ME 8.45 Non-Motorized Transportatio n. Encourage the use of alternative non-motorized transportation and the use of non-polluting vehicles.
ME 8.46. Runoff Control. Implement National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best Management Practices
relating to construction of roadways to control runoff
contamination from affecting surface water and
groundwater resources.
Transportation Systems Management
Policies
ME 8.47 TSM Strategies. Give priority to Transportation System Management (TSM) strategies to improve level of
service, particularly in areas that are fully developed.
ME 8.48 Traffic Signal Synchronization. Construct and improve traffic signals at appropriate intersections. Whenever
possible, traffic signals should be spaced and operated as part of coordinated systems to optimize traffic
operation.
ME 8.49 Street Widening. Consider roadway widening or
extension at public expense to relieve congestion only
after the determination has been made that TSM
measures will not be effective and that widening would
be consistent with and contribute to the character of the community.
ME 8.50 Turn Lanes. Install special turning lanes whenever necessary to relieve congestion and improve safety for
all users.
ME 8.51 Bus Turnouts. Encourage development of bus turnouts, bus stop signage and other features to improve traffic
flow and safety, and to encourage use of public transit.
ME 8.52 ITS. Encourage the integration of Intelligent Transporta- tion Systems (ITS), consistent with the principles and
recommendations referenced in the Inland Empire ITS
Strategic Plan, as the transportation system is improved and maintained.
Programs
ME 8.1.1 New Interchanges on State Route 60. Construct new interchanges on SR 60 at Camino Real and Sierra
Avenue/Pacific Avenue.
ME 8.1.2 Regional Transportation Facilities and Services. Support the development of regional transportation facilities and services (such as high -occupancy vehicle lanes, express Mobility
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 3-79
bus service, and fixed transit facilities), which will
encourage the use of public transportation and
ridesharing for longer distance trips.
ME 8.1.3 New Interchanges on Van Buren Boulevard. Complete new interchanges on Van Buren Boulevard at Jurupa
Road and Galena/Bellegrave Avenue.
ME 8.1.4 Design Guidelines. Develop and implement street and intersection design guidelines and update City
Engineering Standards for consistency with the design
guidelines.
###
This page intentionally blank.
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-1
4 – CONSERVATION AND
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
Figure 4-1: Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley
A. INTRODUCTION
California law requires that general plans include two different but complementary sections addressing natural resources: the Conservation Element and the Open Space Element. In this General Plan, these sections are combined into the Conservation and Open Space Element. Other sections that also address natural resources include the Land Use Eleme nt and the Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Elements. The Conservation and Open Space Elements are combined because they both address environmental resources.
They address the conservation, development, and use of energy and natural resources, and the preservation of open space for protection of natural resources such as wildlife habitat, wetlands, recreation trails, and facilities, cultural, and historic resources. From the input received at many general plan outreach and GPAC meetings, it is clear that preserving open spaces and protecting Jurupa Valley’s semi-rural, equestrian lifestyle are very important to residents.
These environmental qualities attract residents and visitors, and enhance Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. The importance of ope n space is reflected in the City’s Community Values Statement.
City of Jurupa Valley Community Values Statement
Open Space and Visual Quality. We value and protect the Santa Ana River and river plain, ridgelines, and hillsides for their exceptional value for recreation, watershed, wildlife habitat, environmental health, and as scenic backdrops for the City. As part of our values, we support prevention and removal of visual blight, protection of public vistas, and community awareness and beautification activities. Jurupa Valley’s special places will be protected, maintained, and promoted to preserve our unique character, instill local pride, and encourage tourism.
The Conservation and Open Space Element promotes public health and safety by redirecting development away from areas subject to geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. Jurupa Valley contains a variety of open spaces that serve many functions —hence the often -used label of “multi-purpose.” The City’s quilted pattern of hills, valleys, and slopes provides a variety of habitats including riparian corridors, oak woodlands, and chaparral habitats. Examples include the Jurupa Mountains, the Santa Ana River, and the Pedley Hills. In particular, the Santa Ana River borders the City on its eastern and southern flanks and includes many native plant species, some of which grow only in the habitat this river provides.
Open Space is a critical part of what gives the City of Jurupa Valley its unique visual character. With Jurupa Valley poised to continue experiencing significant growth pressure in the next 10 to 15 years, protected open spaces ensure that future generations can continue to enjoy these visual and recreational amenities. In 2017, about 11%, or 6,500, acres remain undeveloped, or essentially so, in the forms of parkland, open space, and to a lesser degree, agricultural use.
Thus, open space and related land uses can play a key role in maintaining distinct community boundaries or “edges” (i.e., between Sunnyslope and Belltown), and by buffering the City from adjacent, more urbanized areas. The City is literally “shaped,” in terms of both geography and scenic character, by its open spaces.
The City’s conservation and open space resources are shown in Figure 4-3. These areas are preserved and managed to protect and enhance the quality of life for all Jurupa Valley residents. It is the City’s intent to protect and, where possible, enhance natural systems and cycles. This enables the natural diversity of plants and animals to sustain themselves because of the critical relationships between them.
Figure 4-2: Headwaters of the Santa Ana
River, San Bernardino Mountains
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-3
Figure 4-3: Protected open space in Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Land areas will be preserved, set -aside for this purpose, and linked by corridors of various designs to allow wildlife movement within and between habitat areas. In addition, the public’s access to the open space system is ensured through a network of public and private trails for recreation purposes, enabling a variety of active and passive recreation pursuits. Trails provide a means of recreation in themselves, as well as access for less intensive recreation. Creative and effective means of acquiring open space have enabled establishment of this system so that private property rights are respected and open space acquisition is fea sible. This system also provides an effective approach that reduces conflicts over develop- ment activities because of the City’s commitment to permanently preserving critical open space resources
Regional resource planning to protect threatened or endangered species, such as the Stephens kangaroo rat, has occurred in various locales for many years. Privately and publicly owned lands have served as habitat for many different species. In some cases, this method of land and wildlife preservation proved to be piecemeal and disjointed, resulting in islands of reserve land without corridors for species migration and access. To address these issues of wildlife health and habitat sustainability, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was developed and adopted by the County and other jurisdictions within the County, including the City of Jurupa Valley. The MSHCP comprises a reserve system that encompasses core habitat, habitat linkages, and wildlife corridors outside of existing private and public reserve lands into a single comprehensive plan that can accommodate the needs of species and habitat in the present and future.
In developing conservation and open space policies, the City Council finds that:
1. Multi-purpose open space is a critical part of the City’s system of public facilities and services necessary to improve the quality of life and to accommodate new residents and visitors.
2. The open space system and the methods for its acquisition, maintenance, and operation are related to how it is to be used, including its value for community vistas, visual relief, natural resource protection, habitat preservation, passive and active recreation, and protection from natural hazards, and combinations of these purposes.
3. A primary purpose of the City’s open space system is the preservation of components of the ecosystem and
landscape that embody the historic character and diverse landscapes of the City, even though some areas have been impacted by human-caused changes.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-5
4. Native habitat for plants and animals endemic to Jurupa Valley must have interconnected spaces, or “corridors,” that allow these natural communities to prosper and be
sustained.
5. Incentive-based systems for habitat protection are
available to help preserve and, where appropriate, expand open space resources, including the use of density averag- ing, conservation credits, and management programs to
achieve equitable sharing of costs and benefits.
6. Lands identified for habitat preservation are based on the best available scientific information regarding species and habitat requirements, and that information is updated as better methods emerge.
7. Strategies and incentives for voluntary conservation on private land are an integral part of the City’s policy/ regulatory system.
8. Where natural streams and watercourses are located
within designated open space areas, they are to be
preserved as natural living systems. Where they pass
through areas that are developed or designated for
development, to the extent allowed by existing conditions, their continuity is maintained and protected as
environmental corridors linking open space areas. In
addition, where possible, their viability is enhanced in numerous cases by being included in publicly maintained open spaces rather than in narrow concrete channels.
Primary Goal
Within the urban area, the City will secure and maintain a diverse network of open land encompassing particularly valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are the following:
1. Santa Ana River and adjacent riparian corridors with natural banks and vegetation
2. Natural and manmade creeks, arroyos, lakes, groundwater, and other water bodies
3. Wetlands and vernal pools
4. Jurupa Mountains and Pedley Hills
5. Undeveloped land within the City’s limits not intended for urban uses
6. Grassland communities and woodlands
7. Wildlife habitat and corridors for the health and mobility of individuals and of the species
8. Habitats of species listed as threatened or endangered by state or federal governments
9. Prime agricultural soils and economically viable farmland.
10. Hills, ridgelines, box canyons, scenic rock outcroppings, and other significant land features
11. Unique plant and animal communities, including “species of local concern”
Policy and Program Sections
1. Biological Resources
2. Wildlife Habitat
3. Water Resources
4. Agricultural Resources
5. Renewable Energy Resources
6. Non-Renewable Resources
7. Cultural and Paleontological Resources
8. Open Space and Recreation Resources
9. Scenic Resources
10. Dark Skies
B. CONSERVATION AND OPEN SPACE
ELEMENT GOALS , POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS
Goals
To be a good steward of Jurupa Valley’s natural resources, and protect and enhance open space by:
COS 1 Working to protect, preserve, and create the conditions that will promote the preservation of significant trees and other vegetation, particularly native California
species.
COS 2 Seeking to achieve self -sustaining populations of the native birds, fish, and other wildlife and avoid actions that remove or damage habitat for native plants and
animals.
COS 3 Working with the Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD), the Rubidoux Community Services District
(RCSD), the Santa Ana Water Company , and other
agencies and private companies to help meet Jurupa
Valley’s urban water needs without substantial harm to
the natural environment or to agriculture, to help meet water needs including requiring conservation measures
such as drought -tolerant landscaping and water -saving fixtures in new homes, and to:
1. Protect and maintain water quality in aquifers, the
Santa Ana River, streams, and wetlands that help
support beneficial uses, including domestic and
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-7
commercial/industrial uses, agricultural uses, and
wildlife habitat.
2. Protect and improve the quality of local water
sources, including groundwater and the Santa Ana
River.
3. Encourage JCSD and RCSD to retain and, where
possible, expand the capacity of wells, aquifers, and
other groundwater reserves.
4. Preserve natural floodways, floodplains, and
wetlands, and avoid actions that adversely affect
waterways or riparian areas, or that increase flood
hazards to urban uses.
COS 4 Continuing to accommodate agricultural uses and
encourage its expansion, where appropriate.
COS 5 Increasing use of sustainable energy sources such as solar and wind energy, and reduc ing reliance on non -
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible with
available technology and resources.
COS 6 Reducing consumption of non-renewable energy sources where possible and ensuring efficient use, development, and conservation of sustainable, non- polluting energy
sources.
COS 7 Ensuring the preservation of cultural, historical, archaeological, and paleontological resources.
COS 8 Securing and maintaining a diverse network of open lands including valuable natural and recreational
resources, including:
1. Santa Ana River floodway and riparian areas.
2. Jurupa Mountains, Pedley Hills, and Indian Hills.
3. Wetlands and vernal pools.
4. Wildlife habitat and corridors, particularly for species of local concern or for species that are officially listed as threatened or endangered.
5. Parks and natural areas with significant recreational opportunities.
6. Encourage public access to open space without
harming the resource and without exposing the
public or the property owners to unacceptable risk.
7. Preserve open space and wildlife habitat and help
provide trails and other recreation opportunities
where they will not harm the environment.
8. Avoid actions that will result in the loss of designated open space resources and, when feasible, require
mitigation for their loss.
COS 9 Preserving the City’s scenic resources, including mountains, hills, ridgelines, rock outcroppings, canyons, mature trees, the Santa Ana River and floodplain,
riparian corridors, agricultural fields, views of scenic resources from vista points or alon g scenic street or
highway corridors, and other landscape features deemed
significant by the City Council.
COS 10 Minimizing light trespass and pollution caused by exterior light sources in public and private structures, new development, and public facilities to ensure safety, protection of the natural environment, and preservation of dark nighttime skies.
Policies and Programs
Policies within the Conservation and Open Space section of this element seek to guide decision -making related to renewable and non-renewable resources. These types of resources require conservation—a conscious effort to consume less of scarce resources so that they can be sustained for future generations. By conserving resources, we prevent degradation of the environment through pollution or the loss of sustainable resources and environ - ments for future generations.
COS 1 – Biological Resources
Jurupa Valley provides diverse habitats for a variety of native plant and animal species. The pattern of hills, valleys, and river basins supports diverse vegetation, which in turn, provides varied wildlife habitats, including riparian corridors, oak woodlands, and chaparral, as shown in Figure 4 -5 and Figure 4 -6. Examples include features such as the Jurupa Mountains, the Santa Ana River, and the Pedley Hills. Located along Jurupa Valley’s eastern and southern boundary, the Santa Ana River is a significant ecological, recreational, and visual resource. Many nativ e and endangered species thrive there, including the least Bell’s vireo, the Santa Ana River woollystar, and the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. The Hidden Valley Wildlife Area provides opportunities for nature study, conservation and outdoor education, and hiking and equestrian activities. Throughout the area, interconnecting trails provide access to outstanding scenery.
Figure 4-4: Hidden Valley Wildlife Area,
school tour (Riverside County Parks)
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-9
Figure 4-5: Local vegetation communities
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-10
Figure 4-6: Biological resources of Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-11
The Jurupa Mountains are the dominant visual resource in the northern portion of the City. The highest peak, Mount Jurupa, stands at an elevation of 2,217 feet. Substantial portions of the mountains are identified as potential habitat for the endangered De lhi Sands Flower-loving Fly. (See MSHCP, Appendix 12.0.)
The vegetation of Jurupa Valley is diverse in its size, shape, and form, yet various species share similar adaptations to climatic and environmental conditions. Further, habitat areas are associated with the dominant natural vegetation that thrives in the City. Although ecological conditions fluctuate in the various plant communities, these natural changes occur gradually, with most species adapting to the habitat and clim ate changes. However, with development, changes occur that can adversely affect wildlife habitats, local microclimates, water percolation, soil erosion, fires, and aesthetics quality.
To address the important issues of biological resources health and habitat sustainability, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) was developed by the County of Riverside in cooperation with state and federal agencies ( see MSHCP, Appendix
12.0). The Plan applies to unincorporated and incorporated Riverside County land, including Jurupa Valley west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line. It applies to a total area of approximately 1.26 million acres (approximately 1,997 square miles) and is one of the largest conservation plans in the U.S.
The Plan covers multiple species and multiple habitats within multiple jurisdictions.
The 2017 General Plan includes goals and policies that protect the biological resources of Jurupa Valley in conjunction with the MSHCP.
It is of the utmost importance to maintain a balance between growth and natural resources preservation to preserve the ecological health and overall character of Jurupa Valley. The habitat requirements of sensitive and listed species, combined with sound habitat - management practices, help shape the following policies and guide the City’s conservation efforts.
Policies
COS 1.1 Habitat Conservation. Conserve key habitats, including existing wetlands and California native plant
communities, with a focus on protecting and restoring
the following endangered species habitats:
1. Conserve alluvial fan sage scrub associated with the Santa Ana River to support key populations of Santa
Ana River woollystar ( Eriastrum densifolium
sanctorum).
2. Conserve clay soils to support key populations of
many-stemmed liveforever plants (Dudleya
multicaulis) known to occur along the Jurupa Valley
portion of the Santa Ana River.
3. Conserve known populations of least Bell’s vireo
(Vireo bellii pusillus) and southwestern willow
flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus) along the
Santa Ana River.
4. Conserve large intact habitat areas consisting of
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grasslands to
support known locations of coastal California
gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica).
5. Conserve grassland and coastal sage scrub
supporting known populations of San Bernardino
kangaroo rat ( Dipodomys merriami parvus ) in the
Jurupa Mountains.
6. Conserve grasslands adjacent to sage scrub for
foraging habitat for raptors.
7. Conserve riparian areas, including river basin, creeks, streams, vernal springs, seeps and other natural
water features.
COS 1.2 Protection of Significant Trees. Protect and preserve significant trees, as determined by the City Council upon the recommendation of the Planning Commission.
Significant trees are those trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban
landscape due to their s pecies, size, or rarity. In
particular, California native trees should be protected.
COS 1.3 Other Significant Vegetation. Maintain and conserve superior examples of vegetation, including agricultural wind screen plantings, street trees, stands of mature
native and non- native trees, and other features of
ecological, aesthetic, and conservation value.
COS 1.4 Soil Conservation and Landform Modification. Public and private development projects shall be designed to
prevent soil erosion, minimize landform modifications to avoid habitat disturbance, and conserve and reuse on-
site soils.
Programs
COS 1.1.1 Riparian Corridors . Identify and protect riparian corridors through zoning, easements, or other measures
that ensure effective, long-term conservation.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-13
COS 1.1.2 Public Information. Provide public information materials regarding the City’s sensitive habitats, the values of
watershed, biological resources, and sensitive habitats, and how to protect them.
COS 1.1.3 Nature Trail Signage. Working with c ommunity special districts and other agencies, help create minimal and
appropriate signage along major trails (e.g., Santa Ana River and Jurupa Mountains) for educational outreach
about critical habitats and native plant and animal
species.
COS 1.1.4 Urban Encroachment. Amend the Municipal Code to regulate the establishment or encroachment of non -
compatible land uses or activities in habitat areas and passive open space, such as commercial uses, off- road
motorized vehicle use, off -trail, non -motorized vehicle use, hang gliding, grading, or other activities that conflict with biological resource conservation goals or policies.
COS 1.1.5 Volunteer Conservation Programs. Working with community volunteers, conservation clubs, youth
groups, and recreation and conservation agencies, help
plan and support conservation activities such as habitat restoration, interpretive signage and tours, trail building, erosion control, and litter removal.
COS 1.1.6 Tree Protection Ordinance. Develop a Tree Protection Ordinance.
COS 2 – Wildlife Habitats
The following policies seek to preserve wildlife habitat that supports many wildlife species in Jurupa Valley, including some that are listed as threatened, endangered, and species of concern. These resources deserve special protection to ensure the contin ued viability of natural systems and ecological values that enhance the quality of life for all citizens.
Open space preservation serves many purposes, including the preservation and enhancement of ecological and recreational resources, and the reduction or avoidance of environmental hazards. As urbanization has spread into Western Riverside County, community development has not only involved the local land use planning process, but also required coordination with state and federal wildlife agencies to manage and protect threatened and endangered species and other wildlife species. To accomplish this, the County of Riverside, cities in Riverside County, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife prepared and adopted the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plans (MSHCPs) that address local biological and Figure 4-7: Bobcat, Riverside County
ecological needs and establish appropriate mitigation for the impacts of development in Jurupa Valley and other areas within Riverside County.
Policies
COS 2.1 MSHCP Implementation. Implement provisions of the MSHCP when conducting review of development
applications, General Plan amendments/zoning changes,
transportation, or other infrastructure projects that are covered activities in the MSHCP.
COS 2.2 Wildlife Corridors. Identify and maintain a continuous wildlife corridor along the City’s northern boundary
through the Jurupa Mountains and along the Santa Ana
River from the northern boundary to the City’s western
boundary. Condition development approvals to ensure
that important corridors for wildlife movement and
dispersal are protected and not interrupted by walls,
fences, roadways or other obstructions. Features of
particular importance to wildlife include riparian
corridors, wetlands, streams , springs, and protected
natural areas with cover and water. Linkages and
corridors shall be provided to maintain connections
between habitat areas.
COS 2.3 Biological Reports. Require the preparation of biological reports to assess the impacts of develop ment and
provide mitigation for impacts to biological resources
when reviewing discretionary development projects with
the potential to affect adversely wildlife habitat.
Programs
COS 2.1.1 Preservation Incentives. Develop and provide incentives to private landowners that will encourage the protection of significant wildlife habitat resources, such as density averaging, transfer of development credits, tax
incentives, and grants.
COS 2.1.2 Regulation and Prevention of Destructive Practices.
Develop and adopt regulations that effectively regulate dumping, camping, off-road vehicle use, illegal entry, and polluting within protected conservation areas such as the Santa Ana River corridor and the Jurupa Hills along the north City boundary.
COS 2.1.3 Wildlife Corridors Map. Develop a Wildlife Corridors Map for Jurupa Valley to assist in the identification,
maintenance and enhancement to facilitate wildlife
movement and dispersal.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-15
COS 3 – Water Resources
Riverside County includes four major watershed areas in which river systems, numerous lakes and reservoirs, and natural drainage areas are located. Local water resources are shown in Figure 4 -10 below, and discussed further in the Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element. The City’s and the County’s water supplies are affected by the area’s arid climate, agricultural practices, projected population growth and its associated demand and develop ment, and the region’s dependence on low -quality imported water.
Further, the availability of imported surface water has been reduced due to an extended period of drought in California and changing regulations, despite an ever- increasing water demand. In Jurupa Valley, contamination from the Stringfellow Acid Pits, mining, and other human activities has affected groundwater quality such that its use requires treatment. Management of the amount of water available and its quality is essential to maintain adequate supplies in the face of increasing water demand. Policies in this section seek to protect and enhance Jurupa Valley’s water resources and to meet future water needs. These policies also address broad water planning issues and their relationship to land use decisions.
Although Jurupa Valley receives all of its potable water from groundwater supplies, regional and statewide water demands and ongoing drought conditions require continued conservation efforts and careful monitoring of water supplies to ensure adequacy for future growth.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) produces a California Water Plan every 5 years that not only includes a statewide water budget but also regional watershed water budgets.
These water budgets are based on California Department of Finance population projections and indicate clearly that demand for wat er throughout the state will exceed supply in 2020 whether or not a drought condition exists at that time. Most of the state’s regions, except for North Coast and San Francisco Bay Regions, recently experienced extended drought conditions, and the state is forecasted to experience periods of drought again in 2020. The largest average-year shortages are forecasted for the South Coast Region, which heavily relies on imported water. Future average-year shortages in the South Coast Region reflect forecasted pop ulation growth plus lower Colorado River supplies as California reduces its use of Colorado River water to the state’s basic apportionment.
Figure 4-8: Great blue heron, Santa Ana
River in Jurupa Valley
Figure 4-9: Rancho Jurupa Lake
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-16
Figure 4-10: Water resources, Riverside County
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-17
To help bridge the state and region’s projected gap between water supply and demand, water conservation must continue to be a priority, even in areas dependent upon groundwater supplies.
Following are water conservation policies and programs to help manage water supplies by promoting conservation and efficient water use.
Policies
COS 3.1 Water Use Planning . Adopt and strive for the most efficient available water conservation practices in the City’s operations and planning, and encourage
community services districts and other agencies to do
the same. “Most efficient available practices” means
actions and equ ipment that use the least water for a
desired outcome, considering available equipment, life - cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies.
COS 3.2 Multi-Use Consideration. Consider, in planning, land use decisions, and municipal operations, the effects of water supply on urban growth, wildlife habitat, agriculture, and stream flows, and seek to ensure continued water
availability for these uses in planning for long-term water supplies. The City will encourage individuals, organiza- tions, and other agencies to follow this policy.
COS 3.3 Water Quality . Employ the best available practices for pollution avoidance and control and encourage others to do the same. “Best available practices” means actions
and equipment that result in the highest water quality, considering available equipment, life -cycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of
other agencies.
COS 3.4 Water Conservation Systems. Encourage the installation of water- conserving systems such as dry wells and
graywater systems, where feasible, especially in new
developments. The installation of cisterns or infiltrators shall also be encouraged to capture rainwater from roofs for irrigation in the dry season and to reduce runoff
during heavy storms.
COS 3.5 Site Water Collection and Retention. Consider requiring design practices such as permeable parking bays and
porous parking lots with bermed, landscaped storage
areas for rainwater detention as a condition of develop- ment approval,
COS 3.6 Landscaping with California Native Plants . Encourage the use of California native plants for drought -resistant landscape planting.
COS 3.7 Edible Landscaping. Encourage the use of edible landscaping in residential areas, streetscapes, public
spaces, and parks, including vegetable gardens, herbs,
and fruit trees in lieu of large expanses of lawn or other more water-demanding plantings.
Programs
COS 3.1.1 Public Information. Promote and support educational outreach programs that provide information services to
the public about water conservation techniques,
benefits, and water -saving technologies in conjunction with water providers, Riverside County, community
services districts, and other entities.
COS 3.1.2 Regional Cooperation. Monitor and participate in regional activities addressing water resources, ground - water. and water quality to help ensure adequate and
safe water supplies for existing and future residents and businesses.
Water Quality
Water quality problems that have occurred in Jurupa Valley have been related to Stringfellow runoff, inadequate subsurface sewage disposal, waste disposal management in the Santa Ana River and floodway, and pollution due to urban storm water system runoff.
The Regional Water Quality Control Board for Region 8 provides state-level regulation of water rights and water quality policy for the City and for portions of Riverside, San Bernardino, and Orange counties. Further, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) mandates Best Management Practices to effectively minimize the adverse effects of pollution and protect water quality and groundwater resources.
Groundwater resources, or “aquifers,” are defined by their quality as well as quantity. Most groundwater basins store local and imported water for later use to meet seasonal and drought -year demands. In Jurupa Valley, water supply agencies (JCSD and RCSD) pump groundwater year-round, not just during drought conditions.
Under current groundwater recharge programs, groundwater is artificially replenished in wet years with surplus imported water.
Groundwater recharge that may also involve the recharge of reclaimed water enhances the City’s ability to meet water demand during years of short supply and increases overall local supply reliability. The following policies are intended to provide local guidance for the protection and maintenance of water quality and groundwater resources.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-19
Policies
COS 3.8 Wastewater Treatment. Encourage the use of
innovative and creative techniques for wastewater
treatment.
COS 3.9 Pollution Discharge. Minimize pollutant discharge into storm drainage systems and natural drainage and
aquifers.
COS 3.10 Regional Cooperation. Support efforts to create additional water storage where needed, in cooperation
with federal, state, community services districts, the
Riverside County Flood Control District, and other water authorities. Additionally, support and/or engage in water banking in conjunction with these agencies where
appropriate, as needed.
COS 3.11 Aquifer Protection. Require that aquifer water-recharge areas are preserved and protected.
COS 3.12 Drainage Systems in Development Projects. Require that developers and designers incorporate natural
drainage systems into development projects where
appropriate and feasible.
COS 3.13 Storm Water Retention. Retain storm water at or near the site of generation for percolation into the
groundwater to conserve it for future uses and to
mitigate adjacent flooding.
COS 3.14 Natural Channels. Collaborate with the Riverside County Flood Control District to promote natural approaches to managing streams and avoid lined, non-porous channels
to the maximum extent possible where groundwater
recharge is likely to occur.
COS 3.15 Water Retention Incentives. Consider granting incentives to landowners to preserve natural ground
water recharge areas, through measures such as density
averaging.
Program
COS 3.1.3 Aquifer Recharge. Participate in the development, implementation, and maintenance of a program to
recharge the aquifers underlying the City and Western
Riverside County, where feasible and appropriate. The
program shall make use of flood and other waters to
offset existing and future groundwater pumping, except
where:
1. Groundwater quality would be reduced;
2. Available groundwater aquifers are full; or
3. Rising water tables threaten the stability of existing structures.
Floodplain and Riparian Area Management
Watercourses and their floodways are usually the focus of construction and control; while fertile, flat and “reclaimed” floodplain lands are sometimes used for other activities, such as agriculture, commerce, and residential development. Rivers and floodplains form a complex physical and biological system that not only supports a variety of natural resources, but also provide natural flood and erosion control. In addition, floodplains represent a natural filtering system, with water percolating back into the ground and replenishing groundwater. When a watercourse is separated from its floodplain with levees and other flood control facilities, natural, built-in benefits are lost, altered, or significantly reduced.
The floodway fringe is that portion of the fl oodplain between the floodway and the limits of the existing 100 -year floodplain.
Floodways and drainage facilities are shown in Figure 4-12 below.
The City follows Riverside County’s method of using the USGS “blue line stream” overlay as its major form of mapping watercourses within its boundaries. The conventional assumption that flooding can be completely eliminated has meant not only an unrealistic reliance on manufactured flood protection, but also the development of a flood control system that squeezes rivers into artificially narrow channels, adds steeply sloped levees (devoid of riparian vegetation), and eliminates historic floodplains, all in the interest of reclamation, flood protection and urban growth.
Unfortunately, this practice highlights the fact that floods have been viewed for far too long as everything except part of the natural life cycle of rivers and floodplains.
Flooding is part of the dynamic nature of healthy rivers and riparian ecosystems. High flows and floodwaters are needed to cleanse the channels of accumulated debris, build stream banks, import gravels for aquatic life, thin riparian forests, and create riparian habitat.
The open space of floodplains adjacent to rivers and streams helps store and slowly release floodwaters, thus reducing flood flow, peaks, and their subsequent impacts during small and frequent flood events. Further, riparian habitat within floodplains is o f great value to resident and migratory animal species, as it provides corridors and linkages to and from the City’s wildlife corridors. The following policies address floodways, the floodplain fringe, and riparian areas (also refer to the Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element).
Figure 4-11: Van Buren Bridge collapse
during 1969 Santa Ana River flooding
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-21
Figure 4-12: Existing floodways and drainage facilities in Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Wetlands typically occur in low-lying areas that receive fresh water at the edges of lakes, ponds, streams, and rivers. Wetlands provide habitat for a wide variety of plants, invertebrates, fish, and larger animals, including many rare, threatened, or endangered species.
The plants and animals found in wetlands include both those that are able to live on dry land or in the water and those that can live only in a wet environment. Wetlands in Jurupa Valley may include riverbanks, seasonal springs and pools, and desert washes.
Policies
COS 3.16 Floodway Modification. Encourage other agencies to limit floodway modification or channelization only as a “last resort,” and limit the alteration to:
1. That necessary for the protection of public health
and safety, only after all other options are exhausted,
2. Essential public service projects where no other
feasible construction method or alternative project
location exists,
3. Projects where the primary function is improvement
of fish and wildlife habitat, or
4. Private development entitlements shall be required
to design floodplain and river edge treatments to
simulate and ultimately regenerate natural terrain
and riparian habitat, using techniques such as
covering and re-planting over rip rap embankments,
and utilizing gentle contoured slopes that do not
exceed 8:1 slope ratio.
COS 3.17 Environmental Mitigation. Encourage and, where possible, require that substantial modifications of a
floodplain be designed to reduce adverse environmental
effects to the maximum extent feasible, considering the following factors:
1. Stream scour
2. Erosion protection and sedimentation
3. Wildlife habitat and linkages
4. Groundwater recharge capability
5. Adjacent property
6. Designed to achieve a natural effect. Examples could include soft riparian bottoms, riparian corridors
within the floodway, and gentle and modulating
bank slopes, wide and shallow flood ways,
minimization of visible use of concrete, and
landscaping with California native plants to the
maximum extent possible. A site- specific hydrologic
study may be required.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-23
COS 3.18 Setbacks. Based upon site -specific study, all develop - ment shall be set back from the designated floodway
boundary or top of bank, whichever is most appropriate, a distance adequate to address the following issues:
1. Public safety,
2. Erosion,
3. Riparian or wetland buffer,
4. Wildlife movement corridor or linkage, and
5. Slopes
COS 3.19 Trails. Consider designating floodway setbacks to accommodate greenways, trails, and recreation
opportunities and allowing such uses within floodways,
where appropriate.
COS 3.20 Riparian Area Preservation. Require development projects to preserve and enhance native riparian habitat and prevent obstruction of natural watercourses. Zoning incentives, such as transfer of development credits,
should be used to the maximum extent possible.
COS 3.21 Ecotones. Identify and, to the maximum extent possible, conserve remaining upland habitat areas, or “ecotones”
adjacent to wetland and riparian areas that are critical to the feeding, hibernation, or nesting of wildlife species.
Programs
COS 3.1.4 Floodway Protection and Enhancement. Working with other responsible agencies, help implement the
following actions:
1. Prepare an inventory of natural areas that have been degraded and list sites in priority order, for
restoration efforts.
2. Revegetate disturbed areas using native plants.
3. Eliminate sources of water pollutants and improper
water diversions.
4. Work to remove invasive, non-native plant species in natural habitat areas, and prevent the introduction
or spread of invasive, non-native species.
5. Strongly discourage the placement of and, where
possible, remove man -made elements such as
buildings, paving, structural elements, concrete
lining of waterways, signs, streets, and utilities within floodways or floodplains, unless they are needed for
public health or safety, or for implementation of City
plans.
6. Require that suitably sized access corridors be
provided and/or maintained through or under new
and previously established, man -made obstacles to
wildlife movement (such as appropriately sized
culverts under arterial streets, highways, and other
major roads).
7. Prohibit camping, off-road vehicles, hunting and
other activities that are not compatible with
floodplain health and preservation.
8. Remove trash, debris, and contaminants, using
methods that minimally disrupt the open -space
resources.
9. Provide continuing community education and
outreach for all citizens, youth, and youth groups,
and property owners on open space and natural
resource values, programs, and responsibilities.
10. Enlist the help of volunteers, non -profits, youth and service groups, and academic programs in restoring
and monitoring habitat health.
COS 4 – Agricultural Resources
Agriculture was once the dominant land use and economic activity in Jurupa Valley. Over time, land use and economic changes have largely displaced farming, grazing, vineyards, dairies, orchards, and other agricultural activities to less urbanized areas. Reflecting this change, the last dairy in Jurupa Valley closed in 2015. However, the City continues to have areas in agricultural use, particularly along the I-15 corridor and near the Santa Ana River, as shown in Figure 4-13 below. Agriculture is allowed in several Open Space categories.
Countywide, agriculture continues to contribute significantly to the overall economy. In Jurupa Valley, agriculture continues to be important as a contributor to the local economy, a key open space resource, and a defining feature of the communities’ overall visual character and rural heritage. Moreover, agriculture is fundamental to the notion of “sustainability” —it helps preserve productive soils and Jurupa Valley’s capacity to grow food for local use.
Policies
COS 4.1 Support Agricultural Uses . Employ a variety of agricultural land conservation programs to improve the
viability of farms and ranches and thereby ensure the
long-term conservation of viable agricultural uses in
cooperation with individual farmers, farming
organizations, farmland conservation organizations, and the County.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-25
Figure 4-13: State Farmland Designations in Jurupa Valley (2016)
Jurupa Valley General Plan
COS 4.2 Agricultural Land Conversion. Discourage the
conversion of productive agricultural lands to urban uses unless the property owner can demonstrate overarching
Community-wide benefits or need for conversion.
COS 4.3 Compatible Uses. Encourage the combination of
agriculture with other compatible uses to help with the production of food, fiber, and support uses incidental to the on-site agricultural operation. Provide an economic advantage to agriculture uses by allowing activities such as farm stores, retail sales of produce or wares, and
related accessory uses.
Programs
COS 4.1.1 Farmland Conservation. Encourage individuals, non - profit agencies, and the County to seek out grants and
programs that promote farmland conservation. Such
measures may include land trusts, conservation
easements, Williamson Act designation, Land Conserva-
tion Contracts, Farmland Security Act contracts, the
Agricultural Land Stewardship Program Fund;
agricultural education programs, density averaging and
development standards, and/or incentives (e.g.,
clustering and density bonuses) to encourage co nserva- tion of productive agricultural land.
COS 4.1.2 Sustainable Agriculture. Encourage sustainable agricultural practices to protect the health of human and natural communities and to minimize conflicts between
agriculture and urban neighbors.
COS 5 – Renewable Energy Resources
Conservation policies in this element protect the City’s physical resources as well as its energy resources, including renewable energy. This category of renewable energy resources includes wind, solar, and biomass resources. Although the use of these resources is not widespread in Jurupa Valley at the time of General Plan adoption, there is potential for their use and development, particularly solar generation. Renewable energy can be developed as a substitute for oil, natural gas, and other limited energy supplies used for electricity generation, and to reduce consumption of these supplies.
Energy Conservation
For a sustainable economy and environment, and continued quality of life, we must reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. A key strategy in that effort is to use energy more efficiently and to shift to cleaner, renewable, locally generated, and/or controlle d energy Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-27
sources. While local governments have made significant progress in energy conservation, more can be done through emerging
technologies and increased emphasis on “sustainable” practices and building design in public and private development. Conserva tion is an important component of using energy resources in an efficient manner. Sensible energy conservation and design practices, such as shade tree plantings, can help mitigate the “heat island” effects of urban development that increase energy demand. The fol lowing policies address energy conservation.
Policies
COS 5.1 Best Available Practices. The City will employ the best available practices in energy conservation, procurement, use, and production, and encourage individuals,
organizations and other agencies to do likewise. “Best
available practices” means behavior and technologies
that reflect recommendations of specialists and that use the least energy for a desired outcome, considering
available equipment, life -cycle costs, social and
environmental side effects, and the regulations of other agencies. Best ava ilable practices include use of
sustainable energy sources. Sustainable energy sources
are naturally renewed in a relatively short time and avoid substantial undesirable side effects, and include:
1. Space heating and cooling using earth, plantings,
and/or building thermal mass to moderate
temperature changes.
2. Space cooling through natural ventilation.
3. Space cooling through reflectivity and shading.
4. Indoor illumination by natural light.
Figure 4-14: Residential roof-mounted photovoltaic solar collectors
5. Solar space and water heating.
6. Wind electricity generation.
COS 5.2 Energy-Efficient City Facilities. The City will meet or exceed Title 24 requirements for energy efficiency and
shall operate and maintain City facilities in the most
energy-efficient manner, without reducing public safety or service levels, as budget resources allow.
COS 5.3 Energy-efficiency improvements. Identify energy efficiency improvement measures to the greatest extent
possible, undertake all necessary steps to seek funding for their implementation, and upon securing availability of funds, implement the measures in a timely manner, as budget resources allow.
COS 5.4 Agency Cooperation. Cooperate with federal, state, and local governments and other appropriate entities to
accomplish energy conservation objectives when
consistent with the City’s General Plan goals and policies.
COS 5.5 Energy Efficiency and Green Building . Encourage energy-efficient “green buildings” as addressed by the
U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED® (Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design) Program or through
other similar programs.
COS 5.6 Energy Efficiency Incentives. Support standards, incentives and innovative technologies that encourage
and allow developers, designers, and property owners to design, build, and operate buildings to achieve energy
savings that exceed Title 24 requirements of the
California Building Code.
COS 5.7 Energy Efficient Materials. Specify and use energy - efficient materials and systems for City facilities as
budget resources allow.
COS 5.8 Reduce “Heat Island” Effect. Encourage the conversion of asphalt and concrete paving to porous surfaces that
help reduce surface runoff and the “heat island” effect.
COS 5.9 Renewable Energy Projects . Encourage and
accommodate applications for projects that will produce renewable energy for the grid, such as solar generating stations, where appropriate.
Programs
COS 5.1.1 Energy-Efficient Operations. Budget for and manage City operations, capital improvements, and facilities for
energy efficiency, including purchase and use of fleet
vehicles, equipment, and materials.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-29
COS 5.1.2 Sustainable Design. Incorporate sustainable design and sustainable energy sources and features in existing and new City facilities.
COS 5.1.3 Zoning Ordinance Update. Update the Zoning Ordinance to further the energy conservation goals, policies, and implementations actions, and reduce impediments or
disincentives to it.
COS 5.1.4 Encourage Public Information Programs. Encourage utilities to provide public information programs and
energy audits to promote energy conservation and to
protect solar access.
COS 5.1.5 Energy Grants. Solicit state and federal grants to implement the City’s energy conservation programs as
such funding becomes available.
COS 5.1.6 Community Choice Aggregation. Consider working with communities, community service districts, public utilities and WRCOG or similar organizations to establish
community choice aggregation programs. These
programs allow cities and special districts to aggregate the buying power of individual customers within a
defined area to secure alternative energy supply
contracts on a community -wide basis, but allowing
consumers not wishing to participate to opt out.
Wind Energy
Because of its valley location and pattern of development, Jurupa Valley is generally not suitable for efficient, large-scale wind energy generation. Small-scale, non -commercial wind energy generation, and “wind motors” historically associated with agricultural uses may be appropriate in connection with residential, institutional, recreational, and agricultural uses.
Policy
COS 5.10 Wind Energy. Where appropriate, allow non-commercial wind energy generation in a manner that maximizes
beneficial uses and minimizes detrimental effects to
residents and the environment.
Solar Energy
Due to Jurupa Valley’s location and climate, solar energy generation has important applications for residential, commercial, and institutional applications. Sunlight can be utilized for energy production in two ways: active solar systems involve the use of electronic and mechanical devices to convert solar energy to heat or electricity; passive solar systems utilize natural heating and cooling
from the sun through building orientation and building design techniques.
Policies
COS 5.11 Solar Access. Encourage the provision for and protection of solar access.
COS 5.12 Solar Energy Use. Use solar energy in City facilities and operations, as budget resources allow, and encourage
the use of active and passive solar energy by
homeowners, business owners, developers, govern -
ment, and public agencies.
Programs
COS 5.1.7 Update City Regulations. Update development and subdivision standards to include clear, specific standards to ensure that desirable solar access is provided for all new development. Standards shall address design
priorities for providing and maintaining solar access,
such as lot/ building orientation, architectural design, collector placement and design, landscaping, and legal
requirements to maintain solar access.
Biomass Resources
Biomass resources refer to organic materials —waste products, residues, or specific crops—that can be converted to energy fuel to replace conventional sources or directly used in combustion processes. Due to agricultural production in the County, resources exist that enable this technology to be more widely employed.
Policies
COS 5.13 Biomass Conversion . Encourage economic biomass conversion under sensible environmental controls, and
where compatible with adjacent uses.
COS 6 – Non-Renewable Resources
The non-renewable resources discussed in this element are mineral resources and certain energy resources. Mineral Resources are classified under the State Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA). The Energy Resources section addresses petroleum resources as well as energy conservation.
Figure 4-15: Former Jensen Quarry (last
active mining 1974-79); now the Oak
Quarry Golf Club
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-31
Polic ies
COS 6.1 Efficient Use of Non-Renewable Resources. Utilize non- renewable resources efficiently in City buildings and
facilities, services and operations, and encourage others to do the same.
Mineral Resources
Historically, mineral extraction has been an important component of Jurupa Valley’s economy. Western Riverside County has extensive deposits of clay, limestone, iron, sand, and aggregates. Classification of land within California takes place according to a priority list that was established by the State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB) in 1982, or when the SMGB is petitioned to classify a specific area. The SMGB has also established Mineral Resources Zones (MRZ) to designate lands that contain mineral deposits. The State of California has designated Aggregate Mineral Resource areas within the County. These mineral resource zones are shown in Figure 4 -16 below.
Mineral deposits are important to many industries, including construction, transportation, and chemical processing. The value of mineral deposits is enhanced by their proximity to urban areas.
However, these mineral deposits are endangered by the same urbanization that enhances their value. The non- renewable characteristic of mineral deposits necessitates the careful and efficient development of mineral resources to prevent their premature depletion or adverse impacts due to their extraction and use.
Policies in this section seek to conserve areas identified as containing significant mineral deposits and oil and gas resources for potential future use, while promoting the reasonable, safe, and orderly operation of mining and extraction activities within areas designated for such use, where environmental, aesthetics, and adjacent land use compatibility impacts can be adequately mitigated.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-32
Figure 4-16: Jurupa Valley mineral resources
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-33
Policies
COS 6.2 Compliance with SMARA. Require that the operation and reclamation of surface mines be consistent with the California Department of Conservation’s Surface Mining
and Reclamation Act (SMARA) and with the Municipal
Code.
COS 6.3 Incompatible Uses. Restrict incompatible land uses within the impact area of legal existing or potential
surface mining uses and within areas designated in the
General Plan as Open Space-Mineral Resources.
COS 6.4 Approval Conditions. Impose conditions as necessary on mining operations to minimize or eliminate the potential adverse impact of mining operations on surrounding
properties and environmental resources.
COS 6.5 Buffers. Require that new non-mining land uses adjacent to existing mining operations be designed to provide a
buffer between the new development and the mining
operations. The buffer distance shall be based on an
evaluation of noise, aesthetics, drainage, operating
conditions, biological resources, topography, lighting, traffic, operating hours, and air quality.
Programs
COS 6.1.1 Minerals Inventory. Maintain up -to-date information regarding the location of mineral resource zones in the City.
COS 6.1.2 City Review. Update City ordinances to require that all proposals for mineral extraction and reclamation be
reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City
Council.
Energy Resources
Energy resources provide the power necessary to maintain the quality of life enjoyed by City residents. Many of the energy resources used within the City are non -renewable. For example, electricity and natural gas are the primary sources of household energy, while fossil fuels are the primary source of energy for most modes of transportation. Energy conservation and the substitution of renewable resources should be encouraged if these resources are to be preserved for future generations.
Petroleum Resources
Riverside County’s petroleum resources are deposited in the form of oil and gas seeps. The State Division of Oil and Gas does not report
significant or active petroleum extraction in Jurupa Valley or the County. If extraction activities are undertaken in the future, the following policy provides direction for the siting of oil and gas facilities.
Policies
COS 6.6 City Operations. Seek ways to improve the energy efficiency of City operations to save energy, reduce
consumption of non -renewable materials, reduce
municipal costs, and set a positive example for the
community.
COS 6.7 City Vehicles and Equipment. Purchase and use vehicles and equipment that are fuel efficient and meet or
surpass state emissions requirements and/or use no - or low-emission sources of energy, if economically feasible.
COS 6.6 Renewable Energy Resources. Work with other agencies and utility providers to encourage safe, economical, and renewable energy resources, and to reduce non -
renewable energy use through public education and
participation in energy conservation programs.
COS 7 – Cultural and Paleontological
Resources
Jurupa Valley is rich in history dating back hundreds of years, encompassing prehistoric Native American occupation, Spanish exploration and settlement, Mexican Period settlement, the American Period following statehood in 1850, and more recent history. Jurupa Valley derives its name from the first inhabitants of the area, Native Americans who called “Jurupa” their home. The Jurupa Valley area lies at the territorial boundaries of two different Tribes, the Gabrieliñ o Tribe and the Serrano Tribe. Over the ye ars, there have been various interpretations of the meaning of “Jurupa,” from a greeting meaning “peace and friendship” to a more widely recognized interpretation that “Jurupa” refers to the California sagebrush once common in the area.
In 1774, Spanish explorer Juan Bautista De Anza, led an exploratory expedition along the Santa Ana River and through western Jurupa Valley, seeking a good land route from southern Mexico to Alta California. In 1838, the area became known as Rancho Jurupa under a land grant to Señor Don Juan Bandini by the Mexican government.
By the late 1800s, the Jurupa Valley area began to live in the shadow of the more popular City of Riverside. Much of Jurupa Valley area has what once was a Riverside mailing address. Ye t, settlement of the area in and around what is now the City of Riverside actually began in the Jurupa Valley many years before Riverside’s founding.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-35
Figure 4-17 shows the Historic Jensen-Alvarado Ranch House, dating from 1870. This house and the surrounding park were part of early Mexican land grants in the Jurupa Valley: Rancho Jurupa (1838) and Rancho El Rincon (1839) that pre-existed California statehood (1850) and the formation of Riverside County (1893).
Cultural resources consist of places (historic and prehistoric archaeological sites), structures, landmarks, or objects that provide evidence of past human activity or that have socio -cultural significance. They are important for scientific, historic, and/ or religious reasons to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals.
Jurupa Valley has been inventoried for geologic formations known potentially to contain paleontological resources. Paleontological resources are the fossilized biotic remains of ancient environments.
They are valued for the information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. Lands with low, undeter- mined, or high potential for finding paleontological resources are mapped in Figure 4-18 below. This map is used in the environmental assessment of development proposals and the determination of required impact mitigation. Riverside County has an extensive record of fossil life starting in the Jurassic period, 150 million years ago.
State- or federally listed historic resources are shown in Figure 4-19 (page 4-37) and listed in Table 4.1 (page 4-39). Based on preliminary historic studies and field evidence, it is likely that other, unlisted historically significant properties exist in Jurupa Valley, to be identified through future historic surveys or individual site inventories.
Policies
COS 7.1 Preservation of Significant Cultural Resources. Identify, protect, and, where necessary, archive significant
paleontological, archaeological, and historical resources.
COS 7.2 Public Information. Encourage programs that provide public information on the City’s history and cultural
heritage, and participate with other agencies to help
educate students about the City’s rich natural and man- made environment.
COS 7.3 Development Review. Evaluate project sites for archaeological sensitivity and for a project’s potential to uncover or disturb cultural resources as part of
development review.
COS 7.4 Site Confidentiality. Protect the confidentiality and prevent inappropriate public exposure or release of
information on locations or contents of paleontological and archaeological resource sites.
Figure 4-17: Historic Jensen-Alvarado
Ranch House, 1870
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-36
Figure 4-18: Paleontological sensitivity in Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-37
Figure 4-19: Historic resources in Jurupa Valley
Jurupa Valley General Plan
COS 7.5 Native American Consultation. Refer development projects for Native American tribal review and
consultation as part of the environmental review
process, in compliance with state law.
COS 7.6 Non-Development Activities. Prohibit activities that could disturb or destroy cultural resource sites, such as off-road vehicle use, site excavation or fill, mining, or other activities on or adjacent to known sites, or the
unauthorized collection of artifacts.
COS 7.7 Qualified archaeologist present. Cease construction or grading activities in and around sites where archaeo -
logical resources are discovered until a qualified
archaeologist knowledgeable in Native American
cultures can determine the significance of the resource and recommend alternative mitigation measures.
COS 7.8 Native American Monitoring. Include Native American participation in the City’s guidelines for resource
assessment and impact mitigation. Native American
representatives should be present during archaeological excavation and during construction in an area likely to contain cultural resources. The Native American
community shall be consulted as knowledge of cultural
resources expands and as the City considers updates or
significant changes to its General Plan.
COS 7.9 Archaeological Resources Mitigation. Require a mitigation plan to protect resources when a preliminary site survey finds substantial archaeological resources
before permitting construction. Possible mitigation
measures include presence of a qualified professional
during initial grading or trenching; project redesign;
covering with a layer of fill; and excavation, removal and curation in an appropriate facility under the direction of a qualified professional.
COS 7.10 Historically significant buildings. Prohibit the demolition or substantial alteration of historically significant
buildings and structures unless the City Council
determines that demolition is necessary to remove an
imminent threat to health and safety and other means to eliminate or reduce the threat to acceptable levels are physically infeasible (see Table 4.1 below
). Additional
unlisted historic resources may also be present and must be evaluated and protected, pursuant to CEQA
requirements.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-39
Table 4.1: Designated Historic Structures in Jurupa Valley* Historic Name Location Category/Status Significance
Jensen-Alvarado Ranch 4307 Briggs Street
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
California Historical
Landmark (Cornelius and
Mercedes Jensen Ranch, No.
943),https://en.wikipedia.org/
wiki/Jensen_Alvarado_Ranch
- cite_note-OHP-2 listed on
the National Register of
Historic Places on
September 6, 1979.
First kiln-fired brick building built in
Riverside County and the oldest non-
adobe structure in the Inland Empire.
Ranch house and grounds serve as an
1880s living history interpretive museum
administered by Riverside County Parks
Crestmore Manor 4600 Crestmore Road
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Potentially significant,
architecture and commerce.
Crestmore Manor, a 10,830-square-foot
colonial-style mansion, built in mid-
1950s by W.W. “Tiny” Naylor, a
restaurateur and the state’s then
second-leading thoroughbred horse
breeder.
Galleano Winery 4231 Wineville Road
Jurupa Valley, CA
Listed, National Register of
Historic Places, architecture
and commerce.
Early example of Southern California
vineyard and winery.
Robidoux [sic] Grist Mill
Site
5540 Molina Way
Rubidoux
California State Historic
Landmark #303; marker.
One of the first grist mills in this part of
Southern California, built by Jurupa
Valley pioneer Louis Rubidoux on the
Rancho Jurupa in 1846-47.
Site of Louis Robidoux
[sic] House
5575 block, Mission Boulevard,
Rubidoux
California State Historic
Landmark and Riverside
County Historic Landmark;
marker.
Location of former home of Louis
Rubidoux (nee “Robidoux”).
Site of de Anza crossing
of the Santa Ana River,
1775 and 1776.
Jurupa Hills Country Club. Site
is near Union Pacific Bridge,
Jurupa Heights; plaque is
located between the clubhouse
and No. 1 tee, Jurupa Hills
Country Club Golf Course, 6161
Moraga Avenue
California State Historic
Landmark; marker.
On January 1, 1776, the first party of
colonists to come overland to the Pacific
Coast, led by Early California explorer
Juan Bautista de Anza, crossed the
Santa Ana River south of this marker
and camped between here and the
River.
Rubidoux Drive-in
Theater
3770 Opal Street Potentially significant,
architecture and
entertainment/cultural.
Vintage 1948 drive-in movie theatre,
one of the oldest drive-in theaters in
continuous operation; only about 20
drive-in theaters remaining in California.
*Additional potentially historic resources are known to exist and require additional documentation for listing.
Programs
COS 7.1.1 Historic Survey of Resources, Districts, and Neighbor - hoods. Conduct a survey to identify historic resources, districts and neighborhoods, such as the historic city
areas or Rubidoux, Glen Avon, and Pedley with the
Historic Resources Overlay and protect and, where
possible, enhance their historic character through
appropriate district signage, public improvements, and
development incentives.
COS 7.1.2 Historical Preservation Incentives . Consider offering preservation incentives, such as the Mills Act Tax
Reduction program to encourage maintenance and
restoration of historic properties.
COS 7.1.3 Construction in Historic Districts. Prepare (or update, where guidelines already exist) architectural design
guidelines to provide specific guidance on the
construction of new buildings and public improvements
within areas designated in the General Plan with the
Historic Resource Overlay, such as town centers, historic districts, and historic neighborhoods.
COS 7.1.4 Public Information Programs. Foster public awareness and appreciation of cultural resources by sponsoring
educational programs or by collaborating with agencies, nonprofit organizations, and citizens groups to provide public information on cultural resources and display
artifacts that illuminate the City’s history. The City will encourage private development to include historical and archaeological displays where feasible and appropriate.
COS 7.1.5 Cultural Resource Program. Develop a cultural resource program, describing eligible cultural resources, listing criteria, “sensitive and effective” listing procedures, noticing requirements, benefits of listing (e.g., Mills Act, flexible development standards) and historic plaques
and district signage.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-41
COS 8 – Open Space and Recreation Resources
In partnership with other agencies, such as the Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District, the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District, the City of Jurupa Valley offers a wide range of protected open spaces, parks and recreational areas as shown in Figure 4 -3 (page 4-3 above).
Open space and recreation facilities
provide a variety of recreational opportunities and help maintain a distinct urban boundary and buffer between the City and adjacent urbanized areas. The following policies relate to the preservation, use, and develop ment of a comprehensive open space system consisting of passive open space areas, and parks and recreation areas that have recreational, ecological, and scenic value.
Policies
COS 8.1 Environmental Resource Protection. Preserve and maintain open space that protects environmental
resources and protects public health and safety.
COS 8.2 Extension of Public Facilities. Avoid the extension of public streets, facilities, services, and utilities for urban uses into areas designated as Open Space in the General Plan.
COS 8.3 Conversion of Recreation and Open Space Uses.
Discourage the conversion of dedicated parklands and
designated open space to non-recreational or non-open
space uses. Where conversion is unavoidable, require
developers or responsible agencies to replace parklands that are converted to other uses on a 2 -for-1-acre basis, with similar or improved facilities and programs, and
open space with land of equivalent open space value.
COS 8.4 Equal Access to Recreation and Open Space Resources.
Ensure that the City’s open space and recreational
network accommodates the needs of all residents,
regardless of their income, ethnicity, physical
capabilities, or age.
COS 8.5 Parkland Implementation Strategies. Require new development to provide funding and/or long- term
implementation strategies for the acquisition and
improvement of active and passive parks, open space,
and recreational sites, when appropriate.
COS 8.6 Provision of Recreation Facilities. Require that parkland or open space dedication and improvement occur prior
to, or concurrent with, construction, as a condition of approval of new residential subdivisions (Figure 4-21).
Figure 4-20: Mount Jurupa Trail
overlooking Jurupa Valley
COS 8.7 Public Access. Provide public access to open space resources when doing so is consistent with protection of the resources, and with the security and privacy of
affected landowners and occupants. Access will
generally be limited to non -vehicular movement, and
may be restricted in sensitive areas.
COS 8.8 Trails Network. Establish an off-street trails network, linking residential/equestrian areas, local open space
attractions, staging areas, and regional trail connections, integrating elements of the JARPD’ s Vision for Master
Trails Plan (Appendix 16.0) as determined appropriate by the City Council.
COS 8.9 Open Space Enhancement and Restoration. Encourage, and, as budget resources allow, support the enhance -
ment and restoration of permanently dedicated open
space and trail easements. Enhancements may include
trail clearing, erosion protection, drainage, fencing,
revegetation, trash clean up, directional and interpretive signage, and other improvements the City Council
determines necessary for public health and safety.
COS 8.10 Fire Prevention Activities . Conduct fire prevention activities such as fuel clearance or thinning, grading, prescribed burns, or other activities pursuant to an
approved Conservation Plan, and under the supervision
of state and local wildlife authorities and CAL FIRE
representatives, except in an emergency. Habitat
preservation shall be given equal priority with fire
prevention wherever possible.
Figure 4-21: Open Space resources in a subdivision (City of San Luis Obispo, California) Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-43
Programs
COS 8.1.1 Protect Open Space Resources. Take the following actions to protect open space, and encourage
individuals, organizations, and other agencies to take the same actions within their areas of responsibility and
jurisdiction:
1. Open Space Designation. Apply Open Space or
Agriculture zoning to private property where
equitable development potential is granted to the
property owner for the remainder of the land, as
appropriate and consistent with General Plan goals
and policies.
2. Open Space and Trails Dedication. Preserve or
enhance open space and trails resources through
application of conditions of subdivision and
development approvals, consistent with General
Plan goals and policies.
3. Donations and Grants. Seek and use grants,
donations, other revenue sources, and long- term
financing mechanisms to purchase fee ownership or
easements. The City will consider allocating funding
for open space acquisition and protection, and will
explore all potential funding s ources and other
mechanisms.
4. Interagency Cooperation. Promote interagency
cooperation for open space acquisition, greenbelt,
creeks, wetlands, and wildlife habitat protection in
open space areas by coordinating with other
government agencies and organizations having
interest or expertise in resource protection.
COS 9 – Scenic Resources
Jurupa Valley’s outstanding scenic resources give the City its distinctive character and appeal, and contribute to its residents’ quality of life. In general, scenic resources include natural areas that are visible to the public and include natural landmar ks, hills and mountain peaks, ridgelines, floodplains and stream channels, Figure 4-22: San Bernardino Mountains in snow, looking northeast from Jurupa Valley
agricultural fields, mature trees and agricultural windbreaks, riparian woodlands, and other prominent or unusual landscape features. Scenic backdrops include hillsides and ridges that rise above or adjacent to urban or rural areas or highways. Scenic vistas are points or corridors that are accessible to the public and that provide a view of scenic areas and/or landscapes. Following are policies to protect these resources and ensure that development enhances and does not obscure them or detract from their beauty.
Several roadways in Jurupa Valley provide outstanding views of surrounding scenic resources. Enhancing aesthetic experiences for residents and visitors to the City and County is essential to preserve the visual quality and character of Jurupa Valley. It may also help to promote tourism, a small but potentially significant contributor to the City’s economic health. Enhancement and preservation of these scenic resources requires careful application of scenic highway standards along officially designated scenic routes. City policies that seek to protect and maintain resources in corridors along scenic highways are provided below.
Policies
COS 9.1 Protect scenic resources, especially skylines,
undeveloped ridgelines, rocky hillsides, river view
corridors, and outstanding scenic vistas not designated for urban uses from development, and maintain those
resources in their current patterns of use.
COS 9.2 Ensure that development in areas with scenic values, including natural or agricultural landscapes, is visually subordinate to and compatible with the dominant
landscape features, colors, and textures. Development
includes, but is not limited to buildings, signs (including billboard signs), roads, utility and telecommunication
lines, and structures. Such development shall:
1. Avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20%, particularly in the visually
sensitive Jurupa Mountains.
2. Avoid unnecessary grading, vegetation removal, and
site lighting.
3. Incorporate building forms, architectural materials, and landscaping that respect the setting, including
the historical pattern of development in similar
settings, and avoid stark contrasts with its setting.
4. Preserve scenic or unique landforms, significant trees in terms of size, age, species or rarity, historical
features, and rock outcroppings.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-45
COS 9.3 Urban development. Implement the following aesthetic principles and encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so:
1. Design Context. Urban development should be
designed to reflect its architectural, environmental,
and historical context. This does not necessarily
prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate
design choices that acknowledge human scale,
natural site features, and neighboring urban
development, and that are compatible with historical
and architectural resources. Plans for sub -areas of
the city and within the three town centers may
require certain distinctive architectural styles.
2. Utilities and Signs. In and near public streets, public spaces and parks, and important scenic resources,
features that clutter, degrade, intrude on, or obstruct views should be avoided. Necessary features, such as
utility and communication equip ment, and traffic
equipment and signs should be designed and placed
so as to not impinge upon or degrade scenic views,
consistent with the primary objective of safety.
Billboard and electronic signs within scenic corridors
shall require City Council approval.
3. Streetscapes and Major Roadways. In the
acquisition, design, construction, or significant
modification of major roadways (highways/ regional
routes and arterial streets), the City will promote the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways
or corridors that promote the City’s visual quality and character, enhance adjacent uses, and integrate
roadways with surrounding districts. To accomplish
this, the City will:
• Establish streetscape design standards for major
roadways.
• Encourage the creation and maintenance of
planted medians and widened parkway
landscaping.
• Retain mature trees in the public right of way.
• Emphasize the planting and maintenance of
California native tree species of sufficient height,
spread, form, and horticultural characteristics to
create the desired streetscape canopy, shade,
buffering from adjacent uses, and other desired
streetscape characteristics.
• Encourage the use of water -conserving land -
scaping, street furniture, decorative lighting and
paving, arcaded walkways, public art, and other
pedestrian-oriented features to enhance
streetscape appearance, comfort, and safety.
• Encourage and, where possible, require under -
grounding of overhead utility lines and structures.
COS 9.4 View Protection in New Development. The City will include in all environmental review and carefully
consider effects of new development, streets and road
construction, grading and earthwork, and utilities on
views and visual quality.
COS 9.5 Views to and from Public Places, Including Scenic Corridors. The City will preserve and improve views of
important scenic resources from public places, and
encourage other agencies with jurisdiction to do so.
Public places include parks, plazas, the grounds of civic buildings, streets and roads, and publicly accessible open space. In particular, the route segments shown in Figure 4-23 below are designated as local scenic corridors.
COS 9.6 Scenic Corridors and Roadways. Development projects along and within scenic corridors, including state
highway projects, noise walls, and new private or public construction, shall not wall off scenic roadways and block views of scenic resources. The following measures shall be implemented:
1. Utilities, traffic signals, and public and private signs and lights shall not intrude on or clutter views,
consistent with safety needs.
2. Where important vistas of distant landscape features occur along local streets, street trees shall be
clustered to facilitate viewing.
Programs
COS 9.1.1 Visual assessments . Require evaluations and/or visual simulations for development projects that could affect
scenic resources and scenic vistas.
COS 9.1.2 Scenic Highway Designation. Advocate state and county scenic highway designations and protective programs for highways and other roads connecting Jurupa Valley with
other communities.
COS 9.1.3 Undergrounding Utilities. Place existing overhead utilities underground, with highest priority for scenic roadways and entries to the City, and require utilities, community services districts, and other responsible
agencies to do likewise.
Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-47
Figure 4-23: Jurupa Valley scenic corridors and roadways
Jurupa Valley General Plan
Figure 4-24: Dark sky preservation in
Borrego Springs
COS 9.1.4 Billboards. Amend the Municipal Code as needed to limit the installation of new billboard signs along scenic
corridors and roadways, and to require City Council
approval of billboards along scenic corridors.
COS 9.1.5 New Development. Ensure that new development within designated scenic highway corridors are designed with adequate site planning, setbacks, non -structural
noise buffers, and construction assemblies to avoid the need for sound attenuation walls, while balancing the
objectives of maintaining scenic resources with
accommodating compatible land uses.
COS 9.1.6 Grading. Utilize contour grading and slope rounding to gradually transition graded roads slopes, utilities, and development sites within and adjacent to scenic highway corridors to create natural landscape forms that follow the area’s natural topography.
COS 10 – Dark Skies
A dark sky is the night sky with minimal light impact from urban land uses or structures. Light intrusion into the night sky obstructs views of astrological features, disrupts normal animal behavior and natural plant cycles, and adversely affects human health. Focusing lights where they are needed reduces light glare and pollution, allowing the sky to be observed and enjoyed in a more natural state.
Furthermore, strategies to reduce light impacts can also help conserve energy, lower energy costs and improve safety.
The International Dark Sky Association (IDA) is a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization with chapters forming in many parts of the world. It is one of many such organizations dedicated to reducing the environ - mental and health effects of unwanted light. Its mission is to preserve and protect the nighttime environment and our heritage of dark skies through environmentally responsible outdoor lighting.
IDA provides information and resources to communities to help them.
Improve the nighttime environment by reducing light pollution through better lighting practices that provide:
• Energy savings resulting in economic benefits
• Superb nighttime ambience and quality of life
• Conservation of nocturnal wildlife and ecosystems
• Safeguarding of scientific and educational opportunities, such as astronomy
• Increased visibility, safety, and security at night by reducing glare
• Preservation of cultural heritage and inspiration for the arts Conservation and Open Space
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 4-49
Many cities throughout California and the U.S. have become International Dark Sky Communities, such as Borrego Springs, pictured above. An IDA International Dark Sky Community is a town, city, municipality or other legally organized community that has shown exceptional dedication to the preservation of the night sky through the implementation and enforcement of a quality outdoor lighting o rdinance, dark sky education, and citizen support of dark skies. Dark Sky Communities excel in their efforts to promote responsible lighting and dark sky stewardship, and set good examples for surrounding communities.
Existing light pollution sources include unshielded outdoor residential and commercial lighting, public street lighting, and temporary sources such as sports field lighting or construction lighting. When properly aimed and shielded, most lighting glare that affects the nighttime sky can be prevented or minimized.
Many areas in Jurupa Valley are semi- rural and do not require the same lighting levels or public street lighting that is common in more urbanized areas. Where exterior lighting is appropriate, it is the City’s intent to require all new public and private lighting, including public street lighting, to be properly shielded and to retrofit unshielded lighting, wherever possible.
Policies
COS 10.1 Outdoor Lighting . Require outdoor lighting to be shielded and prohibit outdoor lighting that:
1. Operates at unnecessary locations, levels, and times
2. Spills onto areas off- site or to areas not needing or wanting illumination
3. Produces glare (intense line-of-site contrast)
4. Includes lighting frequencies (colors) that interfere with astronomical viewing
COS 10.2 New Residential Development and Remodeling
Projects. Require development projects and major
remodel projects to minimize light pollution and trespass while enhancing safety and aesthetics.
COS 10.3 Public Facilities, Buildings, and Streets. Use outdoor light-shielding measures for new and existing lighting
fixtures, including signs, to minimize light trespass and glare while enhancing safety and aesthetics.
COS 10.4 Commercial and Industrial Buildings. Require that site lighting for commercial and industrial uses is unobtrusive and constructed or located so that only the intended
area is illuminated, off- site glare is prevented, and
adequate safety is provided.
COS 10.5 Public Education and Outreach. Support programs that provide public education on the importance of dark skies and how to protect them. Collaborate with nonprofit and other public agencies to help achieve our goals.
Programs
COS 10.1.1 Lighting Standards. Develop lighting standards based on the International Dark -Sky Association’s (IDA's) Model Lighting Ordinance, with emphasis on preserving the
City’s equestrian, semi-rural character.
COS 10.1.2 Retrofit Plan. Establish a retrofitting plan for outdoor lighting on City streets and at City facilities, and
encourage community service districts to do the same.
COS 10.1.3 Grant Funding . Seek grant funding for City lighting upgrades, incentive programs, and new fixtures.
COS 10.1.4 Public Awareness. Develop a dark sky public awareness campaign (e.g., April is Dark Sky Month, dark sky page
on City’s website, City Council proclamation).
COS 10.1.5 Regional Collaboration . Collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions to identify the appropriate location and
night lighting standards for a dark sky park.
COS 10.1.6 Engineering Standards. Review City engineering standards for possible changes to public street lighting locations, design and spacing to reduce light pollution, improve energy efficiency and maintain safety.
###
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-1
5 – HOUSING ELEMENT
Figure 5-1: Housing Diversity in Jurupa Valley
A. INTRODUCTION
This Housing Element identifies the housing needs and goals, policies, and programs for Jurupa Valley for 2021 through 2029, and promotes expanded housing opportunities, community safety, prosperity, and quality of life for all, consistent with Jurupa Valley’s adopted Community Values Statement, included in Appendix 8.0 to the General Plan.
This Housing Element was prepared to establish a strategy to meet this young City’s housing needs for all income levels, including affordable and market -rate housing. This Housing Element was prepared to meet the State of California’s 6
th Cycle Housing Element
Update Planning Period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2029.
The primary issues addressed include:
1. T he provision of decent ho using in a healthy enviro nment for all income levels;
2. A ffordable housing for special needs populations;
3. I mplementation of housing programs;
4. Rehabilitation and preservation of existing affordable housing; and
5. Removal of blight .
Housing is a key part of the City’s overall economic develop ment efforts to improve and expand its housing stock, improve property values, diversify the employment base, and improve the quality of life for all residents.
This element contains a reflection of the local issues and state law requirements for the State of California and also demonstrates a determination to meet the minimum requirements under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) determined by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). The following list provides the Primary goals that continue to influence the City’s objectives, policies, and programs.
Primary Goals
HE 1: Encourage and, where possible, assist in the development of quality housing to meet the City’s share of the region’s housing needs for all income levels and for special needs populations.
HE 2: Conserve and improve the housing stock, particularly housing affordable to lower income and special needs
households.
HE 3: Promote equal housing opportunities for all persons.
HE 4: Maintain and enhance residential neighborhoods and remove blight.
HE 5: Reduce residential energy and water use.
HE 6: Affirmatively further fair housing.
The Housing Element of the General Plan is only one facet of a City’s planning program. The California Government Code requires that General Plans contain an integrated, consistent set of goals and policies. Th is Housing Element helps shape and is influenced by policies contained in the other nine Elements of this General Plan; particularly by the Land Use Element, which establishes the location, type, intensity , and distribution of land uses throughout the C ity, and by the Mobility Element, which establishes policies for the movement of people, goods, and services throughout the City.
State Housing Element Requirements
State law requires the preparation of a Housing Element as part of a jurisdiction’s General Plan (California Government Code §65302(c)).
It is the primary planning guide for local jurisdictions to identify and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-3
prioritize housing needs and to determine ways to meet these needs best while balancing community objectives and resources.
Appendix A in this Housing Element contain s background details regarding the City’s inventory of sites for housing development, and Housing Element Appendix B contains a summary of proposed sites for redesignation/rezone.
Consistency with Other Elements of the
General Plan
This Housing Element builds upon the other General Plan e lements and is consistent with the policies and proposals set forth in them .
By law, General Plans must be internally consistent. Therefore, proposed amendments to any element must be evaluated against the other General Plan elements to ensure that no conflicts occur.
When the City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated in 2011, the new City adopted the County’s General Plan, including the Housing Element. The 2017 Housing Element was the City’s first locally prepared housing element and was developed as part of its new 2017 General Plan. The 2021 -2029 Housing Element is the second Housing Element for the City of Jurupa Valley as required by the timeline set by HCD. As part of the development of this Housing Element Update, the City ensured consistency with the Safety and Environmental Justice elements as required by state law, as well as all other elements of the General Plan.
Housing must be viewed in a context that includes more than the availability of adequate shelter. External factors affect ing the adequacy of housing include the quality of public services, aesthetics and visual characteristics, and proximity to related land uses. For example, the location of housing often determines the extent of school, park, library, police, fire, and other se rvices associated with housing.
Housing is a unique element in that the plans for housing can significantly change the plans and development of the other elements. The following explains how the elements are related. • Air Quality: In terms of housing, air quality can dictate the types and concentration of housing development due to
the kinds of emissions that can result from human activities that produce air -polluting greenhouse gases. Air Quality Goal #6 works to deal with the expected issues surrounding Jobs and Housing.
• Community Safety, Services and Facilities : This combined element covers facilities and safety that can affect the physical development and quality of life in Jurupa Valley.
Community Safety, Service and Facilities Goal #1 and
Goal #2 integrate the efforts to provide protection and services to the new housing development in the City.
• Economic Sustainability: Build and maintain a thriving local economy to expand employment and business oppor -
tunities, provide needed products and services, increase median income and property values, and help preserve and enhance Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. In this context , housing can change the speed of growth of the economic
base of the community and seek a housing and jobs balance within the City.
• Environmental Justice : The goal of the Environmental Justice Element is to ensure environmental equity for all persons, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, and establish and maintain an open and
inclusionary public decision -making process. While all of the goals in the Environmental Justice Element impact the development of the Housing Element, Environmental
Justice Goal #4 specifically reviews Healthy and Affordable Housing.
• Healthy Communities: The Healthy Communities Element
establishes goals and policies to help improve quality of life and foster healthy behavior and lifestyles, translating the General Plan vision for a robust Jurupa Valley into reality.
Housing in this context is viewed as p hysical, social, and cultural factors of health and well-being of the community of Jurupa Valley.
• Land Use: The goal of the Land Use Element is to use land to maintain and enhance Jurupa Valley’s unique, small - town character and equestrian -friendly neighborhoods
while promoting economic opportunities and prosperity for all. This element works with housing to maintain population growth and development trends, and balance the types and density of housing in the City.
• Mobility: The Mobility Element works to create a multi - modal mobility network that protects Jurupa Valley’s semi- rural character and lifestyle, is attractive, and provides all users with safe connections to homes, jobs, schools,
commercial areas, public facilities , and recreation areas, and that reduces dependence on the use of single-occupant automobiles.
• Noise: In the Noise Element, the City describes how it intends to prevent and mitigate the adverse impacts of
excessive noise exposure on its residents, employees,
visitors, and other persons. In the case of housing, the Noise Element will consider land use compatibility to noise generators like commercial and industrial development to housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-5
• Conservation and Open Space: The Conservation and Open Space Element promotes public health and safety by
redirecting development away from areas subject to
geologic hazards, flooding, and fires. The goals of the Conservation and Open Space Element are integrated into housing through access to open spaces from housing and
the hope to preserve the resources for the future
generation of Jurupa valley residents.
Public Participation
In preparing the 6 th Cycle Housing Element, involvement with community members was prioritized to fully understand their values and ideas for the future. There were several opportunities for community members and housing interest groups to express their input and weigh in on housing issues . Although in-person outreach was limited due to COVID -19 constraints, the community adapted and found meaningful ways to get involved in the Housing Element update process through digital engagement platforms and virtual meetings. A summary of outreach activities conducted during the planning effort is provided below . Housing Element Appendix C contains community engagement materials used to inform and solicit input from the public during the process, including public notices, the Community Housing Survey, and community
workshops.
Website and Community Housing Survey
In winter 2020-21, the C ity launched the Housing Element Update webpage and online Community Housing Survey (in English and Spanish). The website contained educational information about the purpose and process for the Housing Element, project updates, and notices of upcoming opportunities to participate. This included the opportunity to sign up for an email list for future updates for the public study sessions and workshops that were planned for community participation.
To date, the Community Housing Survey has resulted in 231 responses. To connect with as many residents of Jurupa Valley as possible, the survey was promoted through the City’s Planning Commission and City Council meetings, the City’s email list, the City’s Facebook page, and the City’s website. The survey was open to the public through the Housing Element development process, and the responses demonstrated that the community’s interests and concerns reflected those found in the data and demographics. The responses from a majority of the survey takers show that those with the greatest need for housing in Jurupa Valley are seniors, large families, young adults , and homeless persons. The responses also reveal that the community does not see any difficulty in finding
housing but does see the need for affordable housing and would like to see more diversity in affordable housing. Through the survey, the City also received a wide variety of comments on housing that are available in full in Housing Element Appendix C.
A summary of the survey responses identified the following housing concerns and desires for the City.
• Desire to increase the variety of housing types and
affordability
• Desire to see government assistance for the maintenance of existing homes
• Desire to see housing developed near access to community and commercial amenities
• Desire to provide housing to those who are in the special need categories (i.e., those who are homeless, single
parent household, seniors or living with disabilities)
The survey was provided in English and Spanish. To reach growing population of Spanish speakers living in the community, the outreach notices were also provided in Spanish and English. In addition to the normal methods of distribution and legal noticing; the many utility companies, public agencies and nonprofits organizations that operate in the City were able to provide their customers access to the information available through their websites and utility bills. These surveys results captured the community’s sentiments towards the current housing issues present in Jurupa Valley.
The City incorporated the data into the overall analysis of the Element and the main concerns of the community were reviewed and addressed in the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element. The responses received from the community resulted in specific emphasis on affordable housing and diversity of in future housing types.
Planning Commission and City Council Study
Sessions: Housing Element Overview, Sites
Inventory and New Housing Laws
Public input was facilitated by means of separate Study Sessions conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on March 10, 2021 and April 15, 2021, respectively, that provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA. The Planning Commission and City Council were generally supportive of the need for additional housin g sites in the City and indicated areas of the City where additional housing an d density would be most feasible, including within the Specific Plan areas and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-7
along the City’s major transportation corridors. The meetings were noticed as follows and open for public participation and comment. • Notices w ere mailed to interested persons and public agencies.
• Notices were posted at City Hall.
• Notices were posted on the City’s website.
• Notices were placed in the Press Enterprise Newspaper (print and digital).
Community Workshops
On April 5 and 6, 2021 public workshops were conducted on the Housing Element, one in English and one in Spanish. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the workshops were conducted via
teleconference with computer stations available at City Hall for participants w ithout computer access. The workshops were advertised on the City’s website, community websites, and through social media. During the workshops, City staff provided an overview of Housing Element requirements and housing law and a discussion of the City’s RHNA and potential housing sites to meet the RHNA.
Participants were then encouraged to provide their input on housing issues and needs in Jurupa Valley. Overall, participants agreed that lack of affordable housing is the biggest housing issue in Jurupa Valley.
During these workshops the participants also emphasized the following concerns and desires for the City to address:
• Desire to increase the variety of housing types and
affordability,
• Desire to locate higher density housing near transportation corridors,
• Desire to see more multi-family dwelling development and small lot or condo developments to increase the income
variety of the community,
• Desire to see more shared open spaces in the community and developments with less traditional lawns.
These comments have been incorporated into the development of the Housing Opportunities and Resources Section of this Housing Element.
Public Review Draft Housing Element
The Draft Housing Element was made available for public review at City Hall and on the City’s website beginning on May 20, 2021 .
Notices to inform the public and stakeholders about the availability of the Draft Housing Element were mailed and emailed to housing interest groups, including all homeowner’s associations in the City, and announcements of the Draft Housing Element were sent to
subscribers of the City’s email service, community agencies, and Facebook, and were made at Planning Commission and City Council meetings.
Planning Commission and City Council Joint
Study Session: Final Sites Inventory and Draft
Housing Element
On May 20, 2021 , a joint study session was conducted with the Planning Commission and the City Council on the Final Sites Inventory (Housing Element Appendix A), Proposed Redesignation/ Rezone Sites (Housing Element Appendix B), and the Draft Housing Element. This study session provided an overview of the Draft Housing Element and a detailed overview of the sites inventory. The meeting was noticed and open for public participation and comment. In addition, the City directly invited housing interest groups, including affordable housing developers and nonprofits, senior care providers, property manage ment companies, and the Chamber of Commerce. A notice was also mailed to representatives of all homeowner’s associations in the City.
This study session was attended by Planning Commissioners, City Council members, community members, and community interest group representatives. The study session was livestreamed through the City website, and community members were provided the opportunity to send in written comments ahead of the session on May 20, 2021. The study session began with an overview of the Draft Housing Element and the timeline of the development and community involvement with this document. The presentation also included a re view of the Sites Inventory and ability of the City to meet its RHNA allocation based on existing and proposed land use designations and known development projects. The presentation was then followed by a discussion about proposed sites for redesignation/rezone to the City’s highest density residential designation (HHDR) and R -3 zone and the criteria used to select sites. Sites were chosen to best encapsulate the City’s RHNA as set by the HCD. The discussion centered on vacant sites available in the City of Jurupa Valley.
The City Council had the following comments, and based on individual study sessions, the draft document and the list of sites provided, they voiced their desires to see the following:
• Desire to see highest density housing around commercial development
• Desire to see fewer industrial uses around housing
• Desire to see that no more housing get built directly in areas that are currently impacted by traffic issues
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-9
• Desire to see quality housing through designs and buffering to reduce the effects of pollutants to housing sites
All of the comments provided by City Council members were included and responded to through the programs in this document.
For example, the housing sites proposed for redesignation and rezoning have been located near existing and planned commercial developments and future commercial development so that the community will have access to amenities.
Planning Commissioners provided comments on the sites and the following desires:
• Desire to house as many people as possible in the
community as part of a balancing act with jobs
• Desire to see that the development for highest density housing infill and transit corridors spread the density throughout the city
• Desire for inclusionary and mixed income developments for residents to encourage healthy communities
These comments were taken into account when writing this document and were used to modify the overall Sites Inventory and proposed redesignation/rezone sites. The current housing policies in this document also include programs to address the diversity of housing for different incomes, the concentration and location of highest density housing, as well as environmental justice needs for housing development.
This meeting was attended by the public and watched through the livestream available on the City website. This meeting was recorded and kept for future record. Representatives from the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice (CCAEJ) and Inland Equity, two local environmental justice groups, attended the meetings and spoke of their comments on the Draft Housing Element and also wrote into the City concerning potential additional programs to further the development of affordable for all.
The nonprofits discussed the following desires for inclusion in the City’s Housing programs:
• Desire for rent control in Jurupa Valley
• Desire to raise fines through code enforcement for
substandard housing in both rental and ownership
• Desire for elimination of the lowest density residential zoning
• Desire for programs to assist with housing ownership
rather than renting
• Desire to relocate the potential housing sites farther away from transportation corridors
• Desire to see inclusionary and mixed housing
The comments received by the City at this study session from these two nonprofit groups have been addressed by the programs of this Housing Element, including a study for an inclusionary housing ordinance, the special criteria of potential housing site inv entory selection, and the continued work by the code enforcement team to deal with substandard housing. As the City continues to grow and attempts to accommodate the development of the community, it makes all efforts to provide better housing for all incom e levels through the proposed programs.
Public Review of Draft Housing Element
On May 27, 2021, the Draft Housing Element was updated with the comments received from the City Council and Planning Commission Joint session and then reposted on the City website for public review of the 6
th cycle. The announcement for this draft availability was also posted on the City’s website and social media platforms and was sent to all community parties. The update draft was also sent to HCD for the first review. The typical Housing Element review period is 60 days, and on July 23, 2021 the City met with the staff from the HCD to review the State’s preliminary comments, which were formally provided to the City in writing on July 26, 2021. The City has incorporated changes requested by the State in a revised Draft Housing Element Update.
On October 5, 2021, the City made the revised Draft Housing Element with HCD-requested updates available on the City’s website with an invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community groups, and others requesting notification. As of October 15, 2021, the City did not receive any comments from the public on the revised Draft Housing Element; however, the document remained available for public review and comment through February 7, 2022. The intention was to keep all community members informed of any changes and updates to the Housing Element and obtain as many comments as possible to best create a document that suits the needs of the people of Jurupa Valley.
On November 10, 2021, the Planning Commission considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Planning Commission received a detailed overview of the Housing Element Update and invited members of the public to address the Commission. However, no members of the public asked to be heard.
The Planning Commission unanimously voted to recommend
approval of the Housing Element Update to the City Council.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-11
On December 2, 2021, the City Council considered the Housing Element Update at a duly noticed public hearing. The Mayor invited members of the public to address the Council on the Housing Element Update. However, no members of the public asked to be heard. Following discussion of the project, the Council made minor modifications to the sites inventory and unanimously approved the Housing Element Update. In addition, the Council authorized the Community Develop ment Director to make any non -substantive, technical modifications to the document based on further comments from HCD without the need for re- approval by the City Council.
On December 13, 2021, the City received the second comment letter from HCD on the Housing Element. The letter acknowledged that the City had responded to many of HCD’s previous comments and requested additional information and clarification on the AFFH and other topics.
On February 7, 2022, the City made the second revision of the Housing Element available on the City’s website with an invitation for comments. This document was posted on social media, sent to local agencies, and emailed to commissioners, council members, community groups, and others requesting notification. The revision reflected changes made to the element in response to HCD’s letter of December 13, 2021. As of February 21, 2022, the City received one comment on the revised Housing Element Update related to whether the revised proposal for the Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan was included in the document. As stated in Section D, the revised proposal was not included as it is early in the process and has not been reviewed or approved by the City. The rev ised draft Housing Element Update was submitted to HCD on February 22, 2022 for review and certification.
B. COMMUNITY PROFILE
This section analyzes demographic and housing characteristics that influence the demand for and availability of housing in the City of Jurupa Valley. This analysis forms the foundation for community - based housing programs that can most feasibly meet the needs of the residents of the City of Jurupa Valley. This also looks at the growth of the community and uses that data to plan for housing needs within the community of Jurupa Valley.
Data and Methodology
Work on this 2021 -2029 Housing Element began in 2020 prior to completion and publication of 2020 census information. In addition, the City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated on July 1, 2011, after the 2010 Census had been conducted. As such, the City of Jurupa Valley
was not identified as a city in the decennial census. Nonetheless, preparation of this Housing Element involved the assemblage and presentation of relevant demographic and housing data for Jurupa Valley as an individual jurisdiction. Jurupa Valley was added to the demographic data available starting in 2013 as its own city.
The following key data sources were used to complete this Housing Element. Sources of specific information are identified in the text, tables, and figures.
• Census data (2010) and American Community Surveys
(2019 and 2017)
• California Department of Finance (2013)
• U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy
(CHAS) Data, 2013-2017
While the City was not recognized as an incorporated city in the decennial census, demographic and housing data for Jurupa Valley is extracted from the decennial censuses (2010 U.S. Census) by retrieving the data for the block groups and census tracts that generally describe the boundaries of the City of Jurupa Valley . The 2021-2029 Housing Element was prepared in 2020 -2021 and was part of the 2020 Census data collection as a Place; however, because the certified Census data has not been released to the public for use, this Housing Element utilizes the American Community Survey (ACS) for 2019. While most of the data is available for the ACS for 2019, not all data is complete and so the data for the 2017 ACS is used in the analysis.
Another method of compiling decennial census data for the City of Jurupa Valley is using data for the Census Designated Places (CDPs) that comprise the City of Jurupa Valley. Six CDPs generally form the boundaries of Jurupa Valley: Crestmore Heights, Glen Avon , Mira Loma, Pedley, Rubidoux, and Sunnyslope.
Since the 2010 Census, the Bureau of Census has been conducting sample surveys, known as the American Community Surveys (ACS), on specific demographic and housing variables. ACSs are conducted every 1, 3, or 5 years, depending on the specific variables in question and the population size of the community. Some ACSs do contain data for the City of Jurupa Valley as an incorporated city. Therefore, by necessity, this report draws from multiple ACS data sets that depend upon the availability of data for the City. The ACS data gives us an opportunity to analyze demographic and housing data in the City as recent as 2019. When data is not available at the city -level, this report applies the same method used above for retrieving data from the decennial censuses, and extracts data at the block- group or tract-level.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-13
Population Trends and Characteristics
Housing needs are influenced by population and employment trends. This section provides a summary of the changes to the population size, age, and racial/ethnic composition of the City of Jurupa Valley since 2000.
Historical, Existing, and Forecast Growth
The City of Jurupa Valley was incorporated from within Riverside County in 2011 and covers a 4 5-square-mile area. The City encompasses the neighborhoods of Jurupa Hills, Mira Loma, Glen Avon, Pedley, Indian Hills, Belltown, Sunnyslope, Crestmore Heights, and Rubidoux, thus known as “A Community of Communities.” Jurupa Valley is located in a region that, since 2000, has experienced robust population growth. According to the U.S. Census, Riverside County had a population of just over 2, 470,546 persons in 20 19.
Overall, the County has experienced steady population growth over the last two decades, with the total number of residents increasing by 59.86% since 2000. Table 5.1 compares the population of Riverside County with neighboring counties.
Table 5.1: Regional Population Trends, 2000-2019
2000 2010 2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
Riverside County 1,545,387 2,189,641 2,470,546 41.7% 12.8% San Bernardino County 1,709,434 2,035,210 2,180,085 19.1% 7.1% Imperial County 142,361 174,528 181,215 22.6% 3.8%
Jurupa Valley* 80,596 93,817 109,525 16.4% 16.7%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2000-2010 and ACS 2019
*Jurupa Valley Data for 2000-2010 aggregated from county data by tract level
According to the U.S. Census, Jurupa Valley experienced a 16% population increase between 2000 and 2010. Followed by a 17% population increase between 2010-2019 indicating a steady growth of population in comparison to the growth seen at the County of Riverside. This indicates that while the growth of the population of the County has slowed in the last 10 years, the growth of Jurupa has not slowed and is still contributing to the overall growth of the county.
Age Composition
To estimate the age profile of Jurupa Valley residents, census tract level data from the 2010 Census and 20 19 ACS data was used.
Between 2010 and 2019, the Jurupa Valley population experienced growth in all age groups, but overall, the City’s population is getting older. The “prime working” population, residents between the ages of 25 and 54 years, remains the largest age group in the City. The “school age” population, those between the ages of 5 and 17 years, makes up the next largest segment of the City’s residents. The
percentage of residents of all age categories stayed within a few percent of the previous decade.
Table 5.2: Age Distribution – Percent of Total Population, 2010-2019 Age Group
2010 2019
City of
Jurupa Valley1
Riverside
County2
City of
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
County
0 - 4 years 8.0% 7.4% 7.0% 6.3%
5 - 17 years 26.2% 24.3% 25.1% 18.5%
18 - 24 years 8.0% 7.1% 8.7% 9.5%
25 - 44 years 26.5% 26.3% 28.4% 27.0%
45 - 54 years 13.4% 13.4% 10.6% 12.3%
55 - 64 years 9.6% 9.8% 9.0% 11.6%
65+ 8.3% 11.8% 11.2% 14,8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 (DP1).and ACS 2019
1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level Ethnicity/Cultural Identity
In terms of ethnicity and cultural identity, most Jurupa Valley residents are Hispanic. As of 2010, 67% of Jurupa Valley residents were of Hispanic origin (Table 5.3), and during the next decade, the Hispanic/Latino community rapidly grew to become almost 74% of the City’s population. Between 2010 and 2019, the largest change in population was Asian/ Pacific Island in Jurupa Valley where the population doubled in size, replacing the Black/ African American population as the third largest ethnic group in the City. The percentage of total Black/African Americans decreased by half since 2010 in the City , shifting to the fourth largest population group in Jurupa. In comparison to the County ethnic demographics, the City saw change while the County remained basically the same with about a 5% drop in the Non-Hispanic White category and about a 5% increase to the Hispanic and Latino category.
Table 5.3: Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2019
Ethnic Group
2010 2019
City of Jurupa Valley1 Riverside County2 City of Jurupa Valley Riverside County # % # % # % # %
Non-Hispanic White 24,488 26.1% 869,068 39.7% 21,051 19.2% 836,932 33.9% Black/African American 3,079 3.3% 130,823 6.0% 2,014 1.8% 151,215 6.1% Hispanic or Latino 62,376 66.5% 995,257 45.4% 80,687 73.7% 1,236,032 50.0% Am. Indian or Alaska Native 311 0.3% 10,931 0.5% 328 0.3% 10,320 0.4% Asian/Pacific Island 2,286 2.4% 131,770 6.0% 4,619 4.2% 173,027 7.0% Other 136 0.2% 3,682 0.2% 331 0.3% 6,562 0.3%
Two or more races 1,141 1.2% 48,110 2.2% 495 0.5% 56,458 2.3% Total population 93,817 100% 2,189,641 100% 109,525 100% 2,470,546 100% Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 and 2020 (DP05) ACS 2019 1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-15
Employment Trends
Housing needs are influenced by employment trends. Significant employment opportunities within the City can lead to growth in demand for housing in proximity to jobs. The quality (including job security, and stability) and/or pay of available employment can determine the need for various housing types and prices.
Table 5.4: Employment by Industry, 2019
Industry
Jurupa Valley* Riverside County
Employees % Employees %
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting, and Mining 299 0.6% 11,155 1.0% Construction 6,047 13.1% 104,266 9.7%
Manufacturing 5,204 11.3% 96,142 8.9%
Wholesale Trade 2,356 5.1% 28,943 2.7%
Retail Trade 4,310 9.3% 129,331 12.0%
Transportation and Warehousing, and Utilities 4,648 10.1% 72,544 6.7% Information 295 0.6% 13,500 1.3%
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, and Rental & Leasing 2,751 6.0% 53,776 5.0% Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, and Waste Management Svcs 4,817 10.4% 106,748 9.9% Educational, Health and Social Services 8,482 18.4% 231,824 21.6% Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation and Food Services 4,013 8.7% 112,373 10.5% Other Services (except Public Administration) 1,827 4.0% 57,484 5.3% Public Administration 1,136 2.5% 56,808 5.3%
Total 46,185 100% 1,074,894 100%
Data indicates the occupations held by Jurupa Valley/Riverside County residents; the location of the related workplace is not indicated by this data. *Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (DP03)
As shown in Table 5.4 , over 18.4% of Jurupa Valley’s residents are employed in educational, health, and social services industries.
About 13.1% are employed in construction; 11.3% are employed in manufacturing; 10.4% in professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services and 10.1% in transportation and warehousing, and utilities. This data represents the jobs the American Community Survey Estimates that there are held by the residents of Jurupa Valley but t here is no data to show that these percentages are reflective of the industries operating within the City of Jurupa Valley.
According to the California Employment Development Department (EDD), the unemployment rate in Jurupa Valley has steadily declined since 2010. In 2019, the City’s unemployment rate was recorded at
8.5% which decreased f rom 10.5% in 2010. Despite the decreasing trend, this unemployment rate is still higher than the County’s unemployment rate of 5.8%.
Household Characteristics
This section describes Jurupa Valley’s household characteristics. The Census Bureau defines a household as all persons living in a single housing unit, whether or not they are related. One person living alone is considered a household, as is a group of unr elated people living in a single housing unit.
Household Growth
In 2015-2019, the American Community Survey reported 24,907 households in Jurupa Valley, an increase of less than 1% from 2010, as shown in Table 5.5 . According to the Census, the number of households in Jurupa Valley is growing at a slower pace than both Riverside County and the State of California overall.
Table 5.5: Total Households and Household Growth, 2010-2019 Area 2010 2019
Percent Increase
2010-2019
Jurupa Valley1 24,787 24,907 0.48%
Riverside County2 686,260 724,893 5.62%
California 12,577,498 13,157,873 4.61%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2010 (H16) and ACS 2015-2019 5 Year (DP02) 1 Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the block group level 2 Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level Household Characteristics and Size
As shown in Table 5.6, the majority of households in Jurupa Valley in 2010 were family households (83%), at a higher proportion than the County as a whole (74%). About 44% of all households in the City were families with children and more than 32% of households had at least one elderly member (65+ years). About 7% of all households were made up of an elderly person living alone. In comparison to the state and the c ounty, Jurupa Valley has a much higher number of large households (5+ persons per househol d), and it is reflected in the main needs of the community.
Table 5.6: Household Characteristics, Percent of Total
City of
Jurupa Valley
Riverside
County California
Household Type
Families 82.8% 73.8% 68.2%
Families with Children 43.4% 31.7% 28.9%
Married Families with Children 31.1% 22.4% 20.6%
Male Headed Families with Children 3.4% 2.5% 2.4%
Female Headed Families with Children 8.9% 6.8% 5.9%
Non-Family Households 17.2% 26.2% 31.8%
Senior Living Alone 7.1% 10.5% 10.0%
Households with Elderly (65+ years) 31.9% 33.8% 30.8%
Household Size
Large Households (5+) 48.7% 33.4% 28.7%
Large Households - Owners 31.8% 22.9% 16.2%
Large Households - Renters 16.9% 10.5% 12.4%
Source: Bureau of the Census, 2019 (DP02, S1101, S2501) Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-17
Tenure
Tenure refers to whether housing is rented or owned. Housing tenure is, in turn , related to household income, composition (household size and relationships), and age of the householder.
Communities need to have an adequate supply of units available both for rent and for sale to accommodate a range of households with varying incomes, family sizes, composition (individuals living together and their relationships to one another), and lifestyles.
Approximately 62% of Jurupa Valley households owned their homes, and 38% of households rented their homes in 2019. As shown in Table 5.7, the homeownership rate in Jurupa Valley was only slightly lower than in Riverside County but noticeably higher than in the State of California as a whole.
Table 5.7: Occupied Units by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
Number % Number % Number %
Jurupa Valley 15,293 62.3% 9,254 37.7% 24,548 100%
Riverside County 493,150 67.1% 241,797 32.9% 734,948 100% California 7,223,672 54.9% 5,934,200 45.1% 13,157,873 100% Source: Bureau of the Census 2010 (H16 -SF1) ACS 2019
As shown in Table 5.8 households of five or more persons made up the majority of households in 2019 with 49%, while the comparable figure for the County was only 33%. Larger renter households (with five or more persons) had the greatest relative increase , while owner-occupied households with three to four persons had the greatest decrease. This trend may reflect that housing ownership has become increasingly unaffordable to larger households or that some people are rejoining families because of housing costs, thereby resulting in overcrowding.
Table 5.8: Household Size Distribution, 2019
Household Size
Total
Households
% of Total
Households
Renter-
Households
% of Total
Households
Owner-
Households
% of Total
Households
Jurupa Valley*
1 Person 3,179 13.0% 1,453 5.9% 1,726 7.0%
2 Persons 4,510 18.4% 1,513 6.2% 2,997 12.2%
3-4 Persons 4,907 20.0% 2,154 8.8% 2,753 11.2%
5+ Persons 11,952 48.7% 4,143 16.9% 7,809 31.8%
Total 24,548 100% 9,263 37.7% 15,285 62.3%
Riverside County
1 Person 150,187 20.4% 61,142 8.3% 89,045 12.1%
2 Persons 223,412 30.4% 59,036 8.0% 164,376 22.4%
3-4 Persons 116,160 15.8% 44,496 6.1% 71,664 9.8%
5+ Persons 245,189 33.4% 77,041 10.5% 168,148 22.9%
Total 734,948 100% 241,715 32.9% 493,233 67.1%
California
1 Person 3,169,002 24.1% 1,743,267 13.2% 1,425,735 10.8% 2 Persons 4,036,952 30.7% 1,598,340 12.1% 2,438,612 18.5% 3-4 Persons 2,180,067 16.6% 963,641 7.3% 1,216,426 9.2% 5+ Persons 3,771,852 28.7% 1,633,883 12.4% 2,137,969 16.2% Total 13,157,873 100% 5,939,131 45.1% 7,218,742 54.9%
Source: ACS 2019 (S2501)
*Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level
Household Income
Median incomes in Jurupa Valley varied considerably by tenure.
During this time, the median incomes for owner -occupied households in the Jurupa Valley were consistently nearly double those of renter -occupied households. About 32% of Jurupa Valley households are lower income. In 2019, about one -fifth (20%) of Jurupa Valley households earned less than $35,000 and only 24% earned more than $100,000.
Table 5.9: Household Income by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Households Renter-Households Total Households
Number % Number % Number %
Less than $5,000 182 1.2% 0 0.0% 182 0.7%
$5,000 to $9,999 84 0.5% 155 1.7% 239 1.0%
$10,000 to $14,999 368 2.4% 480 5.2% 848 3.5%
$15,000 to $19,999 126 0.8% 508 5.5% 634 2.6%
$20,000 to $24,999 312 2.0% 1,443 15.6% 1,755 7.1%
$25,000 to $34,999 534 3.5% 648 7.0% 1,182 4.8%
$35,000 to $49,999 1,542 10.1% 1,541 16.6% 3,083 12.6%
$50,000 to $74,999 2,580 16.9% 1,655 17.9% 4,235 17.3%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,333 15.3% 1,717 18.5% 4,050 16.5%
$100,000 to $149,000 3,664 24.0% 888 9.6% 4,552 18.5%
$150,000 or more 3,560 23.3% 228 2.5% 3,788 15.4%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 24,548 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (S2503)
Percent of Total Households within Each Income Level, 2015 and 2019
Source: American Community Survey 2015 and 2019 (S2503) 0 5 10 15 20 25
Less than $5,000
$5,000 to $9,999
$10,000 to $14,999
$15,000 to $19,999
$20,000 to $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$35,000 to $49,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,000
$150,000 or more
Less than
$5,000
$5,000 to
$9,999
$10,000
to
$14,999
$15,000
to
$19,999
$20,000
to
$24,999
$25,000
to
$34,999
$35,000
to
$49,999
$50,000
to
$74,999
$75,000
to
$99,999
$100,000
to
$149,000
$150,000
or more
2015 2 2.6 5.6 2.4 3.9 10.8 11 23.6 16.7 14.5 7
2019 0.7 1 3.5 2.6 7.1 4.8 12.6 17.3 16.5 18.5 15.4
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-19
The relatively high percentage of lower income persons residing in Jurupa Valley is one of several indicators showing a concentration of low-cost rental or sale housing in the City, particularly in several older neighborhoods in Mira Loma, Sunnyslope, Bell town, Glen Avon, and Rubidoux.
For purposes of the Housing Element, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has established five income groups based on Area Median Income (AMI):
• Extremely Low Income: up to 30% of AMI
• Very Low Income: 31% to 50% of AMI
• Low Income: 51% to 80% of AMI
• Moderate Income: 81% to 120% AMI
• Above Moderate Income: >120% AMI
County Median Income as published by HCD must be used to establish income groups for the purpose of the Housing Element.
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) periodically receives “custom tabulations” of Census data from the Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. The most recent estimates are derived from the 2013-2017 ACS. This dataset, known as the “CHAS” data
(Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy), provides insight on the extent of housing problems experienced by lower -income households.
According to the CHAS data presented in Table 5.10, approximately 17% of Jurupa Valley households can be considered extremely low or very low income (50% or less of the AMI) and an additional 14% can be classified as low income (51% to 80% AMI). The majority of the City’s households (69%), however, were within the moderate and above moderate-income category (greater than 100% AMI). By comparison, about 61% of Riverside County households were moderate or above moderate- income households, which is slightly lower than that of Jurupa Valley.
Table 5.10: Distribution by Income Group, Percent of Total Households Jurisdiction
Total
Households
Extremely Low
Income
(0-30% of AMI)
Very Low Income
(31-50% of AMI)
Low Income
(51-80% of AMI)
Moderate Income
(80% - 100% of
AMI)
Above Moderate
Income
(100%+ of AMI)
Jurupa Valley* 39,850 8.4% 8.8% 14.3% 9.0% 59.6%
Riverside County 711,725 11.3% 11.1% 16.4% 9.8% 51.4%
State of California 12,888,130 15.2% 12.5% 16.2% 9.6% 46.5% Sources: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Data, 2013-2017 *Jurupa Valley: 2013- 2017 CHAS data
Notes:
1 AMI = Area Median Income
2 Data presented in this table is based on special tabulations from sample Census data. The number of households in each category usually deviates from the 100% count due to the need to extrapolate sample data out to total households. Interpretations of this data should focus on the proportion of households rather than on precise numbers. Furthermore, because HUD programs do not cover households with incomes above 80% of the County AMI, CHAS data does not provide any breakdown of income groups above 80% AMI.
According to ACS data used for the HCD Data Viewer, the city is dominated in almost all tracts by Hispanic populations by less than a 10% gap to the next largest ethnic group and about 50 % of the tracts by a predominate gap, concentrated in the northeast side of the City adjacent to Riverside. This area of the City largely consists of older homes located in closer proximity to industrial development. The ACS data also shows that there is on e tract in Jurupa Valley that is white majority as the predominate p opulation by less than a 10% cap. This tract also happens to be one of the few tracts that have a higher income than the surrounding tracts in comparison. This is important when looking at the Site Inventory because the ethnic majority can provide insight into the type of cultural habits and cohabitation habits seen through the City and can also provide insight into locations throughout the City that require a higher density of housing.
HUD categorizes any tract and block group with more than 51 % of the population as Low Moderate Income to have a concentration of need. So while the breakdown of income for Jurupa Valley shows that about 60% of the total population is above moderate income, the ACS data by tract shows that majority of the City’s tracts are populated with households that are Low Moderate Income. The concentration varies of LMI varies with 50% of the tracts in Jurupa Valley showing data of a population of 25%-50% of total population living in the Low Moderate Income categories. And ano ther 25% of tracts showing that 50% to 75% of the population in those tracts living in the Low Moderate Income categories. The City also has two tracts that fall into the categories of having a Low Moderate Income concentrated population of 75% to 100% which are located adjacent to the Flabob Airport and the Mira Loma Industrial Overlay. These two areas are also considered disadvantaged communities per the City’s Environmental Justice Element due to the proximity to industrial uses and the concentration of low -income residents. As part of the Site Inventory Analysis these tracts were reviewed for the viability for the addition of affordable housing and a few sites located in these two tracts were included as potential sites for development. The City recognizes that the majority of the potential sites are located outside of these tracts and dispersed evenly though the community to prevent any segregation of income from happen.
Special Needs Groups
Certain households, because of their special characteristics and needs, may require special accommodations and may have difficulty finding housing due to special needs. Special needs groups include seniors, persons with disabilities, families with children, single - parent households, large households, homeless persons and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-21
persons at -risk of homelessness, farm workers, and persons with HIV/AIDS.
These special needs groups are all addressed as part of the Housing Element programs to provide the needed additional attention for housing needs as specified by State Law. The City continues to evaluate the programs for providing access to housing for all of its current and future residents.
Seniors
Seniors (persons aged 65 and above) are gradually becoming a more substantial segment of the City ’s population in Jurupa Valley, with an increase of 3% increase since 2010 from 8.3% of the overall population to 11.2% . Elderly persons are vulnerable to housing problems due to limited income, prevalence of physical or mental disabilities, limited mobility, and high health care costs. The elderly, particularly those with disabilities, may face increased difficulty in finding housing accommodations. A senior o n a fixed income can face great difficulty finding safe and affordable housing. Subsidized housing and federal housing assistance programs are increasingly challenging to secure and often involve long waiting lists.
According to the 2019 ACS 1 Y ear Estimates, about 11% of all residents in Jurupa Valley were age d 65 or older, 31% of the City’s households included at least one elderly member and 18% of households were headed by a senior resident. Between 2009 and 2013, a little over 16% of all seniors in Jurupa Valley were living in poverty. The 2009 -2013 ACS also estimated that about 16% of Jurupa Valley’s elderly population had at least one disability and 25% had two or more disabilities, as shown in Table 5.11 . This is comparable to the elderly population in the county (16%) and the state (15%) with one disability; and similar to the elderly population in the county (20%) and the state (22%) that report two or more disabilities. By 2019 the population of elderly persons decreased in comparison to the entire population of the City of Jurupa Valley, but the total number of elderly persons and those who had disabilities increased by about 1,000 persons.
Table 5.11: Elderly with Disabilities Limiting Independent Living in Jurupa Valley, 2009-2013 and 2019 Disability Status
2009-20131,2 2019
Total3 % of People 65+ Total4 % of People 65+
With one type of disability 1,218 16.0% 1,467 12.5%
With two or more types of disability 1,894 24.9% 2,802 23.8% Total with a disability 3,112 40.9% 4,269 36.3%
Source: ACS 2009-2013 and ACS 2019 (C18108)
1 Jurupa Valley: 2009-2013 ACS data aggregated at the census tract level 2 Estimated data from 2009-2013 ACS for illustrative purposes only 3 ACS 2009-2013, 65+ year olds: 7,593
4 ACS 2019: 65+ year olds: 11,774
Figure 5-2: Senior housing, Country Village
Apartments, Jurupa Valley
Generally, the median income for a senior household was about one-third of that for an average household. Data from the County’s 2013-2017 Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) supports the information presented below. According to CHAS, in Jurupa Valley, 69% of elderly renter- occupied households and 31% of elderly owner- occupied households suffered from housing cost burden (i.e., total housing costs exceeded 30% of total income).
Similarly, in the County, 65% of elderly-renter-occupied households and 35% of elderly -owner-occupied households suffered from housing cost burden. Furthermore, the majority of elderly -headed households in both Jurupa Valley and Riverside County were homeowners. Many may need financial assistance in making necessary repairs or accessibility improvements.
Table 5.12: Householders by Tenure and Age
Householder Age
2010* 2019
Owner-
Occupied %
Renter-
Occupied %
Owner-
Occupied %
Renter-
Occupied %
15-24 years 189 1.2% 462 5.6% 23 0.2% 354 3.8%
25-34 years 1,489 9.1% 1,835 22.3% 1,390 9.1% 1,947 21.0% 35-64 years 11,743 72.1% 4,498 54.6% 10,411 68.1% 5,430 58.6% 65-74 years 1,757 10.8% 799 9.7% 2,358 15.4% 833 9.0%
75 plus years 1,115 6.8% 639 7.8% 1,102 7.2% 699 7.5%
Total 16,293 100% 8,233 100% 15,285 100% 9,263 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census 2010 (QT-H2) and ACS 2019 (B25007) *Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level.
Persons with Disabilities
Federal laws define a person with a disability as “any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment.” In general, a physical or mental impairment includes hearing, mobility and visual impair- ments, chronic alcoholism, chronic mental illness, AIDS, AIDS Related Complex, and mental retardation that substantially limit one or more major life activities. Major life activities include walking, talking, hearing, seeing, breathing, learning, performing manual tasks, and caring for oneself.
The U.S. Census Bureau classifies disabilities into the following categories:
• Hearing difficulty: Deaf or having serious difficulty hearing • Vision difficulty: Blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses
• Cognitive difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering,
concentrating, or making decisions
Figure 5-3: Dwelling with universal access
design
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-23
• Ambulatory difficulty: Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs
• Self-care difficulty: Having difficulty bathing or dressing • Independent living difficulty: Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing
errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping According to the 2019 ACS, approximately 10% of the Jurupa Valley population had one or more disabilities. Of the disabilities tallied during that time, as shown in Table 5.13 , ambulatory and cognitive disabilities were the most prevalent. The City’s elderly population, in particular, seemed to be the most affected by disabilities , with about 41% of Jurupa Valley seniors affected by at least one disability.
Table 5.13: Disability Characteristics,
Percent of Total Population, 2019
Disability by Age and Type 5 to 17 years 18 to 64 years 65 years and over Total Total Persons with a Disability 4.6% 9.9% 41.0% 10.1%
Disability Type
Hearing Difficulty 1.1% 1.5% 19.8% 3.3%
Vision Difficulty 1.2% 2.4% 7.9% 2.6%
Cognitive Difficulty 4.8% 2.6% 9.1% 4.0%
Ambulatory Difficulty 0.0% 3.9% 26.9% 5.5%
Self-Care Difficulty 2.1% 1.5% 6.4% 2.35
Independent Living Difficulty* -- 3.5% 20.8% 6.25
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (S1810)
*Tallied only for persons 18 years and over and percent represents all disabilities tallied, not percent of all disabled persons. A person can have multiple disabilities.
The City’s homeless population also appeared to be dispro - portionately affected by disabilities and health issues. The County of Riverside’s 2020 Point-In-Time Homeless Report found that 25 % of Jurupa Valley’s homeless population had a physical disability, 14% reported a mental illness, 30% had a substance abuse disorder, and 20% reported a chronic health condition. Among those persons who are experiencing homelessness, dual diagnoses have been noted as a problem, i.e., cognitive difficulty connected to chemical dependency/addiction.
In 2019, the American Community Survey estimates 41% of all persons aged 65 and over have a disability. Over the last two decades there has been a steady increase of those aging into the 65 years and older demographic. Because seniors have a much higher probability of being disabled, the housing and service needs for persons with disabilities should grow considerably , commensurate with senior population growth. Special housing needs for persons with disabilities fall into two general categories: physical de sign to address mobility impairments; and in-home social, educational, and medical support to address developmental and mental
impairments.
Persons with Developmental Disabilities
As defined by state law, “developmental disability” means a severe, chronic disability of an individual who:
• Is attributable to a mental or physical impairment or combination of mental and physical impairments;
• Is manifested before the individual attains age 18;
• Is likely to continue indefinitely;
• Results in substantial functional limitations in three or more of the following areas of major life activity: a) self-care; b) receptive and expressive language; c) learning;
d) mobility; e) self- direction; f) capacity for independent living; or g) economic self- sufficiency; and
• Reflects the individual’s need for a combination and
sequence of special, interdisciplinary, or generic services, individualized supports, or other forms of assistance that are of lifelong or extended duration and are individually planned and coordinated.
The Census does not record developmental disabilities. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentage of the population that can be defined as developmentally disabled is 1.5%. This equates to approximately 1,643 persons in the City of Jurupa Valley, based on the 2019 ACS population Estimate of 109,525.
The Inland Regional Center is a community-based, private nonprofit corporation funded by the State of California to serve people with developmental disabilities, as required by the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (aka Lanterman Act). The Lanterman Act is part of California law that sets out the rights and responsibilities of persons with developmental disabilities. The Inland Regional Center is one of 21 regional centers throughout California and serves individuals and their families who reside within Riverside County. The Regional Center provides diagnoses and assessments of eligibility, and helps plan, access, coordinate, and monitor the services and supports that are needed because of a developmental disability. As of April 2021, the Regional Center had over 39,800 clients in the Inland Empire living in a variety of different assisted situations, at home, in care facilities and living independently with the help of the service provided.
Families with Children and Single-Parent
Households
According to the 2019 American Community Survey Estimates, approximately 43.4% of all households in Jurupa Valley have children under the age of 18, as shown in Table 5.6 (page 5-16 ).
Single-parent households often require special consideration and Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-25
assistance because of their greater need for affordable housing, as well as accessible daycare, health care, and other supportive services. Due to their generally lower income and higher living expenses such as daycare, single -parent households have limited opportunities for finding affordable, decent, and safe housing.
In 2019, approximately 2,327 single -parent households resided within Jurupa Valley, representing 11% of the City’s households. An estimated 2,067 households of the 2,327 single-parent households with children under age 18 are headed by females. Of particular concern are single-parent households with lower incomes.
Housing element law requires analysis of specialized housing needs, including female-headed households, to ensure adequate childcare or job training services. In Jurupa Valley, 14.6 % are female headed (compared to 14.3% in the SCAG region), 6.1% are female headed with children (compared to 6.6 % in the SCAG region), and 0.8% are female headed with children under 6 (compared to 1.0% in the SCAG region).
Female-headed households with limited incomes have trouble finding adequate , affordable housing. It is estimated that 895 female-headed households in the City have incomes below the federally recognized poverty level. Of the 895 female- headed households in poverty, 647 are estimated to have children at home.
Large Households
Large households are defined as those with five or more members.
These households are usually families with two or more children or families with extended family members such as in -laws or grandparents. It can also include multiple families living in one housing unit to save on housing costs. Large households are a special needs group because the availability of adequately sized, affordable housing units is often limited. To save for necessities such as food, clothing, and medical care, lower- and moderate -income large households may reside in smaller units, res ulting in overcrowding.
With the recent COVID -19 pandemic, these households are likely working with even smaller budgets when caring for their families.
As indicated in Table 5.6 (page 5-16), in
2019, 48.7% of all
households in Jurupa Valley had five or more members, which is high in comparison to the 33.4% of the County. Generally, areas with higher proportions of large households also tend to have a high proportion of intergenerational families, non -White populations, and have higher rates of overcrowding and higher cost burden.
Cultural differences can also contribute to overcrowded conditions.
Some cultures tend to have larger households or more open attitudes about intergenerational living, shared costs, and living arrangements, even in small housing units. In addition, recently Figure 5-4: Large families and multi-
generational households
arrived immigrants may stay with relatives on a temporary basis until they are established.
Table 5.14: Large Households (5 persons or more) by Tenure, 2019 Number of Persons in Unit Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total Total large households 5,362 2,706 11,952
Total households 16,293 8,233 24,548
Percent of total households 32.9% 32.9% 48.7%
Source: ACS 2019
Extremely Low-Income Households
As previously identified, extremely low-income (ELI) households are those making 30% (or less) of the AMI. In 2019, approximately 2,062 extremely low- income (ELI) households resided in the City, representing 8.4% of the total households and compared with 11.3% for the County of Riverside. Most extremely low-income households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems, such as overpayment (defined as cost burden greater than 30% of income), overcrowding and substandard housing.
As shown in Table 5.15 below, HUD CHAS data, based on the 2014 - 2018 ACS, estimates there are 2,250 ELI households in Jurupa Valley.
ELI households are more likely to experience housing problems such as overcrowding and cost burden. Over 90% of ELI renters and 77% of ELI owners experience one or more housing problems. Lack of complete plumbing or kitchen facilities is not as common among ELI households compared to overcrowding or cost burden. ELI owner - occupied households are cost burdened at a higher rate (65.6%) than ELI renter -occupied households (62.1%). However, there is a higher rate of incomplete facilities and overcrowding among ELI renters compared to owners.
Table 5.15: Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total
With one or more housing problem* 615 76.9% 1,310 90.3% 1,925 85.6% Lacking complete plumbing/kitchen facilities 4 0.5% 50 3.4% 54 2.4% Overcrowded (>1 person per room) 85 10.6% 360 24.8% 445 19.8% Severely overcrowded (>1.5 persons per room) 30 3.8% 145 10.0% 175 7.8% Cost burdened (>30%) 525 65.6% 900 62.1% 1,425 63.3%
Severely cost burdened (>50%) 495 61.9% 805 55.5% 1,300 57.8% Total Households 800 100.0% 1,450 100.0% 2,250 100.0%
*Totals are not mutually exclusive as housing can have multiple problems Source: HUD CHAS Data (based on 2014-2018 ACS), 2021.
The concentration of those living under the poverty line in Jurupa Valley is concentrated in 5 tracts. Of these tracts, one of them has a concentration of 30% to 40% of the total population in that tract living under the poverty line. This tract is located near the Flabob Airport and is one of the older neighborhoods in the City. This area and the neighboring tracts are considered as an area with a need of Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-27
additional housing and was analyzed in the Sites Inventory with the other guidelines like access to amenities, transportation, and other criterion. The City also continues to work with the local housing authority and the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County (FHCRC) to assist those who need the resou rces and access to housing assistance.
Homeless Persons
On January 4, 2012, final regulations went into effect to implement changes to the HUD definition of homelessness contained in the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing (HEARTH) Act. The definition affects who is eligible for various HUD- funded homeless assistance programs. The new definition includes four broad categories of homelessness:
• People who are living in a place not meant for human
habitation, in emergency shelter, in transitional housing, or who are exiting an institution where they temporarily
resided.
• People who are losing their primary nighttime residence, which may include a motel or hotel or a doubled -up
situation, within 14 days and lack resources or support networks to remain in housing.
• Families with children or unaccompanied youth who are unstably housed and likely to continue in that state.
• People who are fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, have no other residence, and lack the resources or support networks to obtain other permanent housing.
This definition demonstrates the diversity of people experiencing homelessness. The numerous locations in which people
experiencing homelessness can be found complicate efforts to accurately estimate their total population. For example, an individual living with friends on a temporary basis could be experiencing homelessness but would be unlikely to be identified in a homeless count.
The most recent point- in-time count conducted in 2020 identified 103 unsheltered homeless individuals in the City of Jurupa Valley.
This figure has fluctuated in the past 4 years and the number of sheltered persons to unsheltered persons has minimal data. The 2020 homeless population in Jurupa Valley made up about 4.8% of the total unsheltered homeless population for Riverside County, as shown in Table 5.16 . The point-in-time count is a snapshot of how many homeless people are on streets and in emergency and transitional shelters on any given day in Riverside County and Jurupa Valley, although numbers can vary significantly by season.
Figure 5-5: Jurupa Valley homeless camp
Table 5.16: Homeless Population in Jurupa Valley and Riverside County, 2017-2020 Unsheltered Sheltered Total Homeless Population
Jurupa Valley
2017 129 n/a 129
2018 148 46 194
2019 139 n/a 139
2020 103 n/a 103
Riverside County
2017 1,638 768 2,406
2018 1,685 631 2,316
2019 2,045 766 2,811
2020 2,155 729 2,884
Source: 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 Riverside County Homeless Point-In-Time Count Report.
Farm Workers
As traditionally defined, farm workers are persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm workers tend to work in fields or processing plants. During harvest periods when workloads increase, the need to supplement the permanent labor force is satisfied with seasonal workers. Often these seasonal workers are migrant workers, defined by the inability to return to their primary residence at the end of the workday. The agricultural workforce in Riverside County does many jobs, including weeding, thinning, planting, pruning, irrigation, tractor work, pe sticide applications, harvesting, trans portation to the cold storage or market, and a variety of jobs at packing and processing facilities, as described in Table 5.17.
Table 5.17: Farm Worker Employment Profile, Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan Statistical Area Occupation Title Employment
Location
Quotient*
Mean Hourly
Wage
Annual Mean
Wage
Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Occupations 7,610 1.48 $15.14 $31,480 First-Line Supervisors of Farming, Fishing, and Forestry Workers 220 0.92 $25.82 $53,710 Agricultural Inspectors 250 1.73 $19.37 $40,290
Graders and Sorters, Agricultural Products 70 0.23 $14.69 $30,550 Farmworkers and Laborers, Crop, Nursery, and Greenhouse 6,370 2.02 $14.43 $30,020 Farmworkers, Farm, Ranch and Aquacultural Animals 140 0.35 $18.94 $39,400 Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2020 Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Area Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates
*“Location Quotient” is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration
Jurupa Valley was once primarily a farming area, with dairies, orchards, row crops, and small farms. With urbanization, most agricultural uses have moved out of the City and therefore, agricultural employment within the City of Jurupa Valley is declining.
According to SCAG data, only about one -tenth of 1% of the City’s civilian workforce (or 743 persons) works in agriculture and related occupations. It follows that few farm workers live and work in the City. While only small, isolated pockets of commercial agricultural remain in the City, cities must also consider housing needs for farmworkers employed in outlying County areas. In Riverside Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-29
County, there are a few farm worker housing developments that currently operate at capacity during harvest seasons.
Farm worker households tend to have high rates of poverty, live disproportionately in housing that is in the poorest condition, have very high rates of overcrowding, have low homeownership rates, and are predominantly members of minority groups. Some
immigrant farm workers may have an inherent fear and mistrust of law enforcement and other government authorities based on their experience or perception of the government in their country of origin or on the rumors and experiences of other farm workers.
These farm workers may be reluctant to report fair housing issues or violations or contact any government official for assistance.
Furthermore, most federally funded housing programs, including the Housing Choice Voucher program and other subsidy programs, exclude persons who are undocumented. This means that people who are sometimes most in need are unable to obtain h ousing assistance, and others are unable to find any housing and instead must resort to homeless shelters, to sleeping in their vehicles, or to homeless encampments.
According to the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the average annual full-time wage for farm workers and laborers in the Riverside -San Bernardino-Ontario MSA in May 2020 was $31,480. Within farming, fishing, and forestry occupations, first-line supervisors and agricultural inspectors earned the highest wages. Table 5.17 above presents the location quotient for farming, fishing, and forestry occupations. The location quotient is the ratio of the area concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration. A location quotient greater than one indicates the occupation has a higher share of employment than average, and a location quotient less than one indicates the occupation is less prevalent in the area than average. The location quotient for agricultural employment in Jurupa Valley shows there is a moderate to high concentration of all types of agricultural occupation in the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario MSA.
According to SCAG Pre -Certified Local Housing Data, 743 persons living in Jurupa Valley worked in Farming with 486 of them having full-time jobs in this industry compared to the total farm workers in the SCAG region. That is less than 1% of the total full- time workers living in the City. The data shows that the agricultural industry is slowing in Jurupa Valley as less land is farmed. Similarly, only 801 persons are employed in the farming industry by businesses located within Jurupa Valley; 577 of which are full-time year -round jobs.
While the City is not a center for regional farming, agriculture is essential to the regional economy and food supply within distribution.
The different special needs groups are identified again with the associated aids and programs within the City of Jurupa in the following resource section.
Housing Growth
Historically, housing growth in Jurupa Valley lagged behind the County and other neighboring jurisdictions, but experienced growth similar to the state as a whole. Between 2000 and 2010, Jurupa Valley’s housing stock increased at a significantly slower rat e than the County’s and other nearby cities. However, housing growth in the region was severely impacted by the recent recession and, since 2010, the City’s housing stock has grown at rates lower rate than the County and the state average.
Table 5.18: Housing Unit Growth Jurupa Valley and Nearby Jurisdictions City/County1,2
Number of Units
2000
Number of Units
2010
Number Units
2019
Percent Change
2000-2010
Percent Change
2010-2019
Jurupa Valley 23,429 26,176 26,680 12.5% 1.9%
Moreno Valley 41.431 55,559 55,784 34.1% 0.4%
Perris 10.553 17,906 18,906 69.7% 5.5%
Hemet 29.401 35,305 35,522 20.1% 0.6%
Riverside County 584,674 800,707 857,222 36.9% 7.1%
California 12,214,549 13,680,081 14,367,012 12.0% 5.0%
Sources: Bureau of the Census 2000 (H001) and 2010 (QT-H1), ACS 2015-2019 5 Year Estimates (DP04). 1 Jurupa Valley: 2000 Census data aggregated at the block group level and 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract level. 2 Moreno Valley, Perris, Hemet and Riverside County, State of California: 2000 and 2010 Census data aggregated at the city, county or state
Composition of Housing Stock
The composition of the City’s housing stock, specifically regarding its available housing inventory by unit type, has remained fairly stable since 2000, which is to be expected given the City’s limited housing growth during this time. The California Depart ment of Finance, which records building permit data submitted by local jurisdictions, estimates that single-family detached and attached units comprise the majority of the City’s housing stock ( 81%), while multi -family units make up about 1 3% of the housin g stock and about 6% in mobile homes ( Table 5.19
). Countywide, in 20 19, 69% of housing
units were single -family detached units compared to 5 7% in the state. In Riverside County, multi-family units represented about 17% of the housing stock in 2019; compared to 31% in the state. Dwelling unit size and type significantly affect housing cost, density , and character. In general, smaller, single-family housing and multi-family housing allow more cost-efficient construction and tend to be more affordable for lower income households. The current data presented shows that the number of affordable units based on size is inadequate at both the City and County levels.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-31
As shown in Table 5.19 , owner -occupied housing units were predominantly single-family detached, comprising 90% of all owner- occupied units. The majority of renter- occupied units were also single-family detached housing units (55%).
Table 5.19: Unit Type by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter- Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
% of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
% of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
% of Total
Occupied Units
Single-family, detached 13,801 90.3% 5,101 55.1% 19,927 77.5% Single-family, attached 368 2.4% 401 4.3% 769 3.0%
Multi-family (2-4 units) 22 0.1% 595 6.4% 617 2.4%
Multi-family (5+ units) 0 0.0% 3,138 33.9% 2,722 10.6%
Mobile homes 1,067 7.0% 444 4.8% 1,643 6.4%
Other (boats, RV) 27 0.2% 0 0.0% 27 0.1%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 25,705 100%
Source: American Community Survey 2019, (DP04)
As previously identified and shown in Table 5.14 (page 5-26), Jurupa Valley has a significant number of large households (i.e., households with five or more persons). According to the ACS 2019, approxi - mately 49% (Table 5.14) of all Jurupa Valley households are classified as large households, compared with about 33% in the County and 29% in the state. In 2019, about 35% of renter-occupied units were two-bedroom units, and about 32 % were three- bedroom units, as shown in Table 5.20 . Over 36% of owner-occupied units had three bedrooms and 40 % had four bedrooms. Generally, housing units with three or more bedrooms are the most suited for large households, indicating that adequately sized rental units may be in limited supply in Jurupa Valley.
Table 5.20: Unit Size by Tenure, 2019
Owner-Occupied Renter-Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
%* of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Occupied Units
Studio/1 bedroom 230 1.5% 1,479 16.0% 1,709 7.0%
2 bedrooms 1,861 12.2% 3,266 35.3% 5,127 20.9%
3 bedrooms 5,609 36.7% 2,955 31.9% 8,564 34.9%
4 bedrooms 6,055 39.6% 1,287 13.9% 7,342 29.9%
5 or more bedrooms 1,530 10.0% 276 3.0% 1,806 7.4%
Total 15,285 100% 9,263 100% 24,548 100%
Source: American Community Survey, 2019 (DP04)
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding
Vacancy Rates
A certain number of vacant units are needed in the housing market to moderate the cost of housing and allow sufficient housing choice.
Vacancy rates are generally higher among rental properties, as rental units have greater attrition than owner -occupied units do. A healthy vacancy rate (one that permits sufficient choice and mobility among a variety of housing units) is considered to be 2% to 3% for ownership units and 5% to 6% for rental units. In 2010, the vacancy rate in Jurupa Valley was 6.3%, as shown in Table 5.21. By 2019, the overall vacancy rate for the City was determined to be 4.3%. This overall rate, however, includes housing units that were vacant due to foreclosures, seasonal occupancy, or other reasons. The actual vacancy rate (actual number of unoccupied dwelling units at any given time) for the City is likely to be higher than the listed rate, because of the COVID -19 pandemic and the loss of housing due to the associated effects of the economic crash during 2020. According to the 2019 ACS, only about 21 % of the City’s 1,114 vacant units were actually available for rent or sale, which reflects a relatively high number of seasonably occupied and possibly abandoned units.
Table 5.21: Household Occupancy Status, 2010-2019
Occupancy Status 2010
Percent of
Total Housing Units 2019
Percent of
Total Housing Units
Occupied Housing Units 24,526 93.7% 24,907 95.7%
Vacant Housing Units 1,650 6.3% 1,114 4.3%
For Sale 561 2.3% 165 0.6%
For Rent 409 1.6% 66 0.3%
Total Housing Units 26,176 100% 26,021 100%
Source: Bureau of the Census 2010, (QT-H1); ACS 2019 5-Year Estimates (DP04) Jurupa Valley: 2010 Census data aggregated at the census tract.
Riverside County: 2010 Census data aggregated at the County level.
Housing Conditions
Age of Housing Stock
The age of a housing unit is often an indicator of housing conditions.
In general, housing that is 30 years or older may exhibit a need for repairs based on the useful life of materials. Housing more than 50 years old is considered aged and is more likely to exhibit a need for major repairs.
Jurupa Valley’s housing stock is older. Approximately 42% of the owner-occupied units in the City were built before 1980, and 18 % were built before 1960. Of the City’s renter-occupied units, 47% were built before 1980, and 21% were built before 1960. Table 5.22
summarizes the age of the City’s housing stock by tenure. Based on housing age alone, a significant portion of Jurupa Valley’s housing stock could require rehabilitation in the upcoming decade.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-33
Table 5.22: Tenure by Age of Housing Stock (Occupied Units) Year Built
Owner-Occupied Renter- Occupied Total Occupied Housing Units Units
%* of Total
Owner-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Renter-Occupied Units
%* of Total
Occupied Units
2010 or later 2,292 15.0% 768 8.8% 3060 12.8%
2000 - 2009 1,425 9.3% 2,216 25.5% 3641 15.2%
1990 - 1999 1,798 11.8% 932 10.7% 2730 11.4%
1980 - 1989 3,273 21.4% 1,295 14.9% 4,568 19.0%
1970 - 1979 2,493 16.3% 1,050 12.1% 3,543 14.8%
1960 - 1969 1,255 8.2% 1,168 13.4% 2,423 10.1%
1950 - 1959 1,804 11.8% 712 8.2% 2,516 10.5%
1940 - 1949 659 4.3% 911 10.5% 1,570 6.5%
1939 or earlier 286 1.9% 211 2.4% 497 2.1%
Total 15,285 100 8,696 100% 23,981 100%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (B25036)
*Percentages may not equal 100% due to rounding.
The data are from the American Community Survey and therefore, is based on a sample of units and extrapolated to represent the entire housing stock. This table is intended only to provide a general picture of age and tenure of the housing stock.
The City of Jurupa Valley does not maintain a list of housing in need of repair or replacement. However, Planning and Code Enforcement staff estimate that approximately 10% of all the housing built prior to 1980 will need some level of rehabilitation during the 2021-2029 planning period, and 1% will need replacement. For owner-occupied housing, this equates to 650 potential homes in need of rehabilitation and 65 homes in need of replacement. For renter- occupied housing, the numbers are 405 potential homes in need of rehabilitation and 41 homes in need of replacement.
Housing Conditions
Housing condition refers to the ability of various systems in a house to meet adopted building codes for health and safety, including plumbing, heating, electrical, and structural systems. Housing conditions are considered substandard when one or more syst ems are found to be below the minimum standards required by Section 1001 of the Uniform Housing Code. Households living in substandard conditions are considered to be in need of housing assistance, even if they are not seeking alternative housing arrangements, due to the threat to residents’ health and safety that substandard housing poses.
In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions. According to the 2019 ACS, 82 occupied units in Jurupa Valley (0.3% of all units) lacked complete plumbing facilities and 234 units lacked complete kitchen facilities (0.9% of all units), as shown in Table 5.23
. This may be due to the fact that in
Jurupa Valley, “substandard” dwellings such as tack rooms, storage or other outbuildings are often used illegally as guest quarters or as separate dwelling units. Under the City’s Zoning Code, guest
quarters are not permitted to have kitchens. However, with the adoption of the Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance (ADU), the City is seeing more permit applications for the legalization of these substandard dwelling units that are often cited by Code Enforcement. Currently, Code Enforcement is dealing with 387 permits that involve substandard dwellings.
One possible reason for the common use of substandard dwellings in the City is the relatively high number of lower income/large households and overcrowding in some residential areas. It should be noted that there might be some overlap in the number of substandard housing units, as some units may lack both complete plumbing and kitchen facilities. Similar to the c ounty and the state, housing units lacking appropriate infrastructure and utilities comprise a very small proportion of the City’s housing stock.
Table 5.23: Number of Dwellings Lacking Plumbing or Complete Kitchen Facilities, 2019 Units Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Total
% of Total
Housing Units
Jurupa Valley1
Lacking plumbing facilities 32 36 82 0.3%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 42 179 234 0.9%
Riverside County2
Lacking plumbing facilities 1,621 1,341 2,347 0.4%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 1,883 4,390 5,435 0.9% California3
Lacking plumbing facilities 20,916 43,006 56,547 0.5%
Lacking complete kitchen facilities 26,676 124,714 149,260 1.2% Source: American Community Survey, 2019 5 Year Estimates (B25049, DP04). 1 Jurupa Valley: Housing Units: 24,907
2 Riverside County Housing Units: 724,893
3 California Housing Units: 13,044,266
Neighborhood Improvements and Removal
of Blight
Jurupa Valley includes nine distinct communities with varied settings, housing types, and housing needs. Some neighborhoods in the older communities of Rubidoux, Mira Loma, Belltown, and Glen Avon consist mostly of pre -1980s houses, many with deferred maintenance and code compliance issues; a lack of storm water drainage and other public improvements; and localized blighted areas caused by accumulated trash, illegal dumping, and graffiti.
These conditions can discourage reinvestment in these areas, lower property values, and detract from neighborhoods’ safety and appearance. It is a primary goal of this young city to reverse urban blight and improve residential neighborhood quality and pride through code enforcement, public and private capital investment, and heightened awareness and attention to community needs. The City has worked since the last housing element to provide grants to aid homeowners with neighborhood and housing improvements.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-35
These grants were obtained through the LEAP grants from HCD and offered to the community in two waves of grants. These grants will be part of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element’s effort to continue neighborhood improvements.
The City has tracked these grants and advertised them on the City website, City Hall bulletins and on social media. However, grants are limited and with the new housing element the City expects to continue to offer these grants to qualifying properties. These grants are meant for rehabilitation and updates as required as needed.
These grants however do not cover the neighborhood infrastructure improvements and the City has a program to prioritize the lacking infrastructure in neighborhoods that need it the most to minimize blight and allow for both neighborhood pride and better connectivity/accessibility throughout the community.
Code Enforcement Activities
The City of Jurupa Valley has established a Code Enforcement program to ensure a high quality of life throughout the communities and maintain property values. Code compliance in the City is a responsive program under which property inspections are done only when inspection requests and complaints are received. Such a system may result in under -reporting of code compliance issues, particularly regarding the rental housing stock. Often, tenants fear retaliation from the landlords and are therefore less willing to report an issue. Legal residency issues or language barriers may be another obstacle for reporting code compliance issues. According to the Code Enforcement staff, in January 202 1 Jurupa Valley had 387 active code en forcement cases dealing with housing conditions and/or safety issues, and the City has closed 4,346 such cases since the 2017 Housing Element. The City has some cases that have been open since 2012 and are still being worked on, provided that in the past 4 years the City has made significant improvements and growth since incorporation. An estimated 234 parcels are currently considered substandard, which makes up less than 0.1% of the City.
These properties have been recorded as needing code compliance according to ACS data from 2019. And while this number is smaller than that recorded by Code Enforcement it is likely that the City has more substandard homes than recorded since the only cases that are documented are the ones filed through a complaint or through self-report. The City will continue to try and address the needs of community through the program for the rehabilitation programs.
Housing Costs and Affordability
Home Prices and Rents
Realtor.com® was used to provide housing market data for Jurupa Valley. This information is sourced daily from listings and property
data on the realtor.com website, which includes an up -to-date and accurate aggregation of real estate listings from approximately 800 regional listings from Multiple Listing Service (MLS). According to realtor.com, in March 2021, the average home listing price in Jurupa Valley was $499,078. The average selling price for homes in the City was slightly lower than that. This amounts to about $360 per square foot on average and, according to ACS 2019, there are only 165 homes on the market available for purchase currently.
Information on current rental rates in the City was obtained through a review of advertisements on Craigslist during January 2021 .
Available rental housing ranged from single -room studios to multi - bedroom single family units. Most of the available units in the City were two -bedroom, and three-bedroom units, based on listings advertised. Table 5.24 summarizes average rents by unit size.
Overall, the units of varying sizes were listed as available for rent in January 2021 with an average rent of $1,902.
Table 5.24: Average Rent by Unit Size
Studio 1-Bedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom 4+ Bedroom
$1,145 $1,216 $1,649 $2,500 $3,000
Source: www.craigslist.org, accessed January 20, 2021
Affordability Gap Analysis
To determine overall housing affordability, the costs of homeowner- ship and renting are compared to a household’s ability to pay these costs. Housing affordability is defined as spending no more than 30% to 35% of gross household income (depending on tenure and income level) on housing expenses. Table 5.25 summarizes affordable rents and purchase prices by i ncome category based on the 2 020 HCD median income of $75,300 for Riverside County. General cost assumptions for utilities, taxes, and property insurance are shown.
Affordable purchase price assumes a 4% interest rate with a 30-year fixed rate mortgage loan and a 10% down payment.
Given the need for a down payment and the high costs of home - ownership, lower income households lacking sufficient savings or transferable equity must usually occupy rental housing. The affordability problem also persists in the rental market. The situation is exacerbated for large households and seniors with lower and moderate incomes given the limited supply of large units. The cost burden for these groups is increased with the COVID -19 pandemic, and from the community survey, these special needs groups are also the ones that the community believes need the most help in finding affordable and available housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-37
Table 5.25: Housing Affordability Matrix, Riverside County, 2020 Income Annual Income
Affordable Monthly
Housing Costs
Utilities
(per month)
Taxes and
Insurance
(per month)
Maximum
Affordable Price
per month per year
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$15,850
$18,100
$21,720
$26,200
$30,680
$396
$453
$543
$655
$767
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$139
$158
$190
$229
$268
$191
$235
$297
$381
$462
$13,823
$20,092
$28,186
$39,993
$50,980
Very Low Income (30-50% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$26,400
$30,150
$33,900
$37,650
$40,700
$660
$754
$848
$941
$1,018
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$231
$264
$297
$329
$356
$455
$536
$602
$667
$712
$59,005
$71,697
$80,348
$89,028
$93,891
Low Income (50-80% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$42,200
$48,200
$54,250
$60,250
$65,100
$1,055
$1,205
$1,356
$1,506
$1,628
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$369
$422
$475
$527
$570
$850
$987
$1,110
$1,232
$1,322
$126,669
$148,997
$167,499
$185,815
$198,386
Median Income (80-100% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$52,700
$60,250
$67,750
$75,300
$81,300
$1,318
$1,506
$1,694
$1,883
$2,033
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$461
$527
$593
$659
$711
$1,112
$1,288
$1,448
$1,609
$1,727
$171,637
$200,603
$225,313
$250,268
$267,764
Moderate Income (100-120% AMI)
1-Person
2-Person
3-Person
4 Person
5 Person
$63,250
$72,300
$81,300
$90,350
$97,600
$1,581
$1,808
$2,033
$2,259
$2,440
$205
$218
$246
$274
$305
$553
$633
$711
$791
$854
$1,376
$1,590
$1,787
$1,985
$2,135
$216,818
$252,208
$283,342
$314,721
$337,570
Sources: 2020 HCD Income Limits - Riverside County; Riverside Housing Authority Utility Allowance Schedule, 2020; Veronica Tam and Assoc., 2021 AMI=Area Median Income
Assumptions:
1. Affordable housing cost = 30% household income
2. Taxes, insurance, HOA = 35% monthly affordable cost (owner costs only)
3. 10% down payment
4. 3% interest rate
C. EXISTING HOUSING NEEDS
This section provides an overview of existing housing needs in Jurupa Valley. It focuses on four types of housing need in the community:
1. Housing need resulting from housing cost burden;
2. Housing need resulting from overcrowding;
3. Housing need resulting from population growth; and
4. Housing needs of special needs groups such as elderly persons, large households, persons with disabilities,
female-headed households, homeless persons, and farm
workers.
Housing Cost Burden
As previously identified, housing cost burden is generally defined as households paying more than 30% of their gross income on housing- related expenses, including rent or mortgage payments and utilities.
High housing costs can cause households to spend a
disproportionate percentage of their income on housing. This may result in payment problems, deferred maintenance, or
overcrowding. Housing Cost Burden adversely affects the low income, very low income and extremely low-income residents the most and with the 2020- 2021 COVID -19 pandemic, these income groups have been hit even harder with cost burdens. To track information related to cost burdens and issues surrounding fair housing, the City of Jurupa Valley is contracted with the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County. The agency helps track housing trends that can be considered an impediment to accessing housing.
According to the Fair Housing Council of Riverside County 2019-2020 Fiscal Year Report, most landlord/tenant complaints (23.45%) were related to housing lease/rental terms, followed closely (22.61%) by complaints related to Notices (e.g., eviction notices, late rent notices, and other notices from landlords), and then by complaints related to speed and lack of repair to rental facilities. According to the Fair Housing Council, recent increases in complaints related to these categories are likely linked to the loss of work due to the pandemic closures and safety regulations implemented by the State of California for a staggered reopening of businesses. The increasing cost burdens and global pandemic have exacerbated the issue and resulted in the associated issues such as overcrowding and the need to assist those in the special needs groups identified in the Community Profile.
This section uses data from the CHAS provided by HUD. The CHAS provides information related to households with housing problems, including cost burden, overcrowding, and/or without complete kitchen facilities and plumbing systems. The most recent estimates are derived from the 2013 -2017 ACS and released by the HUD April 13, 2021. The data includes a variety of housing need variables, further broken down by HUD -defined income limits and HUD - specified housing types. It should be noted that HUD -defined income limits differ slightly from the income limits established by the state, as shown in Table 5.26.
Table 5.26: Income Limits
HUD Income Limits State HCD Income Limits
Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI) Very Low Income (31-50% AMI) Very Low (31-50% AMI)
Low Income (51-80% AMI) Low Income (51-80% AMI)
Moderate/Above Moderate Income
(81%+ AMI)
Moderate Income (81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate Income (>120% AMI)
AMI=Area Median Income
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-39
According to HCD’s Data viewer 20% to 40% of Owner Occupied Households have monthly costs that are 30% or more of Household using recent (2015 -2019) ACS data. In the same data time period, renters are more cost burdened with data showing 40% to 60% of renter households have monthly costs that are 30% or more of household income. However, overpay ment by owners and renters went down since 2014, as the proportion of residents in higher income groups has increased. The rising housing cost is ever increasing and ultimately leads to other related housing issues like overcrowding and lack of availability of affordable homes for special needs groups.
Overcrowding
By definition, dwelling units with more than one person per room are considered overcrowded and units with more than 1.5 persons per room are considered severely overcrowded. Overcrowding increases health and safety concerns and stresses the condition of the housing stock and infrastructure. Overcrowding is strongly related to household size, particularly for large households and the availability of suitably sized housing. Overcrowding impacts owners and renters; however, renters are generally more signific antly impacted. Some households may not be financially able to purchase adequately sized housing and may instead accept smaller housing or reside with other individuals or families in the same home to lower costs. With the current 2020 -2021 COVID-19 pandemic, the stress on housing availability and affordability is even higher, causing additional overcrowding.
Household overcrowding reflects various living situations: 1) a family lives in a home that is too small; 2) a family chooses to house extended family members; or 3) unrelated individuals or families are “doubling up” to afford housing. However, cultural differences also contribute to the overcrowded conditions. Some cultures tend to have larger household sizes than others due to the preference of sharing living quarters with extended family members and as a way of sharing living costs among family members. Overcrowding can strain physical facilities and the delivery of public services, reduce the quality of the physical environment, contribute to a shortage of parking, and accelerate the deterioration of homes and
neighborhoods.
Approximately 18% of all households in Jurupa Valley were overcrowded, and 4% were severely overcrowded, according to the 2019 ACS. As shown in Table 5.27
, overcrowding is significantly more
common among the City’s renter -households than owner - households. By comparison, the incidence of overcrowding in Riverside County is much lower at almost half as many households dealing with this issue.
Table 5.27: Overcrowding by Tenure, Percent of Total Households
Overcrowded
(1+ occupants per room)
Severely Overcrowded
(1.5+ occupants per room)
Renter Owner Total Renter Owner Total
Jurupa Valley 30.0% 10.2% 17.5% 6.2% 3.0% 4.2%
Riverside County 11.9% 4.6% 7.0% 2.7% 1.3% 1.7%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS), 2019 (B25014).
Publicly Assisted Housing
The availability and location of publicly assisted housing may be a fair housing concern. If such housing is concentrated in one area of a community or of a region, a household seeking affordable housing is limited to choices within the area. In addition, public/assisted housing and Housing Choice Voucher ( Section 8) assistance should be accessible to qualified households regardless of race/ethnicity, disability, or other protected class status.
Public Housing
The City of Jurupa Valley does not have its own housing authority and so collaborates with the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) when providing public housing. Eligible residents must be seniors or disabled, or have an annual gross income at or below 80% of the AMI. The City indicated in its Fair Housing Assessment (see Housing Element Appendix E) that 456 households live in public housing in Jurupa Valley. In addition to these households being served, more than double that number are on the waitlist.
Housing Choice Vouchers Program
HACR administers the federally funded Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCV) for Jurupa Valley residents. This housing voucher program (also known as Section 8 housing) provides rental subsidies to low -income families that spend more than 30% of their gross income on housing cost and currently 344 Jurupa Valley households are receiving Housing Choice Vouchers. For the distribution of Voucher assistance within the City, HACR has established local preferences such as families who have lost HCVs due to funding cuts, working families, elderly or disabled, and veterans. As of February 2018, 1,742 households were on the waiting list for the HCV program. Of these households, 292 are seniors, 409 are disabled and 282 are self-identified as homeless without permanent housing.
As an extension of the HCV program, HACR assists eligible families who purchase a home by applying their existing HCV towards a monthly mortgage payment. Eligible families may qualify for a maximum period of 10 or 15 years (depending on the mortgage terms).
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-41
Other Affordable Housing Developments
Housing developments utilizing federal, state, and/or local programs, including state and local bond programs, Low -Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), density bonus, or direct assistance programs, are often restricted for use as low -income housing and provide another source of affordable housing for a jurisdiction.
Table 5.28 summarizes housing developments in Jurupa Valley in which some or all of the units are designated as affordable for low to moderate-income households. While additional affordable units have been approved for entitlement since the last Housing Element Update, none have been built and ready for occupation.
Table 5.28: Non-Public Housing Affordable Units in Jurupa Valley Property Name Property Address Funding Source Unit Size Total
Affordable
Units
Total Project
Units
Expiration of
Affordability
Mission Villas 5870 Mission Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92509
LIHTC, §202/811 53 – 1 BR
1 – 2 BR
54 54 2038
Mission Palms 5875 Mission Blvd.
Rubidoux, CA 92509
RDA, LIHTC, HOME 88 – 1 BR
20 – 2 BR
1 – 3 BR
109 109 2059
Mission Palms II 3702 La Rue St.
Riverside, CA 92509
RDA 73 – 1 BR
18 – 2 BR
91 91 2062
Mission Village Senior
Apartments
8989 Mission Blvd.
Riverside, CA 92509
RDA, LIHTC, 90 – 1 BR
12 – 2 BR
102 102 2066
Habitat for Humanity-
CalVet Jurupa Valley
Veterans Housing
At the end of Amarillo
Street in Glen Avon area
CalVet Habitat,
HACR
18 – 3 BR
8 – 4 BR
26 26 2061
Total 382 382
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2021 Notes: These properties were developed prior to the incorporation of Jurupa Valley. Therefore, records on these properties do not use Jurupa Valley as the location but these properties are located in Jurupa Valley.
Abbreviations: HOME: HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HUD); CDBG: Planning Block Grant (HUD); RDA: City Redevelopment Agency; LIHTC: Low Income Housing Tax Credit; HTF: Housing Trust Fund; MHSA; Mental Health Services Act
Units at Risk of Converting to Market-Rate
Housing
Projects at Risk
State law requires that the City identify, analyze, and propose programs to preserve existing multi-family rental units that are eligible to convert to non -low-income housing uses due to termination of subsidy contract, mortgage prepayment, or expiring use restrictions during the next 10 years. Thus, this at -risk housing analysis covers a 10 -year period from October 15, 2021 to October 15, 2031 (10 years from the statutory deadline of the Housing Element). Consistent with state law, this section identifies publicly assisted housing units in Jurupa Valley, analyzes their potential to convert to market rate housing uses, and analyzes the cost to preserve or replace those units.
Within the at-risk analysis period, only one project is considered to be at -risk of converting to market -rate housing— 54-unit Mission Villas senior housing, funded with Section 202 financing and Section 8 project -based rent subsidies. The project was placed in service in 1998 and Section 202 carries a 40 -year low-income use restriction. The Section 8 contract for Mission Villas was last renewed in February 2020. However, HUD has prioritized funding for Section 8 renewals for senior housing projects (Section 202), and therefore, this project is at low risk of converting to market -rate housing. There are several public agencies and private nonprofits in the West Riverside County area with the capacity to acquire and manage at-risk units or develop new affordable units. In 2020, these include:
1. Housing Authority of the County of Riverside
5555 Arlington Avenue, Riverside, CA 92504
(951) 351-0700
2. Fair Housing Council of Riverside County, Inc.
4164 Brockton Avenue, Riverside, CA 92501
Phone: (951) 682-6581
3. Southern California Association of Non-Profit Housing 340 E. 2
nd Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 480-1249
4. National Community Renaissance
9421 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 483-2444
5. Habitat for Humanity Riverside
2180 Iowa Avenue, Riverside, CA 92507
Phone: (951) 787-6754
6. Path of Life Ministries
1240 Palmyrita Avenue, Suite A, Riverside, CA 92507
Mail: PO Box 1445, Riverside CA
Phone: (951) 786-9048
Preservation and Replacement Options
To preserve the existing affordable housing stock, the City must either preserve the existing assisted units or facilitate the development of new units. Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. Preservation options typically include: 1) transfer of project to nonprofit ownership; 2) provision of rental assistance to tenants; and 3) purchase of affordability covenants. For example, CDBG and HOME funds may be used to acquire and rehabilitate the affordable units in exchange for an extended affordability covenant on the assisted units. In terms of replacement, the most direct option is the development of new assisted multi -family housing units. These options are described below. Due to the City’s significant financial constraints, all options would require a Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-43
collaborative effort between the City and the Riverside County Housing Authority or nonprofit housing agency to pursue.
1. Transfer of Ownership
Transferring ownership of an at -risk project to a nonprofit housing provider is generally one of the least costly ways to ensure that the at-risk units remain affordable for the long term. Transferring property ownership to a nonprofit organization would s ecure low- income restrictions, and the project would become potentially eligible for a greater range of governmental assistance. Mission Villas is a Section 202 senior housing project, which is nonprofit - owned. Therefore, transferring ownership to another nonprofit is not a necessary preservation option.
2. Rental Assistance
Table 5.29 shows rental subsidies required for a typical 54 -unit below-market apartment project in Jurupa Valley in 2019. According to HUD records, the units at Mission Villas are renting at $676 monthly, significantly below Fair Market Rents for comparable units.
If these units convert to market rate, the tenants should expect to pay at least $986 per month, resulting in an affordability gap of $310.
As indicated in Table 5.29 , the total cost of subsidizing the rents of all 54 at -risk units is estimated at $16,740 per month or $200,880 annually. Providing this level of subsidies for at least 55 years would require over $20 million, assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5% over 55 years. The feasibility of this alternative is highly dependent upon the availability of reliable funding sources necessary to make rent subsidies and the willingness of property owners to participate in the program.
Table 5.29: Rental Subsidies Required – Mission Villas, 2019 Unit Size Total Units Fair Market Rent1 Household Size Contract Rent2 Monthly Subsidy
per Unit
Total Monthly
Subsidy
1-bedroom 54 $986 1 person $676 per month $310 $16,740
1 Fair Market Rent (FMR) is determined by HUD, 2019.
2 2015 contract rent for unit at Mission Villas per HUD records.
3. Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of the at-risk project is to work with Riverside County’s Housing Authority or nonprofit housing agencies and developers to provide incentives to the property owner to maintain the project as affordable housing.
Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, providing a lump- sum payment, and/or supplementing the rents to market levels. The feasibility of this option depends on whether the complex has a high level of debt-to- equity ratio. By providing lump sum financial incentives or ongoing
subsides in rents or reduced mortgage interest rates to the owner, the City can ensure that some or all of the units remain affordable.
Funding available for purchase of affordability covenants is also limited. Typically, HUD funds cannot be used for this purpose.
4. Construction of Replacement Units
The construction of new low -income housing units is a means of replacing the at-risk units if they are converted to market-rate units and are eligible for HUD funds. The cost of developing housing depends upon a variety of factors, including density, size of the units (i.e., square footage and number of bedrooms), location, land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average construction cost of approximately $150,000 per unit, it would cost over $8.1 million (excluding land costs) to construct 54 new assisted units. Including land costs, the total cost to develop replacement units would be higher.
5. Cost Comparisons
The above analysis attempts to estimate the cost of preserving the at-risk units under various options. These cost estimates are general estimates and are intended to demonstrate only the relative magnitude of funding required. Actual costs of preservation would depend on the individual circumstances of the at -risk property and market conditions at the time.
New construction of 54 replacement units has the highest upfront costs ($8.1 million, excluding land costs) but the new units would typically be subject to long -term affordability restrictions and high housing quality standards. In evaluating the various options, the City or the responsible housing agency must consider the available funding sources and the willingness of property owners to participate in preservation, among other factors. With the dissolution of redevelopment in California and as a “young” city, Jurupa Valley has virtually no financial capacity to support affordable housing development.
The majority of funding for housing related projects stem from state grants and aid money. This is not a sustainable way to develop and as the above analysis has indicated, the City currently has very limited resources for such prospects.
Fair Housing in Jurupa Valley
Housing is a crucial part of our community, because as it affects everyone at a fundamental level and equal access is necessary to meet the essential needs of each person. I n recognizing equal housing access as a fundamental right, the federal government and the State of California have both established fair housing choice as a Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-45
right protected by law. To comply with state law, the City of Jurupa Valley continues to participate in an effort to assess impediments to fair housing of the community through an “Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Study”. The most recent analysis was completed in 2019 and defines “affirmatively further fair housing” to mean “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combat discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity” for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and other protected classes.
State law added a requirement for an assessment of fair housing to be included in the housing element, which includes the following components: a summary of fair housing issues and assessment of the City’s fair housing enforcement and outreach capacity; analysis of segregation patterns and disparities in access to opportunities, an assessment of contributing factors, and an identification of fair housing goals and actions. The City of Jurupa Valley’s Fair Housing Assessment is included in Housing Element Appendix E.
Key issues identified from as impediments to fair housing in the City of Jurupa Valley includes impediments stemming from the lack of education and awareness on housing resources; lack of fair housing enforcement activity; discriminatory lending, renting and real estate practices in the City; and restrictive land use policies. These impediments are tracked and investigated by the City with the assistance of the Hair Housing Council of Riverside County, while continuing to develop policy and best practices to better achieve fair housing for Jurupa Valley.
Resources for Special Needs Groups
Special needs groups make up a large portion of the population in the City of Jurupa Valley and the main groups that need the most assistance in the City with such a steady population growth is elderly persons, large households, persons with disabilities, female-headed households, homeless persons, and farm workers. This section reviews the same special needs groups presented in the Community Profile with the resources that are currently available to the residents of Jurupa Valley.
Seniors
The Riverside County Office on Aging is a planning and advocacy entity that serves as the official Area Agency on Aging (AAA) throughout Riverside County. It is charged to provide leadership in developing a system of care services for older persons and adu lts with disabilities in the County. Area Agencies on Aging (AAAs) are local aging programs that provide information and services on a
range of assistance for older adults and those who care for them.
Some of the programs and services provided by AAA include:
• Aging and Disability Resource Connection Program
• Care Coordination
• Caregiving
• Care Transitions Intervention (CTI)
• Community Outreach and Education
• Legal Assistance
• Transportation
Some senior programs in the City of Jurupa Valley have been offered in partnership with Jurupa Valley Adopt a Family program, a community-based 501(c)(3) organization, and Healthy Jurupa Valley.
Services and programs provided include assistance to senior households during the holiday seasons, and workshops catering to senior residents; recent workshop topics include returning to work after retirement. Through Healthy Jurupa Valley, seniors are also invited to attend senior health fairs. Additionally, the Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District provides a Senior Mentoring Program that focuses on providing enrichment and/or general assistance to senior citizens, including assistance with everyday tasks and exposing seniors to new activities.
Seniors in Jurupa Valley may also benefit from programs offered through the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency (EDA). Through the Senior Home Repair Grant (SHRG) Program, EDA may be able to cover up to $6,000 of the cost of repairs with no loan or payback requirement.
In terms of affordable housing resources, there are 357 affordable rental units in 4 rental properties throughout Jurupa Valley that are restricted for seniors, with renter qualifications not to exceed anywhere from 50% to 80% of median income. In addition to the senior housing developments listed in Table 5.30
, seniors in the City
are served by 11 state -licensed residential care facilities for the elderly and 15 adult residential facilities with a combined capacity to serve 379 persons. In addition, Country Village Apartments provides 1,238 senior apartments, with rents affordable to low - and moderate-income households.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-47
Table 5.30: Senior Housing Development
Name Address Units
Mission Village Senior Apartments 8989 Mission Boulevard Riverside, CA 92509
102
Country Village Apartments 10250 Country Club Drive
Jurupa Valley, CA 91752
1,238
Mission Villas 5870 Mission Boulevard
Riverside, CA 92509
54 Mission Palms 5875 Mission Boulevard
Rubidoux, CA 92509
109
Mission Palms II 3702 La Rue Street
Riverside, CA 92509
92 Total 1,595
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2020
Persons with Disabilities
A number of nonprofit agencies provide supportive services to persons with disabilities living in Jurupa Valley. ARC of Riverside County is a private, nonprofit corporation serving adults with intellectual and other developmental disabilities. ARC operates six facilities in Western Riverside County providing services for those in need of full -time programming to ensure the development and maintenance of functional skills required for self- advocacy, community integration, and self-care. In addition, the Comm unity Access Center (CAC), an independent living center located in the City of Riverside, has been providing services to people with disabilities in the County since 1995. CAC provides information, supportive services, and independent living skills training. The City is also amending the current zoning code to include the necessary provisions to meet the Lanterman Act and will include and allow for group homes, boarding homes for person with disabilities.
Single Parent Households
Limited household income constrains the ability of single -parent households to afford adequate housing, childcare, health care, and other necessities. Of the single- parent households, 33.4% are male headed and 66.6% are female headed, leading to even greater constraints with American Community Survey for 2017 showing over 25% of those female- headed households are living under poverty level.
Several agencies that serve Jurupa Valley residents offer various programs for families with children. The Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District offers programs and recreational classes for the City’s youth, including health fairs, youth sports, special events, help with homework, and volunteer programs. Additional community and family resources are available through Healthy Jurupa Valley, as part of a national Healthy Cities movement to improve the health and quality of life for City residents. Healthy Jurupa Valley efforts are
carried out through Action Teams, including the Jurupa Valley Family Resource Network, and include the organization of special community events such as the Healthy Jurupa Valley Extravaganza Health Fair that provides access to community services and children activities.
Single-parent households in Jurupa Valley can also benefit from general programs and services for lower- and moderate -income persons, including the Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing programs, the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency’s (EDA) First Time Homebuyer and Home Repair Loan Program (HRLP ) Programs, and various community and social services provided by nonprofit organizations in the region such as the Food Bank.
Large Families
The average household size in Jurupa Valley is 4.21 persons compared to 3.3 persons in Riverside County, and these larger households make up about 30% of all households in the City. The large family households exist typically to both reduce the overall burden of housing costs and the cost of other necessities such as food, clothing, medical care, and other essentials. Large households in Jurupa Valley can benefit from general programs and services for lower-and moderate -income persons, including The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside Housing Choice Voucher and Public Housing programs, the County of Riverside Economic Development Agency’s (EDA) First Time Home Buyer (FTHB) and Home Repair Loan Program (HRLP) Programs, and various
community and social services provided by nonprofit organizations in the region.
Farm Workers
In Jurupa Valley, there are few farm worker resources due a number of service providers in Riverside County. While farm workers have access to many of the other resources that the other special needs groups have as well, they have more limited assistance and services to farm workers. The Family Resource Center Program at Mecca Family and Farm Workers Service Center (91-275 66
th Avenue, Suite
100, Mecca, CA 92254) provides seven core service types: parenting skills, self- sufficiency, community action, child abuse prevention services, information and referral services, education and literacy, and life skills. There are also two farm worker housing projects located in Riverside County: Chapultepec Apartments (62 -600 Lincoln Street, Mecca, CA 92254; 31 units) an d Las Mañanitas (91-200 Avenue 63 Mecca, CA 92254; 128 beds).
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-49
The space at these housing projects is limited and serve the county as a whole, and with the added pressure of the COVID-19 pandemic, the State has implemented a program called “Housing for the Harvest” to assist these essential workers in the effort to keep California fed and safe. Riverside County partnered with the TODEC Legal Center to distribute financial and housing aid to farm workers who suffered loss of wages due to the COVID -19 pandemic and to provide housing alternatives to those exposed and requ ire quarantining for 14 days.
While these programs are in place to help this special need group, more can be done for more permanent solutions to the need for farm worker housing in Jurupa Valley. This Housing Element update includes a program that addresses the need for farmworker housing in the City by amending the Zoning Code to address the require - ments of the Employee Housing Act.
Homeless Persons
The 2020 Point-in-Time homeless count, which occurred in January 2020, identified 103 unsheltered homeless individuals in comparison to the 139 unsheltered homeless individuals counted during the same survey in 2019 in the City of Jurupa Valley. While the numbers have declined from the previous year, this number does not include possible increases due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The resources and services described in Table 5.31 serve low income and special needs populations in Jurupa Valley —not just the homeless. While some of the programs and services identified below are not located within the City’s boundaries, the services they provide are available to persons residing in Jurupa Valley. At the same time, the City also uses federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) money to fund housing for up to three homeless persons each night by subsidizing room rentals at program - approved transient housing in the area.
Table 5.31: Homeless and Special Needs Housing Resources Agency/Program Description Location
Emergency Shelter
Path of Life Ministries -
Community Shelter
Program
An emergency homeless shelter that serves adults by providing temporary housing along with assistance in obtaining important documents, job readiness, computer workshops, counseling, meals, hygiene supplies and various other forms of support.
This program provides beds for up to 64 qualified single men and women. 2840 Hulen Place
Riverside, CA 92507
Path of Life Ministries -
Family Shelter Program
This program is offered to single parents with children, couples with children and single women. Support services focus on rapid re-housing, employment and increased income. It is a dormitory setting with 50 beds. 2530 Third Street
Riverside, CA 92507
Path of Life Ministries -
Emergency Cold Weather
Shelter
The Path of Life Community Emergency Shelter provides an additional 72 beds from December to mid-April. These beds are provided on a night-by-night basis under the federal cold weather shelter initiative in cooperation with the County of Riverside. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Agency/Program Description Location
Community Kitchens
Calvary Chapel Food assistance is provided on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month. 5383 Martin Street Jurupa Valley, CA 95168-
11092
Eagle Food Ministries Provides food boxes for individuals and families on Thursdays. 5410 Beach Street Riverside, CA 92509
Manna Ministries Food assistance is provided on the 1st and 3rd Sunday of every month. 4318 Pyrite Street Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Rubidoux Missionary
Baptist Church
Groceries are provided to families and individuals on the 2nd and 4th Saturday of each month.
2890 Rubidoux Boulevard
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Rubidoux Family
Resource Center
Provides groceries and food, and also provides referrals to resources such as thrift stores and clothing
5473 Mission Boulevard
Rubidoux, CA
Transitional Housing
The Place Jefferson Transitional Programs (JTP) is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) offering vocational, supported living, and educational programs for individuals with chronic mental illness and/or addictions.
3839 Brockton Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
Safe House Transitional
Living
A 15-bed apartment complex in downtown Riverside. Services are available to older homeless youth ages 18-22 for up to 18 months. Five apartments are set aside for Permanent Supportive Housing for youth ages 18-24.
9685 Hayes Street
Riverside, CA 92503
Permanent Supportive Housing
Path of Life Ministries Provides immediate housing to chronically homeless individuals and some families, in scattered privately owned homes and apartments throughout Riverside County. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Rental and Support Services
Path of Life Ministries Rapid-Rehousing Program: provides assistance for the most immediate housing possible for homeless families with children and provides temporary rental subsidies.
Rental Assistance Program: w hen available, provides one-time rental assistance (up to $1,000) to those exiting from homelessness or at risk of becoming homeless. 6216 Brockton Avenue, #211
Riverside, CA 92506
Foothill AIDS Project Provides housing assistance, including help in locating and paying for emergency, transitional, or permanent housing, funds for paying rent, mortgage, and utility assistance. Referrals are available to other government and private subsidized housing programs and the state's homeless prevention program. 3576 Arlington Avenue, #206
Riverside, CA, 92506
Inland Empire Veterans
Stand Down
Reunites homeless veterans with their families and communities through restorative resources and services. Some services provided include VA Claim assistance, legal clinics/seminars, transportation, food, blankets/sleeping bags, and care counseling. 6185 Magnolia Avenue, #338
Riverside, CA 92506
Disabled American
Veterans Charity
Provides free, professional assistance to veterans and their families in obtaining benefits and services.
4351 University Avenue
Riverside, CA 92501
Lutheran Social Services Some emergency services provided include food pantry, grocery packs, clothes, lunches, motel vouchers, eviction prevention, and rental assistance. 3772 Taft Street
Riverside, CA 92503
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2015
Families
As part of the previous housing element, the City removed the definition of “family” as it was too constraining to the diverse household types in the Jurupa Valley. The City instead used a housing element program to allow for a more open ended
interpretation of what a family is under the housing element and City code. There is no current plan to create a new definition for family in the City of Jurupa Valley due to the possibility of creating unnecessary restrictions to options for housing in the City.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-51
Housing Resources
A jurisdiction’s housing resources include the existing housing stock as well as vacant and underutilized land that can support additional housing. The paragraphs below outline the City of Jurupa Valley’s housing resources and demonstrate how the City can provide its share of the region’s future housing need. In addition, financial and administrative resources available to support housing activities and facilitate implementation of housing policies and programs are addressed, as well as opportunities for energy conservation.
Residential Density and Affordable Housing
State housing law requires jurisdictions to provide an analysis showing that land use designations or zones identified for the development of housing for lower income households are sufficient to encourage such development. The law provides two options for preparing the analysis: 1) describe market demand and trends, financial feasibility, and recent development experience; or 2) utilize default density standards deemed adequate to meet the lower income housing need. According to state law, the default dens ity standard for the City of Jurupa Valley is 30 dwelling units per acre.
Based on an analysis of affordable housing development in the Western Riverside County region and on discussions with local affordable housing developers, as outlined in the following section, the City has determined that a base density of 25 du/a cre (allowed maximum density, not including any applicable density bonus) is appropriate to accommodate the City’s lower-income housing need.
Not only does 25 du/acre accommodate the lower income need, but it also minimizes the impact of the density amongst the cur rently available housing stock. The density of these new residential developments is important in so far as they match the character of the community, which primarily consists of larger lot, ranch style single family homes.
Program HE 1.1.1 commits the City to amending the Land Use Map of the General Plan to add 69.2 acres of HHDR-designated land with appropriate zoning to allow multi-family ownership and rental housing. The HHDR land use designation allows a density of 21 -25 dwelling units per acre, with additional density possible through state-mandated density bonuses. As outlined in Section D, Housing Opportunities and Resources, the additional acreage will enable the City of Jurupa Valley to meet and exceed its 2021-2029 RHNA while also protecting the rural, country aesthetics of the City.
Land costs in Jurupa Valley continue to be significantly lower than those of Orange and Los Angeles Counties; hence, the number of units per acre necessary to allow an affordable housing develop - ment project to achieve economies of scale is smaller than th at of many other Southern California cities. A survey of vacant properties
for sale in Jurupa Valley on LandSearch.com showed seven properties available and suitable for residential development.
Properties ranged in size from 1 to 17 acres and had an average land cost of $160,000 per acre. By comparison, vacant properties in inland Orange County on mostly smaller, infill sites range from $1 million to well over $1.5 million per acre.
The City contacted three affordable housing developers within the Riverside/Jurupa Valley area: National Community Renaissance, Jamboree Housing Corporation, and Bridge Housing Corporation.
Based on those conversations, it was determined that densities of 25 dwelling units per acre are sufficient to accommodate affordable housing development within the City of Jurupa Valley. According to these developers, the primary determinant of affordability is land cost, followed by the type and cost of construction. They noted that there was a “pivot point” density at or near 25 dwelling units per acre. As density increased beyond this point, podium type develop- ment was typically required, significantly increasing the cost of construction. For this reason, these developers believed densities of 25 dwellings per acre or less were more feasible than higher densities in the Riverside/San Bernardino market. They also stressed the importance of project compatibility with surrounding uses in setting project density because this related directly to the time and cost of development. Consequently, these nonprofit developers indicated that sites designated at 25 dwelling units per acre would be suitable to develop affordable housing. The examples in Table
5.32 show that, while the densities vary within the Inland Empire, the average density is about 24.14 units per acre. These develop - ments are in diverse locations including some of the highest densities found on infill projects in the middle of the jurisdictio n’s downtown area.
Table 5.32: Inland Empire Affordable Housing Project Examples Jurisdiction Development Name Address Acreage
Dwelling
Units
Dwelling
Units/Acre
Jurupa Valley Northtown Housing Mission and Crestmore 26 68 13.23 Ontario Palm Terrace 2 Apartments 1449 East D Street 2.08 48 24 Riverside Cedar Glen Apartments 9830 County Farm Road 7.41 100 13.5 Riverside Mission Heritage Project 3933 Mission Inn Avenue 1.72 71 41.28 Rancho Cucamonga Villa Pacifica II 7418 Archibald Avenue 2.27 60 26.43 Rancho Cucamonga Day Creek Villas 12250 Firehouse Court 4.04 140 34.65 Fontana Sierra Ave Apartments 16839 Ramona Avenue 4.31 60 13.92 Moreno Valley Courtyards at Cottonwood Cottonwood and Indian 6.78 80 11.80
Currently, state law requires that cities provide additional aid to housing developers to streamline the process for the development of affordable housing, specifically for the low income, and the very low-income housing categories. To comply with state law, in 2021, the City is in the process of developing a “by right” process for projects in the HHDR General Plan designation with a minimum of Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-53
10% of units affordable to affordable to lower income households during the 2021-2029 planning period to be processed without the need for discretionary review. This law intents to incentivize the development of affordable housing and minimize government constraints on developing affordable housing units in California.
Variety of Housing Opportunity
The Zoning Code provides for a range of housing types, including single-family, multi-family, accessory dwelling units, manufactured homes, mobile home parks, licensed community care facilities, employee housing for seasonal or migrant workers as necessary , assisted living facilities, emergency shelters, supportive housing, transitional housing, and single room occupancy (SRO) units. Table
5.33 summarizes the types of housing allowed by Jurupa Valley’s Zoning Code to ensure a variety of housing opportunities continue to be available and the City continues to update the permitted uses of each zone as required by state law.
Single- and Multi-Family Uses
One-family dwellings are permitted uses in most residential zones.
Multi-family dwellings are permitted in the R -4 zone, as well as the R-2, R -3, and R -6 zones with the approval of a Site Development Permit (SDP). As outlined in Section G, Housing Constraints, the Site Development Permit (SDP) process is a typically discretionary review process that is strictly concerned with addressing design and potential impacts. Additionally, the Community Development Director acts on SDPs unless the Community Development Director has determined that there is a significant impact on the community.
In that case, SDPs are referred to the Planning Commission for consideration.
SDPs for residential projects are typically approved by the Community Development Director and generally do not require Planning Commission approval, except when the project is processed concurrently with a General Plan Amendment, a Specific Plan, a Tentat ive Tract Map, or other entitlements that require Planning Commission or City Council action.
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-54
Table 5.33: Jurupa Valley Permitted Uses by Zone
Zoning
District
One- Family
Dwelling
Multiple
Family
Dwelling
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Congregate
Care
Facilities
Emergency
Shelter
Transitional
and
Supportive
Housing1
Farm Worker
Housing2
Employee
Housing SRO
Manufactured
Housing/
Mobile Home
Mobile-Home
Park
Planned
Residential
Development
R-R/R-R-O P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-1/R-1A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-2 P P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-2A P P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-3 P* P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-3A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
R-T P NP P NP NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-T-R P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P – P#
R-4 P* P* P P* NP P NP P* P* P CUP P#
R-6 P P P NP NP P NP P P P CUP P#
PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD NP PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD PUD P#
I-P NP NP NP NP P NP NP P* NP P* NP NP
A-1 P NP P NP NP P P* NP NP P* CUP P#
A-2 P NP P NP NP P P* NP NP P* CUP P#
W-2 P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP NP NP P#
R-D P P* P NP NP P NP NP NP P CUP P#
N-A P NP P NP NP P NP NP NP P* NP P#
Source: City of Jurupa Valley Zoning Code, 2021
P = Permitted by Right; CUP = Conditional Use Permit Required; “NP” = Not Permitted; P* = Requires Site Development Permit; P#= Requires PC/CC review; PUD = Allowed with PUD; rezoning required.
Notes: 1 Transitional and Supportive housing subject to same requirements that apply to standard residential uses. 2 Employee housing for six or fewer persons is treated as a single-family structure and residential use.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-55
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs are attached or detached dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, cooking, and sanitation.
ADUs may be an alternative source of affordable housing for lower income households and seniors. These units typically rent for less than apartments of comparable size.
California law requires local jurisdictions to adopt ordinances that establish the conditions under which ADUs are permitted through a ministerial process ( California Government Code , §65852.2). To meet the requirements of state law, the City amended the ADU code in 2018 and 2020 to minimize requirements and to stay consistent with current code and to keep the process ministerial. A ministerial process is intended to reduce permit processing periods and development costs, because proposed ADU that comply wi th local zoning regulations and standards can be approved without a public hearing.
Jurupa Valley permits ADU on parcels that have a legal, single-family dwelling existing on the site, subject to additional development standards and the approval of an ADU Permit. ADU Permits are reviewed by the Community Development Director and do not require discretionary review or a hearing. Current code also allows for Junior ADU within existing single- family homes in addition to an ADU, effectively allowing up to three units on a single parcel. The code also allows up to two ADUs to be added to multi -family dwellings, subject to additional development standards and the approval by the Community Development Director.
Mobile Housing
State law requires local governments to permit mobile homes meeting federal safety and construction standards on a permanent foundation (and permanently connected to water and sewer utilities, where available), in all single -family residential zoning districts (§65852.3 of the California Government Code).
For purposes of permit issuance, Jurupa Valley permits mobile homes on a foundation system on all lots zoned to permit single - family dwellings. The installation of manufactured homes not on foundations is allowed whenever it is specifically provided for in the various zone classifications and is subject to the requirements and standards set forth in those zones. A mobile home permitted in the R-R and R -A zones, however, is subject to additional develop ment standards regarding minimum floor area and lot siz e. These requirements are standard for most California jurisdictions and are like those of Riverside County.
In Jurupa Valley, 1,643 mobile home units encompass approximately
6.4% of all housing in the City. These mobile homes are a source of affordable units in the City and when they are under 1,000 square feet, they can be considered as an ADU on a parcel with an existing single-family home. They are permitted with a foundation and ADU site plan review through the Community Development Department at the City.
Approximately 50% of the mobile homes in Jurupa Valley were developed prior to 1980. The City of Jurupa Valley does not maintain a list of mobile homes in need of repair or replacement. However, Planning and Code Enforcement staff estimate that approximate ly 10% of all the mobile homes developed prior to 1980 will need some level of rehabilitation during the 2021-2029 planning period, and 1% will need replacement. This equates to 82 potential mobile homes in need of rehabilitation and 9 mobile homes in need of replacement.
Residential Care Facilities
The Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (§5115 and §5116 of the California Welfare and Institutions Code) declares that mentally and physically disabled persons are entitled to live in normal residential surroundings. The use of property for the care of six or fewer mentally disordered or otherwise handicapped persons is required by law. A state-authorized, certified, or authorized family care home, foster home, or group home serving six or fewer persons with disabilities or dependent and neglected children on a 24-hour- a-day basis is considered a residential use to be permitted in all residential zones. No local agency can impose stricter zoning or building and safety standards on these homes (commonly referred to as “group” homes) for six or fewer persons than are required of other permitted residential uses in the zone. The Lanterman Act covers only licensed residential care facilities. California Housing Element law also addresses the provision of transitional and supportive housing, which covers non-licensed housing facilities for persons with disabilities that meet the statutory definitions for those terms. The City must ensure that, in addition to allowing smaller residential care facilities, larger group homes of seven or more persons are also allowed through a ministerial process, regardless of license.
The City of Jurupa Valley defines congregate care facilities as “a housing arrangement, developed pursuant to Article XIX of the Zoning Code, where nonmedical care and supervision are provided, including meals and social, recreational, homemaking and security services.” As part of this housing element update, the City’s provisions for licensed residential care facilities will be amended as needed to ensure consistency with the Lanterman Act.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-57
Emergency Shelters
An emergency shelter is a facility that provides temporary shelter and feeding of indigents or disaster victims, operated by a public or nonprofit agency. State law requires jurisdictions to identify adequate sites for housing that will be made available t hrough appropriate zoning and development standards to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of housing types for all income levels, including emergency shelters and transitional housing (§65583(c)(1) of the California Government Code). State law (SB 2) requires that local jurisdictions make provisions in their zoning codes to permit emergency shelters by right in at least one zoning district where adequate capacity is available to accommodate at least one year -round shelter. Local jurisdict ions may establish standards to regulate the development of emergency shelters.
The state also adopted State Housing Element Law restricting the requirements local jurisdictions can set as development standards for these emergency shelters. Housing Element Law requires that local governments impose only those development and
management standards that apply to residential or commercial development within the same zone.
The City of Jurupa Valley permits emergency shelters in its Industrial Park (I-P) zone, subject to the development standards allowed under SB 2, such as minimum floor area for each client, minimum interior waiting and client intake areas, off- street parkin g and outdoor lighting requirements.
The City has a number of large, vacant I -P zoned sites totaling 439 acres. In February 2021, the City adopted an amendment to the existing emergency shelter codes to comply with the requirements and provisions of current state law. The sites are dispersed on the following parcels and can be found on Figure 5-6 below.
Figure 5-7 illustrates sites in the City of Jurupa Valley that are zoned I-P and permit emergency shelters. I -P-zoned sites are located through the City of Jurupa Valley and were determined to be appropriate for emergency shelters due to their proximity to commercial centers and transportation options. These I -P zoned parcels are located in proximity to commercial sites shown in the red/pink with transit and major freeways connecting them through to the neighboring communities. The only parcels on this map without any commercial zones and transit stops in its immediate vicinity is located on the western City border by Interstate 15. This site looks disconnected, but it is adjacent to the freeway and commercial amenities can be found just to the West in the City of Eastvale.
Assessor Parcel
Number Street Address Acreage
156030014 Not Addressed 3.67
156030016 Not Addressed 2.15
156040073 4155 Wineville Rd 20.08
156050007 4231 Wineville Rd 2.15
156360037 Not Addressed 0.59
156360038 3777 De Forest Cir 2.99
156360041 10395 Noble Ct 5.54
156370005 10302 Birtcher Dr 2.99
156370008 Not Addressed 0.49
156390006 Not Addressed 2.46
156210067 Not Addressed 3.07
156050006 4231 Wineville Rd 0.61
156370009 Not Addressed 2.13
156370004 10314 Birtcher Dr 1.88
156370014 10266 Birtcher Dr 4.81
156390007 Not Addressed 1.28
156360039 3725 Nobel Ct 5.89
156370010 Not Addressed 0.47
156391026 Not Addressed 1.2
156030017 Not Addressed 1.37
156030043 Not Addressed 0.39
156040072 11850 Riverside Dr 26.97
156370015 Not Addressed 4.67
156030042 4453 Parkhurst St 3.36
156040071 11900 Riverside Dr 28.81
156050027 Not Addressed 136.8
156370003 10317 Birtcher Dr 3.43
156370006 10290 Birtcher Dr 2.41
156390005 3675 De Forest Cir 2.05
160040045 Not Addressed 1.5
156030044 Not Addressed 0.1
156370001 10293 Birtcher Dr 2.28
156370002 10305 Birtcher Dr 2.35
156370011 Not Addressed 0.08
156390002 Not Addressed 1.84
Assessor Parcel
Number Street Address Acreage
160040020 12087 Landon Dr 7
160040044 4685 Pier Enterprises Way 9.6
156360031 10395 Noble Ct 2.45
156390003 Not Addressed 1.78
156390004 Not Addressed 2
156390010 Not Addressed 0.19
156391023 Not Addressed 5.21
160040033 11911 Landon Dr 34.9
160040034 11811 Landon Dr 19.36
160040030 11905 Landon Dr 27.33
163400029 Not Addressed 1.03
163400051 Not Addressed 1.63
163400031 6250 Clay St 1.15
163400032 6212 Clay St 0.91
163400050 Not Addressed 2.59
163400028 Not Addressed 1.48
163400030 6280 Clay St 3.5
163400026 Not Addressed 1.61
167160027 Not Addressed 1
167160023 Not Addressed 3.5
167161020 Not Addressed 3.55
170350039 9251 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350042 9787 Orco Parkway 1.02
170350045 Not Addressed 1.12
170350046 Not Addressed 1.12
170350040 9263 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350041 9275 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350043 Not Addressed 1.25
170350044 Not Addressed 1.04
170350036 9215 Orco Parkway 2.67
170350037 9227 Orco Parkway 1.11
170350038 9239 Orco Parkway 1.12
170350047 Not Addressed 1.12
178150008 2610 Rubidoux Blvd 4.52
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-59
Figure 5-6: I-P Zoned Sites in Jurupa Valley
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-60
Figure 5-7: I-P Zones in Proximity/Access to Commercial Zones and Tranist
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-61
In addition to emergency shelters, the I -P zone allows three other uses that support human habitation. These include a single mobile home or caretaker unit on a site during construction, caretaker units for industrial or commercial facilities, and motels. Action Item 1.1.17 of this document requires the City to revise its off- street parking requirements for emergency shelters within 18 months of adoption of the Housing Element. Off-street parking standards shall be revised to accommodate all staff working in emergency shelters, provided they do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other commercial uses in the I-P zone.
Transitional and Supportive Housing
State law requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. Under Housing Element law, transitional housing means buildings configured as rental housing developments, but operated under program requirements tha t require the termination of assistance and reassignment of the assisted unit to another eligible program participant at a predetermined future point in time that shall be no less than 6 months from the beginning of the assistance ( California Government Code §65582(h)). For example, a multi-family dwelling that is designated as a temporary (typically 6 months to 1 year) residence for abused women and children, pending relocation to more permanent housing.
State law addresses the requirements, local provisions and stream - lining of transitional and supportive housing. State law currently requires local jurisdictions to address the provisions for transitional and supportive housing. It requires the city to address the criterion for assessing the need for emergency shelters and housing on a regional level and requires they be accounted for as part of the City’s Housing Element to create an impactful change on the current homeless housing situation.
Currently, state housing law requires local jurisdictions to allow permanent supportive housing meeting specific conditions by right in all zones where mixed use and multi -family housing is permitted and to streamline the applications for permanent supportive housing. For such supportive housing located within one -half mile from transit, no minimum parking can be required.
Supportive housing means housing with no limit on length of stay, t
hat is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to an on- site or off-site service that assists the supportive housing resident in retaining the housing, improving his or her he alth status, and maximizing his or her ability to live and, when possible, work in the community. Target population means persons with low incomes who have one or more disabilities, including mental illness, HIV or AIDS, substance abuse, or other chronic h ealth condition, or individuals eligible for services provided pursuant to the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Services Act (Division 4.5 commencing
with §4500 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) and may include, among other populations, adults, emancipated minors, families with children, elderly persons, young adults aging out of the foster care system, individuals exiting from institutional settings, veterans, and homeless people (California Government Code §§65582(f) and (g)).
Accordingly, state law establishes transitional and supportive housing as residential uses and therefore, local governments cannot treat these uses differently from other similar types of residential uses (e.g., requiring a use permit when other residentia l uses of similar function do not require a use permit). As part of the development of this Housing Element, the City will include provisions for transitional and supportive housing, pursuant to current state law.
Permanent Supportive Housing and Low Barrier
Navigation Centers
Similar to transitional and supportive housing, state law requires that permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers be allowed by -right in multi-family and mixed- use zones, including non -residential zones permitting multi -family uses.
Permanent supportive housing is permanent housing with voluntary supportive services such as health and mental health care for chronically homeless households. Low barrier navigation centers include housing and shelters where a resident at risk for homelessness can live temporarily and receive services while waiting to move into permanent housing. Local governments cannot treat these uses differently from other similar types of residential units. Accordingly, the City will include provisions for permanent supportive housing and low barrier navigation centers as part of this Housing Element.
Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
State law mandates that local jurisdictions address the provision of housing options for extremely low -income households, including Single Room Occupancy units (SRO). SRO units are typically one - room units intended for occupancy by a single individual. The y are distinct from a studio or efficiency unit, in that a studio is a one-room unit that must contain a kitchen and a bathroom. Although SRO units are not required to have a kitchen or bathroom, many SROs have one or the other. There are minimum standards for SROs (including a minimum floor area requirement) under the California Health and Safety Code.
The City of Jurupa Valley’s Zoning Code does not specifically address SROs. As part of this Housing Element, the City will include provisions to address SRO housing.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-63
Farm Worker and Employee Housing
The California Employee Housing Act requires that housing for six or fewer employees be treated as a regular residential use. In general, the California Health and Safety Code §17008(a) defines “employee housing” as “any portion of any housing accommoda tion, or property upon which a housing accommoda tion is located, if all of the following factors exist:
(1) The accommodations consist of any living quarters,
dwelling, boardinghouse, tent, bunkhouse, maintenance - of-way car, mobile home, manufactured home,
recreational vehicle, travel trailer, or other housing
accommodations, maintained in one or more buildings or
one or more sites, and the premises upon which they are situated or the area set aside and provided for parking of mobile homes or camping of five or more employees by the employer.
(2) The accommodations are maintained in connection with any work or place where work is being performed, whether or not rent is involved.”
Section 17005 of the California Health and Safety Code identifies the few types of employees excluded, and Section 17008 provides a detailed definition of employee housing. The Employee Housing Act further defines housing for agricultural workers consisting of 36 beds or 12 units be treated as an agricultural use and permitted where agricultural uses are permitted.
The City of Jurupa Valley permits agricultural uses in several of its residential zones. The Zoning Code does not specifically address farm worker housing in residential zones but does allow farm worker housing in the City’s agricultural zones (A -1 and A -2) with SDP approval, and single-family dwellings are permitted by right in these zones. As part of the implementation of this Housing Element, the City will amend the Zoning Code to address the requirements of the Employee Housing Act.
D. HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES AND
RESOURCES
State housing law requires that each jurisdiction in the state quantify the need for housing within its jurisdiction as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. As such, the Southern California Association of Gov ernments (SCAG) has allocated the City of Jurupa Valley housing production goals for the 6th Cycle Housing Element update. The paragraphs below outline how the City of Jurupa Valley will accommodate its share of regional housing needs during the planning period.
The Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) developed and adopted by SCAG covers the growth projection period from June 30, 2021 through October 15, 2029. The RHNA assigns a housing production number to each jurisdiction in the region. Jurupa Valley must identify adequate land with appropriate zoning and develop - ment standards to accommodate its allocation of the regional housing need. The RHNA allocation is divided into four income categories: Very Low, Low, Moderate, and Above Moderate. Table
5.34 outlines that Jurupa Valley’s share of regional future housing needs is a total of 4,497 new units between October 15, 2021 and October 15, 2029. This allocation is distributed into the four income categories identified above. The RHNA includes a fair share adjustment that allocates future (construction) need by each income category in a way that meets the state mandate to reduce over - concentration of lower income households in historically lower income communities or areas within the region.
Table 5.34: City of Jurupa Valley 6
th Cycle RHNA Allocation
Income Category
(% of County AMI) Number of Units Percent
Very Low (0 to 50%) 1,207* 26.8%
Low (51 to 80%) 749 16.7%
Moderate (81% to 120% 731 16.3%
Above Moderate (Over 120%) 1,810 40.2%
Total: 4,497 100%
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Final RHNA Allocation Plan, March 2021 AMI = Area Median Income
*The City has a RHNA allocation of 1,207 very low income units (inclusive of extremely low income units). This allocation is evenly split between extremely low and very low income groups pursuant to state law (AB 2634)
Credits toward RHNA
Several categories of housing are combined to meet the City of Jurupa Valley’s RHNA requirements. These include Approved Units, Units Pending Approval (Pipeline Projects), Accessory Dwelling Units, Specific Plans, and Vacant Sites. As outlined in detail below, when combined, these categories meet all the City’s Moderate and Above Moderate Income housing requirements and most of the Low and Very Low-Income requirements. Additional sites have been identified to meet the City’s RHNA, and the City has committed to undertaking a general plan amendment and r ezone process following adoption of the 2021 -2029 Housing Element to meet this requirement. For more detail about sites contributing to the City’s RHNA, please refer to Housing Element Appendix A – Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory and Housing Element Appendix B– Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-65
Approved Units Built and/or Entitled Since
June 30, 2021
The 6th Cycle RHNA covers an 8 -year planning period, beginning on October 15, 2021. Housing units built, under construction, or receiving building permits from June 30, 2021 onward can be credited towards meeting the City’s RHNA and subtracted from the City’s share of regional housing needs. As shown in Table 5.35 below, between June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, the City entitled a total of 152 housing units, including 131 single-family units, 6 duplex units, and 15 accessory dwelling units (ADUs). None of the units have been designated affordable. However, the ADUs are considered partially affordable to low- and very-low-income households based on a SCAG survey of ADU affordability in Riverside County and outlined further below.
Table 5.35: Approved Units Built/Entitled June 30-September 30, 2021 Project
Income Level
Total Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
Single Family Units – – – 131 131
Duplex Units – – – 6 6
ADUs 4 5 5 1 15
Total 4 5 5 138 152
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Units Pending Approval (Pipeline Projects)
As of October 4, 2021, eleven proposed projects totaling 1,126 units were at various stages of review and approval ( Table 5.36 ). These
projects include nine single -family residential subdivisions and two apartment projects. None of the proposed projects include a guaranteed affordable housing component, although one, Madone Collection, is exploring the inclusion of three single -family units affordable to moderate income households. The two proposed apartment projects, Vernola Marketplace Phase B, and Rexco Apartments, propose densities of 24 and 26.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac), respectively. Based on apartment rent levels in the City, the apartment units are considered affordable to moderate -income households. The single -family units are presumed to be affordable to above-moderate income households.
Table 5.36: Pipeline Projects (Units Pending Approval) as of September 30, 2021 Project Unit Type
Income Level
Total Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
9640 Philadelphia (MA16161) SF – – – 44 44
Philadelphia & Country Village (MA19029) SF – – – 54 54 Montecito Subdivision (MA20090) SF – – – 25 25
Pearl Communities (MA14143) SF – – – 74 74
Appaloosa Springs (MA20065) SF – – – 254 254
Madone Collection (MA20086) SF – – – 36 36
Sequanota Partners (PAR1314) SF – – – 78 78
Paradise Knolls PA-5 (MA20211) SF – – – 220 220
Saddlehorn Ranch (MA21158) SF – – 31 31
Vernola Marketplace – Phase B (MA21046) Apt. – – 200 – 200 Rexco (MA21083) Apt. – – 110 – 110
Total – – 310 816 1,126
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
As previously identified, ADUs are units with complete independent living facilities for one or more persons built on the same lot as, or attached to, a primary residence. To promote ADUs as a means of providing affordable infill housing, the State of California enacted several laws since 2017 to streamline the ADU permitting processes and reduce restrictions on ADUs. The City of Jurupa Valley has modified its development regulations to meet state requirements and has experienced a corresponding increase in ADU activity. Due to the number of ADU permits tracked in the past, conflicting numbers have been reported to HCD about the number of ADU permits issued by the City for the years 2018 -2020. However, the City is now utilizing Accela permit tracking software and has a more reliable system for tracking ADU permits going forward. In addition, the City has confirmed it issued 15 ADU permits in 2018 and 10 permits in 2019 and saw an increase in inquiries about ADUs in 2020 although only 5 permits were issued. N onetheless, the City anticipates increased ADU activity in the future and is also in the process of preparing sample building plans that property owners can use to facilitate ADU construction and reduce the cost of the ADU development process. In addition, 15 ADUs were permitted between June 30, 2021 and September 30, 2021, further indicating increased ADU activity in the City. Based on these trends, the City has made a conservative estimate that at least 15 ADUs will be permitted in each year of the 2021-2 029 Cycle for a total of 120 projected ADU units. This Housing Element includes a policy (HE-1.3) to encourage the development of ADUs throughout the creation of sample plans and development information packets.
To assist cities and counties determine affordability levels for ADUs, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) conducted an analysis of ADU affordability in the region. The analysis Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-67
included a survey of ADU rents by subarea. Based on this analysis, SCAG publishes ADU affordability assumptions that can be used by jurisdictions preparing site inventory analyses for the 6 th Housing
Element Planning Cycle. The final affordability assumptions for Riverside County are outlined in Table 5.37 below, together with a breakdown of projected 6
th Cycle ADUs in Jurupa Valley by income
level.
Table 5.37: ADU Affordability Assumptions, 2021-2029
Riverside County ADU
Affordability Assumptions
(%)
Jurupa Valley
Total Projected 2021-2029
ADUs Based on
Affordability Assumptions
Extremely Low 15.0% 18
Very Low 7.7% 9
Low 34.8% 42
Moderate 34.8% 42
Above Moderate 7.7% 9
Total 100% 120
Source: SCAG Regional Accessory Dwelling Unit Affordability Analysis, 2020 Development Potential in Specific Plans
Specific Plans are planning documents that outline the land use and development plan for an area of a city or county. As of 2021, there are four Specific Plans in the City of Jurupa Valley with remaining residential capacity: the I -15 Corridor, Paradise Knolls, Emerald Meadows Ranch, and Rio Vista Specific Plans. The location of each Specific Plan is outlined in Housing Element Appendix A. It is anticipated that the remaining development capacity within each Specific Plans will be developed during the 2021-2029 planning cycle and thus will contribute toward the City’s ability to meet its RHNA allocation. The paragraphs below outline the current status of each Specific Plan and the assumptions for development within the planning cycle.
In considering market affordability of future development projects, the City has applied the following affordability categories, based on state and federal standards. The standards are based on surveys of local AMI and subject to adjustment using household size and other factors:
• Extremely Low Income (0-30% AMI)
• Very Low Income (31-50% AMI)
• Low Income (51-80% AMI)
• Lower Income: (0 -80% AMI): Refers to a range of income levels that includes Extremely Low, Very Low and Low
Income households. Based on the analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing production in the West
Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designation of
Highest Density Residential (HHDR - 20-25 dwelling units/ acre or du/ac) are adequate to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to Lower Income households in Jurupa Valley.
• Moderate Income (80-120% AMI): Based on the analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing production in the West Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designa- tion of High Density Residential (HDR – 8-14 du/ac) or Very High Density Residential (VHDR – 14-20 du/a c) are
adequate to facilitate the construction of housing
affordable to Moderate Income households in Jurupa
Valley.
• Above Moderate Income (Over 120% AMI): Based on the
analysis of the adequacy of density and actual housing
production in the West Riverside County region during the past several years, it is assumed that sites with a general plan designation of Medium High Density (MHDR 5-8 du/ac or lower) are adequate to facilitate the construction of housing affordable to above-moderate income households
in Jurupa Valley).
I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
The I-15 Corridor Specific Plan is an approved planned community of over 750 acres consisting of a mix of commercial and single -family detached and attached residential uses. It was adopted by the County of Riverside when Jurupa Valley was still a part of the unincorporated County. Upon buildout, the project will provide a total of 2,400 residential dwelling units—of which 1,100 units were originally approved within the boundaries of the City of Jurupa Valley. Most of the Jurupa Valley units have already been developed; however, there is a remaining capacity of 508 single-family units in Jurupa Valley north of Limonite Avenue based on the original Specific Plan. The units are expected to be market rate and thus could contribute to the City’s supply of above -moderate housing.
Due to the progress of development within the I-15 Corridor Specific Plan to date, its location along the I-15 Corridor, and general interest in housing development in the area, the Specific Plan is expected to fully build out within the 2021-2029 planning period.
In addition, in 2015, the City approved an amendment to remove a
10.2-acre site from the southern limit of the Specific Plan that was designated for industrial use to accommodate the development of the Vernola Marketplace Project, a 397 -unit luxury apartme nt project. As of the date of preparation of this Housing Element Update, the project is under construction and the property owner has submitted a second application the for the Vernola Marketplace Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-69
– Phase B project on an adjacent 8.3-acre site within the Specific Plan area that is designated for industrial use. The project would remove the site from the Specific Plan and redesignate and rezone the site to accommodate 200 additional apartment units; the units are included in Table 5.36, Pipeline Projects. Because these two projects have been removed from the boundaries of the Specific Plan, they are not included in Table 5.38.
Table 5.38: Approved I-15 Corridor Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
10 & 13 508 Single-Family 100% 508 Above Moderate
Total Units: 508 508
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
The Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan is located in the eastern portion of the City, south of SR-60, and was adopted prior to Jurupa Valley’s incorporation. The Plan area proposes a variety of uses, including a mix of residential single -family and multi- family uses.
Upon buildout, the Specific Plan will add a total of 1,196 new dwelling units to the City, as shown in Table 5.39 . Based on the densities proposed, 476 units, ranging from 12 to 16.2 du/ac re, are considered moderate income with the remainder falling into the above-moderate category. As of October 2021, none of the units within the Specific Plan had been constructed, although the applicant is in preliminary negotiations with the City on revisions to the project’s land use distribution.
Table 5.39: Approved Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
3A, 3B, 6A, 6B. 6C, 7, 9,
10, 11, 13, 14, 15
720 Single-Family 50% 360 Above Moderate
16, 18, 19 476 Multi-Family 50% 238 Moderate
Total Units: 1,196 598
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Based on the property owner’s renewed interest in developing the property, and general interest in development in the area, Planning staff estimates that construction will begin in 2025 and that half (50%) of the units in each land use category will build out during the 2021-2029 planning period. This would result in an estimated 360 units of new above-moderate income housing and 238 new units of moderate income housing being approved and/or constructed within the 6
th Cycle.
Rio Vista Ranch Specific Plan
The Rio Vista Ranch Specific Plan located in the northeastern portion of the City was adopted prior to Jurupa Valley’s incorporation. The Plan area proposes a variety of uses, including a mix of residential single-family and multi-family uses, retail and commercial services, parks, and open space covering 918 acres. Upon buildout, the Specific Plan will add a total of 1,697 new dwelling units consisting of single-family and multi-family units, as shown in Table 5.40. As of the date of this report, the property owner has had an application in process for several years for a Specific Plan Amendment to revise the land use distribution of the plan but maintain the overall total number of residential units. In addition, a draft environmental document and numerous technical reports have been prepared for the project although no hearings have been scheduled. Because the project is so far along in its process, the numbers below reflect the proposed Specific Plan Amendment lan d use plan rather than the approved Specific Plan. In addition, based on the developer’s recent activity in pursuing approvals and entitlements, it is estimated the project will receive building permits in 2023, commence construction in 2024, and achieve 6 0% completion across all land use categories by 2029.
Table 5.40: Proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan Amendment (2021) Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 Planning Area
Remaining
Dwelling Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 963 Single-Family/
Multi-Family
60% 578 Above Moderate
4, 11 734 Multi-Family 60% 440 Moderate
Total Units: 1,697 1,018
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Paradise Knolls Specific Plan
Approved in 2016, the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan was approved for a master planned residential community for the development of 650 dwelling units, plus commercial, recreational, and open space uses on about 107 acres in the Pedley Town Center area. Of about 71 acres to be developed with ho using, just over 10 acres (about 15% of the housing area) is planned for Highest Density Residential (HHDR) uses at a density of 28 du/acre and qualifies as lower income housing based on density. As of October 2021, 107 single -family dwelling units were under construction in Planning Area 1, as shown in Table 5.41
. In addition, an application has been submitted to
subdivide Planning Area 5 into 220 single -family lots, as outlined above under “Pipeline Projects.” Due to the progress of develop - ment to date and the developer’s interest in pursuing the remaining entitlements, the Specific Plan is expected to fully build out within the 2021-2029 planning period.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-71
Table 5.41: Approved Paradise Knolls Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2019 Planning Area
Remaining Dwelling
Units Unit Type
Anticipated Build-
Out 2021-2029
Projected Dwelling
Units 2021-2029
Projected
Income Level
2 300 Multi-Family 100% 300 195 Very Low
105 Low
4 6 Single-Family 100% 6 Above Moderate
Total Units: 306 306
Source: City of Jurupa Valley, 2021
Combined, the four Specific Plans outlined above are projected to add 2,430 dwelling units within the 6th cycle planning period, which are broken down by income level in Table 5.42.
Table 5.42: 2021-2029 Projected Specific Plan Development Specific Plan
Income Level
Total
(DUs)
Very Low
(DUs)
Low
(DUs)
Moderate
(DUs)
Above Moderate
(DUs)
I-15 Corridor (100%) – – – 508 508
Emerald Meadows Ranch (50%) – – 238 360 598
Rio Vista (60%) – – 440 578 1,018
Paradise Knolls (100%) 195 105 – 6 306
Total 195 105 678 1,452 2,430
Vacant Sites
The City of Jurupa Valley conducted a city -wide inventory of vacant sites to identify additional residential development during the 2021- 2029 housing cycle. This analysis built upon the sites inventory conducted during the 5
th Cycle Housing Element Update process,
removed sites that had been developed or entitled, and added sites identified for the production of housing . Sites were assigned a housing income category based on a comprehensive survey of housing affordability conducted for the 5
th Cycle, which resulted in
the affordability levels outlined in Table 5.43 below. As shown in the table, only sites designated Highest Density Residential (HHDR) with a density range of 20 -25 du/ac re were assumed to contribute to Very Low and Low income housing.
Table 5.43: General Plan Affordability Level Assumptions General Plan
Land Use Designation General Plan Density Range Affordability Level Ranch (EDR) 1-2 du/52 acres Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) 0-1-2 du/2 ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Country Neighborhood (LDR) 1-2 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Medium Density Residential (MDR) 2-5 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) 5-8 du/ac Above Moderate (Over 120% AMI) High Density Residential (HDR) 8-14 du/ac Moderate (80-120% AMI) Very High Density Residential (VHDR) 14-20 du/ac Moderate (80-120% AMI) Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 20-25 du/ac Low (0-80% AMI)
To provide a realistic forecast, and account for the need to provide access and infrastructure, build-out of vacant sites was determined by taking 70% of the maximum permitted density allowed by the General Plan. This estimate is based on a survey of housing development projects approved by the Jurupa Valley City Council and Planning Commission between January 1, 2019 and October 15, 2021. Actual percentages ranged from 65% to 100% of the maximum density range with averages well over 75% depending on density and affordability level. Thus, the 70% of General Plan density used in this analysis is a conservative estimate that reflects actual development patterns in the City. Table 5.44 below outlines the projects included in this analysis, together with their densities and affordability levels, the latter of which also correspond with the affordability levels outlined in Table 5.43 above.
Table 5.44: City Council and Planning Commission Approved Projects by Density and Affordability, January 1, 2019-October 15, 2021
General Plan
Designation
Number/Type
of Residential
Units
Project Density
(du/ac)
Density as a
Percentage of
Maximum General
Plan Density
Anticipated
Affordability Level
JM Built Residential Project
MA 18153
LDR
1-2 du/ac
6 SF 1.29 65% Above Moderate
Sequanota Heights
MA 17099
MDR
2-5 du/ac
48 SF 4.6 92% Above Moderate
Highland Park 2
MA 18089
MDR
2-5 du/ac
34 SF 5.0 100% Above Moderate
Veteran’s Housing
MA 19008
MDR
2-5 du/ac
26 SF 4.9 98% Low
Hudson Street Subdivision
MA 16146
MDR
2-5 du/ac
25 SF 3.9 77% Above Moderate
Montecito
MA 20090
MDR
2-5 du/ac
25 SF 4.7 94% Above Moderate
Emerald Ridge So (single family)
MA 18141
MHDR
5-8 du/ac
97 SF 7.5 94% Above Moderate
Emerald Ridge So (townhomes)
MA 18141
HDR
8-14 du/ac
118 MF 9.9 71% Moderate
Mission Gateway Villas
MA 16224
HDR
8-14 du/ac
57 MF 11.0 78% Very Low/Low/
Moderate
du/ac = dwelling units per acre; SF = Single Family; MF = Multi-Family; LDR = Low Density Residential; MDR = Medium Density Residential; MHDR = Medium High Density Residential; HDR = High Density Residential
Table 5.45 below summarizes the sites inventory for Jurupa Valley.
Additional information on the sites inventory can be found in Housing Element Appendix A.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-73
Table 5.45: Sites Inventory
General Plan
Land Use Designation
Income Level
Total
(DUs)
Very Low
(DUs)
Low
(DUs)
Moderate
(DUs)
Above Moderate
(DUs)
Ranch Residential (EDR) – – – 1 1
Country Neighborhood (LDR) & Rural Community
– Low (RC-LDR)
– – – 274 274
Medium Density Residential (MDR) – – – 207 207
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) – – – 109 109
High Density Residential (HDR) – – 58 – 58
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) – – – – 0
Highest Density Residential (HHDR) 452 243 – – 695
Total 452 243 58 591 1,344
Progress in Meeting Housing Needs
Table 5.46 summarizes Jurupa Valley’s progress in meeting the 6 th Cycle RHNA and its capacity for housing development. Overall, the land use inventory indicates that the City has the existing capacity needed to accommodate its RHNA in the Moderate and Above - Moderate categories with a combined surplus of 1,558 units in those categories. However, there is an unmet need of 354 units in the Low- Income category and an unmet need of 529 units in the Very Low/Extremely Low-Income Category as shown on Table 5.46.
Table 5.46: Progress in Meeting 6
th Cycle Regional Housing Need Allocation
Unit Capacity
Income Category
Total
Units
Extremely/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
RHNA 1,207 749 731 1,810 4,497
1. Units Built and/or Entitled Since 6/30/2021 4 5 5 138 152
2. Pipeline Projects – – 310 816 1,126
3. Accessory Dwelling Units1
Total ADUs 2021-2029 (15/year) 27 42 42 9 120
4. Development Potential in Specific Plans
I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
Emerald Meadows Ranch Specific Plan
Rio Vista Specific Plan
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
238
440
508
360
578
508
598
1,018
Paradise Knolls Specific Plan 195 105 – 6 306
Subtotal 195 105 678 1,452 2,403
5. Development Potential on Vacant and Underutilized Parcels Ranch Residential (EDR) – – – 1 1
Country Neighborhood (LDR) & Rural Community –
Low (RC-LDR)
– – – 274 274
Medium Density Residential (MDR) – – – 207 207
Medium High Density Residential (MHDR) – – – 109 109
High Density Residential (HDR) – – 58 – 58
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) – – – – –
Highest Density Residential (HHDR)2 452 243 695
Subtotals 452 243 58 591 1,344
Total RHNA Credits (Built + Potential) 678 395 1,093 3,006 5,172 RHNA Surplus/[Deficit] (529) (354) +362 +1,196
1 ADU affordability levels based on SCAG’s 2020 Affordability Analysis for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties 2 Assumes 65% of potential HHDR units on vacant or underutilized parcels applied to “Very Low/Extremely Low” housing need, with the remaining potential HHDR units allocated to meet “Low Income” need.
Additional Sites Needed to Meet RHNA
Based on the foregoing, the City identified additional sites to be redesignated and rezoned to make up for the shortfall of very low and low income housing units during the 2021 -2029 cycle. As outlined in Action Item HE -1.1.1, following Housing Element adoption, the City will consider a proposal to redesignate 19 sites, totaling 69.2 acres, to the City’s highest density, HHDR. As shown on Table 5.47 and based on a density range of 20-25 du/acre, these sites are projected to accommodate a minimum of 1,147 units, including 760 units of very low income housing and 409 units of low income housing, which will make up for the anticipated shortfall. The City will consider the redesignations/ rezones within three years of the October 15, 2021 beginning of the 6 th Cycle planning period. The summary of sites proposed to be redesignated is outlined in Housing Element Appendix B.
Table 5.47: RHNA Summary With Redesignation Sites
Unit Capacity
Income Category
Total
Units
Extremely/
Very Low Low Moderate
Above
Moderate
RHNA 1,207 749 731 1,810 4,497
Total RHNA Credits 678 395 1,093 3,006 5,172
RHNA Surplus/[Deficit] without Redesignation Sites -529 -354 +362 +1,196 – New Redesignation Sites 760 409 – -22 1,147
RHNA Surplus with Redesignation Sites +231 +55 +362 +1,174 +1,822
E. FINANCIAL RESOURCES FOR HOUSING
As a young c ity with limited financial resources, Jurupa Valley has limited access to funding sources for affordable housing activities. In addition, the City does not have a housing authority. The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside (HACR) manages public housing programs in the City of Jurupa Valley and other participating jurisdictions in the County. The following paragraphs outline the three largest housing funding sources the City of Jurupa Valley can use for housing production, rehabilitation, or preservation.
SB 2/LEAP Grants
In 2017, Governor Jerry Brown signed a 15 -bill housing package aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. The package included the Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB 2, 2017), which established a $75 recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California.
The funding was made available until the beginning of March of 2019 to update planning documents and land -use ordinances to streamline and promote the development of housing. During the first year of the program, the City of Jurupa Valley received $310,000 Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-75
in state funds for planning efforts to facilitate housing production.
Funding was allocated for the preparation of objective residential design standards, rezoning of sites to accommodate higher density, and preparation of a town center area plan for the Pedley area.
For the second year and onward, 70% of SB 2 funding will be allocated to local governments for affordable housing purposes. A large portion of year two allocations will be distributed using the same formula used to allocate federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). Year Two affordable housing funds will be available for:
• Increasing the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of AMI
• Increasing assistance to affordable owner- occupied
workforce housing
• Assisting persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness • Facilitating housing affordability, particularly for lower and moderate income households
• Promoting projects and programs to meet the local
government’s unmet share of regional housing needs
allocation
Another source of funding to help local jurisdictions to update their planning documents and implement process improvements that will facilitate housing construction is the Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) grants. The City received $500,000 in LEAP grants in 2020 for the 6
th Cycle Housing Element, a general plan consistency program, and programs to incentivize the development of ADUs. LEAP grants are a one -time-only program and are not expected to be offered again in the future.
Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
The Housing Authority of the County of Riverside manages the federally funded Section 8 Housing Voucher Program in the City of Jurupa Valley. The program provides rental assistance to very low income persons in need of affordable housing. The program offers a voucher to income -qualified tenants that pays the difference between the payment standard (an exception to fair market rent) and what a tenant can afford to pay (e.g., 30% of their income). A voucher allows a tenant to find their own housing that meets the requirements of the program, including housing that may cost above the payment standard, with the tenant paying the extra cost.
Approximately 344 households in Jurupa Valley receive assistance through the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program.
Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) Funds
In 2018, the City of Jurupa Valley became an “entitlement City” for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. The CDBG program is a grant -funded effort administered by the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The CDBG program provides about $1.2-$1.3 million in funding for the City to carry out projects in three areas: infrastructure, social services, and housing initiatives. The City is utilizing its CDBG housing funding to assist households with housing rehabilitation through a grant program and to support the Housing Authority of Riverside County implement the Voucher Program outlined above.
Additional Resources
Described below are public agencies, and private and nonprofit organizations that have been involved or are interested in housing activities in Jurupa Valley. These agencies play important roles in meeting the housing needs of the community. In particular, these agencies and organizations have been or are currently involved in the improvement of the housing stock, expansion of affordable housing opportunities, preservation of existing affordable housing, and/or provision of housing assistance to households in need in Jurupa Valley:
• Housing Authority of Riverside County
• Riverside Housing Development Corporation
• Habitat for Humanity
• Jamboree Housing
• Palm Communities
The City will continue to work with these and other qualified housing developers and service providers to create affordable housing through new construction, acquisition/rehabilitation, and preserva- tion.
F. OPPORTUNITIES FOR ENERGY
CONSERVATION
Construction of energy efficient buildings can add to the production costs of ownership and rental housing. Over time, however, housing with energy conservation features should reduce occupancy costs as the consumption of fuel and electricity is decreased. This can result in monthly housing costs that are equal to or less than what they otherwise would have been had no energy conservation devices been incorporated in the new residential buildings. This section provides an overview of opportunities for energ y conservation during the 2021 through 2029 Housing Element planning period.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-77
State Regulations
Title 24 of the California Administrative Code establishes energy conservation standards that must be applied to all new residential buildings. The regulations specify energy -saving design for walls, ceilings, and floor installations, as well as heating an d cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards, and the use of non -depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. Compliance with the energy standards is achieved by satisfying certain conservation requirements and an energy budget. Among the alternative ways to meeting the energy standards are the following:
• Alternative 1: The passive solar approach, which requires proper solar orientation, appropriate levels of thermal mass, south -facing windows, and moderate insulation
levels.
• Alternative 2: Generally, requires higher levels of insulation than Alternative 1, but has no thermal mass or window
orientation requirements.
• Alternative 3: Requires active solar water heating in exchange for less stringent insulation and/or glazing
requirements.
Residential developers must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations.
State and Federal Programs
The California Department of Community Services and Development in partnership with the network of local community services agencies that assist lower-income households, administers the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). LIHEAP provides financial assistance to lower income households to offset the costs of heating and/or cooling their residences.
Private Sector Programs
The following private sector energy conservation programs are available to Jurupa Valley residents:
• Energy Savings Assistance (ESA) Programs: Lower-income customers enrolled in Southern California Edison’s and/or Southern California Gas ESA program may be eligible to
receive low - or no -cost products and installation: attic insulation; energy -efficient lighting; door weather-
stripping; replaceme nt of qualified appliances; caulking; minor home repairs; low -flow showerheads; and water
heater blankets.
• Gas Assistance Fund (GSF): Lower-income residents having trouble paying their gas bill may receive a one -time grant up to $200 through a joint program between Southern
California Gas and United Way.
G. HOUSING CONSTRAINTS
Governmental Constraints
Governmental constraints are policies, standards, requirements, and actions imposed by the government that affect the
development and provision of housing. These constraints may include building codes, land use controls, growth management measures, development fees, processing and permit procedures, and site improvement costs. State and federal agencies play a role in the imposition of governmental constraints; however, these agencies are beyond the influence of local government and are therefore not addres sed in this analysis. These governmental policies often have positive and negative effects on housing and thus contribute to the many constraints that are reviewed and used to develop housing objectives. While policies have the intention of encouraging availability and affordability of housing, these same policies can be seen as potentially constraining when met with other nongovernmental constraints.
Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of a General Plan designates the general distribution, location, and extent of uses for land planned for housing, business, industry, open space, and public or community facilities. As it applies to housing, the Land Use Element establishes a range of residential land use categories, specifies densities (typically expressed as dwelling units per acre), and suggests the types and locations of housing appropriate in a community.
Residential development is implemented through the zoning districts, use classifications, development regulations, and design standards specified in the jurisdiction’s zoning code.
The City of Jurupa Valley adopted the County of Riverside General Plan upon the City’s incorporation in 2011. In 2017, the City then developed and adopted the current General Plan.
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-79
Types of Residential Communities
The governmental factor that most directly influences the types and character of residential communities, as well as market conditions, is the allowable density range of residentially designated land. These densities reflect the type of housing expected in each development, allowing for developers to build in larger scale. In general, higher densities allow developers to take advantage of economies of scale, reduce the per -unit cost of land and improvements, and reduce developments costs associated with ne w housing construction.
Reasonable density standards ensure the opportunity for higher - density residential uses to be developed within a community, increasing the feasibility of producing affordable housing, and offer a variety of housing options that meet the needs of the community.
Table 5.48
summarizes the City’s 2017 General Plan land use
designations that will allow residential uses, as well as their permitted net densities (without density bonus). The 2017 General Plan provides a range of densities for single -family (up to 14 units per acre) and multi-family (14 -25 units per acre) housing development to accommodate a wide range of housing options.
Maximum allowed densities are established for all residential designations, and minimum densities are established to help ensure that land zoned for residential use will be developed as efficiently as possible.
The Zoning Code is the primary tool for implementing the General Plan Land Use and Housing elements. It is designed to protect and promote public health, safety and welfare, as well as to promote quality design and quality of life. The City of Jurupa Valle y’s residential zoning districts control both the use and development standards of each residential site or parcel, thereby influencing the location, design, quality, and cost of housing. Title 9 (Zoning) works with Title 7 (Subdivisions) to ensure that al l codes are met when developing new housing communities and neighborhoods.
Table 5.48: Jurupa Valley General Plan Residential Land Use Designations, 2017 Designation Description
Density Range
(du/acre)
Minimum
“Target”
Maximum
Allowed
Small Farm (Rural Residential – RR) • Single-family detached residences on large parcels of at least 5 acres.
– 1 unit per
5 acres
Ranch (Estate Density Residential –
EDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of at least 5 2 acres.
– 12 units per
25 acres
Rural Neighborhood (Very Low Density
Residential – VLDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of 1 to 2 acres.
– 12 units per
12 acres
Country Neighborhood (Low Density
Residential (LDR)
• Single-family detached residences on large parcels of ½ to 1 acre.
– 2 units
per acre 1 unit
per ½ acre
Medium Density Residential (MDR) • Single-family detached and attached residences with a density range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
2 units
per acre
5 units
per acre
Medium High Density Residential
(MHDR)
• Single-family attached and detached residences with a density range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
5 units
per acre
8 units
per acre
High Density Residential (HDR) • Single-family attached and detached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, patio homes, and zero lot line homes.
8 units
per acre
14 units
per acre
Very High Density Residential (VHDR) • Single-family attached residences and all types of multi- family dwellings.
14 units
per acre
20 units
per acre
Highest Density Residential (HHDR) • Multi-family dwellings, includes apartments and condominium.
• Multi-level (3+) structures are allowed.
20 units
per acre
25 units
per acre
Mixed Use Overlay (MUO) • Allows a mix of residential, commercial, office and other compatible uses.
• Flexible residential density and development standards are applied to encourage compatible, attractive, high-quality development.
8 units
per acre
20 units
per acre
*Town Center Overlay (TCO) • Applied to three historic core areas, namely Rubidoux, Pedley, and Glen Avon.
• Promotes infill and improvement of established town centers a more urbanized, pedestrian-oriented mix of residential, commercial, office, entertainment, civic, transit, educational, and/or recreational uses, or other uses is encouraged.
• Special Design Guidelines apply to the Pedley, Rubidoux and Glen Avon Town Centers
5 units
per acre
25 units
per acre
Source: Jurupa Valley General Plan
Housing
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 5-81
Development Requirements
Upon incorporation as a city, Jurupa Valley adopted the Riverside County Zoning Code by reference. Table 5.49 summarizes the City’s residential zoning districts and their development standards, as established in the County Zoning Code adopted by the City. Jurupa Valley has historically been composed of much larger, ranch style residential development, and the cur rent larger lot development standards are typical to the more rural areas of the State of California. These current development standards can be considered a constraint because they can create underutilized sites through the City. And when applied to new subdivisions, where smaller lot sizes are more compatible, the standards become restrictive to develop - ment. To resolve this issue, the City will be updating its Zoning Code to implement additional standards for multi- family and small lot subdivisions as part of the programs for this Housing Element.
Table 5.49: Summary of Residential Zoning Districts Development Standards Zoning
District
Minimum
Lot Size
(sq. ft.)
Minimum Lot Maximum
Building
Height
(stories/feet)
Minimum
Front Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Interior
Side Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Corner
Side Yard
(feet)
Minimum
Rear Yard
(feet)
Lot
Coverage
Width
(feet)
Depth
(feet)
Frontage
(feet)
RR 21,780 80 -- -- 40-50 -- -- -- -- --
R-1/R-1A 7,200 60 100 60 3-story/40 20 10% of lot width 10 10 50% R-A 20,000 100 150 -- 40-50 20 -- -- -- --
R-2 7,200 -- -- -- 3-story/40 20 10% of lot width 10 10 60% R-2A 7,200 -- -- -- 2-story/30 20 5 -- 10 60%
R-3 7,200 60 100 -- 50-75 10 5 10 10 50%
R-3A 9,000 -- -- -- 50-75 10 5 10 10 50%
R-4 3,500 40 80 -- 40-50 20 5 10 10 –
R-5 None n/a n/a n/a 50-75 50 50 50 50 –
R-6 5,000 -- -- 30 35-50 10 – – 10 –
R-T 3,600/7,200 40/60 100 30/45 40 20 5 5 5 –
PUD -- -- -- -- -- 10 5 10 10 varies
Parking Requirements
Table 5.50 summarizes the residential parking requirements in Jurupa Valley. Parking requirements do not constrain the development of housing directly. However, parking requirements may reduce the amount of available lot areas for residential development. The City determines the required number of parking spaces based on the type and size of the residential unit and has found the required parking spaces to be necessary to accommodate the number of vehicles typically associated with each residence.