According to the Geotechnical Investigation groundwater was encountered at a depth of 19 to 24 feet bgs within exploratory borings. The subject site subsurgace soils disclosed at the test borings consist generally of alternate layers firm to dense, brown to reddish brown, very fine-sandy, slightly clayer silt to very fine-sandy silt to fine coarse, silty sand to slightly silty to clean sand to a depth of 51 feet. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded based on the liquefaction analysis perfumed seismic-induced settlement will not occur.
21 Per PPP 4.71- as a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Evaluation prepared for the Project.
Threshold 4.7(a3). Would the Project directly or
indirectly cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death
involving:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Landslides? ü
20 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8-5: Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley. 21 Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation dated August 4, 2022, p. 5.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 39 Impact Analysis
Evidence of ancient landslides or slope instabilities at this site was not observed during the geotechnical investigation. The geotechnical investigation concluded that the proposed development is in an area of relatively flat terrain and a significant distance from any up-gradient steep slopes, and no landslides have been mapped in the immediate area, therefor risk of seismically induced landsliding to affect the proposed development is negligible.
Per PPP 4.71- as a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project.
Threshold 4.7(b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil? ü
Impact Analysis
Construction
Grading and construction activities would expose and loosen topsoil, which could be eroded by wind or water. The Municipal Code requires the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan to address site-specific conditions related to these activities22. The plan will identify potential sources of erosion and sedimentation loss of topsoil during construction, and identify erosion control measures to reduce or eliminate the erosion and loss of topsoil, such as use of silt fencing, fiber rolls, or gravel bags, stabilized construction entrance/exit, and hydroseeding.
Through compliance with the Municipal Code, construction impacts related to erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
Operation
The proposed Project includes installation of landscaping throughout the Project site and areas of loose topsoil that could erode by wind or water would not exist upon operation of the Project.
In the proposed condition, storm water will flow to the internal street system and be conveyed to the southeast across the Project site towards the bio-retention basin. The use of a bioretention basin reduces the potential for stormwater to erode topsoil downstream. 22 City of Jurupa Valley, Municipal Code, Chapter 6.05.010, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 40 Threshold 4.7(c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable because of the Project,
and potentially result in on-site or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to an unstable geologic unit. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
Landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and collapse as a result of an earthquake are largely dependent on the underlying geologic conditions (e.g., bedrock, type of soil, and the depth of the water table). The subject site subsurgace soils disclosed at the test borings consist generally of alternate layers firm to dense, brown to reddish brown, very fine-sandy, slightly clayer silt to very fine-sandy silt to fine coarse, silty sand to slightly silty to clean sand to a depth of 51 feet. The water table is at a depth of 19 to 24 feet bgs.
Landslides: The Geotechnical Investigation for the Project site states that the proposed development is in an area of relatively flat terrain and a significant distance from any upgradient steep slopes, and no landslides have been mapped in the immediate area, thus, the potential for landslides is considered negligible for design purposes.
Lateral Spreading: When subsurface sand layers lose strength because of liquefaction, lateral spreading can occur in overlying sediments, allowing them to move down even the gentlest slopes. The potential for and magnitude of lateral spreading is dependent upon many conditions, including the presence of a relatively thick, continuous, potentially liquefiable sand layer and high slopes. Subsurface information obtained for the Geotechnical Investigation indicated that based on the relatively dense and consolidated nature of the site soils, it is our opinion that the potential for seismically-induced settlement will be nil.
23 Subsidence/Collapse: Land subsidence can occur in various ways during an earthquake.
Large areas of land can subside drastically during an earthquake because of offset along fault lines. Land subsidence can also occur as a result of settling and compacting of unconsolidated sediment from the shaking of an earthquake. Cohesive soils such as clay and silt are particularly likely to cause subsidence since they shrink and swell depending 23 Geotechnical Investigation p. 6.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 41 on their moisture content. According to the USGS Land Subsidence in California Map, the Project site is not located in an area where subsidence has occurred.24 Liquefaction: The occurrence of liquefaction is restricted to certain geologic and hydrologic environments, primarily in areas with recently deposited sands and silts (usually less than 10,000 years old) with high ground-water levels. It is most common where the water table is at a depth of less than 30-feet. As noted in the response to Threshold 4.7 (a2), according to General Plan25 the Project site has a high potential for liquefaction. The Geotechnical Investigation for the Project found that Groundwater was encountered at a depth of 19 to 14-ft Bgs. The subject site subsurgace soils disclosed at the test borings consist generally of alternate layers firm to dense, brown to reddish brown, very fine-sandy, slightly clayer silt to very fine-sandy silt to fine coarse, silty sand to slightly silty to clean sand to a depth of 51 feet. The Geotechnical Investigation concluded based on the liquefaction analysis perfumed seismic-induced settlement will not occur.
As a mandatory condition of Project approval, the Project would be required to conduct site preparation and grading as well as construct the proposed structures in accordance with the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the Project. (Appendix F).
Threshold 4.7(d) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in the
Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to
life or property?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, and Programs
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to expansive soils. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.7-1 shall apply.
Expansive soils are characterized by their ability to undergo significant volume changes (shrink or swell) due to variations in moisture content. Changes in soil moisture content can result from precipitation, landscape irrigation, utility leakage, roof drainage, perched groundwater, drought, or other factors and may result in unacceptable settlement or heave of structures or concrete slabs supported on grade.
24 USGS Land Subsidence in California: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html Accessed January 27, 2023.
25 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8-5: Liquefaction Susceptibility in Jurupa Valley.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 42 The expansion index, EI, value is used by engineers and other professionals as an indicator of the soil’s swelling potential. According to American Society for Testing & Materials (ASTM) Standard D4829, soil having an expansion potential of greater than 91 is considered to be expansive soil.
Based on laboratory testing, the materials present near the ground surface have an Expansion Index EI=23 which is less than an Expansion Index of greater than 91. As such, risks from expansive soils are considered to be low. Notwithstanding, the Project would be required to construct the proposed structures in accordance with the approved recommendations included in the Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the project (Appendix F).
Threshold 4.7(e) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems.
The Project would install domestic sewer infrastructure and connect to the Jurupa Community Service District’s existing sewer conveyance and treatment system.
Threshold 4.7(f) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ü
Impact Analysis
General Plan Figure 4-18- Paleontological Sensitivity, indicates that the site has a High A sensitivity (Ha) designation for finding paleontological resources26. As part of recent Phase I Cultural Resources Assessments in the City, paleontological overviews were prepared by Dr.
Samuel McLeod of the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. The overviews included a review of applicable literature, geologic maps, and the identification of local resources known to the Museum.
McLeod (2020) indicated that excavations in the exposed igneous rocks will not uncover any recognizable fossils, shallow excavations into older Quaternary Alluvium may not encounter significant vertebrate fossils, however deeper excavations my encounter fossil vertebrates.
Therefore, the following mitigation measures are required. 26 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan, Conservation and Open Space Element, Figure 4-18, Paleontological Sensitivity.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 43 Mitigation Measures (MM):
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to conduct monitoring as necessary during ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish a schedule for paleontological resource surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Paleontologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the Paleontologist/Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe ground-disturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium.
The Paleontologist will attend the pre-grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for paleontological monitoring and to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the uppermost layers (more than 3 feet below surface) should be monitored. Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the small-fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Unique Geologic Feature
The Project site is relatively flat. The subject site is underlain by dense to very dense Old alluvial fan deposits at the ground surface and extended to a depth of 51 feet bgs. As such, the Project does not contain a geologic feature that is unique or exclusive locally or regionally. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM-GEO-1 and MM-GEO-2, impacts are less than significant.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 44 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
The following analysis is based in part on the following: CalEEMod Datasheets, dated July 12, 2023, included as Appendix A.
Threshold 4.8 (a-b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment? ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to greenhouse gas emissions. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with the most recently adopted edition of the applicable California Energy Code, (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
PPP 4.8-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements, prior to the approval of landscaping plans, the Project proponent shall prepare and submit landscape plans that demonstrate compliance with this section.
No single land use project could generate enough greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to noticeably change the global average temperature. Cumulative GHG emissions, however, contribute to global climate change and its significant adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the primary goal in adopting GHG significance thresholds, analytical methodologies, and mitigation measures is to ensure new land use development provides its fair share of the GHG reductions needed to address cumulative environmental impacts from those emissions.
Thresholds of Significance
A final numerical threshold for determining the significance of greenhouse gas emissions in the South Coast Air Basin has not been established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. General Plan Policy AQ 9.5 requires the City to utilize the SCAQMD Draft GHG thresholds to evaluate development proposals until the City adopts a Climate Action Plan (CAP). The City has determined that the SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is appropriate for residential land use development projects. The 3,000 MTCO2e threshold is based on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 45 SCAQMD staff’s proposed GHG screening threshold for stationary source emissions for nonindustrial projects, as described in the SCAQMD’s Interim CEQA GHG Significance Threshold for Stationary Sources, Rules and Plans (“SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold”). The SCAQMD Interim GHG Threshold identifies a screening threshold to determine whether additional analysis is required. This threshold is also consistent with the SCAQMD’s draft interim threshold Tier 3.
A summary of the projected annual operational greenhouse gas emissions, including amortized construction-related emissions associated with the development of the Project is provided in Table 4.8-1.
Table 4.8-1: Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Emission Source Total Emissions (MTCO2e
per year)
Annual construction-related emissions amortized over 30 years 10.75 Area Source 12.1
Energy Source 122
Mobile Source 367
Waste 10.3
Water Usage 10.5
Refrigerant 0.06
Total CO2E (All Sources) 532.71
Screening Threshold (CO2E) 3,000
Threshold Exceeded NO
Source: CalEEMod datasheets (Appendix A).
As shown on Table 4.8-1, the Project has the potential to generate a total of approximately 532.71 MTCO2e per year. As such, the Project would not exceed the City’s screening threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e. Thus, Project-related emissions would not have a significant direct or indirect impact on greenhouse gas emissions that could impact climate change and no mitigation or further analysis is required.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 46 Threshold 4.8 (a-b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b. Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse gases?
ü
Impact Analysis
Determining a project’s consistency with plans, policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions plans presents unique challenges because the impact is global and solutions require both global, federal, state, and local action. The following are the primary plans adopted at the State level that to reduce GHG emissions:
• The California Air Resources Board (CARB) Scoping Plan is the state’s overall strategy in the form of measures that apply to emission sectors that comprise the state’s greenhouse gas emission inventory. The state’s implementation strategy primarily takes the form of source-specific regulations for energy producers fuel suppliers, and vehicle manufacturers. For example, California Light-Duty Vehicle GHG Standards and Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Scoping Plan envisions a limited role for local government in implementing the state’s GHG reduction strategy, focusing on local government’s authority over land use and some transportation projects. • The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (Sustainable Communities Act, SB 375, Chapter 728, Statutes of 2008) supports the State's climate action goals to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through coordinated transportation and land use planning with the goal of more sustainable communities. To this end, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), has adopted the Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy which charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation to increase mobility options and achieve a more sustainable growth pattern.
Implementation of Connect SoCal depends on partnerships with our local jurisdictions and County Transportation Commissions (CTCs). The land use strategies in Connect SoCal are based on a growth vision that was developed through extensive consultation with local communities, which proposes multiple different types of Priority Growth Areas, as well as identifying regional growth constraints. SCAG provides resources to help local jurisdictions align local plans and programs with the regional growth vision through a series of technical assistance and funding programs.
Certain measures of the Scoping Plan and Connect SoCal are supported by the Project, such as energy conservation and energy efficiency measures. Other measures, while not directly applicable, would not be impeded by Project implementation.
The City is in the process of preparing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) in conjunction with WRCOG which will identify specific policies and regulations that are directed at the project level. Until such time that the City adopts a CAP, the Project is evaluated for consistency with the following Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 47 plans, policies, or regulations to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as shown in Table
4.8.2, Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures.
Table 4.8.2. Consistency with GHG Reduction Measures
GHG Reduction Measure Consistency Analysis
General Plan
AQ 9.5 GHG Thresholds. Utilize the SCAQMD Draft GHG
thresholds to evaluate development proposals until the
City adopts a Climate Action Plan (CAP).
Consistent. The City has determined that the
SCAQMD’s draft threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year is
appropriate for this Project. GHG emissions are 532.71
MTCO2e which is less than the 3,000 MTCO2e
threshold.
CSSF 2.44 Drought-Tolerant Landscaping. Require the
use of drought-tolerant landscaping in all new
development.
Consistent. The Project is required to comply with
Section 9.283 (Water Efficient Landscape Design
Requirement) of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal
Code.
LUE 11.6 Energy Efficiency. Require development
projects to use energy efficient design features in their site planning, building design and orientation, and
landscape design that meet or exceed state energy
standards.
Consistent. The Project is required to submit building
plans and is required to meet CALGreen Codes, CA Title
24 Energy Efficiency Standards, and City’s water
efficient landscape requirements; therefore, the
Project is determined to be consistent with General
Plan Policy LUE 11.6.
ME 3.9 Pedestrian Facilities. Public streets shall
provide pedestrian facilities in accordance with
adopted City standards. Sidewalks shall be separated
from the roadway by a landscaped parkway, except
where the Community Development Director
determines that attached sidewalks are appropriate
due to existing sidewalk location, design, or other
conditions.
Consistent. In addition to the facilities within the
Project site, Parkway improvements on 45th Street
include curbing, adjacent landscaping and sidewalk.
ME 3.36 Bicycle Improvements. Conditionally
Required. Require the construction or rehabilitation of bicycle facilities and/or “bicycle-friendly”
improvements as a condition of approving new
development, in accordance with Zoning Ordinance
standards
Consistent. The Project is providing an additional 14
feet of parkway improvements along 45th to create a 26
foot wide parkway with sidewalks and improvements
that connecting to the development that will allow for
biking and walking throughout the complex and
connecting walks offsite.
Municipal Code
Energy Efficiency Consistent. As required by Municipal Code Section
8.05.010 (7), California Energy Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in
compliance with this section.
Green Buildings Consistent. As required by Municipal Code Section
8.05.010 (8), California Green Building Standards Code, prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project
proponent shall submit plans in compliance with this
code section.
Water Conservation Consistent. The Project will comply with Chapter 9.283. - Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements.
Solid Waste Reduction Consistent. The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards,
which requires new development projects to submit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 48 GHG Reduction Measure Consistency Analysis
and implement a construction waste management plan
in order to reduce the amount of construction waste
transported to landfills.
Based on the analysis above, the Project will not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
4.9 - Hazards And Hazardous Materials
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical report:
Phase 1 Environmental Assessment Report, Robin Environmental Management (REM), dated December 16, 2021, included as Appendix E.
Soil Sampling Evaluation Report, TRC dated January 4, 2023,included as Appendix G Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) Development Review Determination Letter, February 10, 2022, included as Appendix H.
Threshold 4.9(a) (b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use,
or disposal of hazardous materials?
ü
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
ü
Impact Analysis
Existing Conditions
The subject site is currently vacant, vegetation consisting of non-native grasses, and exposed soil sections. During the biological assessment no ponds, swamps, or lagoons were observed on the subject property.
Construction Activities
Heavy equipment that would be used during construction of the proposed Project would be fueled and maintained by substances such as oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, hydraulic fluid, and other liquid materials that would be considered hazardous if improperly stored or handled. In addition, materials such as paints, roofing materials, solvents, and other substances typically used in building construction would be located on the Project site during construction. Improper use, Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 49 storage, or transportation of hazardous materials could result in accidental releases or spills, potentially posing health risks to workers, the public, and the environment. The potential for accidental releases and spills of hazardous materials during construction is a standard risk on all construction sites, and there would be no greater risk for improper handling, transportation, or spills associated with future development that would be a reasonably consequence of the proposed Project than would occur on any other similar construction site.
Construction contractors are required to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations regarding hazardous materials, including but not limited requirements imposed by the Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Toxic Substances Control, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. As such, impacts due to construction activities would not cause a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
A less than significant impact would occur.
Operational Activities
The Project site would be developed with residential land uses which is a land use not typically associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Although residential land uses may utilize household products that contain toxic substances, such as cleansers, paints, adhesives, and solvents, these products are usually in low concentration and small in amount and would not pose a significant risk to humans or the environment during transport to/from or use at the Project site.
Pursuant to State law and local regulations, residents would be required to dispose of household hazardous waste (e.g., batteries, used oil, old paint) at a permitted household hazardous waste collection facility. Accordingly, the Project would not expose people or the environment to significant hazards associated with the disposal of hazardous materials at the Project site. Longterm operation of the Project would not expose the public or the environment to significant hazards associated with the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Threshold 4.9 (c) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located within one-quarter (0.25) mile from an existing or proposed school.
From the Project site, the nearest schools are Pacific Avenue Academy of Music located approximately 450 east on 45th Street, and Rubidoux High School located 0.29 miles north. In addition, as discussed in the responses to issues 4.9 (b) and 4.9 (c) above, all hazardous or potentially hazardous materials would comply with all applicable federal, State, and local Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 50 agencies and regulations with respect to hazardous materials. Therefore, regardless of the proximity of planned or proposed schools, the Project will not impact schools.
Threshold 4.9 (d) Would the Project
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Be located on a site, which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5, and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese) List is a planning document used by the State and local agencies to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Below are the data resources that provide information regarding the facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements. • List of Hazardous Waste and Substances sites from Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database.
• List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Sites from the State Water Board’s GeoTracker database.
• List of solid waste disposal sites identified by Water Board with waste constituents above hazardous waste levels outside the waste management unit. • List of “active” CDO and CAO from Water Board.
• List of hazardous waste facilities subject to corrective action pursuant to Section 25187.5 of the Health and Safety Code, identified by DTSC.
Based on a review of the Cortese List maintained by the California Environmental Protection Agency the Project site was not found on any list of hazardous materials sites.
Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment:
A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was conducted on the Project site by Robin Environmental Management (REM) (Appendix E), the results are summarized in Table 4.9-1 below:
Table 4.9-1: Summary of Site Reconnaissance
Item Concerns Comments
General Housekeeping No No concerns observed.
Surface Spills No No concerns observed.
Stained Surfaces No No concerns observed.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 51 Fill Materials No No concerns observed.
Wells No No concerns observed.
Pits/Ponds/Lagoons No No concerns observed.
Surface Impoundments No No concerns observed.
ASTs/USTs No No concerns observed.
Distressed Vegetation No No concerns observed.
Wetlands No No concerns observed.
Electrical Substations No No concerns observed.
Areas of Dumping No No concerns observed.
Transformers Waste/Scrap
Storage
No No concerns observed.
Chemical Use/Storage No No concerns observed.
Herbicides / Pesticides Yes Historical Use -
Source: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Robin Environmental Management.
Historic Herbicide / Pesticide Use:
The ESA determined that the site was previously used for agricultural (fruit groves) prior to 1948 into the mid 1960’s. The ESA was reviewed by Riverside County Department of Environmental Health (RCDEH), and soil sampling was requested in an email dated September 14, 2022, to the Project proponent. Soil sampling was conducted in accordance with the Interim Guidance for Sampling Agricultural Properties, (DTSC, 2008) by TRC Companies (TRC). The sampling and laboratory results were presented in a report by TRC January 4, 2023 (Appendix G) the finding indicated that arsenic and organochlorine pesticide (OCP) concentrations in the soil samples was below screening levels. Based on the conclusions no additional testing was determined to be required.
Threshold 4.9 (e) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
For a project located within an airport land use plan
or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within
two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the Project result in a safety hazard or
excessive noise for people residing or working in the
Project area?
ü
Impact Analysis
Airport Land Use Compatibility
The nearest airport is Riverside Municipal Airport located approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project site. According to Map FL-1, Falbo Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUP), the Project site is located withing Zone D of the airport compatibility zones. 27 The Airport Land Use
27 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, December 2004.
Available at: https://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/14-%20Vol.%201%20Flabob.pdf Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 52 Commission (ALUC) determined the proposed Project was “Conditionally Consistent” with the 2004 Flabob ALUP pending FAA Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation. The ALUC issued a Development Review Letter dated February 10, 2022 (Appendix H) following the receipt of the FAA’s Determination of No Hazard to Air Navigation letters issued on February 10, 2022, and found the Project Consistent with the following required conditions:
1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.
2. The following uses shall be prohibited:
(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.
(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor, or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sunflower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.) (d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. (e) Highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses. (f) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g., tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.
3. The attached “Notice of Airport in Vicinity” shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property and be recorded as a deed notice.
4. Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48-hour detention period following the design storm and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.
Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip-rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC “LANDSCAPING NEAR AIRPORTS” brochure, and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 53 “AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT” brochure available at RCALUC.ORG which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.
A notice sign, in a form similar to that attached hereto, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: “There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds.
Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes”. The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible to monitor the stormwater basin.
5. This project has been evaluated for a subdivision of 37 single family residential lots on
3.84 acres. Any change in the project’s density will require an amended review to evaluate consistency with the ALUCP criteria, at the discretion of the ALUC Director.
6. The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted aeronautical studies of the proposed project (Aeronautical Study No. 2021-AWP-20573-OE thru 2021-AWP- 20576-OE) and has determined that neither marking nor lighting of the structures are necessary for aviation safety. However, if marking and/or lighting for aviation safety are accomplished on a voluntary basis, such marking and/or lighting (if FAA Advisory Circular 70/7460-1 M and all be maintained in accordance therewith for the life of the project. 7 The proposed structures shall not exceed a height and a maximum elevation at top point than what is identified in the aeronautical studies.
8. The maximum height and top point elevation specified above shall not be amended without further review by the Airport Land Use Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration; provided, however, that reduction in structure height or elevation shall not require further review by the Airport Land Use Commission.
9. Temporary construction equipment used during actual construction of the structure shall not a height and a maximum elevation than what is identified in the aeronautical studies, unless separate notice is provided to the Federal Aviation Administration through the Form 7460-1 process.
10. Within five (5) days after construction of the structure reaches its greatest height, FAA Form 7460-2 (Part II), Notice of Actual Construction or Alteration, shall be completed by the project proponent or his/her designee and e-filed with the Federal Aviation Administration. (Go to https://oeaaa.faa.gov for instructions.) This requirement is also applicable in the event the project is abandoned or a decision is made not to construct the applicable structure.
Airport Noise
The Project consists of single-family residences and will not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. The nearest airport is Falbo Airport located approximately 0.75 miles east of the Project site. According to Map FL-3, Noise Compatibility Contours Flabob Airport, Land Use Compatibility Plan, the Project site is located outside the 60 CNEL Noise Impact Zone. According to the Noise Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 54 Impact Study the project site falls within the normally acceptable limit (less than 60 dBA), therefore, the exterior noise impact from the airport would be within allowable limits for residential land uses and the project is considered compatible with the surrounding land use environment. Standard building design and construction methods would provide adequate noise attenuation to comply with the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL and thereby not expose residents of the Project to excessive noise levels.
Threshold 4.9 (f) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Impair implementation of or physically interfere
with an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
ü
Impact Analysis
Access to the Project site is proposed from 45th Street via Pacific Avenue. The Project site does not contain any emergency facilities, nor does it serve as an emergency evacuation route. During construction and long-term operation, the Project would be required to maintain adequate emergency access for emergency vehicles.
Project development and improvements will not result in a substantial alteration to the design or capacity of any public road that would impair or interfere with the implementation of evacuation procedures.
Threshold 4.9 (g) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Expose people or structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? ü
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan28, the Project site is not located within a high wildfire hazard area. (Also refer to analysis under Issue 4.20, Wildfire).
28 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Safety Element, Figure 8-10: Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 55 4.10 Hydrology And Water Quality
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical reports:
Hydrology Report for Tract 37857; Adkan Engineers; August 17, 2021, Revised June 13, 2023. (Appendix I).
Preliminary WQMP, Adkan Engineers; August 17, 2021, Revised June 14, 2023. (Appendix J).
Threshold 4.10 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality? ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to water quality and waste discharge requirements. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.10-1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter, and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.
PPP 4.10-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.
PPP 4.10-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section C, new development, or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 56 deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water.
Water Quality Standards
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act29 defines water quality objectives (i.e., standards) as “…the limits or levels of water quality constituents or characteristics which are established for the reasonable protection of beneficial uses of water or the prevention of nuisance within a specific area” [(§13050 (h)].30
Construction Impacts (Water Quality Standards)
Construction of the Project would involve clearing, grading, paving, utility installation, building construction, and the installation of landscaping, which would result in the generation of potential water quality pollutants such as silt, debris, chemicals, paints, and other solvents with the potential to adversely affect water quality. As such, short-term water quality impacts have the potential to occur during construction activities in the absence of any protective or avoidance measures.
The Municipal Code requires the Project to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Stormwater Permit for construction activities31. The permit is required for all Projects that include construction activities, such as clearing, grading, and/or excavation that disturb at least one acre of total land area.
Compliance with the permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan for construction-related activities, including grading. The plan would specify the measures that would be required to implement during construction activities to ensure that all potential pollutants of concern are prevented, minimized, and/or otherwise appropriately treated prior to being discharged from the site.
Operational Impacts (Water Quality Requirements)
Storm water pollutants commonly associated with the type of land uses that could occupy the proposed structures include sediments, nutrients, trash and debris, bacteria and viruses, oil and grease, and pesticides. Pursuant to the requirements of the Municipal Code32, a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) is required for managing the quality of storm water or urban runoff that flows from a developed site after construction is completed and the facilities or structures are occupied and/or operational. The Preliminary WQMP prepared for the Project (Appendix J), indicates that the proposed drainage pattern will mimic the existing patterns, directing runoff to the southeasterly boundary of the site. The site will be treated with a Bio-retention basin located at the southeast corner of the site. There are five (5) drainage management areas for the Project 29 California Water Boards, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, January 2019. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf 31 City of Jurupa Valley, Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls.
Available at:
https://library.municode.com/ca/jurupa_valley/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT6HESA_CH6.05STWAURRUMADICO 32 Ibid.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 57 site and storm water runoff will sheet across proposed landscape and AC pavement to be intercepted by proposed concrete gutters throughout the drainage areas. The gutters coveys flow southeasterly to the proposed bio-retention basin. Overflows will be conveyed through existing stormwater systems to the Sunnyslope Channel east of Pacific Avenue.
Waste Discharge Requirements
Waste Discharge Requirements are issued by the Santa Ana Regional Board under the provisions of the California Water Code, Division 7 “Water Quality,” Article 4 “Waste Discharge Requirements.”33 These requirements regulate the discharge of wastes which are not made to surface waters, but which may impact the region’s water quality by affecting underlying groundwater basins. Discharge requirements are issued for Publicly Owned Treatment Works’ wastewater reclamation operations, discharges of wastes from industries, subsurface waste discharges such as septic systems, sanitary landfills, dairies, and a variety of other activities which can affect water quality.
Operational Impacts (Waste Discharge Requirements)
To facilitate proper funding and management of sanitary sewer systems, the Jurupa Community Services District has adopted Sewer System Management Plan WDID 8SSO1058234 (SSMP) that includes provisions to provide proper and efficient management, operation, and maintenance of sanitary sewer systems. Additionally, the SSMP contains a spill response plan that establishes standard procedures for immediate response to a sanitary sewer overflow in a manner designed to minimize water quality impacts and potential nuisance conditions. By connecting to the Jurupa Community Services District sewer system, the Project will not violate any waste discharge requirements.
Threshold 4.10 (b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge
such that the project may impede sustainable
groundwater management of the basin?
ü
Impact Analysis
Groundwater Supplies
Water service will be provided to the Project by the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD).
The district’s wells are located within the Chino Ground Water Basin. The Basin is adjudicated, which means if JCSD extracts water that exceeds the safe yield (i.e., the rate at which groundwater can be withdrawn without causing long-term decline of water levels), JCSD may incur a replenishment obligation, which is used by the Watermaster to recharge the ground water basin with State Water 33 California Water Boards, Waste Discharge Requirements Program, July 3, 2020. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/waste_discharge_requirements/ 34 https://www.jcsd.us/home/showdocument?id=1564.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 58 Project water. The Basin has been maintained by the Watermaster in a safe yield condition under this method of operation. Therefore, the Project is not anticipated to contribute to a substantial depletion of groundwater supplies.
Sustainable Groundwater Management
The Sustainable Groundwater Management Act requires governments and water agencies of high and medium priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. The act requires the prioritization of basins and subbasins based on a variety of factors such as population and number of water wells in a basin. Basins are ranked from very-low to high-priority. Basins ranking high- or medium-priority are required to form Groundwater Sustainability Agencies to manage basins sustainably and requires those agencies to adopt Groundwater Sustainability Plans.
As noted above, the Project’s groundwater supplies come from an adjudicated basin. Adjudicated basins are exempt from the 2014 Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) because such basins already operate under a court-ordered management plan to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Basin. No component of the Project would obstruct with or prevent implementation of the management plan for the Basin. As such, the Project’s construction and operation would not conflict with any sustainable groundwater management plan. Impacts would be less than significant
Threshold 4.10 (c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner that would:
(i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? ü (ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or offsite? ü
(iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
ü
(iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
ü
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 59 Impact Analysis
Existing Condition
In the existing condition site drainage patterns on the Project Site consist of one drainage area.
In the current site drainage area storm water sheets across dirt and discharges southeasterly towards Pacific Avenue to the Sunnyslope Channel.
35 Proposed Condition
In the proposed condition, the proposed drainage pattern will mimic the existing patterns, directing runoff to the southeasterly boundary of the site. In the proposed condition, the proposed drainage pattern will mimic the existing patterns, directing runoff to the southeasterly boundary of the site. The site will be treated with a Bio-retention Basin located at the southeast corner of the site. There are five (5) drainage management areas for the Project site and storm water runoff will sheet across proposed landscape and AC pavement to be intercepted by proposed concrete gutters throughout the drainage areas. The gutters coveys flow southeasterly to the proposed bio-retention basin. Overflows will be conveyed through existing stormwater systems to the Sunnyslope Channel east of Pacific Avenue.
As proposed, the design of the storm drain system will not result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite, create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff, or impede or redirect flood flows.
Threshold 4.10 (d). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? ü
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan36, the Project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.
According to the California Department of Conservation, California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps37, the site is not located within a tsunami inundation zone. In addition, the Project would not be at risk from seiche because there is no water body in the area of the Project site capable of producing a seiche.
35 Hydrology Report for Tract 37857, Adkan Engineers, 2021. 36 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Figure 8-9: Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). 37 California Department of Conservation, California Official Tsunami Inundation Maps, https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps#:~:text=Coordinated%20by%20Cal%20OES%2C%20California,considered %20tsunamis%20for%20each%20area., accessed January 26, 2023.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 60 Threshold 4.10 (e) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan? ü
Impact Analysis
As discussed under Threshold 4.10 (a) and 4.10 (c), with implementation of the drainage system improvements and features as described, the Project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan. As discussed under Threshold 4.10 (b), the Project site is not subject to a Sustainable Groundwater Water Management program and will not substantially impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin.
4.11 Land Use And Planning
Threshold 4.11 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Physically divide a community?
ü
Impact Analysis
An example of a Project that has the potential to divide an established community includes the construction of a new freeway or highway through an established neighborhood. The Project is in an area largely characterized by residential development. The Project site is approximately
3.84 acres and is bordered by 45th Street to the south, Pacific Avenue to the east, in an area with residential, church, and school uses. As such, the Project will not divide an established community.
Threshold 4.11 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Cause a significant environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
ü
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 61 Impact Analysis
The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential), and a zone change (ZC) from R-1 (Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The Project proposes to construct a
3.84-acre PUD consisting of 36 single family lots, internal roadways and sidewalks, a bio-retention water quality basin, and a recreational area lot as shown in the proposed site plan (see previous Figure 3-3, Conceptual Site Plan).
The applicable plans and policies relating to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect are summarized below.
• South Coast Air Quality Management District 2016 Air Quality Management Plan Refer to Threshold 4.3 (a) in Section 4.2, Air Quality. • Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Refer to Threshold 4.4 (f) in Section 4.4, Biological Resources. • California Air Resources Board Scoping Plan
Refer to Threshold 4.8 (b) in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. • Southern California Association of Governments Connect SoCal – The 2020-2045 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy Refer to Threshold 4.8 (b) in Section 4.8, Greenhouse Gas Emissions. • Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission – 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
Refer to Threshold 4.9 (e) in Section 4.9, Hazards and Hazardous Materials. • Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Santa Ana River Basin Water Quality Control Program
Refer to Threshold 4.10 (e) in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality.
As demonstrated throughout this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, including but not limited to the General Plan, or the with implementation of the PPP’s and Mitigation Measures throughout this Initial Study.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 62 4.12 Mineral Resources
Threshold 4.12 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state? ü
Impact Analysis
According to the General Plan38 the Project site is located within Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ) 3, which is defined as “Areas containing known or inferred mineral occurrences of undetermined mineral resources significance.” However, no mineral resource extraction activity is known to have ever occurred on the Project site. Accordingly, implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region or the residents of the State of California.
Threshold 4.12 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? ü
Impact Analysis
The General Plan Open Space, Mineral Resources (OS-MIN) land use designation is intended for mineral extraction and processing and includes areas held in reserve for future mineral extraction and processing.39 The Project site is delineated as Country Neighborhood (LDR); therefore, the Project is not delineated on the General Plan, a specific plan, or other land use plan as a locally important mineral resource recovery site.
38 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Figure 4-16: Jurupa Valley Mineral Resources. 39 City of Jurupa Valley, General Plan Land Use Element, p.2-28.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 63 4.13 Noise
The following analysis is based in part on the following: Noise Impact Study, RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated April 29, 2022, included as Appendix K.
Threshold 4.13 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies?
ü
Impact Analysis
Existing Ambient Noise Levels
The primary sources of ambient noise in the area include noise from vehicle traffic from 45th Street and typical residential neighborhood noise from the existing residential home surrounding the Project site. The short-term noise measurements represent the existing ambient noise levels near the adjacent sensitive receptors (residences) and the Project site.
The noise level measured at ST-1 was 65.3 Leq with a Lmin 46.4 dBA and Lmax of 77.2 dBA. The noise level measured at ST-2 was 62.5 Leq with a Lmin of 42.9 dBA and Lmax of 80.3 dBA.
Noise Receiver Locations
Short-term noise measurements on the Project site were taken along the south side of 45th Street near the residence located at 6220 45th Street (ST-1) and the southwestern corner of the Project site (ST-2). The locations of the noise measurements are shown in Exhibit 4.13-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Locations, on the following page.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 64 Exhibit 4.13-1 Ambient Noise Measurement Locations
Source: Noise Impact Study, RK Engineering.
Construction Noise Impact Analysis
Noise levels associated with the construction will vary with the different types of construction equipment. Table 4.13-1, Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels identifies the level of noise generated by construction equipment.
Table 4.13-1. Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels Type Lomax (dBA) at 50 Feet
Backhoe 73 - 92
Grader, Dozer, Excavator, Scraper 78 - 92
Truck 81 - 94
Concrete Mixer 72 - 87
Pneumatic Tool 82 - 87
Pump 68 - 71
Saw, Electric 71 - 82
Air Compressor 75 - 86
Generator 71 - 83
Paver 85 - 87
Roller 73 - 76
Source: Noise Impact Study Table 11 p. 7-2.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 65 Table 4.13-2 Project Construction Noise Levels – at 50 Feet Phase Equipment Quantity Equipment
Noise Level
at 50ft (dBA
Leq)
Combined
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)
Site Preparation
Rubber Tired Dozers
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes
3 4
77.7 80.0
87.6 Excavators 2 76.7
Graders 1 81.0
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 77.7 88.2
Scrapers 2 79.6
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80.0
Cranes 1 72.6
Forklifts 3 71.0
Building
Construction Generator Sets 1 77.6 86.3
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 80.0
Welders 1 70.0
Pavers 2 74.2
Paving Paving Equipment 2 73.0 84.7
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 80.0
Architectural
Coating Air Compressors 1 73.7 73.7
Worst Case Construction PhaseNoise Level - Leq (dBA) 88.2 Source: Noise Impact Study Table 12 p. 7-3
As shown in Table 4.13-2, the project is expected to generate noise levels which range from 73.7 dBA to 88.2 dBA at 50 feet.
Construction Noise Thresholds of Significance
The City’s criteria for determining if construction noise results in a significant CEQA impact is as follows:
1) The project is inconsistent with General Plan Policy NE 3.5: Construction Noise which states:
“Limit commercial construction activities adjacent to or within 200 feet of residential uses to weekdays, between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., and limit high-noise-generating construction activities (e.g., grading, demolition, pile driving) near sensitive receptors to weekdays between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.”
- ------ - ----·- - ------ ---1-----------1--------------1 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 66 Portions of the Project site are located within 25 from residential uses located to the west and south boundaries. Therefore, the Project contractors must limit construction activities during the days and times required by Mitigation Measure MM-NOI-1. 2) Construction noise levels exceed the levels identified in the latest version of the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.
Construction noise will have a temporary or periodic increase in the ambient noise level above the existing within the Project vicinity. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Noise levels will be loudest during the site preparation phase.
The construction noise levels are expected to range from 73.7 dBA to 88.2 dBA at 50 feet. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will exceed the reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold established by the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. To reduce construction impacts to the residential uses and nearest sensitive receptors to the maximum extent feasible, the following mitigation measure is required.
Mitigation Measure(s)
MM-NOI-1-Construction Noise Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notesshall be included on grading plans and building plans. Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. “a) Haul truck deliveries shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm during the months of June through September and 7:00am to 6:00pm during the months of October through May.
b) Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. c) All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site. d) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located the greatest distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receptors.
e) The project will construct the property line wall during the early phases of construction, prior to grading, to help shield the neighboring properties from construction noise activities.”
Off-Site Operational Traffic Noise Impacts
According to Caltrans, the human ear is able to begin to detect sound level increases of 3 decibels (dB) in typical noisy environments.40 A doubling of sound energy (e.g., doubling the volume of 40 Caltrans, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, April 2020, p.7-1.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 67 traffic on a highway) that would result in a 3-dBA increase in sound, would generally be barely detectable.
The Project expects to generate approximately 330 daily trips with 25 peak AM and 33 peak PM trips at full occupancy. It takes a doubling of traffic to create a +3 dBA noise impact. Primary site access is via 45th Street and Pacific Avenue which are substantially trafficked roads. The addition of 330 daily trips with the Project’s greatest trip generation and impact occurring during the peak PM hours with 33 trips would create a minimal noise increase of less than the 3 dBA significance threshold.
Conclusion
With implementation of MM- NOI-1, the Project’s noise impacts will not result in the generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project more than standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
Threshold 4.13 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? ü
Impact Analysis
This analysis focuses on the potential ground-borne vibration associated with vehicular traffic and construction activities. Ground-borne vibration levels from automobile traffic are generally overshadowed by vibration generated by heavy trucks that roll over the same uneven roadway surfaces. However, due to the rapid drop-off rate of ground-borne vibration and the short duration of the associated events, vehicular traffic-induced ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible beyond the roadway right-of-way, and rarely results in vibration levels that cause damage to buildings in the vicinity. However, while vehicular traffic is rarely perceptible, construction has the potential to result in varying degrees of temporary ground vibration, depending on the specific construction activities and equipment used. Ground vibration levels associated with various types of construction equipment are summarized in Table 4.13-3.
Table 4.13-3 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment Equipment PPV (in/sec) at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Jackhammer 0.035
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, September 2018.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 68 The closest residence to the Project property line is minimally 25 feet from the property line. The estimated construction vibration level from a large bulldozer (worst case scenario) measured at 25-feet would create a vibration level of 0.089 in/sec which does not exceed the 0.2 in/sec threshold.
Threshold 4.13 (c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
For a project located within the vicinity of a private
airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a
plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area
to excessive noise levels?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project consists of single-family residences and will not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. The nearest airport is Flabob Airport located approximately 0.75 miles southeast of the Project site. According to Map RI-3, Noise Compatibility Contours Riverside Municipal Airport, Land Use Compatibility Plan, the southwest section of the Project site is located outside the 55 dB CNEL Noise Impact Zone. Standard building design and construction methods would provide adequate noise attenuation to comply with the indoor noise standard of 45 CNEL and thereby not expose residents of the Project to excessive noise levels.41 41 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission, Riverside Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, Noise Compatibility Contours, December,2004. Available at: http://www.rcaluc.org/Portals/13/PDFGeneral/plan/newplan/20- %20Vol.%201%20Riverside%20Municipal.pdf
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 69 4.14 Population And Housing
Threshold 4.14 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example,
through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is located in a developed area of the City and is served by existing water and sewer facilities, gas and electric utilities, and improved roadways. No additional infrastructure will be needed to serve the Project other than connection to infrastructure adjacent to the site.
Based on the California Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State, 2021-2023, the City’s population as of January 1, 2023, is 104,983 with a ratio of persons per household of 3.66.
42 Based on the number of dwelling units times 3.66
persons per dwelling unit, the proposed Project would increase the City’s population by approximately 132 persons assuming all residents came from outside the City. (3.66 persons/du with 36 units). An increase of 132 in relation to the current population of 104,983 represents an increase of 0.13 % and would not induce substantial population growth.
Threshold 4.14 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site consists of vacant land. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not displace a substantial number of existing housing, nor would it necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.
42 https://dof.ca.gov/forecasting/demographics/estimates/e-5-population-and-housing-estimates-forcities-counties-and-the-state-2020-2023/ Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 70 4.15 Public Services
Threshold 4.15 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
1) Fire protection? ü
2) Police protection? ü
3) Schools? ü
4) Parks? ü
5) Other public facilities? ü
FIRE PROTECTION
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to fire protection. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
The Riverside County Fire Department provides fire protection services to the Project area. The Project would be primarily served by the Riverside County City of Jurupa Valley Fire Station No. 38 located approximately 1.4 roadway miles northeast of the Project site at 5721 Mission Boulevard.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 71 Development of the Project would impact fire protection services by placing an additional demand on existing fire protection resources should its resources not be augmented. To offset the increased demand for fire protection services, the Project would be conditioned by the City to provide a minimum of fire safety and support fire suppression activities, including compliance with State and local fire codes, fire sprinklers, a fire hydrant system, paved access, and secondary access routes.
In addition, as required by the City’s Inter-Agency Project Review Request process, the Project plans were routed to the Fire Department for review and comment on the impacts to providing fire protection services. The Fire Department did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or physically altered fire facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
Furthermore, the Municipal Code requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing for fire protection services.43 Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share funds for the provision of additional public services, including fire protection services, which may be applied to fire facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for fire protection services that would be created by the Project.
Based on the above analysis, with implementation of PPP 4.14-1 and PPP 4.14-2, impacts related to fire protection are less than significant.
POLICE PROTECTION
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to police protection. This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
The Riverside County Sheriff’s Department provides community policing to the Project area via the Jurupa Valley Station located at 7477 Mission Boulevard, Jurupa Valley, CA. The Project would increase the demand for police protection services. The Municipal Code requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing for public services, including police protection services44. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides its fair share of funds for additional police protection services, which may be applied to 43 City of Jurupa Valley, Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, Development Impact Fee, June 10, 2020. Available at:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/168/Municipal-Code
44 Ibid.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 72 sheriff facilities and/or equipment, to offset the incremental increase in the demand that would be created by the Project.
In addition, as required by the City’s Inter-Agency Project Review Request process, the Project plans were routed to the Sheriff’s Department for review and comment on the impacts to providing police protection services. The Sheriff’s Department did not indicate that the Project would result in the need for new or physically altered sheriff facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives.
Based on the above analysis, with implementation of PPP 4.15-2, impacts related to police protection are less than significant.
SCHOOLS
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to schools. This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-3 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Applicant shall pay required development impact fees to the Jurupa Unified School District following protocol for impact fee collection.
The Project thirty-six (36) new housing units that may directly create additional students to be served by the Jurupa Unified School District. However, the Project would be required to contribute fees to the Jurupa Unified School District in accordance with the Leroy F. Greene School Facilities Act of 1998 (Senate Bill 50). Pursuant to Senate Bill 50, payment of school impact fees constitutes complete mitigation under CEQA for Project-related impacts to school services.
PARKS
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to parks. This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-4 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
The Project proposes thirty-six (36) new housing units that may increase the overall population of the City (assuming some residents will come from outside the city limits) and generate additional need for parkland. The payment of development impact fees will reduce any indirect Project impacts related to parks.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 73 OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to parks. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.15-2 above is applicable to the Project.
As noted in the response to Issue 4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, development of the Project would add approximately 132 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of persons in relation to the current population of 104,983 would not significantly increase the demand for public services, including public health services and library services which would require the construction of new or expanded public facilities.
The Municipal Code requires payment of the Development Impact Fee to assist the City in providing for public services. Payment of the Development Impact Fee would ensure that the Project provides fair share of funds for additional public services. These funds may be applied to the acquisition and/or construction of public facilities. 45 Based on the above analysis, with implementation of PPP 4.14-2 above, impacts related to other public facilities are less than significant.
4.16 Recreation
Threshold 4.16 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the Project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to other public facilities.
These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
45 Ibid.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 74 PPP 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
As noted in the response to Issue 4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, development of the Project would add approximately 132 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of persons in relation to the City population of 104,983 would not cause a substantial physical deterioration of any recreational facilities or would accelerate the physical deterioration of any recreational facilities. The payment of Development Impact Fees will reduce any indirect Project impacts related to recreational facilities.
Threshold 4.16 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities, which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
ü
Impact Analysis
As noted in the response to Issue 4.14(a), Population and Housing, of this Initial Study, development of the Project would add approximately 132 persons to the population of the City assuming that all new residents come from outside the City limits. This low number of persons in relation to the City population of 104,983 would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse effect on the environment. No onsite or offsite parks or recreational improvements are proposed or required as part of the Project.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 75 4.17 Transportation
The following analysis is based in part on the following technical reports:
Trip Generation & Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Study, RK Engineering Group, Inc., dated January 9, 2023, included as Appendix L.
MA21272 -Las Palmas VMT Review Memorandum, Rob Olson, Traffic Analyst City of Jurupa Valley dated April 17, 2023, included as Appendix M.
Threshold 4.17(a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? ü
Impact Analysis
The Project site is served by transit service by the Riverside Transit Agency (RTA). There are existing RTA bus stops on Limonite Avenue served by Route #29 with service along Limonite Avenue and service to the Pedley Metrolink Station located 3.6 road miles southwest of the site and Riverside-Downtown Metrolink Station located 5.2 road miles east. The Project is not proposing any improvements that would interfere with current transit service. The Project will provide adequate pedestrian facilities, including upgrading the existing sidewalks along public streets abutting the site, as necessary.
Threshold 4.17(b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? ü
Impact Analysis
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as a replacement for automobile delay-based level of service (LOS) as the new measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate took effect July 1, 2020. Impacts related to LOS will be evaluated through the City’s development review process apart from CEQA.
The Jurupa Valley Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines provide several screening thresholds for determining if a VMT analysis is required. A project VMT analysis would not be required if a Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 76 project is located in a Transit Priority Area (TPA) or a low VMT area, or if the project is a local serving retail project or other neighborhood use, including projects that generate fewer than 250 daily trips.
The City’s assessment determined that when a GPA is required, the WRCOG screening tool no longer applies because the proposed land use would not be consistent with the land use included in the RIVCOM model. Therefore, an additional analysis is required.
The city conducted that analysis using the socio-economic data (SED) for the same type of land use as is proposed. The factors were provided by WRCOG as part of their modeling data. Based on the SED modeled for that TAZ, residential trip lengths are projected to be higher than the city’s baseline per-capita average. When looked at on the adjusted SED level as part of the GPA the trip length of residential trips to/from this TAZ are expected to be higher than the city’s baseline average. Therefore, it is expected that the per capita trip lengths for residents in this project will also be higher than the baseline average.
General Plan project VMT per capita is projected to be 16.3 vehicle miles travelled, or 3.8% above the city’s baseline average of 15.7 miles per capita. As a result, the project is projected to have a significant VMT impact and will be responsible for mitigation to reduce the VMT impact to a less than significant level. To address this impact, the city recommends the following VMT mitigation measures. The measures were based on:
• The scale of the project,
• The level of VMT impact,
• The proximity to community uses that generate non-motorized travel to and from those sites,
• The extent that reducing non-motorized travel would improve air quality and encourage additional non-motorized travel in the area.
Potential VMT mitigation measures are presented in the California Air Pollution Control Officers Associate (CAPCOA) publication Handbook for Analyzing Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions, Assessing Climate Vulnerabilities, and Advancing Health and Equity, Final Draft 2021. Using the CAPCOA guidance T-34 Provide Traffic Calming Measures was used to develop mitigation for the proposed Project.
As mitigation the Project is to provide a new mini roundabout at the intersection of 45th Street and Saxon Court and to add bicycle sharrows to both directions of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue. The proposed improvements will act both as a traffic calming device slowing traffic along the site frontage and adjacent segments to promote a more walkable environment and add bicycle facilities to the area streets that will expand the cities bicycle network.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 77 Mitigation Measure(s)
MM- VMT-1: Traffic Calming Measures. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall provide and have approved plans from the City’s Engineering Department for construction of a mini-roundabout at the intersection of 45th Street and Saxon Court and the construction of bicycle sharrows to both directions of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacifica Avenue.
Threshold 4.17(c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
ü
Impact Analysis
Access to the site is already in place from the roadways abutting the Project site. The Project is proposing the following street improvements that will meet City standards. 45th Street improvements:
45th Street is classified as a local road and is planned to be improved as an Enhanced Local Road to provide the following:
a. Dedication along the project frontage to provide ultimate half-width will be required. b. 11-ft parkway and 22-ft road section, within a 33-ft half-ultimate right-of-way width. c. Parkway improvements include, but are not limited to, curb adjacent landscaping and 6- ft sidewalk.
d. Any existing driveways (if any) that will no longer be used shall be replaced by full height curb and gutter.
e. Improvements shall transition and tie into existing improvements east and west of proposed site.
f. Applicant will be required to do any updates, upgrades, and necessary restoration of sidewalk panels along 45th Street.
In addition, the Project is located in an area developed with residential, church, and school uses.
The Project would not be incompatible with existing development in the surrounding area to the extent that it would create a transportation hazard because of an incompatible use.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 78 Threshold 4.17(d). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in inadequate emergency access?
ü
Impact Analysis
The Project primarily would take access from 45th Street from Pacific Avenue. During the course of the preliminary review of the Project, the Project’s transportation design was reviewed by the City’s Engineering Department, County Fire Department, and County Sheriff’s Department to ensure that adequate access to and from the site would be provided for emergency vehicles.
4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.18 (a) Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section
5020.1(k)?
ü
Impact Analysis
Historic Context
Research identified the current Project area as a general location associated with Native American occupation and/or use during prehistoric and protohistoric periods. It is also an area associated with historic Mexican period rancho activity, American period ranching and farming activity, and, more recently, residential and recreational activity.
Research and Conclusions
As part of the Phase 1 Cultural Resources Investigation an Archaeological Records Chank and Historic Research of data repositories was conducted by McKENNA et al. Additionally, a historic city directory records search was conducted as part of the Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) Phase 1 for the site by Robin Environmental Management, which included reviewing historic topographical maps, historic aerial photographs, and site development/occupancy history.
Based on the research prior to 1947 until the mid-1960’s the site was covered in fruit groves.
Starting in the mid-1960’s until today the property has been vacant. As there are no identified historic objects or structures on the site there is no impact to historical resources.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 79 Threshold 5.18 (b) Would the project cause a
substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in
terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred
place, or object with cultural value to a California
Native American tribe, and that is:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe?
ü
California Native American Cultural Places (SB18)
Senate Bill (SB) 18 created a process for consultation with California Native American Tribes in the CEQA process. Prior to the adoption or any amendment of a general plan or specific plan, a local government must notify the appropriate tribes (on the contact list maintained by the NAHC) of the opportunity to conduct consultations for the purpose of preserving, or mitigating impacts to, cultural places located on land within the local government's jurisdiction that is affected by the proposed plan adoption or amendment. Tribes have 90 days from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation, unless a shorter timeframe has been agreed to by the tribe (Government Code §65352.3).
The Community Development Department notified the area California Native American Tribes per the requirements of SB-18. The Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and Soboba Band Luiseño Indians requested consultations. As a result of the consultations the Mitigation Measures noted below are required for the Project.
Tribal Cultural Resources (AB52)
Tribal Cultural Resources consist of the following:
(1) A tribal cultural resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. (2) Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
(A) Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources.
(B) Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1. (3) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 80 applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Native American scoping, pursuant to the requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 52, was initiated by a request of the Native American Heritage Commission for a Sacred Lands File search and AB 52 contacts list on August 24, 2021. The NAHC responded by letter that the NAHC has no evidence that sacred lands are present on the Project site.
Assembly Bill (AB) 52 created a process for consultation with California Native American Tribes in the CEQA process. Tribal Governments can request consultation with a lead agency and give input into potential impacts to tribal cultural resources before the agency decides what kind of environmental assessment is appropriate for a proposed project.
The Community Development Department notified the following California Native American Tribes per the requirements of AB52:
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Soboba Band Luiseño Indians
• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians
As a result of the AB52 consultation process, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation and Soboba Band Luiseño Indians requested consultation and the following mitigation measures are required:
Mitigation Measure(s)
MM- TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting Tribe(s) for Native American Monitor(s) to be onsite during ground disturbing activities allowed by the grading permit. A Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b). Ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching.
The Monitoring Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
a) Provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the Consulting Tribe(s) of all ground disturbing activities.
b) Conduct a Pre-grade meeting with the Project archeologist, Consulting Tribe(s), and grading contractor.
c) In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s) required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1 under Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272, the Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 81 d) The onsite monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Native American Tribal Monitor(s) have indicated that all upcoming ground disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Project Proponent shall submit a fully executed copy of the Monitoring Agreement to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. If there are multiple Consulting Tribe(s) involved, a separate Monitoring Agreement is required for each. The Monitoring Agreement shall not modify any condition of approval or mitigation measure.
MM-TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery: The Permit Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of the grading permit. If, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) Ground disturbing activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. Ground disturbing activities are allowed on the remainder of the Project Site. b) In the event the unanticipated discovery includes human remains and/or cremations no photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval from the Consulting Tribe(s).
c) The Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Archaeologist (retained by the Permit Applicant under Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1, Retain Professional Archaeologist, of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document for MA21215), and the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department shall meet and confer, and discuss the find with respect to the following:
1. Determine if the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined by Public Resources Code §21074, if so:
2. Determine if the resource is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register on a “Local register of historical or resources” pursuant to Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k); or
3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c) as it pertains to the Consulting Tribe(s): (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past, (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
c) If the resource(s) are Native American in origin [and not a historical resource as defined by Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or §5024.1 (c)], the Consulting Tribe Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 82 will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Consulting Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If multiple Consulting Tribes are involved, and a mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the form and manner of disposition of the resource(s), the City shall request input from the Native American Heritage Commission and render a final decision. d) If the resource(s) is both a tribal cultural resource and a historic resource, the Project Archaeologist, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department shall meet and confer and discuss the appropriate treatment (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural and historic resource. Treatment, at a minimum, shall be consistent with Public Resources Code § 21084.3 (b). The appropriate treatment shall be prepared in conjunction with the Archaeological Treatment plan required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished.
MM-TCR-3: Final Report: If a Tribal cultural resource is also a historic resource defined above, the resource shall be included in the Final Report required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
4.19 Utilities And Service Systems
Threshold 4.19 (a). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Require or result in the relocation or construction of
new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
ü
Impact Analysis
Water Service
The Project will connect to the existing water service available from the existing 8-inch waterline in 45h Street.
Sewer Service
The Project will connect to the existing sewer service available from the existing 8-inch diameter line in 45th Street.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 83 Storm Drainage Improvements
In the proposed condition, the proposed drainage pattern will mimic the existing patterns, directing runoff to the easterly boundary of the site. The site will be treated with a Bio-retention Basin located at the southeast corner of the site. There are five (5) drainage management areas for the Project site and storm water runoff will sheet across proposed landscape and AC pavement to be intercepted by proposed concrete gutters throughout the drainage areas. The gutters coveys flow southeasterly to the bio-retention basin. Overflows will be conveyed through existing stormwater systems to the Sunnyslope Channel east of Pacific Avenue.
Electric Power Facilities
The Project will connect to the existing Southern California Edison electrical distribution facilities available in the vicinity of the Project site.
Natural Gas Facilities
The Project will connect to the existing Southern California Gas natural gas distribution facilities available in the vicinity of the Project site.
Telecommunication Facilities
Telecommunication facilities include a fixed, mobile, or transportable structure, including, all installed electrical and electronic wiring, cabling, and equipment, all supporting structures, such as utility, ground network, and electrical supporting structures, and a transmission pathway and associated equipment in order to provide cable TV, internet, telephone, and wireless telephone services to the Project site. Services that are not provided via satellite will connect to existing facilities maintained by the various service providers.
Conclusion
The installation of the facilities at the locations as described above are evaluated throughout this Initial Study. In instances where impacts have been identified, Plans, Policies, Programs (PPP) or Mitigation Measures (MM) are required to reduce impacts to less-than-significant levels.
Accordingly, additional measures beyond those identified throughout this Initial Study would not be required.
Threshold 4.19 (b). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the
project and reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry, and multiple years?
ü
Impact Analysis
Water service would be provided to the Project site by Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD). The Project’s water demand at 11.42 ac.ft./year was estimated from the data contained in the Air Quality CalEEMod annual datasheets included in Appendix A. RCSD current water supply Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 84 has sufficient capacity to meet its long-term current customers' needs per the 2020 Urban Water Management Plan, and its short-term current customers' needs and that of the proposed development.
The RCSD issued an Initial Water and Sewer “Will-Serve” Letter that states that water service is available from both the existing 8-inch waterline in 45th Street.
Threshold 4.19 (c). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing
commitments?
ü
Impact Analysis
Wastewater treatment service would be provided to the Project site by Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD). RCSD maintains 3.055 MGD capacity rights in the City of Riverside Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities. The RCSD issued an Initial Water and Sewer “Will-Serve” Letter that states that sewer service is available from the existing 8-inch diameter line in 45th Street.
Threshold 4.19 (d). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Generate solid waste more than State or local
standards, or more than the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following apply to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to landfill capacity. These measures will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance:
PPP 4.19-1 Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project applicant shall submit a construction waste management plan in compliance with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards.
Solid waste from Jurupa Valley is transported to the Robert A. Nelson Transfer Station and Material Recovery Facility at 1830 Agua Mansa Road. From there, recyclable materials are Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 85 transferred to third-party providers, and waste materials are transported to various landfills in Riverside County. Solid waste generated during long-term operation of the Project would primarily be disposed at the Badlands Sanitary Landfill and/or El Sobrante Landfill. Table 4.19-1 describes the capacity and remaining capacity of these landfills.
Table 4.19-1. Capacity of Landfills Serving Jurupa Valley Landfill Capacity
(cubic yards)
Remaining Capacity
(cubic yards)
Closure Date
Badlands Sanitary Landfill 34,400,000 7,800,000 1/1/2026 El Sobrante Landfill 209,910,000 143,977,170 1/1/2051
Source: CalRecycle, SWIS Facility/Site Activity Details website, January 2023.
Construction Related Impacts
The California Green Building Standards Code (“CAL Green’), requires all newly constructed buildings to prepare a Waste Management Plan and divert construction waste through recycling and source reduction methods. The City of Jurupa Valley Building and Safety Department reviews and approves all new construction projects required to submit a Waste Management Plan.
Mandatory compliance with CAL Green solid waste requirements as required by PPP 4.19-1 will ensure that construction waste impacts are less than significant.
In addition, as shown in Table 4.19-1 above, the landfills serving the Project site receive well below their maximum permitted daily disposal volume and demolition and construction waste generated by the Project is not anticipated to cause these landfills to exceed their maximum permitted daily disposal volume. Furthermore, none of these regional landfill facilities are expected to reach their total maximum permitted disposal capacities during the Project’s construction period. As such, these regional landfill facilities would have sufficient daily capacity to accept construction solid waste generated by the Project.
Operational Related Impacts
Based on solid waste generation usage obtained from the Project’s CalEEMod Datasheets from (Appendix A), the Project would generate approximately 41 tons of solid waste per year or 0.11 tons per day. Table 14.19-2 compares the Project’s waste generation against the remaining landfill capacity.
Table 4.19-2: Project Waste Generation Compared to Landfill Daily Throughput Landfill Landfill Daily Throughput
(tons per day)
Project Waste
(tons per day)
Project Percentage of
Daily Throughput
Badlands Sanitary Landfill 4,800 0.11 0.0023%
El Sobrante Landfill 16,054 0.11 0.0007%
As shown on Table 4.19-2, the Project’s solid waste generation will add a minimal amount of additional solid waste of the remaining capacity of the Badlands Sanitary Landfill or the El Sobrante Sanitary Landfill. As such, the Project is not anticipated to cause these landfills to exceed their remaining capacities.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 86 Threshold 4.19 (e). Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
ü
Impact Analysis
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP)
The following applies to the Project and would reduce impacts relating to solid waste. This measure will be included in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program:
PPP 4.19-1 shall apply.
The City compels its waste hauler to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 1383 became effective January 1, 2022. The regulations aims to divert 50% of organic waste from landfills below 2014 levels by 2020 and 75% by 2025. CalRecycle is implementing the regulations and has established an additional target that not less than 20% of currently disposed edible food is recovered for human consumption by 2025. SB 1383 also requires that jurisdictions conduct education and outreach on organics recycling to all residents, businesses (including those that generate edible food that can be donated), haulers, solid waste facilities, local food banks, and other food recovery organizations.
4.20 Wildfire
Threshold 4.20 (e). Wildfire.
Potentially
Significant
or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Is the project located in or near state responsibility
areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones?
ü
Impact Analysis
A wildfire is a nonstructural fire that occurs in vegetative fuels, excluding prescribed fire. Wildfires can occur in undeveloped areas and spread to urban areas where the landscape and structures are not designed and maintained to be ignition resistant. As stated in the State of California’s General Plan Guidelines: “California’s increasing population and expansion of development into previously undeveloped areas is creating more ’wildland-urban interface’ issues with a corresponding increased risk of loss to human life, natural resources, and economic assets associated with wildland fires.” To address this issue, the state passed Senate Bill 1241 to require that General Plan Safety Elements address the fire severity risks in State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) and Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs).
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 87 According to General Plan Figure 8-11, Wildfire Severity Zones in Jurupa Valley, the Project site is not located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. As such, Thresholds 4.20 (a) through 4.20 (d) below require no response.
Threshold 4.20 (a) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold 4.20 (b) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold 4.20 (c) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Threshold 4.20 (d) Would the Project:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides,
because of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
N/A N/A N/A N/A
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 88 4.21 Mandatory Findings Of Significance
Threshold 4.21(a) Does the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
ü
Impact Analysis
As indicated in this Initial Study, biological resources, cultural resources, paleontological resources, transportation, and tribal cultural resources may be adversely impacted by Project development. The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
• BIO-1: Migratory / Nesting Bird Survey and Protection • CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring
• CR-2: Archeological Treatment Plan
• CR-3: Final Report
• GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring
• GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan
• NOI-1: Construction Noise Mitigation
• VMT-1: Traffic Calming Measures
• TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement
• TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery
• TCR-3: Final Reporting
Threshold 4.21 (b) Does the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a Project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects,
and the effects of probable future projects)?
ü
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 89 The cumulative impacts analysis provided here is consistent with §15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, in which the study of cumulative effects of a project is based on two determinations:
• Are the combined impact of this project and other projects significant? • If so, is the project’s incremental effect cumulatively considerable, causing the combined impact of the projects evaluated to become significant? The cumulative impact must be analyzed only if the combined effects are significant, and the Project’s incremental effect is found to be cumulatively considerable (CEQA Guidelines 15130(a)(2) and (3)).
The analysis of potential environmental impacts in Section 4.0, Environmental Analysis, of this Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no impact or a less than significant impact for all environmental topics, except Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources), Noise, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems (installation of facilities that involves disturbance of previously undisturbed land). For these resources, Mitigation Measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels as discussed below.
Biological Resources
As discussed in Section 4.4, Biological Resources, of this Initial Study, future development will impact the available biological resources present on the site. All the vegetation will be removed during future construction activities. However, because construction may not occur immediately, the potential exists for nesting of birds in the days or weeks preceding ground disturbing activities. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Migratory / Nesting Bird Survey and Protection are required.
Development activities will also impact wildlife, and those with limited mobility (i.e., small mammals and reptiles) will experience increases in mortality during the construction phase.
More mobile species (i.e., birds, large mammals) will be displaced into adjacent areas and will likely experience minimal impacts. However, Nesting Birds are known to be located within the regional area. Due to their transient nature, they have the potential to inhabit the site in the future. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required to ensure any impacts remain less than significant.
Overall, the loss of about -acres of areas of disturbed unvegetated and areas dominated by nonnative ruderal species is not expected to have a significant cumulative impact on the overall biological resources in the region, given the presence of similar habitat throughout the surrounding desert region. Based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, the records search, and recently conducted area field surveys did not identify any cultural resources, including historic and prehistoric sites or historic-period buildings within the project site area. Research results, combined with surface conditions, have failed to indicate sensitivity for buried cultural resources.
No additional cultural resources work or monitoring is necessary during proposed activities Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 90 associated with the development of the earthmoving activities. If previously undocumented cultural resources are identified during earthmoving activities, in that case, a qualified archaeologist should be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find, diverting construction excavation, if necessary, as required by Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-3.
Based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Geology and Soils (Paleontological Resources)
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Soils, of this Initial Study, the property is situated in the Peninsular Ranges geomorphic province. The Peninsular Ranges province is one of the largest geomorphic units in western North America. It extends from the point of contact with the Transverse Ranges geomorphic province, southerly to the tip of Baja California. Based on field exploration, the area of anticipated improvements is underlain by older alluvium. Alluvium has the potential to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2 are required. Based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Transportation
As discussed in Section 4.17, Transportation, of this Initial Study, the Project would exceed the City’s projected VMT per capita by 3.8% above baseline. Therefore, Mitigation Measure VMT-1 is required to reduce impacts to less than significant. With the incorporation of the mitigation the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Tribal Cultural Resources
As discussed in Section 4.18, Tribal Cultural Resources, of this Initial Study, construction and operation of the Project would include activities limited to the confines of the Project site. The tribal consultation conducted through the SB-18 and AB5-2 consultation processes determined that the Project is unlikely to adversely affect tribal cultural resources by implementing Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3. Based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Utilities and Service Systems
As discussed in Section 4.19, Utilities and Service Systems, of this Initial Study, the installation and construction of the sewer, water, and storm drainage facilities described below will result in earth moving that may impact Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, and Soils (Paleontological Resources), Noise, and Tribal Cultural Resources. Potential impacts to these resources are mitigated by Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, CR-1, CR-2, CR-3, GEO-1, GEO-2, NOI-1, and TCR-1 through TCR-3.
Based on the preceding analysis, the Project’s impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
In instances where impacts have been identified, the Plans, Policies, or Programs were applied to the Project based on federal, state, or local law currently in place that effectively reduces environmental impacts, or Mitigation Measures are required to reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, potential adverse environmental impacts of the Project, in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas 91 combination with the impacts of other past, present, and future projects, would not contribute to cumulatively significant effects.
Threshold 4.21 (c) Does the Project:
Potentially
Significant or
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Have environmental effects, which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
ü
Under this threshold, the types of impacts analyzed consist of those that affect human health and well-being. As indicated by this Initial Study, the Project may cause or result in certain potentially significant environmental impacts that directly affect human beings for construction noise. The construction noise levels are expected to range from 73.7 dBA to 88.2 dBA at 50 feet potentially impacting the closest residences to the western and southern boundaries. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations have the potential to exceed the daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold established by the Federal Transit Administration Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. To reduce construction impacts to the school and residential uses to the maximum extent feasible, MM-NOI-1 is required.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-1
5.0 MITIGATION MONITORING REPORTING PROGRAM
PROJECT NAME: MA21272 Las Palmas Residential Project
DATE: October 3, 2023
PROJECT MANAGER: Miguel Del Rio, Associate Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Project proposes a General Plan Amendment (GPA) to change the land use designation from MDR (Medium Density Residential) to HDR (High Density Residential), and a zone change (ZC) from R-1 (Residential) to PUD (Planned Unit Development). The Project proposes to construct a 3.84-acre PUD consisting of 36 single family lots, internal roadways and sidewalks, a bio-retention water quality basin, and a recreational area lot.
PROJECT LOCATION: The Project site is located on approximately 3.84 acres on the north side of 45th Street and west of Pacific Avenue, and east of Opal Avenue. The Project site is identified by the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 182-190-015, -016, and -017. The Project is mapped on the U.S. Geological Survey Riverside West, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle in Section 17, Range 5 West, Township 2 South.
Throughout this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, reference is made to the following:
• Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) - These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project based on the basis of federal, state, or local law currently in place which effectively reduce environmental impacts.
• Mitigation Measures (MM) - These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts; mitigation measures are proposed in accordance with the requirements of CEQA.
Any applicable Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) were assumed and accounted for in the assessment of impacts for each issue area.
Mitigation Measures were formulated only for those issue areas where the results of the impact analysis identified significant impacts.
All three types of measures described above will be required to be implemented as part of the Project.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-2
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
AESTHETICS
PPP 4.1-1 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code sections 9.238, Planned Unit Develop Zone (PUD) allows for flexible application of development standards include, but is not limited to, development standards for structures, lot sizes, and yard requirements.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits
PPP 4.1-2 As required by Jurupa Valley Municipal Code section 7.50.010, all utilities serving and within the Project site shall be placed underground unless exempted by this section.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of
occupancy permits
PPP 4.1-3 All outdoor lighting shall be designed and installed to comply with California Green Building Standard Code Section 5.106 or with a local ordinance lawfully enacted pursuant to California Green Building Standard Code Section 101.7, whichever is more stringent.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of building
permits
AIR QUALITY
PPP 4.3-1 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 403, “Fugitive Dust.” Rule 403 requires implementation of best available dust control measures during construction activities that generate fugitive dust, such as earth moving and stockpiling activities, grading, and equipment travel on unpaved roads.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
During grading
PPP 4.3-2 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality District Rule 431.2, “Sulphur Content and Liquid Fuels.” The purpose of this rule is to limit the sulfur content in diesel and other liquid fuels for the purpose of both reducing the formation of sulfur oxides and particulates during combustion and to enable the use of add-on control devices for diesel fueled internal combustion engines.
Building & Safety Department During construction
PPP 4.3-3 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1113, “Architectural Coatings” Rule 1113 limits the release of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) into the atmosphere during painting and application of other surface coatings Building & Safety Department
Engineering Department
Community Development
Department
During
construction.
PPP 4.3-4 The Project is required to comply with the provisions of South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186 “PM10 Emissions from Paved and Unpaved Roads and Livestock Operations” and Rule 1186.1, “LessBuilding & Safety Department During construction Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-3
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
Polluting Street Sweepers.” Adherence to Rules 1186 and 1186.1 reduces the release of criteria pollutant emissions into the atmosphere during construction.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PPP 4.4-1 The Project is required to pay mitigation fees pursuant to the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MHSCP) as required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.80.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit
MM-BIO-1. Nesting Bird Protection: To maintain compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513, site preparation activities (such as ground disturbance, construction activities, and/or removal of trees and vegetation) should be conducted, to the greatest extent possible, outside of the nesting season. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including disking, vegetation grubbing, and grading.
The survey area will include the project impact footprint and a 500-foot buffer where legal access is granted around the disturbance footprint. Within 72 hours of the nesting bird survey, all areas surveyed by the biologist will be cleared by the Contractor or a supplemental nesting bird survey is required.
The survey results shall be provided to the City’s Community Development Department. The Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Applicant shall designate a biologist (Designated Biologist) experienced in: identifying local and migratory bird species of special concern; conducting bird surveys using appropriate survey methodology; nesting surveying techniques, recognizing breeding and nesting behaviors, locating nests and breeding territories, and identifying nesting stages and nest success; determining/establishing appropriate avoidance and
minimization measures; and monitoring the efficacy of
implemented avoidance and minimization measures.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the
issuance of a tree
removal or grading
permit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-4
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
2. Pre-activity field surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of day/night, during appropriate weather conditions, no more than 3 days prior to the initiation of Project activities.
Surveys shall encompass all suitable areas including trees, shrubs, bare ground, burrows, cavities, and structures. Survey duration shall take into consideration the size of the Project site; density, and complexity of the habitat; number of survey participants; survey techniques employed; and shall be sufficient to ensure the data collected is complete and accurate.
If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin. If active nests or nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are identified during the nesting bird survey, avoidance buffers shall be implemented as determined by a qualified biologist and approved by the City of Jurupa Valley, based on their best professional judgement and experience. The buffer areas shall be avoided until the Project biologist determines the young have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The buffer shall be of a distance to ensure avoidance of adverse effects to the nesting bird by accounting for topography, ambient conditions, species, nest location, and activity type. All nests shall be monitored as determined by the qualified biologist until nestlings have fledged and dispersed or it is confirmed that the nest has been unsuccessful or abandoned. The Designated Biologist shall monitor the nest at the onset of project activities, and at the onset of any changes in such project activities (e.g., increase in number or type of equipment, change in equipment usage, etc.) to determine the efficacy of the buffer. The qualified biologist shall halt all construction activities within proximity to an active nest if it is determined that the activities are harassing the nest and may result in nest abandonment or take. The qualified biologist shall also have the authority to require implementation of avoidance measures related to noise, vibration, or light pollution if indirect impacts are resulting in harassment of the nest. Work can resume within these avoidance areas when no other active nests are found.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-5
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
Upon completion of the survey and nesting bird monitoring, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
PPP 4.5-1 The project is required to comply with the applicable provisions of California Health and Safety Code §7050.5 as well as Public Resources Code §5097 et. seq.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance
of grading permits
and during
construction
MM- CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Permit Applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to implement Archaeological Monitoring for the area of impact for the Project. Monitoring shall be conducted in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s), defined as a Tribe that initiated the tribal consultation process for the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b) (“AB52”) and has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City. Monitoring shall address the details of all ground-disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts on cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.
A fully executed copy of the Archaeological Monitoring Agreement shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this measure. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall apply.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit,
the complete text of
MM CR-1 shall be
placed on the
grading plan.
MM- CR-2: Archaeological Inadvertent Discovery. The Project Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a treatment plan to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit,
the complete text of
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-6
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
shall be per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code § 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources.
Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment.
If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementing archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource and subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
Community Development
Department
MM CR-2 shall be
placed on the
grading plan.
MM- CR-3: Final Report: A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR1 through 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit,
the complete text of
MM CR-3 shall be
placed on the
grading plan.
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
PPP 4.7-1 As required by Municipal Code Section 8.05.010, the Project is required to comply with the most recent edition of the California Building Code to preclude significant adverse effects associated with seismic hazards.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the
issuance of building
permits
PPP’s 4.10-1 through PPP 4.10-3 in Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality shall apply.
Engineering Department Prior to the
issuance of a
grading permit and
during operation
MM-GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring.
Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to conduct monitoring as necessary during ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish a schedule for paleontological resource Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit,
the complete text of
MM GEO-1 shall be
placed on the
grading plan.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-7
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Paleontologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate.
If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the Paleontologist/Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
MM-GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified paleontologist shall be retained to observe grounddisturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium. The Paleontologist will attend the pre-grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for paleontological monitoring and to temporarily halt ground-disturbing activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the uppermost layers (more than 3 feet below surface) should be monitored. Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the small-fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance
of a grading permit,
the complete text of
MM GEO-2 shall be
placed on the
grading plan.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
PPP 4.8-1 Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Project Applicant shall submit plans showing that the Project will be constructed in compliance with the most recently adopted edition of the applicable California Energy Code, (Part 6 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations) and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2019 Edition (Part 11 of Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations).
Building & Safety Department Prior to the
issuance of building
permits
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-8
MITIGATION MEASURE (MM)
PLANS, POLICIES, OR PROGRAMS (PPP)
RESPONSIBILITY
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
TIME
FRAME/MILESTONE
VERIFIED BY:
PPP 4.8-2 As required by Municipal Code Section 9.283.010, Water Efficient Landscape Design Requirements, prior to the approval of landscaping plans, the Project proponent shall prepare and submit landscape plans that demonstrate compliance with this section.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the
issuance of building
permits
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
PPP 4.10-1 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (1), any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of this chapter, and shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation.
Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits
PPP 4.10-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section B (2), any person performing construction work in the city shall be regulated by the State Water Resources Control Board in a manner pursuant to and consistent with applicable requirements contained in the General Permit No. CAS000002, State Water Resources Control Board Order Number 2009-0009-DWQ. The city may notify the State Board of any person performing construction work that has a non-compliant construction site per the General Permit.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits and
during construction
PPP 4.10-3 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 6.05.050, Storm Water/Urban Runoff Management and Discharge Controls, Section C, new development, or redevelopment projects shall control storm water runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The City Engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. Documentation on the effectiveness of BMPs Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits and
during operation
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-9
implemented to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the MS4 shall be required when requested by the City Engineer. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following and may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopments to do any of the following:
(1) Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous soil and low-lying area undisturbed by:
(a) Incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open space into the project design;
(b) Using porous materials for or near driveways, drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads and walkways; and
(c) Incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design.
(2) Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement or other approved green infrastructure and French drains by:
(a) Installing rain-gutters oriented towards permeable areas; (b) Modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of storm water runoff leaving the property; and
(c) Designing curbs, berms, or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas.
(3) Maximize storm water storage for reuse by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store storm water runoff for reuse or slow release.
(4) Rain gardens may be proposed in-lieu of a water quality basin when applicable and approved by the City Engineer.
NOISE
MM - NOI-1-Construction Noise Mitigation. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the following notes be included on grading plans and building plans.
Project contractors shall be required to ensure compliance with the notes and permit periodic inspection of the construction site by City of Jurupa Valley staff Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-10
or its designee to confirm compliance. These notes also shall be specified in bid documents issued to prospective construction contractors. a) Haul truck deliveries shall be limited to between the hours of 6:00am to 6:00pm during the months of June through September and 7:00am to 6:00pm during the months of October through May.
b) Construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
c) All stationary construction equipment shall be placed in such a manner so that emitted noise is directed away from any sensitive receptors adjacent to the Project site.
d) Construction equipment staging areas shall be located the greatest distance between the staging area and the nearest sensitive receptors.” e) The project will construct the property line wall during the early phases of construction, prior to grading, to help shield the neighboring properties from construction noise activities.”
PUBLIC SERVICES
PPP 4.15-1 The Project applicant shall comply with all applicable Riverside County Fire Department codes, ordinances, and standard conditions regarding fire prevention and suppression measures relating to water improvement plans, fire hydrants, automatic fire extinguishing systems, fire access, access gates, combustible construction, water availability, and fire sprinkler systems.
Fire Department Prior to issuance of a
building permit or
occupancy permit as
determined by the Fire
Department
PPP 4.15-2 As required by Municipal Code Chapter 3.75, the Project is required to pay a Development Impact Fee that the City can use to improve public facilities and/or, to offset the incremental increase in the demand for public services that would be created by the Project.
Building & Safety Department Per Municipal Code
Chapter 3.75
PPP45.15-3 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required development impact fees to the Jurupa Unified School District following protocol for impact fee collection.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of
building permits
PPP 4.15-4 & 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of
building permits
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-11
Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
RECREATION
PPP 4.16-1 Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the Project Applicant shall pay required park development impact fees to the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District pursuant to District Ordinance No. 01-2007 and 02-2008.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of
building permits
.
TRANSPORTATION
MM-VMT-1: Traffic Calming Measures: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall provide and have approved plans from the City’s Engineering Department for construction of a mini-roundabout at the intersection of 45th Street and Saxon Court and the construction of bicycle sharrows to both directions of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacifica Avenue.
Public Works and Engineering
Department
Prior to the issuance of
grading permits and
during operation
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
MM- TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Permit Applicant shall enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting Tribe(s) for Native American Monitor(s) to be onsite during ground disturbing activities allowed by the grading permit. A Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b). Ground disturbing activities and excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching.
The Monitoring Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
a) Provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the
Consulting Tribe(s) of all ground disturbing activities. b) Conduct a Pre-grade meeting with the Project
Archaeologist, Consulting Tribe(s), and grading contractor.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-12
c) In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s) required by Mitigation Measure CR-1 under Section 4.5, Cultural
Resources, of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for MA21245, the Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow
identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of
cultural resources.
d) The onsite monitoring shall end when all grounddisturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Native American Tribal Monitor(s) have
indicated that all upcoming ground disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Project Proponent shall submit a fully executed copy of the Monitoring Agreement to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. If there are multiple Consulting Tribes involved, a separate Monitoring Agreement is required for each. The Monitoring Agreement shall not modify any condition of approval or mitigation measure.
MM-TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery: The Permit Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of the grading permit. If, during ground disturbance activities, unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) Ground disturbing activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. Ground disturbing activities are allowed on the remainder of the Project Site.
b) In the event the unanticipated discovery includes human remains and/or cremations no photographs are to be taken except by the coroner, with written approval from the Consulting Tribe(s). c) The Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Archaeologist (retained by the Permit Applicant under Mitigation Measure CR-1, Retain
Community Development
Department
Engineering Department
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-13
Professional Archaeologist, of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document for MA21272), and the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department shall meet and confer, and discuss the find with respect to the following:
1. Determine if the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined by Public Resources Code §21074, if so:
2. Determine if the resource is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register on a “Local register of historical or resources” pursuant to Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k); or
3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c) as it pertains to the Consulting Tribe(s): (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past, (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
d) If the resource(s) are Native American in origin [and not a historical resource as defined by Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or §5024.1 (c)], the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Consulting Tribe deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If multiple Consulting Tribes are involved, and a mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the form and manner of disposition of the resource(s), the City shall request input from the Native American Heritage Commission and render a final decision.
e) If the resource(s) is both a tribal cultural resource and a historic resource, the Project Archaeologist, the Consulting Tribe(s), and the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department shall meet and confer and discuss the appropriate treatment (documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural and historic resource.
Treatment, at a minimum, shall be consistent with Public Resources Code § 21084.3 (b). The appropriate treatment shall be prepared in Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration MA21272 Las Palmas Page M-14
conjunction with the Archaeological Treatment plan required by Mitigation Measure CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the appropriate treatment has been accomplished.
MM - TCR-3: Final Report: If a Tribal cultural resource is also a historic resource defined above, the resource shall be included in the Final Report required by Mitigation Measure CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA21272.
Community Development
Department
Prior to the issuance of a
grading permit
UTILITY AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
PPP 4.19-1 The Project shall comply with Section 4.408 of the 2013 California Green Building Code Standards, which requires new development projects to submit and implement a construction waste management plan in order to reduce the amount of construction waste transported to landfills.
Building & Safety Department Prior to the issuance of
building permits
ATTACHMENT B
Ordinance No. 2024-03 Approving Change of Zone No. 21011 -1-
12774.0007/2891460v1
ORDINANCE NO. 2024-03
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO.
21011 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 3.84 ACRES
LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL
STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-
190-016, AND 182-190-017) CHANGING THE ZONING MAP
FROM ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-1) TO PLANNED
UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) RC Hobbs Company (the “RC Hobbs”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21009, Change of Zone No. 21011, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, (Master Application No. 21272 or MA No. 21272) to permit the construction 36 single-family detached homes on a 3.84-acre site located north of 45th Street, between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (the “Project”). Change of Zone No. 21011 is the subject matter of this ordinance. General Plan Amendment No. 21009 and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 were considered by separate resolutions.
(b) The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as “CEQA”). (c) Pursuant to CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(d) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, and voted 3 to 1 (Penny Newman was absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. -2-
12774.0007/2891460v1
(e) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing.
(f) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-104, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JURUPA VALLEY
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).” (g) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160- 050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067
FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF
BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO
CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A
3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) TO ALLOW FOR
THE PROPOSED SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AT A DENSITY OF 9.3 DWELLINGS UNITS PER ACRE (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)” thereby approving General Plan Amendment No. 21009.
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2023-105, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37857 TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A
3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).”
Section 2. Change of Zone.
(a) RC Hobbs has initiated Change of Zone No. 21011 to rezone approximately
3.84 acres of real property located north of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue -3-
12774.0007/2891460v1
(APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017), changing the zoning map from One Family Dwellings (R-1) to Planned Unit Development Zone (PUD), as shown on Exhibit “A”. (b) Pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.238.080(1), the PUD zoning district may be approved only for a project that incorporates at least five of the following features:
1) Residential clustering that will provide for new neighborhoods combined with abundant open space.
2) Commercial development that provides products or services not currently available within the city.
3) Preservation of abundant natural open space.
4) The project will provide a substantial public amenity, for example, a significant public plaza, a public park, trails or a similar improved open space feature, including provisions for guaranteed long-term maintenance not at the expense of the city. 5) The project includes significant environmental benefits, such as preservation, enhancement and/or creation of a significant natural feature or open spaces with a minimum area of one-half (½) acre.
6) Additional public benefits and project amenities that advance the city's identified objectives and evolving visions as identified in the General Plan and Community Plans.
7) The project will achieve greater energy efficiency than standard developments through the incorporation of green building techniques, scoring at least a silver rating on the LEED or other equivalent rating system, or achieving a minimum of thirty (30) percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24.
8) The project provides for a significant saving of water usage over the life of the project.
9) Stormwater runoff controls.
(c) Pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.238.080(2), prior to the approval of a zoning amendment to add the PUD designation to a property, the following findings shall be made, along with the general findings required for a zoning amendment set forth in Sections 9.285.010, 9.285.020 and 9.285.030:
1) The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific and Community Plans;
2) The project complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter, except for those provisions modified by the PUD rezoning; -4-
12774.0007/2891460v1
3) The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the density and superior design of the proposed project;
4) The proposal would benefit the area surrounding the project to a greater degree than development allowed within the underlying zoning district(s), including improved pedestrian or transit access to jobs, goods and services; 5) The proposal would provide mixed land use and/or site design flexibilities while enhancing site or building aesthetics to achieve an overall, workable, higher quality of development than would otherwise be possible under conventional zoning standards; 6) The project is compatible in use, size and type of structure, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout, with adjoining land uses, mitigates environmental impacts and can be integrated into the neighborhood; 7) The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary; 8) The project does not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas;
9) All affected public facilities, services and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project; and
10) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city.
(d) Section 9.285.010. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that amendments to Title 9 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code must be made in accordance with the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 65800 et seq., as now enacted or hereafter amended, and with the requirements of Title 9. Government Code Section 65853 provides that an amendment to a zoning ordinance, which amendment changes any property from one zone to another, shall be adopted in the manner set forth in Sections 65854 to 65857, inclusive. (e) Government Code Section 65854 provides that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance, with notice of the hearing given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and, if the proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance affects the permitted uses of real property, also given pursuant to Government Code Section 65091.
(f) Section 9.285.040.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance that propose to change property from one zone to another. -5-
12774.0007/2891460v1
(g) Section 9.285.040.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the Planning Commission shall render its decision within a reasonable time and transmit it to the City Council in the form of a written recommendation, which shall contain the reasons for the recommendation and, if the recommendation is to change a zone classification on property, the relationship of the proposed amendment to applicable general and specific plans. A copy of the recommendation shall be mailed to the applicant and proof thereof shall be shown on the original transmitted to the City Council. If the Planning Commission does not reach a decision due to a tie vote, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and the failure to reach a decision shall be deemed a recommendation against the proposed amendment. (h) Section 9.285.040.(4)(a) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day, and give notice of the time and place of the hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
(i) Government Code Section 65857 provides that the legislative body may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinance or amendment by the legislative body not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing, must first be referred to the planning commission for report and recommendation, but the Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon.
(j) Section 9.285.040.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the City Council must render its decision within a reasonable time and may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any proposed modification of the Planning Commission’s recommendation not previously considered by the Planning Commission must first be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.
Section 3. Findings for Approval of Change of Zone. In approving Change of Zone No. 21011, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby finds and determines that:
(a) Pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.238.080(1), a PUD zoning district may be approved only for a project that incorporates at least five of the following features:
1) The proposed project incorporates residential clustering through the inclusion of smaller lots ranging in size from 1,735 to 2,235 square feet combined with abundant open space in the form of public open space recreation area, and landscaped public space. 2) The proposed project provides substantial public amenities including a 17,101 square foot common recreation and open space area that incorporates barbeque areas, picnic tables, hot coal containers, patio covers, tot lot play area, basketball court, and raised vegetable boxes all to be maintained by the HOA for the site. The project includes significant environmental benefits, such as preservation, enhancement and/or creation of a significant natural feature or open spaces with a minimum area of one-half (½) acre. -6-
12774.0007/2891460v1
3) The project enhances the City's vison by contributing to the desired small-town feel, active outdoor life, diversity, environmental justice, and health by providing a project that introduces a varied high quality housing type along with open space that meets the needs of a broader group of people with distinct lifestyles and income levels. The project provides a unique community that exhibits high quality design, architecture, and sense, of place. 4) The project will achieve greater energy efficiency that standard developments throughout the incorporation of green building techniques, scoring at least a silver rating on the LEED or other equivalent rating on the LEED or other equivalent rating system, or achieving a minimum of thirty (30) percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by California Code of Regulations Title 24. The project is subject to the California Building Code which ensures that this project score at least a silver rating on the LEED or achieve a minimum of thirty (30) percent greater energy efficiency than the minimum required by Title 24. 5) The project provides for a significant saving of water usage over the life of the project. All landscape areas within the proposed project would include drought-tolerant trees and shrubs with a permanent irrigation system to minimize water use and runoff for the life of the project.
6) The proposed project provides for stormwater water runoff controls through the preservation of natural open space, and the development of off-street concrete channels, gutters, and stormwater basins.
(b) Pursuant to Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.238.080(2), prior to the approval of a zoning amendment to add the PUD designation to a property, the following findings shall be made, along with the general findings required for a zoning amendment set forth in Sections 9.285.010, 9.285.020 and 9.285.030:
1) The project is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific and Community Plans. The project is consistent with the General Plan in that the project site is proposed to be High Density Residential (HDR) that allows for up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre, and the project is proposing 9.3 dwelling units per acre; 2) The project complies with all applicable provisions of this chapter, except for those provisions modified by the PUD rezoning; 3) The approved modifications to the development standards of these Zoning Regulations are necessary and appropriate to accommodate the density and superior design of the proposed project. The proposed modifications to the development standards of the zoning regulations are necessary to accommodate the proposed density and superior design of the proposed project in that they allow for residential clustering, and additional recreational and open space;
4) The proposal would benefit the area surrounding the project to a greater degree than development allowed within the underlying zoning district(s), including improved pedestrian or transit access to jobs, goods and services. The proposed project would benefit the area surrounding the project site in that it would provide for new pedestrian and -7-
12774.0007/2891460v1
vehicular connectivity, activate undeveloped parcels in the City, and create additional opportunities for recreation and healthy mobility;
5) The proposal would provide mixed land use and/or site design flexibilities while enhancing site or building aesthetics to achieve an overall, workable, higher quality of development than would otherwise be possible under conventional zoning standards.
The proposed project would incorporate open play areas, playgrounds, basketball court, raised vegetable boxes, BBQ area, private street improvements, individual lot and streetscape landscaping, retention basins, and wall and fences to achieve a higher quality of development than would otherwise be possible under convention zoning standards; 6) The project is compatible in use, size and type of structure, relative amount of open space, traffic circulation and general layout, with adjoining land uses, mitigates environmental impacts and can be integrated into the neighborhood. The proposed project is compatible with the adjoining land use in that it provides residential uses to an existing residential corridor, provides a substantial amount of open space, and integrates a residential community within the existing neighborhood;
7) The project complies with all applicable City Design Guidelines and provides adequate access, parking, landscaping, trash areas and storage, as necessary. The proposed project complies with all applicable access, parking, landscaping, and trash pick-up requirements, as necessary:
8) The project does not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas. The project does not create traffic congestion, noise, odor or other adverse effects on surrounding areas;
9) All affected public facilities, services and utilities are adequate to serve the proposed project. The required facilities, services, and utilities including sewer, water, and trash pick-up are adequate to serve the project; and 10) The establishment, maintenance or operation of the proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety or general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity of the proposed use, or detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or to the general welfare of the city. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare of current or future residents in that it is a low-intensity residential project compatible to the surrounding residential community and will activate an inactivated area of the City.
Section 4. Approval of Change of Zone. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby:
1) Approves Change of Zone No. 21011 changing the zone of 3.84 acres of real property located north of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (APN:
182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017) from One Family Dwellings (R-1) to Planned Unit Development (PUD), as shown on Exhibit “A”.
-8-
12774.0007/2891460v1
2) Directs the City Manager to revise the official City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Map to designate the Property as being in this new zone. 3) Determines that this Ordinance shall not go into effect unless General Plan Amendment No. 21009 is adopted by the City Council.
Section 5. Severability. If any sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each sentence, clause or phrase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 6. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Section 7. Certification. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 18th day of January, 2024.
_____________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-9-
12774.0007/2891460v1
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2024-03 was regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 21st day of December, 2023 and thereafter at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of January, 2024, it was duly passed and adopted by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 18th day of January, 2024. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
ATTACHMENT B
Exhibit A – General Plan Amendment and Change of Zone Exhibit
ATTACHMENT C
Adopted Resolution No. 2023-105 approving TTM37857
-1-
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-105
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 37857 TO ALLOW FOR THE
SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLEFAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL
STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-
190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) RC Hobbs Company (“RC Hobbs”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21009, Change of Zone No. 21011, and Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, (Master Application No. 21272 or MA No. 21272) to permit the construction 36 single-family detached homes on a 3.84-acre site located north of 45th Street, between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (the “Project”). The City Council has adopted a separate resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. Change of Zone No. 21011 will be considered by separate ordinance. General Plan Amendment No. 21009 will be considered by separate resolution. Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 is the subject matter of this resolution. (b) The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribed by State and local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as “CEQA”). (c) Pursuant to CEQA (Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(d) On November 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity to address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, and voted 3 to 1 (Penny Newman was absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Project. (e) On December 21, 2023, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the on the Project, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the -2-
opportunity to address the City Council on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing.
(f) Following the public hearing, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-104, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF JURUPA VALLEY
ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF 36 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOMES ON A 3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).” (g) Following the public hearing, the City Council also adopted Resolution No. 2023-108, entitled: “A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22003 TO CHANGE THE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF APN 160-050-005 FROM BUSINESS PARK (BP) AND
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO VERY HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (VHDR), APN 160-050-029 FROM BP TO HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HDR), APN 160- 050-063 FROM MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MDR) TO HDR, APN 160-050-067
FROM BP AND MDR TO HDR AND MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (MHDR), AND APN 160-050-070 FROM BP AND MDR TO MHDR, HDR, HIGHEST DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (HHDR) AND OPEN SPACE RESIDENTIAL (OS-R) ON 153 ACRES LOCATED EAST OF INTERSTATE 15 (I-15), WEST OF PATS RANCH ROAD, SOUTH OF
BELLEGRAVE AVENUE, AND NORTH OF LIMONITE AVENUE TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF 1,576 RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS (VERNOLA RANCH SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT); AND (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 21009 TO
CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM MDR TO HDR ON A
3.84-ACRE SITE LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) TO ALLOW FOR
THE PROPOSED SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED DWELLINGS AT A DENSITY OF 9.3 DWELLINGS UNITS PER ACRE (LAS PALMAS PROJECT)” thereby approving General Plan Amendment No. 21009.
(h) Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced and conducted a first reading of Ordinance No. 2024-03, entitled: “AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 21011 CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 3.84 ACRES LOCATED NORTH OF 45TH STREET, BETWEEN OPAL STREET AND PACIFIC AVENUE (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, AND 182-190-017) CHANGING THE ZONING MAP FROM ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS (R-1) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) (LAS PALMAS PROJECT).” Section 2. Tentative Tract Map
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, a Schedule “A” subdivision of approximately 3.84 acres into 36 lots for single-family detached homes, common areas, and private streets on real property located north of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017). -3-
(b) Section 7.05.020 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission is designated as the “Advisory Agency” charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of all proposed tentative Schedule “A” maps. Further, Sections 7.05.020.A. and 7.15.150 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission is authorized to approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove all such tentative map land divisions and report the action directly to the City Council and the land divider.
(c) Section 7.15.130 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that within fifty (50) days after the date of filing of a commercial parcel map, a public hearing on the map must be held before the Planning Commission. Section 7.15.130 (B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed tentative map, file notice of the decision with the City Clerk, and mail notice of the decision to the land divider, or his or her authorized agent, and any interested party requesting a copy. (d) Section 9.05.110 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that notwithstanding any other provisions of this title, in the event that a project requires a general plan amendment, zone change, specific plan amendment, development agreement or other legislative action in addition to the tentative subdivision map, site development permit, conditional use permit, variance or other quasi-judicial land use applications for the project, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation to the City Council to approve, modify, or deny the applications for the legislative action for the project and a recommendation to the City Council to approve, conditionally approve, or deny the quasi-judicial land use applications. The Council shall hear the applications for the legislative actions along with the applicable procedures of Section
9.05.100. The decision of the City Council shall be made by ordinance or resolution as required by law and shall require three (3) affirmative votes of the City Council. The purpose of this section is to enable the City Council to hear and decide all of the land use entitlements for a project in a comprehensive and coordinated manner.
(e) Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires denial of a Tentative Tract map if it does not meet all of the requirements of Title 7 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, or if any of the following findings are made:
1) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
3) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
-4-
5) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. (f) Notwithstanding subsection 5) above, a tentative map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or projects alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
Section 3. Findings for Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37857. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley finds and determines that Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 should be approved because:
1) The proposed Tentative Parcel Map No. 37857 meets all requirements of Title 7 (Subdivisions) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. 2) The proposed land division will be consistent with the City’s General Plan, including policies for High Density Residential (HDR) land use designation, which permits up to fourteen (14) dwellings units per acre.
3) The proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans because the project provides a residential project of 9.3 dwelling units per acre on a lot that is intended for residential project of up to fourteen (14) dwelling units per acre. 4) The site of the proposed land division is physically suitable for the type of development because the site is surrounded by a residential community and will create pedestrian and vehicular connectivity in the area.
5) The design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because the project has been reviewed against environmental regulations and a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to ensure mitigation of any impacts to the environment to a level of less than significant or avoided altogether.
6) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems because the project does not -5-
incorporate any significant factors that could impact health, safety, or general welfare. The project incorporates open play areas and various opportunities for recreation to contribute to a healthy lifestyle.
7) The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division because the project has been designed to not conflict with any easements, and does not incorporate any barriers to access or use of the property within the proposed land division.
8) Consistent with Government Code Section 66473.7, the project has been conditioned to require that a sufficient water supply shall be available to serve the development.
Section 4. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 with Conditions. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby:
(a) Approves Tentative Tract Map No. 37857, to permit a Schedule “A” subdivision of approximately 3.84 acres into 36 lots on real property located north of 45th Street between Opal Street and Pacific Avenue (APN: 182-190-015, 182-190-016, and 182-190-017), subject to the conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. (b) The City Council’s approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 37857 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 21011.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 21st day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Chris Barajas
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
-6-
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. 2023-105 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 21st day of December, 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 21st day of December, 2023. ________________________________
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
ATTACHMENT C
Exhibit A – Recommended Conditions of Approval
LAS PALMAS SUBDIVISION (GPA21009, CZ21011, TTM37857) DECEMBER 21, 2023 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR MA21272
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-__