Agenda — Jurupa Valley City Council, February 15, 2024 (part 4 of 12)

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

CONSISTENT ZONE DISTIRCTS” TO CORRE CT
INNACCRACIES; AND 3) MAKE OTHR UPDATES AND

CLARIFICAITIONS

Community Development Director, Joe Perez, provided an
overview of the public hearing process and requested this project to be continued to the January 10, 2024 Planning Commission meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
None.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

COMMISSION DISCUSSION:

None.

Chair Pro Tem Penny Newman moved and Commissioner Pruit t seconded to open the public hearing and continue the public hearing to the January 10, 2024.

The motion approved (4-0) with Commissioner Jackson absent.

Ayes: Schultz, Newman, Pruitt, and Villagomez

Noes: None.

Abstained: None.

Absent: Jackson

PUBLIC HEARING
ITEM# 5 MASTER APPLICATION NO. 21256 : GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT (GPA) NO. 21008 ; & TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP (TTM) NO. 38171- SADDLEHORWN RANCH
RESIDENTIAL. A 19.36-ACRE SUB-DIVISION CONSISTING
OF31 SINGLE -FAMILY LOTS AND CERTIFYING AN

ENVIORMENTAL IMPACT REPOSRT, MAKING FINDINGS,

ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING

CONSIDERATIONS AND ADOPTI NG A MITIGATION

MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
SADDLEHORN RANCH RESIDENTIAL.

Principal Planner Gorham provided a PowerPoint presentation of the proposed project.

Page 3 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Commissioner Villagomez asked if there are other emergency access point besides Limonite Frontage and if Limonite Frontage could be made into a full access point (entrance or exit).

Principal Planner Gorham clarified that the access point on Limonite Frontage is for emergency access only and it cannot be constructed as a full access point.

Commissioner Villagomez asked if there would be any multi-use, path or horse trails as part of this proposed project.

Principal Planner Gorham stated the project would provide a trail on Riverview but it would not be within the project site.

Commissioner Villagomez requested the reason that the trail would not be provided on-site.

Principal Planner Gorham explained that there is no requirement to provide a trail on-site.

Assistant Engineer Duran further clarified that the General Plan requires a Secondary Equestrian trail and that this project would provide an 8-foot wide DG trail on Riverview which would connect to future trails.

Commissioner Villagomez asked how many horses are allowed on a half-acre site and if anyone is living in the existing house on the site.

Principal Planner Gorham replied there is no limit to the number of horses and deferred the question regarding the existing house to the applicant.

Community Development Director Perez clarified that we will follow up on the total number of horses for this project.

Commissioner Villagomez asked Community Development Director Perez about the approval process if the applicant were to request for a subsequent density change if this proposed project is approved.

Community Development Director Perez responded that the applicant would have to bring the request back to the Planning Commission for recommendation and City Council for approval.

Page 4 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Commissioner Pruitt asked if a Knox box would open the gates if there was an emergency and required evacuation.

Principal Planner Gorham responded the Fire Department and Homeowners’ Association would have access.

Commissioner Pruitt asked for clarifications to recommended Airport Land Use Commission’s condition of approval that prohibits certain uses including buildings with more than 3 above -ground habitable floors.

Principal Planner Gorham responded that the homeowner would only be allowed to build a home with a maximum of three habitable floors.

This limitation would gene rally be applied to additions since the developer are building one-story homes.

Commissioner Pruitt asked if this limitation would apply to ADUs.

Principal Planner Gorham stated the limitation would apply to ADUs.

Commissioner Pruitt asked about the pl ans for the existing electric poles and the location of those poles she saw.

Assistant Engineer Duran responded that there is an existing Edison easement on the project site . The easement and power poles would remain on-site.

Commissioner Pruitt asked for clarity about the reference to HAZ -1 mitigation measure.

Principal Planner Gorham clarified that is the number for a mitigation measure under the Hazards section of the E nvironmental Impact Report.

Commissioner Pruitt asked about the prior use as a ranch and the differences between General Plan land use designations of Ranch (EDR) and Country Neighborhood (LDR).

Principal Planner Gorham answered that the applicant could respond to the prior use, and clarified that both land use designations provide for agriculture and single-family residential. The main difference would be the maximum density for each of the land use designation.

The proposed land use designation would allow a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre. The zone would remain as A-1.

Page 5 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Commissioner Pruitt requested confirmation that the recommendation includes imposing mitigation measures as conditions of approval.

Principal Planner Gorham confirmed the mitigation measures are recommended as conditions as well.

Commissioner Newman men tioned she has some reservations on overruling a Committee such as Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). She inquired if the project would pose a problem to public health and safety if there would be a crash.

Principal Planner Gorham mentioned that this project would not pose a public health and safety issue because of the analysis and conclusion of the a eronautic study and FAA issued “No Hazard to Air Navigation” determination letters for each of the proposed 31 lots .

Based on the aeronautic study and FAA’s issued determinations, there is no potential hazard and the project would not have significant impacts on these airport safety and flight operations . He furthered provide information of the 45- day notice of Planning Commission’s recommendation to ALUC for comment.

CEQA Administrator Perea provided an explanation that, with the adoption of the 2017 General Plan, there are large parts of the City that are incompatible with the Airport Land Use Plan. The situation is not only on this project site.

Commissioner Pruitt asked if ALUC is going to revise the Airport Land Use Plan.

CEQA Administrator Perea mentioned that the former Planning Director Merrell met with ALUC and it seems that ALUC was not in a position to revise the Plan yet.

Community Development Director Perez stated that he has discussed this issue with ALUC about two years ago and there is possibility of a solution in the future.

Community Development Director Perez mentioned that ½-acre lot could hold up to two horses.

PUBLIC HEARING OPENED

RC Hobbs, applicant, made himself available for questions.

Page 6 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Commissioner Pruitt asked the reason that the owner is selling the property.

The applicant mentioned that a project that meets the existing land use designation would not be feasible. This proposed project seems like it fits the surrounding area and has that big ranch feel and allows horses.

Commissioner Pruitt asked if the owner owned the existing home onsite.

RC Hobbs, applicant, mentioned that the existing home is a rental.

Commissioner Villagomez asked for the project’s timeline and the date of breaking ground.

RC Hobbs, applicant, mentioned that a grading permit application is pending review and groundbreaking is tentatively scheduled in April 2024.

Commissioner Villagomez asked the applicant if there was any community meetings or input about the project.

RC Hobbs, applicant, mentioned that they sent out notifications about the project to the surrounding areas.

Chair Shultz asked for confirmation if it has been a number of years since the project site was used as a ranch.

RC Hobbs, applicant, confirmed it has been a number of years since it was used as a ranch.

Donna Vilalta, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Melissa Gonzalez, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Adriana Gonzalez, resident, stated opposition to the project.

George Ruiz, resident, stated support for the project.

Carlos Rosas, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Rosa Sandoval, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Page 7 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Julie Shevette, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Michael Shevette, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Pamela Blyn, resident, stated opposition to the project.

Chair Shultz asked if the applicant would like to respond to the public comments and asked Community Development Director to state the list of concerns and inquiries from the public.

Community Development Director stated there was a question if the internal street would be private or public.

RC Hobbs, applicant, confirmed the internal street would be public.

Community Development Director asked the applicant to clarify the access to the Frontage road and would it be able to accommodate to emergency vehicles during an emergency.

RC Hobbs, applicant, responded that there is an emergency access proposed and traffic studies were completed and reviewed by the City. The emergency access was also reviewed by the CalFire.

Community Development Director stated one of the concerns is the retention basin.

RC Hobbs, applicant, responded that the retention basin was expanded and enlarged to meet the requirements for drainage.

Community Development Director stated one of the items was regarding a pole in the middle of the Edison easement and are there any plans to address it including water flowing through the easement and fence/walls.

RC Hobbs, applicant, mentioned that it isn’t on their property. The proposed fence would be up to the property line, then the easement is adjacent to the property, and current property’s fence. As part of the project, it allows for cross-lot drainage.

Community Development Director asked for clarifications of the project’s topography.

RC Hobbs, applicant, confirmed it is proposed on a slight incline as the lots are further north to allow big side yards and landscaping.

Community Development Director Perez stated there were
comments regarding the number of homes and the project’s design to fit into the surrounding neighborhood’s aesthetic and character.

Page 8 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

RC Hobbs, applicant, stated the intent is to provide a project that would fit into the existing neighborhood that would allow larger lots (1/2 acre) and yards, horse -keeping, pools, and other items on a larger lot.

Community Development Dir ector stated one of the questions is regarding multi-gen homes and asked applicant to elaborate.

RC Hobbs, applicant, clarified that multi- gen homes would allow other family members such as a grandparent could live in the home.

It sold well in the past, and people are looking for this type of home.

Community Development Director stated that the project is a market-rate project, but still needs to comply with Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The developer has the option to build two affordable homes or pay the in-lieu fee (approximately $310,000).

The funds from the in-lieu fee are used to build affordable housing in the City. Although it is not an affordable housing project, it contributes to affordable housing efforts.

Chair Shultz asked if the project complies with the parking standards.

Community Development Director stated the project complies with the standards.

Principal Planner Gorham further explained that there is available on-street parking in addition to the 2-car garage and driveway space.

Community Development Director stated that other animals, besides horses, are permitted and the lots would possibly accommodate the animals. Another comment was received that by activating this site it address public safety issues. CEQA Administrator Perea w ould address a question relating to wildlife corridor.

CEQA Administrator Perea responded that this project would not have indirect impacts to the wildlife corridor (Santa Ana River).

Community Development Director requested the applicant to confirm the sales price of the homes.

RC Hobbs, applicant, responded that the expected price for the homes are approximately $800,000.

Page 9 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Principal Planner Gorham requested the applicant to confirm the perimeter wall.

RC Hobbs, applicant, responded it would be block wall.

Community Development Director stated that we would expect it would be decorative block wall, and it should have a ranch aesthetic.

Principal Planner Gorham stated a requirement can be placed for vines on the walls to prevent graffiti.

RC Hobbs, a pplicant, stated there is a requirement for anti- graffiti coating on the block wall.

Assistant City Engineer Duran explained that the Edison easement is not on-site, and the City would contact Edison in efforts to clean- up the easement.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

PUBLIC HEARING REOPENED

Jim Martindale, property owner, explained that he had to remove the existing structures and that the existing home is not being used as a rental. Someone is illegally living in the existing home. He explained RC Hobbs is the only developer that would propose this level of density. All other requests he has received are higher density.

PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED

COMMISSION DISCUSSION:

Commissioner Villagomez mentioned that the homes are too large and would not be enough room for animals or trailers . She has concerns on how t he project would change the character of the neighborhood, lack of an on -site horse trail, si ngular internal road, and overruling ALUC.

Commissioner Newman mentioned that she is pleased with ½-acre lots; second emergency access point ; main access point is on Riverview instead of Limonite Frontage; and that ALUC would have a chance to respond and provide comments on the Planning

Page 10 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

Commission’s recommendation. Commissioner Newman is in favor of the project.

Commissioner Pruitt discussed that she is confident that the City is capable of addressing all the issues that were brought up in front of the Planning Commission. She recommended that the City Council look into ALUC’s conditi on that prohibits the more than three habitable floors as allowing three -story homes would block neighbor’s view.

Chair Shultz added that she likes the project and this project would create more lots that can accommodate horse keeping and other animals. The 31 new lots would add to the rural lifestyle in the neighborhood.

Commissioner Newman moved and Commissioner Pruitt seconded to adopt Resolution No. PC -2023-23, recommending that the City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program: 2) approve General Plan
Amendment No. 21008: 3) approve Tentative Tract Map No. 38171; and 4) overrule the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Commission’s (ALUC) Inconsistency decision to allow the development of a 19.36 -acre subdivision consisting of 31single - family lots.

The motion was approved (3-1) with Commissioner Jackson absent.

Ayes: Shultz, Newman, and Pruitt

Noes: Villagomez

Abstained: None

Absent: Jackson

COMMISSION None.

BUSINESS

PUBLIC COMMENTS/ No comments received.

APPEARANCE

Page 11 of 11 ends

Planning Commission Minutes
December 13, 2023

PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS’

REPORTS/COMMENTS
Commissioner Pruitt expressed her appreciation for those who contributed to the Christmas Parade and was happy with the turnout.

Commissioner Newman wished everyone Happy Holidays!
Commissioner Villagomez appreciated everyone coming out to these meetings and wished Happy Holidays. She also informed the residents that there will be a toy giveaway at Mary Tyo Staging area at Ridgeview and Limonite from 11:00 A.M. to 2:00 P.M.

Chair Shultz expressed her appreciation for the residents that attended the Planning Commission meetings and staff’s work. She invited the community to go to Christmas with Friends event at Vernola Park on Sunday December 17, 2023 12:00 P.M . to 3:00 P.M. and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

COMMUNITY Community Development Director Joe Perez provided DEVELOPMENT a reminder that City Hall is closed December 25 th, December 26th, and January 1st. There will be no Planning Commission meeting on December 27 th and the next meeting will be January 10 th. He thanked the Planning Commission for their leadership and direction to staff throughout the year and wished everyone Happy Holidays.

ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Shultz adjourned the meeting at 8:57 P.M.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________________________

Joe Perez, Community Development Director
Secretary of the Planning Commission

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 1 Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study Saddlehorn Ranch Project Final Report Prepared By: Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC Presented to: The City of Jurupa Valley

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 2 PROJECT SUMMARY: In Reference to CODE of FEDERAL REGULATION (CFR) TITLE 14 CFR PART 77, 7460-1 NOTICE OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION: Proposed construction of (31) 21ft AGL Residential Homes located in Jurupa Valley, California. The Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Group has issued “No Hazard to Air Navigation” Determination Letters for Lots/Homes 1 - 31. CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT: (1) 15ft AGL excavator will be temporarily used during construction. This Predictive Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation was analyzed using the process established in PROVISIONS 49 U.S.C., SECTION 44718.

Coordinates: ASN Corners Latitude Longitude SE (ft.) AGL (ft.) AMSL (ft.) 2022-AWP-21825-OE Lot_1_SE_Corner 33°58'59.22"N 117°25'33.83"W 787 21 808 2022-AWP-21826-OE Lot_1_SW_Corner 33°58'59.42"N 117°25'34.53"W 788 21 809 2022-AWP-21827-OE Lot_1_NE_Corner 33°58'59.80"N 117°25'33.53"W 785 21 806

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 3 2022-AWP-21828-OE Lot_1_NW_Corner 33°59'0.04"N 117°25'34.20"W 788 21 809 2022-AWP-21829-OE Lot_2_SE_Corner 33°58'59.67"N 117°25'35.10"W 795 21 816 2022-AWP-21830-OE Lot_2_SW_Corner 33°58'59.88"N 117°25'35.80"W 797 21 818 2022-AWP-21831-OE Lot_2_NE_Corner 33°59'0.19"N 117°25'34.85"W 793 21 814 2022-AWP-21832-OE Lot_2_NW_Corner 33°59'0.41"N 117°25'35.52"W 797 21 818 2022-AWP-21833-OE Lot_3_SE_Corner 33°58'59.95"N 117°25'36.43"W 798 21 819 2022-AWP-21834-OE Lot_3_SW_Corner 33°59'0.14"N 117°25'37.14"W 805 21 826 2022-AWP-21835-OE Lot_3_NE_Corner 33°59'0.54"N 117°25'36.14"W 800 21 821 2022-AWP-21836-OE Lot_3_NW_Corner 33°59'0.77"N 117°25'36.81"W 805 21 826 2022-AWP-21837-OE Lot_4_SE_Corner 33°59'0.29"N 117°25'37.73"W 808 21 829 2022-AWP-21838-OE Lot_4_SW_Corner 33°59'0.48"N 117°25'38.39"W 813 21 834 2022-AWP-21839-OE Lot_4_NE_Corner 33°59'0.87"N 117°25'37.40"W 806 21 827 2022-AWP-21840-OE Lot_4_NW_Corner 33°59'1.21"N 117°25'38.03"W 811 21 832 2022-AWP-21841-OE Lot_5_SE_Corner 33°59'0.74"N 117°25'39.00"W 812 21 833 2022-AWP-21842-OE Lot_5_SW_Corner 33°59'0.95"N 117°25'39.68"W 815 21 836 2022-AWP-21843-OE Lot_5_NE_Corner 33°59'1.36"N 117°25'38.68"W 813 21 834 2022-AWP-21844-OE Lot_5_NW_Corner 33°59'1.57"N 117°25'39.36"W 816 21 837 2022-AWP-21845-OE Lot_6_SE_Corner 33°59'1.05"N 117°25'40.42"W 820 21 841 2022-AWP-21846-OE Lot_6_SW_Corner 33°59'1.24"N 117°25'41.10"W 825 21 846 2022-AWP-21847-OE Lot_6_NE_Corner 33°59'1.56"N 117°25'40.16"W 819 21 840 2022-AWP-21848-OE Lot_6_NW_Corner 33°59'1.77"N 117°25'40.82"W 824 21 845 2022-AWP-21849-OE Lot_7_SE_Corner 33°59'1.39"N 117°25'41.67"W 827 21 848

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 4 2022-AWP-21850-OE Lot_7_SW_Corner 33°59'1.58"N 117°25'42.38"W 830 21 851 2022-AWP-21851-OE Lot_7_NE_Corner 33°59'2.01"N 117°25'41.34"W 825 21 846 2022-AWP-21852-OE Lot_7_NW_Corner 33°59'2.28"N 117°25'41.99"W 829 21 850 2022-AWP-21853-OE Lot_8_SE_Corner 33°59'1.78"N 117°25'42.87"W 834 21 855 2022-AWP-21854-OE Lot_8_SW_Corner 33°59'1.97"N 117°25'43.55"W 839 21 860 2022-AWP-21855-OE Lot_8_NE_Corner 33°59'2.39"N 117°25'42.57"W 834 21 855 2022-AWP-21856-OE Lot_8_NW_Corner 33°59'2.57"N 117°25'43.24"W 838 21 859 2022-AWP-21857-OE Lot_9_SE_Corner 33°59'2.07"N 117°25'44.18"W 841 21 862 2022-AWP-21858-OE Lot_9_SW_Corner 33°59'2.27"N 117°25'44.87"W 845 21 866 2022-AWP-21859-OE Lot_9_NE_Corner 33°59'2.67"N 117°25'43.88"W 842 21 863 2022-AWP-21860-OE Lot_9_NW_Corner 33°59'2.97"N 117°25'44.50"W 847 21 868 2022-AWP-21861-OE Lot_10_SE_Corner 33°59'2.48"N 117°25'45.45"W 848 21 869 2022-AWP-21862-OE Lot_10_SW_Corner 33°59'2.69"N 117°25'46.09"W 851 21 872 2022-AWP-21863-OE Lot_10_NE_Corner 33°59'3.10"N 117°25'45.16"W 850 21 871 2022-AWP-21864-OE Lot_10_NW_Corner 33°59'3.31"N 117°25'45.81"W 854 21 875 2022-AWP-21865-OE Lot_11_SE_Corner 33°59'2.85"N 117°25'46.36"W 853 21 874 2022-AWP-21866-OE Lot_11_SW_Corner 33°59'3.07"N 117°25'47.01"W 857 21 878 2022-AWP-21867-OE Lot_11_NE_Corner 33°59'3.51"N 117°25'46.07"W 856 21 877 2022-AWP-21868-OE Lot_11_NW_Corner 33°59'3.86"N 117°25'46.64"W 858 21 879 2022-AWP-21869-OE Lot_12_SE_Corner 33°59'3.54"N 117°25'47.43"W 863 21 884 2022-AWP-22315-OE Lot_12_SW_Corner 33°59'3.75"N 117°25'48.07"W 865 21 886 2022-AWP-21871-OE Lot_12_NE_Corner 33°59'4.12"N 117°25'47.17"W 865 21 886

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 5 2022-AWP-21872-OE Lot_12_NW_Corner 33°59'4.32"N 117°25'47.82"W 868 21 889 2022-AWP-21873-OE Lot_13_SE_Corner 33°59'3.87"N 117°25'48.61"W 868 21 889 2022-AWP-21874-OE Lot_13_SW_Corner 33°59'4.07"N 117°25'49.23"W 871 21 892 2022-AWP-21875-OE Lot_13_NE_Corner 33°59'4.50"N 117°25'48.31"W 869 21 890 2022-AWP-21876-OE Lot_13_NW_Corner 33°59'4.86"N 117°25'48.89"W 877 21 898 2022-AWP-21877-OE Lot_14_SE_Corner 33°59'4.50"N 117°25'49.61"W 877 21 898 2022-AWP-21878-OE Lot_14_SW_Corner 33°59'4.73"N 117°25'50.26"W 881 21 902 2022-AWP-21879-OE Lot_14_NE_Corner 33°59'5.16"N 117°25'49.33"W 880 21 901 2022-AWP-21880-OE Lot_14_NW_Corner 33°59'5.41"N 117°25'49.96"W 886 21 907 2022-AWP-21881-OE Lot_15_SE_Corner 33°59'4.72"N 117°25'50.77"W 883 21 904 2022-AWP-21882-OE Lot_15_SW_Corner 33°59'4.91"N 117°25'51.41"W 887 21 908 2022-AWP-21883-OE Lot_15_NE_Corner 33°59'5.49"N 117°25'50.43"W 889 21 910 2022-AWP-21884-OE Lot_15_NW_Corner 33°59'5.59"N 117°25'51.12"W 893 21 914 2023-AWP-1408-OE Lot_16_SE_Corner 33°59'6.75"N 117°25'49.81"W 893 21 914 2023-AWP-1407-OE Lot_16_SW_Corner 33°59'6.78"N 117°25'50.49"W 893 21 914 2023-AWP-1406-OE Lot_16_NE_Corner 33°59'7.29"N 117°25'49.51"W 893 21 914 2023-AWP-1405-OE Lot_16_NW_Corner 33°59'7.51"N 117°25'50.18"W 893 21 914 2022-AWP-21885-OE Lot_17_SE_Corner 33°59'6.84"N 117°25'48.49"W 890 21 911 2022-AWP-21886-OE Lot_17_SW_Corner 33°59'6.85"N 117°25'49.53"W 891 21 912 2022-AWP-21887-OE Lot_17_NE_Corner 33°59'7.45"N 117°25'48.51"W 890 21 911 2023-AWP-1409-OE Lot_17_NW_Corner 33°59'7.64"N 117°25'49.18"W 893 21 914 2022-AWP-21889-OE Lot_18_SE_Corner 33°59'5.84"N 117°25'47.81"W 876 21 897

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 6 2022-AWP-21890-OE Lot_18_SW_Corner 33°59'6.03"N 117°25'48.47"W 882 21 903 2022-AWP-21891-OE Lot_18_NE_Corner 33°59'6.51"N 117°25'47.51"W 877 21 898 2022-AWP-21892-OE Lot_18_NW_Corner 33°59'6.72"N 117°25'48.16"W 882 21 903 2022-AWP-21893-OE Lot_19_SE_Corner 33°59'5.39"N 117°25'46.74"W 869 21 890 2022-AWP-21894-OE Lot_19_SW_Corner 33°59'5.46"N 117°25'47.47"W 867 21 888 2022-AWP-21895-OE Lot_19_NE_Corner 33°59'6.05"N 117°25'46.46"W 870 21 891 2022-AWP-21896-OE Lot_19_NW_Corner 33°59'6.26"N 117°25'47.10"W 874 21 895 2022-AWP-21897-OE Lot_20_SE_Corner 33°59'4.79"N 117°25'45.78"W 860 21 881 2022-AWP-21898-OE Lot_20_SW_Corner 33°59'4.99"N 117°25'46.43"W 867 21 888 2022-AWP-21899-OE Lot_20_NE_Corner 33°59'5.36"N 117°25'45.51"W 863 21 884 2022-AWP-21900-OE Lot_20_NW_Corner 33°59'5.57"N 117°25'46.16"W 866 21 887 2022-AWP-21901-OE Lot_21_SE_Corner 33°59'4.53"N 117°25'44.59"W 852 21 873 2022-AWP-21902-OE Lot_21_SW_Corner 33°59'4.60"N 117°25'45.28"W 856 21 877 2022-AWP-21903-OE Lot_21_NE_Corner 33°59'5.19"N 117°25'44.29"W 852 21 873 2022-AWP-21904-OE Lot_21_NW_Corner 33°59'5.41"N 117°25'44.92"W 858 21 879 2022-AWP-21905-OE Lot_22_SE_Corner 33°59'3.90"N 117°25'43.12"W 841 21 862 2022-AWP-21906-OE Lot_22_SW_Corner 33°59'4.10"N 117°25'43.79"W 845 21 866 2022-AWP-21907-OE Lot_22_NE_Corner 33°59'4.48"N 117°25'42.88"W 841 21 862 2022-AWP-21908-OE Lot_22_NW_Corner 33°59'4.70"N 117°25'43.49"W 846 21 867 2022-AWP-21909-OE Lot_23_SE_Corner 33°59'3.32"N 117°25'41.84"W 832 21 853 2022-AWP-21910-OE Lot_23_SW_Corner 33°59'3.52"N 117°25'42.51"W 836 21 857 2022-AWP-21911-OE Lot_23_NE_Corner 33°59'4.03"N 117°25'41.47"W 833 21 854

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 7 2022-AWP-21912-OE Lot_23_NW_Corner 33°59'4.24"N 117°25'42.09"W 837 21 858 2022-AWP-21913-OE Lot_24_SE_Corner 33°59'3.01"N 117°25'40.40"W 824 21 845 2022-AWP-21914-OE Lot_24_SW_Corner 33°59'3.21"N 117°25'41.09"W 827 21 848 2022-AWP-21915-OE Lot_24_NE_Corner 33°59'3.52"N 117°25'40.12"W 823 21 844 2022-AWP-21916-OE Lot_24_NW_Corner 33°59'3.72"N 117°25'40.81"W 826 21 847 2022-AWP-21917-OE Lot_25_SE_Corner 33°59'2.61"N 117°25'38.82"W 815 21 836 2022-AWP-21918-OE Lot_25_SW_Corner 33°59'2.81"N 117°25'39.49"W 818 21 839 2022-AWP-21919-OE Lot_25_NE_Corner 33°59'3.24"N 117°25'38.51"W 814 21 835 2022-AWP-21920-OE Lot_25_NW_Corner 33°59'3.41"N 117°25'39.19"W 818 21 839 2022-AWP-21921-OE Lot_26_SE_Corner 33°59'2.19"N 117°25'37.40"W 809 21 830 2022-AWP-21922-OE Lot_26_SW_Corner 33°59'2.29"N 117°25'38.12"W 812 21 833 2022-AWP-21923-OE Lot_26_NE_Corner 33°59'2.82"N 117°25'37.06"W 809 21 830 2022-AWP-21924-OE Lot_26_NW_Corner 33°59'3.01"N 117°25'37.75"W 812 21 833 2022-AWP-21925-OE Lot_27_SE_Corner 33°59'1.71"N 117°25'36.04"W 800 21 821 2022-AWP-21926-OE Lot_27_SW_Corner 33°59'1.90"N 117°25'36.73"W 806 21 827 2022-AWP-21927-OE Lot_27_NE_Corner 33°59'2.31"N 117°25'35.73"W 801 21 822 2022-AWP-21928-OE Lot_27_NW_Corner 33°59'2.50"N 117°25'36.41"W 805 21 826 2022-AWP-21929-OE Lot_28_SE_Corner 33°59'1.44"N 117°25'34.61"W 794 21 815 2022-AWP-21930-OE Lot_28_SW_Corner 33°59'1.50"N 117°25'35.36"W 799 21 820 2022-AWP-21931-OE Lot_28_NE_Corner 33°59'2.05"N 117°25'34.28"W 793 21 814 2022-AWP-21932-OE Lot_28_NW_Corner 33°59'2.22"N 117°25'34.99"W 798 21 819

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 8 2022-AWP-21933-OE Lot_29_SE_Corner 33°59'0.95"N 117°25'33.33"W 784 21 805 2022-AWP-21934-OE Lot_29_SW_Corner 33°59'1.12"N 117°25'34.02"W 791 21 812 2022-AWP-21935-OE Lot_29_NE_Corner 33°59'1.47"N 117°25'33.06"W 785 21 806 2022-AWP-21936-OE Lot_29_NW_Corner 33°59'1.66"N 117°25'33.73"W 791 21 812 2022-AWP-21937-OE Lot_30_SE_Corner 33°59'0.70"N 117°25'31.92"W 782 21 803 2022-AWP-21938-OE Lot_30_SW_Corner 33°59'0.76"N 117°25'32.67"W 782 21 803 2022-AWP-21939-OE Lot_30_NE_Corner 33°59'1.30"N 117°25'31.60"W 782 21 803 2022-AWP-21940-OE Lot_30_NW_Corner 33°59'1.49"N 117°25'32.29"W 786 21 807 2022-AWP-21941-OE Lot_31_SE_Corner 33°59'0.22"N 117°25'30.76"W 776 21 797 2022-AWP-21942-OE Lot_31_SW_Corner 33°59'0.39"N 117°25'31.46"W 777 21 798 2022-AWP-21943-OE Lot_31_NE_Corner 33°59'0.83"N 117°25'30.45"W 779 21 800 2022-AWP-21944-OE Lot_31_NW_Corner 33°59'1.03"N 117°25'31.14"W 780 21 801 2022-AWP-22260-OE Excavator 33°59'7.29"N 117°25'49.36"W 902 15 917

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 9 Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study Closest Airport: Flabob Airport (RIR) NAS Facility: Precision Approach Path Indicator Closest RWY: RWY-6/24 PAPI PAPI - Precision Approach Path Indicator - a simple visual aid to assist pilots during their approach to landing. It enables pilots to acquire the correct glide slope and subsequently to maintain their position on it, thus ensuring an accurate approach and landing. Runway Elevation = 749ft. Bearing of RWY- 6/24 = 256.40º Bearing of structure = 258.50º Horizontal of Angle = 2.1º Distance from RWY- 6/24 = 0.84 Nautical Miles OCS Reference Angle = 1.75º Vertical Angle RWY- 6/24 = 1.85º Obstruction Height = 21ft AGL; 914ft AMSL Analysis of RWY- 6/24 PAPI Facility a. Analyzed, and determined the proposed structure(s)/construction is not within the protection area of the existing PAPI as defined in Figure 4-7. The proposal is not within this protection area, therefore further review is not required.

Figure 4-7. PAPI Protection Area

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 10 b. Calculated the angular position (horizontal) of the proposed structure from the Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) reference point. The OCS horizontal angle is measured from a reference point along centerline, 300 feet toward threshold from abeam the PAPI, extending out towards the landing aircraft to four statute miles (refer to Figure Figure 4-8. PAPI Obstacle Clearance Surface The proposed structure(s) is inside an area ± 15º horizontally from the OCS reference point, with a horizontal angle of 2.10º. The aeronautical hazard was successfully mitigated with the Federal Aviation Administration by lowering the structure(s) to NEH (No Effect Height). c. The PAPI facility is not sited to accommodate Height Group 4 (HG4) aircraft. NOTE: PAPI facilities serving primary runways at major airports are often sited to accommodate Height Group 4 aircraft (e.g., B-747, A-300, etc.). These PAPIs are typically located approximately 300’ further down from the runway threshold from a point abeam the Glide Slope (GS) antenna. If a PAPI is not suited for Height Group 4, the PAPI will typically be sited directly abeam the GS antenna. 15°
OCS Begins
OCS Upper Angle = GA – 1.17°
OCS Lower Angle = GA – 1.25°
(For Height Group 4 aircraft)
Glide Path Angle (GA)
OCS Reference Point
α Example
location of an
obstruction
XPAPI
300 ft
1000 ft (TYP)
36 4 SM Radius
15°
10°
10°
50 ft (+10,-0)

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 11 Figure 4-9. HG4 Siting Examples d. Calculated the OCS vertical angle, and determined the OCS vertical angle is not dependent upon the PAPI HG4 NOTE: If the PAPI is suited for Height Group 4 (or if height group cannot be determined), calculate the Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) lower vertical angle by using the following formula: OCS Lower Angle = Glide Path Angle – 1.75º NOTE: If the PAPI is not suited for Height Group 4, calculate the Obstacle Clearance Surface (OCS) upper vertical angle by using the following formula: OCS Upper Angle = Glide Path Angle – 1.17º RWY-6/24 Glide Path Angle is 3.0º. e. Calculated the vertical angle of the proposed structure(s) from the OCS reference point (refer to Figure 4-10). The elevation of the runway at the OCS reference point is 1.75º. 320' ORD RWY 28R(Sited for HG4)
MDW RWY 13C(Not sited for HG4)
PAPI
GS
MDW RWY 13C(Not sited for HG4)PAPI
GS

Allen Aviation Consulting Services LLC 1230 Peachtree ST NE, 19th Floor Atlanta, Georgia 30309 www.allen-aviation.com 12 Figure 4-10. Proposed Structure Vertical Angle f. The proposed structure(s) vertical angle is 1.85º which penetrates the OCS reference surface (1.75º) associated with RWY-6/24, and its horizontal angle is 2.10º, which is inside the 15º imaginary surface associated with RWY-6/24. The aeronautical hazard was successfully mitigated with the Federal Aviation Administration by lowering the structure(s) to NEH (No Effect Height). g. Determined the lateral limits of the PAPI visible light beam. NOTE: The PAPI flight inspection report states the lateral limits of the light beam for the PAPI serving RWY-6/24 Flabob Airport (RIR) are from 15º left to 13º right (right and left as seen by the pilot on approach to the runway). This PAPI is unrestricted i.e., it is usable within ±10° of runway centerline; however, the light can be seen by the pilot beyond the required coverage area. NOTE: Many Flight Inspection reports contain only “SAT” for the PAPI angular coverage and do not contain the actual measured angle data. In these cases, the lateral limits of the light beam would be considered “unknown” unless other data is available. CONCLUSION: Proposed construction of (31) 21ft AGL Homes on Lots 1 – 31 have all been issued “No Hazard to Air Navigation” Determination Letters by The Federal Aviation Administration. FAA Form 7460-2 shall be filed within 5 days of construction reaching its maximum height for each lot. •2 = obstruction
height
(AMSL)
Vertical angle=θ=tan−10(ℎ2−ℎ1)
𝑑6
Ɵ
•• = runway elevation at
the OCS reference
point (MSL)
** A negative angle indicates obstruction below facility reference point.

RWY
d=distance from OCS reference
point to obstruction (ft)

Guillermo Silva Mayor, Brian Berkson Mayor Pro Tem, Chris Barajas Council Member Leslie Altamirano, Council Member, Armando Carmona Council Member

8930 Limonite Ave., Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
Phone: (951) 332-6464, FAX (951) 332-6995
www.jurupavalley.org

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
December 28, 2023

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
Attn. Paul Rull, ALUC Director
4080 Lemon St., 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501

Sent via email: [email protected]

SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Overrule the Riverside Airport Land Use Commission finding of Inconsistency regarding Development Application MA21256 (GPA21008, TTM38171) For “Saddlehorn Ranch,” A Subdivision of 19.3 Acres Into 31 Single Family Lots At 6550 Limonite Ave (APN: 186-160-021)

Dear Mr. Rull:

On December 13, 2023, the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission voted to adopt Resolution No. PC-2023-23 (Attachment 1), recommending that the Jurupa Valley City Council 1) certify the Environmental Impact Report (Attachment 2) and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a Mitigation Monitoring and Report Program; 2) approve General Plan Amendment No. 21008; 3) approve Tentative Tract Map 38171; and 4) overrule the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) October 14, 2021 decision that the subject project to allow the development of a 19.36-acre subdivision consisting of 31 single-family lots is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

On February 15, 2024, the Jurupa Valley City Council is scheduled to consider the overrule of the ALUC’s October 14, 2021 decision that the subject project to allow the development of a 19.36- acre subdivision consisting of 31 single -family lots is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Pursuant to the Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 (b), the local agency (Jurupa Valley City Council) may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the Commission (ALUC) by a two- thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the Commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the Commission and the Division (State of Califo rnia Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division) a copy of the proposed decision and findings.
8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org
The Commission and the Division may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the Commission or Division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the Division or the Commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the Commission and division in the public record of any final decision to overrule the Commission, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.

The proposed findings to overrule ALUC that the City Council will consider are provided in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No.2023-23 and as outlined below:

Findings for Overruling of Airport Land Use Commission Inconsistency Determination. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby finds and determines that the determination made by the Riverside County ALUC, dated October 14, 2021, that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob ALUP, should be overruled because:
(a) The proposed Project minimizes the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Flabob Airport in that:
1) The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning the proposed construction of 31 homes that will be 21 feet above grade level on Tentative Tract Map No. 38171. All proposed
lots have been issued “No Hazard to Air Navigation” Determination Letters by The Federal Aviation Administration dated January 20, 2023
.
2) The Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan depicts a portion of the Project being located within the 55 -60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL”) contour range from aircraft noise, and a portion outside the 55 CNEL contour range. Single family residences are 'marginally acceptable' in this noise contour. The proposed homes would be affected by aircraft generated noise. However, standard construction is normally considered to provide for a 15 dB reduction from exterior noise levels. A condition of approval has been included to incorporate noise attenuation measures into the design of the homes to such extent as may be required to ensure that interior noise levels from aircraft operations are at or below 45 CNEL. 3) The area adjacent to the subject property is primarily residential.

The area in between Flabob Airport and the Project site is open space near Flabob Airport and predominately residential thereafter. The area to the east of the Project site is open space and the Santa Ana River. The open space near Flabob Airport, combined with the large undeveloped space along the Santa Ana River provides an unusually large area in case an aircraft suffering a catastrophic failure requires an emergency landing location. The proposed Project does not, in any way, diminish this opportunity.
4) Any measures that would effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project regarding consistency with the Flabob ALUP density and open space requirements would require a reduction of residential units in the Project. Under the ALUP residential density provisions and the County Wide policy 3.31 (Infill) to allow doubling of the 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org
allowable densities only 7 units would be allowed in Zone C under the 0.4 du/acre, and 6 units in Zone D under the 10 du/acre allowable density. The maximum number of units under the ALUP would only permit up to 13 units, therefore the Project is inconsist ent with ALUP density requirements. No feasible mitigation is available to eliminate the identified inconsistency of the Project with the Flabob ALUP, related to density or open space. Despite the inconsistency with the ALUP, the proposed 31 homes at a density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre has been issued "No Hazard to Air Navigation" Determination Letters by The Federal Aviation Administration dated January 20, 2023. Further, the Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study prepared by Allen Aviation (Allen Aviation Report) for the Project concluded the buildings in the Project, as proposed, would not infringe on the imaginary surfaces of the navigable airspace or other safety criteria established for the Flabob Airport. Taken together, the Allen Aviation Report and FAA Determination Letters demonstrate the Project would not result in significant risks to airport operations or safety, or a significant risk to public health or safety.

In addition, the Planning Commission resolution No. 2023-23 contains the conditions of approval recommended by ALUC in the event of an overrule that will be considered by the City Council.

A notice of the February 15, 2024 City Council hearing on the proposed project will be provided to you under separate cover a minimum of 10 days prior to the hearing. Please forward any comments you may have on the proposed overrule decision and findings within 30 days of receiving this notice of decision and findings to overrule the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission's (ALUC) October 14, 2021 decision that the subject project to allow the development of a 19.36-acre subdivision consisting of 31 single-family lots is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (951) 332-6464 or via email at [email protected]

Sincerely,

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

_____________________________
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner

cc: Kevin Ryan, CAL TRANS Division of Aeronautics

8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. PC-2023-23

2. Draft Environmental Impact Report
a) Direct link:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/View/3049/DEIR_Saddleho rn-Residential-Project_Public-Review-Copy_9-29-23
b) Appendices available on the City’s website page under Development Services/Planning/Environmental Reports at “MA21269 The District at Jurupa Valley”: https://www.jurupavalley.org/DocumentCenter/Index/68

Guillermo Silva Mayor, Brian Berkson Mayor Pro Tem, Chris Barajas Council Member Leslie Altamirano, Council Member, Armando Carmona Council Member

8930 Limonite Ave., Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
Phone: (951) 332-6464, FAX (951) 332-6995
www.jurupavalley.org

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
December 28, 2023

California Department of Transportation
Division of Aeronautics
1120 N. State Street
Sacramento, CA 95814

Sent via email: [email protected] / [email protected]

Dear Mr. Ryan:

The proposed findings to overrule ALUC that the City Council will consider are provided in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No.2023-23 and as outlined below:

In addition, the Planning Commission resolution No. 2023-23 contains the conditions of approval recommended by ALUC in the event of an overrule that will be considered by the City Council.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (951) 332-6464 or via email at [email protected]

Sincerely,

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

_____________________________
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner

cc: Paul Rull, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission

8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. PC-2023-23

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 19 of 19 ends

(g) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.

3. The "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" provided by ALUC shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property, and be recorded as a deed notice.

4. Any proposed stormwater basins or facilities shall be designed and maintained to provide for a maximum 48- hour detention period following the design storm, and remain totally dry between rainfalls. Vegetation in and around the basins that would provide food or cover for birds would be incompatible with airport operations and shall not be utilized in project landscaping. Trees shall be spaced so as to prevent large expanses of contiguous canopy, when mature. Landscaping in and around the basin(s) shall not include trees or shrubs that produce seeds, fruits, or berries.

Landscaping in the stormwater basin, if not rip- rap, should be in accordance with the guidance provided in ALUC "LANDSCAPING "EAR AIRPORTS" brochure, and the "AIRPORTS, WILDLIFE Ai""lD STORMWATER MANAGEMENT' brochure available at RCALUC.ORG which list acceptable plants from Riverside County Landscaping Guide or other alternative landscaping as may be recommended by a qualified wildlife hazard biologist.

A notice sign, in a form provided by ALUC, shall be permanently affixed to the stormwater basin with the following language: "There is an airport nearby. This stormwater basin is designed to hold stormwater for only 48 hours and not attract birds. Proper maintenance is necessary to avoid bird strikes". The sign will also include the name, telephone number or other contact information of the person or entity responsible for monitoring the stormwater basin.

5. Noise attenuation measures shall be incorporated into the design of the single family residences, to the extent such measures are necessary to ensure that interior noise levels from aircraft operations are at or below 45 CNEL.

6. If the project were to propose solar rooftop panels in the future, the applicant/developer shall prepare a solar glare study that analyzes glare impacts, and this study shall be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Commission.

7. An application to the Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Service shall be made to review the project's potential for height obstacle obstruction.

CHAIR
Steve Manos
Lake Elsinore

VICE CHAIR
Russell Betts
Desert Hot Springs

COMMISSIONERS

John Lyon
Riverside

Steven Stewart
Palm Springs

Richard Stewart
Moreno Valley

Michael Geller
Riverside

Vernon Poole
Murrieta

STAFF

Director
Paul Rull

Simon Housman
Jackie Vega
Barbara Santos

County Administrative Center
4080 Lemon St.,14th Floor.

Riverside, CA 92501
(951) 955-5132

www.rcaluc.org

RIVERSIDE COUNTY

AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

January 10, 2024

Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley CA 92509

RE: Resolution Overruling the Riverside C ounty Airpo rt Land Use Commission Determination of Inconsistency for ZAP1036FL21 ( City of Jurupa Valley Case Nos .

MA21256 [GPA21008] [TTM38171] (General Plan Amendment) (Tentative Tract Map))

Dear Mr. Gorham,

Thank you for providing us with the City of Jurupa Valley notice of intent to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission inconsistency determination for ZAP1036FL21 (MA21256 [GPA21008] [TTM38171] (General Plan Amendment ) (Tentative Tract Map) ) in compliance with Public Utilities Code Section 21676(b) regarding overrule procedure:

“The local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule the commission by a two - thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the division a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comm ents to the loca l agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings.” Additionally, “[t]he local agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final record of any final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a two- thirds vote of the governing body.”

The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) staff has reviewed the findings included in the draft Resolution (2023-23) to overrule ALUC’s determination of inconsistency on October 14, 2021, for ZAP1036FL21, and has provided the following comments:

1. The preamble states that the project minimizes public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards based on several findings , however, none of the findings specifically addresses the project’s inconsistent density with the Perris Valley Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) and the significant risk it would have on public safety where Zone C has a moderate risk level of 10% to 15% of general aviation aircraft accidents occurring.

2. Finding #2 noise analysis correctly depicts that the project would be ‘marginally acceptable’ within its noise contour. However, the analysis does not consider the potential likelihood of noise complaints made from fu ture residents regarding aircraft noise, thus impacting the overall status of the airport.

3. Finding #3 identifies several areas outside the project boundary like the surrounding vacant land and the Santa Ana River which could provide sufficient ALUC open area for an emer gency landing. This finding is inaccurate as private vacant land could be developed; the ALUCP requires ALUC open area be provided as part of the project boundary; and the Santa Ana River vegetation would not be consistent with the ALUCP

2 open space criteria of no objects greater than 4 feet in height and 4 inches in diameter.

The location of the Santa Ana River is also approximately 2,000 feet south of the project, which in the event of an aircraft stall from takeoff may be too far to reach in an aircraft emergency. The ALUCP requires sufficient open area be provided within project boundaries in the event of an emergency aircraft landing, which the proposed project fails to provide, jeopardizing the public safety.

4. Finding #4 misrepresents the facts concerning F ederal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Service (FAA OES) study’s no hazard to air navigation letter. The FAA OES scope of revie w is only specific to whether a height of a building or object would be an impact to aircraft as required pu rsuant to Public Utilit ies Code section 21659(a), which provides the following: “No person shall construct or alter any structure or permit any natural growth to grow at a height which exceeds the obstruction standards set forth in the regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration relating to objects affecting navigable airspace contained in Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 77, Subpart C, unless the Federal Aviation Administration has determined that the construction, alteration, or growth does not constitute a hazard to air navigation or would not create an unsafe condition for air navigation.” In the case of the proposed project, the FAA OES conclusion is that the project’s buildings/objects would not be an impact to air navigation due to height. However, the FAA OES scope and jurisdiction does not involve the review of density and other safety measur es (like the provision of open space), which is the jurisdiction of the ALUC. Stating that the existence of the FAA OES no hazard to air navigation letter demonstrates that the project would not result in significant risks to the airport operations or safe ty, or a significant risk to public safety is inaccurate.

In the event that the City Council deems it appropriate to overrule the dete rmination of inconsistency and approve the project, the City is encouraged to apply the conditions included in ALUC’s staff report on the project. Implementation of those conditions would not render the project consistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. They are recommended in order to minimize impacts on the continued use of the airport and to notify the public of the risk and the aircraft overflights, but cannot eliminate vulnerability in the event of an aircraft accident.

Sincerely,

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION

____________________________________
Paul Rull, ALUC Director

cc: Matthew Friedman, California Division of Aeronautics Jonathan Huff, California Division of Aeronautics
Michael Smith, California Division of Aeronautics
Beth La Rock, Manager, Flabob Airport
RC Hobbs Companies, Inc., Applicant
ALUC Case File

X:\AIRPORT CASE FILES\Flabob\ZAP1036FL21\ZAP1036FL21 Overrule Response Letter.doc

Guillermo Silva Mayor, Brian Berkson Mayor Pro Tem, Chris Barajas Council Member Leslie Altamirano, Council Member, Armando Carmona Council Member

8930 Limonite Ave., Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183
Phone: (951) 332-6464, FAX (951) 332-6995
www.jurupavalley.org

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
December 28, 2023

Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
Attn. Paul Rull, ALUC Director
4080 Lemon St., 14th Floor
Riverside, CA 92501

Sent via email: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Rull:

The proposed findings to overrule ALUC that the City Council will consider are provided in the attached Planning Commission Resolution No.2023-23 and as outlined below:

In addition, the Planning Commission resolution No. 2023-23 contains the conditions of approval recommended by ALUC in the event of an overrule that will be considered by the City Council.

Please let me know if you have any questions. I may be reached at (951) 332-6464 or via email at [email protected]

Sincerely,

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

_____________________________
Thomas Gorham, Principal Planner

cc: Kevin Ryan, CAL TRANS Division of Aeronautics

8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5183, (951) 332-6464 www.jurupavalley.org

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. PC-2023-23

Page 1 of 13 ends

PC Reso. No. 2023-
RESOLUTION NO. PC-2023-23

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF

THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,

RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFY

AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND ADOPT A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
NO. 21008, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 38171, AND

OVERRULE THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMMISSION’S DETERMINATION OF

INCONSISTENCY TO PERMIT THE SUBDIVISION OF
APPROXIMATELY 19.36 GROSS ACRES INTO 31 SINGLE-
FAMILY LOT S ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6550

LIMONITE AVENUE (SADDLEHORN RANCH)

THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Project. R.C. Hobbs Company (the “Applicant”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 21008 and Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 (collectively, Master Application No. 21256) to permit the subdivision of 19.36 acres into 31 lots on property located at 6550 Limonite Avenue (APN: 186-160-021) (the “Project”). The Project approval also requires the overriding of the Airport Land Use Commission’s finding of inconsistency.

Section 2. General Plan Amendment.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 21008 to change the General Plan land use designation on property located at 6550 Limonite Avenue (APN:186-160-021) from Ranch (EOR) to County Neighborhood (LDR) as depicted in Exhibit “A.”
(b) Section 9.30.010 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that any amendment to any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan, shall be adopted in accordance with the provisions of Section 65300 et seq. of the Government Code, as now written or hereafter amended, and Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (c) Section 9.30.010 (B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the initiation of proceedings for the amendment of any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (d) Section 9.30.040 (D) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the owner of real property, or a person authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property, shall have the right to apply for a General Plan amendment without having to request that the City Council adopt an order initiating proceedings for an amendment as detailed in Section 9.30.040 . Instead, the owner of real property, or a person

Page 2 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
authorized by the owner, seeking to change the land use designation on that real property may apply for a General Plan amendment through the Planning Department and pay the required fee.

Upon submittal of an application, the amendment shall be processed, h eard and decided in accordance with Sections 9.30.010 and 9.30.100 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. (e) Section 9.30.100 (1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 provides that when a city has a planning commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the planning commission shall hold at least one public hearing before approving a recommendation on the adoption of a general plan. (f) Section 9.30.040 (F) (2) provides that the Planning Commission resolution recommending approval of an Entitlement/Policy Amendment to the General Plan shall make the first two findings listed below and any one or more of the subsequent findings:
1) The proposed change does not involve a change in or conflict with:
the Riverside County Vision; any General Planning Principle set forth in General Plan Appendix B; or any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. 2) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. 3) Special circumstances or conditions have emerged that were unanticipated in preparing the General Plan.
4) A change in policy is required to conform to changes in state or federal law or applicable findings of a court of law.
5) An amendment is required to comply with an update of the Housing Element or change in State Housing Element law
6) An amendment is required to expand basic employment job opportunities (jobs that contribute directly to the city’s economic base) and that would improve the ratio of jobs-to-workers in the city.
7) An amendment is required to address changes in ownership of land or land not under the land use control of the city.
(g) Section 9.30.100 (2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within a reasonable time, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with a copy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall be reported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendation to deny the proposal. Further, Government Code Section 65354 provides that the planning commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan,

Page 3 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a majority of the total membership of the commission, and that the planning commission shall send its recommendation to the legislative body.
(h) Section 9.30.100 (3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendment of the General Plan, the City Clerk must set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.

Section 3. Tentative Tract Map.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38 171 a Schedule “A” subdivision to subdivide 19.3 acres into 31 single -family lots, one internal street, and one detention basin on the real property located at 6550 Limonite Avenue (APN: 186-160- 021).
(b) Section 7.05.020 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Jurupa Valley Planning Commission is designated as the “Advisory Agency” charged with the duty of making investigations and reports on the design and improvement of all proposed tentative Schedule “A” map. Further, Section 7.05.020 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is authorized to approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all such tentative map land divisions and report the action directly to the City Council and the land divider.
(c) Section 7.15.150 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that the Planning Commission is the advisory agency authorized to directly approve, conditionally approve or disapprove all such tentative maps.
(d) Section 7.15.130 (A) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that within fifty (50) days after the date of filing of a tract map and commercial parcel map, a public hearing on the map must be held before the Planning Commission. Section 7.15.130 (B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after the close of the hearing, the Planning Commission must approve, conditionally approve, or disapprove the proposed tentative map, file notice of the decision with the City Clerk, and mail notice of th e decision to the land divider, or his or her authorized agent, and any interested party requesting a copy. (e) Section 7.15.180 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires denial of a Tentative Tract Map if it does not meet all of the requirements of Title 7 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, or if any of the following findings are made:
1) That the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.
2) That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

Page 4 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
3) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the type of development.
4) That the site of the proposed land division is not physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
5) That the design of the proposed land division or proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
6) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements are likely to cause serious public health problems. 7) That the design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through, or use of, property within the proposed land division. A land division may be approved if it is found that alternate easements for access or for use will be provided and that they will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction. 8) Notwithstanding subsection 5) above, a tentative map may be approved if an environmental impact report was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. ), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.

Section 4. Overruling of Airport Land Use Commission Inconsistency Determination.
(a) The Applicant is seeking the City Council’s overruling of a determination made by the Riverside County A irport Land Use Commission (“ALUC”) that the Project is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob Airport Land Use Plan (“ALUP”). (b) Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b) provides that prior to the amendment of a general plan within the planning boundary established by the Airport Land Use Commission pursuant to Public Utilities Code Section 21675, a local agency must first refer the proposed action to the Airport Land Use Commission.
(c) Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b) provides that if the Airport Land Use Commission determines that the proposed action is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use Commission’s plan, the referring agency must be notified. (d) On October 14, 2021, ALUC found the Project inconsistent with ALUP due to the subject site’s location within Compatibility Zones C and D. Zone C limits residential density to 0.2 dwellings per acre and has a 20% open space requirement, and Zone D limits residential density from 0.2 to 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a 10% open space requirement.

Page 5 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
(e) Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b) provides that a local agency may, after a public hearing, propose to overrule an Airport Land Use Commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part 1 of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in Section 21670.
(f) Public Utilities Code Section 21670 (a) (2) provides that it is the purpose of Article 3.5 to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards w ithin areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.
(g) Public Utilities Code Section 21676 (b) provides that at least forty-five (45) days prior to a decision to overrule an Airport Land Use Commission, the local agency governing body must provide Airport Land Use Commission and the Division of Aeronautics a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The Airport Land Use Commission and the Division of Aeronautics may provide comments to the local agency governing body within thirty (30) days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the Airport Land Use Commission’s or the Division of Aeronautics’ comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the Division of Aeronautics or the Airport Land Use Commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body must include comments from the Commission and the Division of Aeronautics in the public record of any final decision to overrule a n Airport Land Use Commission, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body.

Section 5. Procedural Findings . The Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for MA No. 21256 was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On December 13 , 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 21256 at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters . Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing. (c) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

Section 6. California Environmental Quality Act Procedural Findings. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley make the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
(a) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal. Pub.

Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the proposed Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that St udy, City staff determined that the proposed Project could have a significant

Page 6 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
effect on the environment and an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
(b) Pursuant to CEQA, the City is the lead agency for the proposed Project because it is the public agency with the authority and principal responsibility for reviewing, considering, and potentially approving the proposed Project. (c) The City determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) would be required for the proposed Project and issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) on June 29, 2022. The NOP was sent to the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2022060680, responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and interested parties and posted on the City's website on June 29, 2022. The thirty (30)- day public review period ran from June 29, 2022 to July 28, 2022 with the purpose to receive comments and input from interested public agencies and private parties on issues to be addressed in the EIR for the proposed Project.
(d) Thereafter, the City contracted for the independent preparation of a Draft EIR for the proposed Project, including preparation and review, as applicable, of all necessary technical studies and reports in support of the Draft EIR. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City analyzed the proposed Project's potential impacts on the environment, potential mitigation, and potential alternatives to the proposed Project. (e) Upon completion of the Draft EIR on September 29, 2023, the City initiated a public comment period by preparing and sending a Notice of Availability (NOA) for the Draft EIR to all interested persons, agencies, and organizations; the NOA also was published in the Press Enterprise. The City also filed a Notice o f Completion (NOC) with the State Office of Planning and Research. The Draft EIR was made available for a forty -five (45)-day public review period beginning September 29, 2023 and ending on November 12, 2023. (f) Copies of the Draft EIR were sent to various public agencies, as well as to organizations and individuals requesting copies. In addition, copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at the Jurupa Valley City Hall and two J urupa Valley Public Library facilities (Glen Avon Library, and Louis Rubidoux Library). The Draft EIR was also made available for download via the City's website: http://www.jurupavalley.org. (g) In response to the Draft EIR, no written comments were received from various agencies, individuals, and organizations.
(h) The Final EIR will consist of the Draft EIR and all of its appendices, the comments and responses to comments on the Draft EIR, and clarifications/revisions to the Draft EIR. The Final EIR shall be made available to the public and to all commenting agencies at least 10 days prior to certification of the Final EIR, in compliance with Public Resources Code Section 21092.5(a).
(i) Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that the City, before approving a project for which an EIR is required, make one or more of the following written finding(s) for each significant effect identified in the EIR accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale for each finding:

Page 7 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR; or,
2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency; or, 3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (j) CEQA Guidelines Section 15093 requires that if a project will cause significant unavoidable adverse impacts, the City must adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations prior to approving the project. A Statement of Overriding Considerations states that any significant adverse project effects are acceptable if expected project benefits outweigh unavoidable adverse environmental impacts.
(k) CEQA Section 21081.6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to ensure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures. (l) The Planning Commission has heard, been presented with, reviewed, and considered the information and data in the administrative record, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony presented during the public hearings on the proposed Project. (m) Custodian of Records. The City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley is the custodian of records, and the documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based are located at the Office of the City Clerk, City of Jurupa Valley, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California, 92509.

Section 7. California Environmental Quality Act Substantive Findings . The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley make the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
(a) Declare that the above Procedural Findings are true and correct, and hereby incorporates them herein by this reference.
(b) Find that agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded ample notice and opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR and the proposed Project. (c) Find and declare that the Planning Commission has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference. (d) The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council certify the EIR as being in compliance with CEQA, adopt necessary Findings pursuant to CEQA and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and adopt the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting

Page 8 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
Program. The Planning Commission further determines that all of the findings made in this Resolution are based upon the information and evidence set forth in documents and testimony and upon other substantial evidence that has been presented at the hearin gs before the Planning Commission, and in the record of the proceedings.
(e) The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council impose as a condition on the Project each mitigation measure that will be contained in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
(f) The Planning Commission further recommends that the City Council direct staff to file a Notice of Determination as set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21152.

Section 8. Findings for Recommendation of Approval of General Plan Amendment. The Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley find and determine that General Plan Amendment No. 21008 should be adopted because:
(a) The proposed change does not invol ve a change in or conflict with the Riverside County Vision; any General Planning Principle set forth in General Pla n Appendix B; or any Foundation Component designation in the General Plan. (b) The proposed amendment would either contribute to the purposes of the General Plan or, at a minimum, would not be detrimental to them. 1) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

2.1 Residential Development to accommodate the development of single-family and multi-family residential units in areas appropriately designated by the General Plan, specific plans, the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay, and community and town center plans land use maps .

The proposed project is for a residential development on land that has a proposed General Plan Land Use Designation of County Neighborhood (LDR) which allows up to two dwelling units per acre.
2) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

2.3 Infrastructure policy to e nsure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. All street improvements, drainage infrastructure, and other utilities are found to be adequate to meet th e demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. 3) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

2.4 Housing Quality and Variety to accommodate the development of a variety of highest quality housing types, styles and densities that are accessible to and meet the needs of a range of lifestyles, physical abilities, and income levels. The proposed project introduces a high quality low density large lot traditional neighborhood housing type similar to housing types in the vicinity to meet the needs of a specific niche of people with a distinct lifestyle and income level. The proposed project includes next generation living spaces that include flexible rooms to serve the needs of multiple

Page 9 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
generations of family members and diverse lifestyles (e.g., rooms can serve as office, gym or game room).
4) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

2.9 Design Compati bility policy to e nsure that new residential developments are designed to be compatible with their surroundings and to enhance visually the appearance of neighborhoods and adjacent structures. The proposed project successfully incorporates California Mission and Farmhouse architectural styles that are compatible with the surrounding area. 5) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

10.9 Promote Unique Community Character to promote the development and preservation of unique communities in which each community exhibits a special sense of place and quality of design. The proposed project reinforces the larger lot low density rural community theme of the vicinity through its inclusion of high-quality California Mission and Farmhouse architecture, traditional neighborhood streetscape and landscaping, and enhanced entryways. 6) The General Plan amendment is consistent with Land Use Element

13.1 Fair Share Infrastructure Funding policy to require that new development contribute its fair share to fund infrastructure and public facilities, such as police and fire facilities, parks, streets, and trail improvements . The applicant would be required to contribute over $230,000 in Development Impact Fees which would be allocated to fund fire services, roads, parks, schools, libraries and other public facilities.
(c) An amendment is required to address changes in ownership of land or land not under the land use authority of the City Council. The Project site is under private ownership and the developer seeks to change the land use designation from Ranch (EOR) to County Neighborhood (LDR) to allow for the construction of the Project . A LDR change would allow a maximum of two dwellings per acre.

Section 9. Findings for Recommendation of Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 38697. The Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby recommend that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley find and determine that Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 should be approved because the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 meets all requirements of Title 7 (Subdivisions) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code as set forth below:
1) The proposed land division is consistent with applicable general and specific plans because the proposed General Plan land use designation of Country Neighborhood (LDR) allows for a maximum of 2 dwelling units per acre which will accommodate the proposed Project density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre. Furthermore, the map complies with Title 7 (Subdivisions) and Title 9 (Planning and Zoning), with the approval of General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 21008.
2) The proposed design or improvement of the proposed land division is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element 2.3 Infrastructure policy to ensure that circulation facilities, water resources, sewer and storm drainage facilities, and other utilities available or provided by the developer are adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and

Page 10 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
businesses. All street improvements, drainage infrastructure, and other utilities are found to be adequate to meet the demands of a proposed residential land use in addition to those services and resources required to serve existing residents and businesses. 3) The site is physically suitable to accommodate the subdivision as there is adequate water and sewer connections and public services are available to the site. 4) The project is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development in that it proposes 31 single -family residential dwelling units at a density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre which is below the maximum allowable density under the proposed Country Neighborhood (LDR) General Plan designation.
5) A tentative tract map may be approved if an EIR was prepared with respect to the project and a finding was made, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), that specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measur es or project alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. Here, the City Council will be asked to consider the adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations.
6) The project has been designed to not conflict with any easements, and does not incorporate any barriers to access or use of the property within the proposed land division.

Section 10. Findings for Overruling of Airport Land Use Commission Inconsistency Determination. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby finds and determines that the determination made by the Riverside County ALUC, dated October 14, 2021, that the proposed Project is inconsistent with the 2004 Flabob ALUP, should be overruled because:
(a) The proposed Project minimizes the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around the Flabob Airport in that:
1) The Federal Aviation Administration has conducted an aeronautical study under the provisions of 49 U.S.C., Section 44718 and if applicable Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 77, concerning the proposed construction of 31 homes that will be 21 feet above grade level on Tentative Tract Map No. 38171. All proposed
lots have been issued “No Hazard to Air Navigation” Determination Letters by The Federal Aviation Administration dated January 20, 2023
.
2) The Flabob Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan depicts a portion of the Project being located within the 55 -60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (“CNEL ”) contour range from aircraft noise, and a portion outside the 55 CNEL contour range. Single family residences are 'marginally acceptable' in this noise contour. The proposed homes would be affected by aircraft generated noise. However, standard construction is normally considered to provide for a 15 dB reduction from exterior noise levels. A condition of approval has been included to incorporate noise attenuation measures into the design of the homes to such extent as may be required to ensure that interior noise levels from aircraft operations are at or below 45 CNEL.

Page 11 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
3) The area adjacent to the subject property is primarily residential.

The area in between Flabob Airport and the Project site is open space near Flabob Airport and predominately residential thereafter. The area to the east of the Project site is open space and the Santa Ana River. The open space near Flabob Airport, combined with the large undeveloped space along the Santa Ana River provides an unusually large area in case an aircraft suffering a catastrophic failure requires an emergency landing location. The proposed Project does not, in any way, diminish this opportunity.
4) Any measures that would effectively mitigate the impacts of the proposed Project regarding consistency with the Flabob ALUP density and open space requirements would require a reduction of residential units in the Project . Under the ALUP residential density provisions and the County Wide policy 3.31 (Infill) to allow doubling of the allowable densities only 7 units would be allowed in Zone C under the 0.4 du/acre, and 6 units in Zone D under the 10 du/acre allowable density. The maximum number of units unde r the ALUP would only permit up to 13 units, therefore the Project is inconsistent with ALUP density requirements. No feasible mitigation is available to eliminate the identified inconsistency of the Project with the Flabob ALUP, related to density or open space. Despite the inconsistency with the ALUP, the proposed 31 homes at a density of 1.6 dwelling units per acre has been issued "No Hazard to Air Navigation" Determination Letters by The Federal Aviation Administration dated January 20, 2023. Further, t he Aeronautical Obstruction Evaluation Study prepared by Allen Aviation (Allen Aviation Report) for the Project concluded the buildings in the Project, as proposed, would not infringe on the imaginary surfaces of the navigable airspace or other safety criteria established for the Flabob Airport. Taken together, the Allen Aviation Report and FAA Determination Letters demonstrate the Project would not result in significant risks to airport operations or safety, or a significant risk to public health or safety.

Section 11. Recommendation of Approval of Master Application No. 21256 with Conditions. Based on the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley approve Master Application No. 21256 to permit construction of 31 single-family homes on 19.36 acres located on 6550 Limonite Avenue (APNs:186-160-021) which includes the following:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 21008 to change the General Plan land use designation of the property located at 6550 Limonite Avenue (APN:186-160-021) from Ranch (EOR) to County Neighborhood (LDR) as shown on Exhibit “A”; (b) Tentative Tract Map No. 38 171 to permit construction of 31 single-family homes on 19.36 acres located on 6550 Limonite Avenue (APN:186-160-021), subject to the recommended conditions of approval attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and (c) An o verrule of the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission’s Inconsistency decision to allow the construction of the Project.

Section 12. Certification. The Community Development Director shall certify the adoption of this Resolution.

Page 12 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 13th day of December, 2023.
______________________________
Laura Shultz
Chair of Jurupa Valley Planning Commission
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Joe Perez
Community Development Director/Secretary to the Planning Commission

Page 13 of 13 ends

Reso. No. PC-2023-23

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Joe Perez, Community Development Director of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. PC -2023-23 was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 13th day of December , 2023, by the following vote, to wit:

AYES: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

NOES: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COMMISSION MEMBERS:

___________________________

JOE PEREZ

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR

EXHIBIT A
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 1 of 19 ends

EXHIBIT B

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

1. PROJECT PERMITTED. MA21256 (GPA 21008, and TTM 38171) is for an approval to subdivide approximately 19.36 acres into thirty-one (31) single-family lots, street improvements individual lot and streetscape landscaping, retention basin, and walls and fencing collectively all on real property located at 6550 LIMONITE AVENUE (APN:
186-160-021).

2. INDEMNIFY CITY. The applicant, the property owner or other holder of the right to the development entitlement(s) or permit(s) approved by the City for the project, if different from the applicant (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitor”), shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City of Jurupa Valley and its elected city council, its appointed boards, commissions, and committees, and its officials, employees, and agents (herein, collectively, the “Indemnitees”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, fines, penalties, and expenses, including without limitation litigation expenses and attorney’s fees, arising out of either (i) the City’s approval of the project, including without limitation any judicial or administrative proceeding initiated or maintained by any person or entity challenging the validity or enforceability of any City permit or approval relating to the project, any condition of approval imposed by City on such permit or approval, and any finding or determination made and any other action taken by any of the Indemnitees in conjunction with such permit or approval, including without limitation any action taken pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), or (ii) the acts, omissions, or operations of the Indemnitor and the directors, officers, members, partners, employees, agents, contractors, and subcontractors of each person or entity comprising the Indemnitor with respect to the ownership, planning, design, construction, and maintenance of the project and the property for which the project is being approved. The City shall notify the Indemnitor of any claim, lawsuit, or other judicial or administrative proceeding (herein, an “Action”) within the scope of this indemnity obligation and request that the Indemnitor defend such Action with legal counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City. If the Indemnitor fails to so defend the Action, the City shall have the right but not the obligation to do so and, if it does, the Indemnitor shall promptly pay the City’s full cost thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the indemnity obligation under clause (ii) of the first sentence of this condition shall not apply to the extent the claim arises out of the willful misconduct or the sole active negligence of the City.

3. CONSENT TO CONDITIONS. Within thirty (30) days after project approval, the owner or designee shall submit written consent to the required conditions of approval to the Community Development Director or designee.

4. FEES. The approval of MA21256 (GPA 210008, and TTM 38151) shall not become effective until all planning fees have been paid in full.

5. INCORPORATE CONDITIONS. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the owner or designee shall include within the first four pages of the working drawings SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 2 of 19 ends

a list of all conditions of approval imposed by the project’s final approval.

6. APPROVAL PERIOD -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 38171 shall expire 36 months after the final approval date, unless within that period of time a final map shall have been approved and filed with the County of Riverside Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder.

7. CONFORMANCE TO APPROVED EXHIBITS. The project shall be in conformance to the approved plans approved by Resolution No. 2023 -12-13-01 (listed below) with any changes in accordance to these conditions of approval:
i. Project Plans (dated: 9/16/2022)

8. MITIGATION MEASURES. This project shall be subject to, and comply with, all of the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program adopted by the City Council Resolution No. 2023 -XX in connection with the adoption of an Environmental Impact Report prepared for the project.

9. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscaped areas shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in an orderly, attractive and healthy condition.

This shall include proper pruning, mowing of turf areas, weeding, removal of litter, fertilization, replacement of plants when necessary, and the regular application of appropriate quantities of water to all landscaped areas. Irrigation systems shall be maintained as approved on the final landscape plans in proper operating condition.

Waterline breaks, head/emitter ruptures, overspray or runoff conditions and other irrigation system failures shall be repaired immediately. The canopy trees shall be maintained in a manner that they provide the required shade coverage and encourages the canopy to grow to prov ide shade. Avoid topping trees or pruning the trees in a manner that the trees do not achieve mature height and form.

10. GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY. The applicant shall maintain the property including the removal of debris, weeds, abandoned vehicles, code violations, and any other factor or condition that may contribute to potential blight or crime.

11. EV CHARGING STATIONS. Each home shall be provided with a minimum of one (1) Electrical Vehicle (EV) Charging station. EV charging station plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.

The charging stations shall be fully constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the development project.

12. DRIVEWAY ENHANCEMENTS. All driveways shall have design enhancements such as decorative paving. Said enhancements shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the residential units of the development project.

13. UNDERGROUNDING OF DRAINAGE. Driveway and parking areas shall not incorporate center swales, ribbon gutters, concrete valleys, etc. All drainage in common and private use areas shall be underground and shall not incorporate open gutters or swales.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 3 of 19 ends

14. BACKFLOW DEVICES. The location of all backflow devices shall be approved by the City prior to installation. Backflow devices shall be located the greatest extent possible from the front property line.

15. STREET TREES. All street trees or internal drive aisle trees shall be a minimum of 36” box in size.

16. ALL - PLANNING REVIEW OF GRADING PLANS. Prior to the issuance of any grading permit, the aesthetic impact of slopes and grade differences where the project adjoins streets or other properties shall be approved by the Community Development Director.

17. OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE OF COMMON AREA. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be approved by the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to, or concurrently, the recordation of the final map, providing for maintenance of the property in perpetuity. The CC&Rs shall, at a minimum, include provisions such as the following items:
i. Formation of a Permanent Organization for the ownership and maintenance of all common areas including, but not limited to, landscaping, open space, common recreation, common parking areas, and circulation systems (areas) in perpetuity.
ii. The CC&Rs shall identify the common areas for ownership and maintenance.

The common areas shall include the following applicable items:
iii. Access and Circulation Areas
iv. Drainage Facilities
v. Landscaping and Irrigation
vi. On-site Lighting Fixtures
vii. Walls and Fences
viii. Community signage
ix. All on-site storm water and water quality management post-construction facilities and features (BMPs) shall require maintenance by the property owner(s).

Regulations for operations and maintenance shall be clearly stated in the CC&Rs.
x. A cross-lot drainage easement/agreement shall be required among parcel(s). xi. Other items the Community Development Director and City Engineer deem appropriate.

18. ON-SITE LANDSCAPING. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit of a residential unit of the development project, a “Professional Services” (PROS) application shall be approved by the Community Development Director. The PROS application shall include the following items:
i. Final (construction set) on-site landscape plans;
ii. Completed City Agreement for Landscape improvements SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 4 of 19 ends

iii. City Faithful Performance Bond for Landscape improvements; performance bond shall be posted at 110% of the total cost approved estimate of landscaping, irrigation, labor, and one- year maintenance. The Community Development Director may consider a cash bond if appropriate.

Prior to the issuance of the first Certificate of Occupancy for MA21256 (GPA21008, and TTM38151), the following events shall be satisfied in the order it is listed:
a. Substantial Conformance Letter: The Landscape Architect of Record shall conduct an inspection and submit a letter to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Division after the landscape architect has deemed the installation is in conformance to the approved plans.
b. City Inspection: The City landscape architect shall conduct an inspection of the installation to confirm the landscape and irrigation plan was constructed in accordance to the approved plans. Applicant shall pay any fees associate with the City inspection(s).

19. TRASH COLLECTION.
i. Detailed plans for trash enclosure(s) shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project . Walls of the enclosure and any solid gates shall have graffiti protection coating.
ii. An approval or clearance letter from the waste collection agency shall be submitted to the Planning Division prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.

20. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. All outdoor lighting fixtures shall be maintained in good condition. Light fixtures shall be shielded to prevent any light to flood onto adjacent properties. A photometric plan and exhibits of lighting fixtures shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.

21. WALL AND FENCE PLAN. A Wall & Fence plan, including elevations, colors, materials, and methods, which may include increased wall heights, to reduce noise impacts from the adjoining Camino Real Elementary School to the south shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit.

22. ROOFTOP EQUIPMENT. All rooftop equipment, including HVAC units, shall be screened from public view.

23. MAILBOXES. The design of all mailboxes shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the first building permit for a residential unit of the development project.

24. UTILITY METERS. Utility meters affixed to the exterior walls of buildings shall not be visible from the internal private streets. Where possible, exceptions can be made, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 5 of 19 ends

25. JURUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT (JARPD). Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit proof of satisfying any fees, dedications, or requirements by the Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District to the Building Official.

26. JARPD CFD. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall annex into the existing Jurupa Area Recreation and Park District (JARPD) District- Wide Community Facilities District (CFD) or form a new Community Facilities District (CFD) to contribute to the cost of park maintenance.

27. IMPACT FEES. The applicant shall the pay the following impact fees (unless exempt) in accordance to Title 3 of the Municipal Code:
i. Development Impact Fee (DIF) Program. The applicant shall pay any owed DIFs by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.75 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code. ii. Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation (MSHCP) Fee. The applicant shall pay any owed MSHCP fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.80 of the Municipal Code.
iii. Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) Program. Prior to final occupancy.

The applicant shall show proof of payment of TUMF fees by the required deadline pursuant to Chapter 3.70 of the Municipal Code.

28. INCLUSIONARY HOUSING. The Project is subject to Ordinance No. 2022- 14, Inclusionary Housing Requirement and Affordable Housing In- Lieu Fee. Within thirty (30) days after the project's approval , the applicant shall notify the Community Development Director , in writing, the method by which the applicant proposes to satisfy the inclusionary housing unit requirement and/or the inclusionary housing in-lieu fee requirement.

29. ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS. Architectural features and fenestration shall be continuous on all sides of the dwelling units . The building elevations, colors, and materials shall be approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the building permit.

30. SALE OF INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS. No structure constructed on Project site may be sold until the subject Project on which the structure is located is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with the City’s subdivision regulations such that the structure is located on a separate legally divided parcel.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 6 of 19 ends

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT

1. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (ENGINEERING)

1.1. The use hereby conditioned is for a Schedule “B” subdivision, Tentative Tract Map No. 38171 (TTM38171); being a subdivision of:

Parcel 2 of Lot Line Adjustment No. 4091, recorded as Instrument No. 1999-304302 in Official Records of Riverside County, California; also identified as Assessor's Parcels Number 186- 160-021. Exhibit titled Tentative Tract Map No. 38171, prepared by Robert Beers, dated July 10, 2023, are hereby referenced.

1.2. The Tract Map preparation shall comply with the State of California Subdivision Map Act and the City of Jurupa Valley Ordinance/Municipal Code and Riverside County Ordinance No. 460; as it pertains for Schedule “B” subdivision, unless otherwise modified by the conditions listed herein.

1.3. It is assumed that the tentative map is all inclusive of a parcel or parcels of land legally subdivided in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act, and local ordinance.

1.4. It is assumed that any easements shown on the referenced exhibit are shown correctly and include all the easements that encumber the subject property. The Applicant shall secure approval from all (if any) easement holders for all grading and improvements w hich are proposed over the respective easement or provide evidence that the easement has been relocated, quitclaimed, vacated, abandoned, easement holder cannot be found, or is otherwise of no affect. Should such approvals or alternate action regarding the easements not be provided, the Applicant may be required to amend or revise this entitlement and/or permit application.

1.5. A copy of the HOA Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall be submitted for review and approval of the City Engineer. The CC&Rs shall include but not be limited to access, easements, private and/or public utility easements as may be relevant to the project. In addition, by laws and articles of incorporation shall be included as part of the maintenance agreement for the onsite water quality Best Management Practices (BMPs). CC&Rs shall address the following:

1.5.1. A 5-ft Drainage Easement along the northerly and southerly boundary of the site as shown on the referenced exhibit(s).

1.5.2. Maintenance of Open Space areas.

1.5.3. Operation and maintenance of the EVA Secondary Access Road.

1.5.4. Operation and maintenance of onsite surface and subsurface drainage facilities. Language regarding maintenance of swale, drainage facilities, and of water quality management facilities and features (BMPs), by the owners of each individual lot shall be included in CC&Rs and/or agreement.

1.5.5. Residential lots within the Development shall be restricted to one driveway.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 7 of 19 ends

1.6. Installation of trash full capture system per Riverside County Standard No. 313 or as approved by the City Engineer will be required at all new and existing catch basins within the project site and public right -of-way to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

1.7. City Engineer is authorized to collect cash-in-lieu for pavement improvements on Limonite Frontage Road and Riverview Drive. The cash -in-lieu of construction fee shall be in form and amount approved by the City Engineer. A cost estimate shall be prepared by a licensed engineer, submitted for review to the Engineering Department, and approved by the City Engineer.

1.8. An encroachment permit is required for all work within the public right-of-way.

1.9. All landscaping, irrigation, and maintenance systems shall comply with the “Comprehensive Landscaping Guidelines & Standards” and Riverside County Ordinance No. 859 as adopted by the City.

2. PRIOR TO GRADING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)

2.1. In compliance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, Chapter 8.70, no grading permit shall be issued until the Tentative Map (TM) and all other pertinent Planning permits are approved and are in effect.

2.2. All grading shall conform to the California Building Code, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley, the City’s Municipal Code Title 8, and all other relevant laws, rules, and regulations governing grading in the City of Jurupa Valley and State of California. Prior to issuance of grading permit, grading plans shall be approved by the City Engineer, a site -specific grading agreement shall be signed by the City, and Applicant shall provide financial securities for the grading work, if applicable.

2.3. The Applicant shall prepare a “rough” grading plan or a combined “rough and precise” grading plan for the project site.

2.3.1. The grading plan shall be prepared under the supervision of a civil engineer licensed in the state of California (Project Civil Engineer) and he/she, including the Project geotechnical/soils engineer, must sign the plan. The printed name and contact information of the Project Civil Engineer shall be included on the face of the grading plan. The grading plan shall be approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.2. The grading plan shall provide for acceptance and proper disposal of all off - site drainage flowing onto or through the site. Should the quantities of flow exceed the capacity of the conveyance facility, the Applicant shall provide adequate drainage facilities and/or appropriate easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.3. The grading plan shall provide for protection of downstream properties from damages caused by alteration of the drainage patterns, i.e., concentration or diversion of flow. Protection shall be provided by constructing adequate SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 8 of 19 ends

drainage facilities including enlarging existing facilities and/or by securing a drainage easement(s), if necessary, as approved by the City Engineer.

2.3.4. Erosion Control Plans showing the following measures shall be submitted along with the grading plan for approval by the City Engineer. Temporary erosion control measures shall be implemented immediately following rough grading to prevent transport and deposition of earthen materials onto downstream/downwind properties, public rights -of-way, or other drainage facilities.

2.3.5. Applicant shall provide written proof and authorization from easement holders (if any) for work proposed over easements.

2.4. Prior to the approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a final geotechnical report for review and approval of the City Engineer for the project site.

All recommendations of the final geotechnical report shall be incorporated on the grading plan.

2.4.1. A project related preliminary soils evaluation report was previously prepared report prepared by Soils Exploration Company, Inc., dated July 5, 2021. The final geotechnical report shall address comments provided by Ninyo & Moore on the Interoffice Memorandum dated August 15, 2023, pertaining to the above-mentioned technical document.

2.4.1.1. Geotechnical Report shall reference final/updated plans for the project.

2.4.1.2. Grading recommendations for the excavation/installation of the water quality basin including outflow structures and its location to adjacent retaining walls and Riverview Drive shall be included in the Geotechnical Report.

2.4.1.3. Grading recommendations for retaining walls shall consider surcharge loads from adjacent existing/ proposed structures. Slope stability analysis of the entire site shall be included in the Geotechnical Report.

2.4.1.4. Pavement design recommendations for Riverview Drive, Limonite Frontage Road, ‘A’ Street, and the Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) Secondary Access Road shall be included in the
Geotechnical Report.

2.4.1.5. Infiltration and drainage recommendations; and additional liquefaction and subsidence studies for the site as suggested by Riverside County Map My County.

2.4.1.6. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the Final Geotechnical Report Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.

2.5. Prior to approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare a detailed final hydraulics and hydrology report corresponding with the detailed plans for grading, site development, storm drain improvements, and street improvements for review and approval of the City Engineer. A project related preliminary Hydrology SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 9 of 19 ends

Report was previously prepared by prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated July 2023.

2.5.1. Hydrology Report shall reference final/updated plans for the project.

2.5.2.Hydromodification and off-site hydrology impacts to Riverview Drive, along the project frontage and beyond shall be considered.

2.5.2.1. Mitigation measures for hydromodification will be required if analysis exceeds the threshold of 110% of the pre-development 2- year, 24-hour peak flow.

2.5.2.2. Include additional discussions and flowrate data for basin routing.

2.5.2.3.Offsite runoff from “A” Street, EVA Secondary Access Road, and the proposed Water Quality Basin shall be considered in the analysis and adequate provisions approved by the City Engineer.

2.5.3. Hydrology Report shall include the EVA Secondary Access Road and consider run -off from the access road; provide additional analysis and mitigation measures.

2.5.4. Hydrology Report shall be for the entire project site and consider any run-on and run -off to/from the site and include existing run -on from adjacent properties.

2.5.5. Analysis for the adequacy, design, and location(s) of the proposed PCC Interceptor Drain, Down Drain, Drop Inlet, Concrete Curb Drains, Catch Basins, V-Ditch adjacent to Lot 15; and the proposed 3- ft V-ditch along the project boundaries will be subject to the findings of the Hydrology Report and approval of the City Engineer.

2.5.6. All drainage and storm drain improvements shall be designed in accordance with Riverside County Flood Control & Water Conservation District's (RCFCD) standards. The receiving drainage facilities shall be analyzed to determine the extent of any downstream control or restrictions that might affect this site or other properties. All drainage improvements shall be designed to accommodate 100-year storm flows.

2.5.7. Drainage in streets shall comply with RCFCD standards which require that 10-year flows be contained within the tops of curbs and 100 -year flows be contained within the right -of-way. A maximum velocity of 6 -ft/s within the street shall be adhered to. Additi onal drainage facilities may be required in the streets as necessary to satisfy these requirements.

2.6. Prior to the approval of the precise grading plan, the Applicant shall prepare, or cause to be prepared, a final Water Quality Management Plan (F- WQMP) in conformance with the requirements of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (RCFC&WCD) for the Santa Ana River Watershed for approval of the City Engineer. A project related preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) was previously prepared by Hunsaker & Associates, dated July 17, 2023.

2.6.1. Include the addition of the EVA Secondary Access Road and provide additional analysis and mitigation measures.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 10 of 19 ends

2.6.2. Any onsite and offsite BMPs shall be designed and sized per the findings of the F-WQMP. Any changes to the proposed BMP sizing, design, and type; and impacts to the referenced exhibit(s), may require additional approvals.

2.6.3. The water quality basin (Lot “A”) shown on the referenced exhibit shall be operated and maintained by the City. The maintenance access road for the basins shall comply with Appendix C: Basin Guidelines of the Riverside County Santa Ana Water Shed Region Design Handbook for LID BMPs.

2.6.3.1. Proposed design of water quality basins shall be in compliance with Low Impact Development (LID) requirements (RCFC&WCD) and the City of Jurupa Valley.

2.6.3.2. Proposed basin shall demonstrate infiltration feasibility.

2.6.3.3.Proposed design of water quality basins shall provide for, but not limited to, maximum side slopes of 4:1, flat basin bottom, appropriate setback from retaining wall and foundations, and appropriate overflow outlet.

2.7. Post-construction water quality surface features and facilities such as basins and bio-swales shall be designed and installed per approved F -WQMP and approved by the Engineering Inspector.

2.8. For disturbance of one or more acres, the Applicant shall provide evidence that it has prepared and submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The SWRCB issued WDID number shall be included on the face of the grading plan.

2.9. If grading is required offsite, the Applicant shall obtain a written notarized letter of authorization from the property owner(s) to grade as necessary and provide a copy to the Engineering Department. It shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required easements and/or authorizations necessary to perform the grading shown on the site plan and grading exhibits.

2.10. Lots which propose retaining walls and/or free standing walls will require separate permits.

2.11. A hauling permit shall be required for the import/export of material using City streets per City’s Municipal Code Chapter 13.20; the import/export location and the haul route shall be reviewed and approved by the Engineering Department. If the import/export location is outside of City limits, the Applicant shall provide evidence that the jurisdictional agency has provided all necessary approvals for import/export to/from the site.

3. PRIOR TO TRACT MAP RECORDATION (ENGINEERING)
Final Tract Map

3.1. No Final Tract Map shall be recorded until all other related Planning cases are approved, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 11 of 19 ends

3.2. After approval of the tentative map and prior to the expiration of said map, the Applicant shall cause the real property included within the tentative map exhibit, or any part thereof, to be surveyed and a Final tract Map thereof prepared in accordance the City Engineer’s current requirements, conditions of tentative map approval, and in accordance with provisions of the City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.20. All processing is through the City of Jurupa Valley.

3.3. Prior to Final Tract Map approval, Applicant shall prepare a fully executed Subdivision Improvement Agreement (on City approved format and forms) with accompanying security as required or complete all public improvements. Provide a monument bond (i.e., cas h deposit) in an amount determined by the City or as specified in writing by the Applicant’s Engineer or Surveyor of Record and approved by the City Engineer.

3.4. All residential lots, common areas, and open space areas shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designated as numbered lots including lots designated for water quality purposes. Lettered lots shall be reserved for public and private roads.

3.5. Riverview Drive along and beyond the project boundary is classified as a Local Road in the General Plan Mobility Element and is planned to be improved as a Modified Collector Roadway with an ultimate right-of-way of 88 -ft. Applicant shall verify and dedicate half-width right-of-way for public street and utility purposes on the final Tract Map to provide 44- ft of right -of-way northerly from the centerline.

Applicant shall provide half -width improvements from project site to centerline unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.

3.6. Limonite Frontage Road along and beyond the project boundary is classified as a Local Road in the General Plan Mobility Element and shall be improved to join existing conditions northeast of the property as determined by the City Engineer.

3.7. Interior Street “A” shall be designed and improved to full width within the public right-of-way in accordance with Modified Riverside County Standard No. 105B as shown on Tentative Map exhibit. Applicant shall verify and dedicate full-width right- of-way for public street and utility purposes on the final Tract Map to provide 56-ft of right-of-way. Applicant shall provide full -width improvements unless otherwise determined by the City Engineer.

3.8. Prior to recordation of the Final Tract Map, the Applicant is required to secure and record an irrevocable offer of dedication for emergency vehicle access easement to construct the EVA Secondary Access Road as shown on the referenced tentative map exhibit.

3.8.1. In the event that (1) The Applicant has made all reasonable efforts, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, to contact all the property owner(s) involved and unable to secure said easement; or (2) final grading plans show that the EVA Secondary Access R oad is not feasible at the location depicted on the tentative map exhibit; Applicant will be required to relocate the EVA Secondary Access Road within the subdivision boundary and SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 12 of 19 ends

comply with the following minimum design standards:

• 24-ft pavement section with a 2-ft bench on both sides. Bench shall be measured from the edge of pavement/curb to hinge point. • The driveway approach connecting to Limonite Frontage Road shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 207.
• Minimum offset from existing driveways shall be to the City Engineer’s discretion.
• Final design shall comply with all requirements set forth by Fire Department and shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. • Cross sections and centerline profiles for the EVA Secondary Access Road to further assess proposed alignment, grading, layout of road, and connection to Private Street ‘A’ and Limonite Frontage Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

Changes to the EVA access road location may require the Applicant to amend or revise the proposed site configuration and will require clearance from the Planning Department.

Improvement Plans

3.9. The Applicant shall provide improvement plans for all onsite and offsite improvements including, but not limited to, street improvements, storm drain/drainage improvements, signing, striping and pavement markings, streetlights, landscape and irrigation sys tem, water system, and sanitary sewer system. Rights-of-way for streets and public utilities purposes shall be dedicated and shown on the final Tract Map in accordance with these conditions of approval, City Municipal Code/Ordinance and Riverside County Ordinance 461 (“Road Improvement Standards and Specifications”) as adopted by the City. All plans shall be prepared in accordance with the Riverside County Transportation Department “Improvement Plan Check Policies and Guidelines” as adopted by the City Engineer. All improvements plans shall be processed through the City for approval of the City Engineer.

It is understood that the tentative map exhibit correctly shows acceptable centerline elevations, all existing easements, traveled ways, and drainage courses with appropriate Q’s, and that the omission or unacceptability may require that the Applicant amend or revise the tentative map as may be necessary to all a finding that the Final Map is substantial conformance with the tentative map.

3.10. Riverview Drive along the project frontage is a City maintained road. Applicant is responsible for half-width street improvements, including but not limited to:

3.10.1. 30-ft pavement section (measured from street centerline to northerly flowline (FL) at the project frontage per the recommendations of the Final Geotechnical Report.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 13 of 19 ends

3.10.1.1. Any substandard or damaged pavement utility cuts and/or trenching that do not satisfy current City standards shall be required to be repaired, for approval of the City Engineer.

3.10.2. 14-ft parkway to include an 8- ft Decomposed Granite (DG) trail, 6- ft landscaping adjacent to curb, curb and gutter, and streetlights. A 2-ft bench shall be provided from back of sidewalk to toe of slope. Road cross - section, access point, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.

3.10.3. Proposed improvements shall transition to existing improvements north of the project site.

3.10.4. Improvement plans shall provide all necessary lane reduction transitions southerly of the site. The lane transition taper length shall be designed per the latest edition of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD).

3.10.5. Applicant shall prepare a Line- of-Sight Exhibit, and any existing and proposed landscaping within the projects line- of-sight shall be removed and/or relocated per the discretion of the City Engineer.

3.10.5.1. Applicant shall coordinate with the City to determine the appropriate action (i.e., removal, relocation, protection, salvage, etc.) for the existing palm trees along Riverview Drive.

3.11. Limonite Frontage Road along the project frontage is a City maintained road.

Applicant is responsible for half-width street improvements.

3.11.1. Improvements shall include, but not be limited to:

3.11.1.1. Realignment of curb to match existing curb and gutter improvements northeast and curb improvements west of the site,

3.11.1.2. Pavement widening and any match up of asphalt concrete paving, reconstruction and/or resurfacing of existing pavement as determined by the City Engineer.

3.11.2. Per City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 7.50.101 undergrounding may exempt or waived. A power pole is located at the frontage of the site and shall be evaluated using the Municipal Code referenced above.

3.12. Internal Public Street “A” is internal to the subdivision and shall be designated on the Final Tract Map as lettered lots.

3.12.1. 36-ft pavement section (18- ft northerly and 18 -ft southerly of centerline measured from FL to FL).

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 14 of 19 ends

3.12.2. 10-ft northerly and 10-ft southerly parkway shall include, but not limited to, 6-ft sidewalk adjacent to curb, 4 -ft landscaping, curb and gutter, and streetlights. Applicant shall consider maximizing curb frontage and provide a strategic placement of fire hydrants, streetlights, and mailboxes, as applicable. Road cross -section, intersection design, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.

3.12.3. Cul-de-sac shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 800 and provide a longitudinal slope less than 10%. Design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

3.12.4. Fire access turnaround located at the mid-point of Street “A” as shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designed and constructed per the approval of the City Engineer. Red curb shall be placed within the turnaround area.

3.12.5. Applicant shall provide additional cross sections and centerline profiles for “A” Street to further assess proposed alignment, layout of road, and connection to EVA Secondary Access Road and Riverview Drive.

3.13. EVA Secondary Access Road as shown on the referenced exhibit shall be designated on the Final Tract Map as an access easement for emergency vehicles.

3.13.1. The proposed gated EVA secondary access road shall be emergency vehicle access only. Access will be restricted for passenger vehicles within the subdivision.

3.13.2. Improved to be a 24-ft pavement section with a 2-ft bench shall be provided on both sides from the edge of pavement/curb to the hinge point.

3.13.2.1. The access point of the EVA Secondary Access Road shall be constructed per modified Riverside County Standard No.206 with a maximum width of 40-ft or as approved by the City Engineer.

3.13.2.2. The maximum road width shall be 24- ft and the ultimate design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer. Road cross- section, access point, road layout, and included improvements shall be as approved by the City Engineer.

3.13.3. Applicant shall coordinate with the Fire Department for the gated EVA secondary access road connection from “A” Street to Limonite Frontage Road as shown on the referenced exhibit. Compliance with all requirements set forth by the Fire Department shall be the sole responsibility of the Applicant. Proof of acceptance from the Fire Department shall be provided to the Engineering Department.

3.13.3.1. Access will be restricted to emergency vehicles only, for the purpose of accessing the public right-of-way. Signage prohibiting all other traffic shall be provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.13.3.2. Applicant shall provide additional cross sections and centerline SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 15 of 19 ends

profiles for the EVA Secondary Access Road to further assess proposed alignment, grading, layout of road, and connection to Public Street ‘A’ and Limonite Frontage Road to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

3.13.3.3. Access road shall be gated with a Knox Box Lock.

3.13.4. Applicant shall provide a line-of-sight exhibit at the intersection of the EVA Secondary Access Road and Limonite Frontage Road for review and approval of the City Engineer.

3.14. Intersection of “A” Street (NS) and Riverview Drive

3.14.1. Property line corner cut-back and curb return radius shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 805.

3.14.2. Construction of ADA compliant access ramps shall be required.

3.15. Improvements shall provide appropriate transition to adjacent existing and future infrastructure; design of transition shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

3.16. Residential driveway approaches connecting to the internal private streets/ private courts shall be per Riverside County Standard No. 207 and have a minimum driveway width of 12-ft. Driveway locations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.

3.17. Any damages caused by the construction of improvements shall be replaced or repaired in kind to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

L&LMD, CFD, and Special Districts

3.18. Should this project be within any assessment/benefit district, the Project Proponent shall make application for and pay any reapportionment of the assessment or pay the unit fees in the assessment/benefit district.

3.19. Prior to final map recordation, Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for operation and maintenance purposes of various improvements in the public right -of-way, as approved by the City Engineer. The formation or annexation to a CFD shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. CFD shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

3.19.1. Landscaping and irrigation as applicable;

3.19.1.1. All landscaping, irrigation and maintenance systems shall comply with the “Guide to California Friendly Landscaping” and Riverside County Ordinance No. 859.

3.19.2. Graffiti abatement;

3.19.3. Streetlights;
SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 16 of 19 ends

3.19.4. Water quality management features and facilities (BMPs) including the water quality basin on Lot “A”, as applicable;

3.20. Applicant shall form, or annex to if one already exists, a Community Facilities District (CFD) for City Public Safety Services. The agreement to form or annex to a CFD for Public Safety Services shall be in a manner to be approved by the City Engineer and City Attorney. Participation in a CFD is intended to fully mitigate the incremental impact of new development on City public safety costs and maintain such levels service at the standards established in the City’s General Plan.

3.21. Applicant shall pay all cost for formation of or annexation to CFDs.

3.22. If for any reason Applicant does not take the necessary steps to have the development included within a CFD(s) as required, Applicant shall, in a manner approved by the City Council and City Attorney, provide for alternative means of fiscal mitigation at a level equal to the special taxes established in the Rate and Method of Apportionment applicable to the CFD, as they may be adjusted from time to time.

Utilities

3.23. Separate sanitary sewer and domestic water system improvement plans shall be prepared for required improvements for approval of the Rubidoux Community Services District (RCSD) and concurrence of the City Engineer. Water system improvement plans showing the locations of fire hydrants (see Riverside County Standard No. 400) offsite and onsite must also be approved by Riverside County Fire Department. Necessary easements for sewer and water systems onsite, as determined by RCSD, shall be shown on the final Tract Map “to be dedicated by separate instrument”.

3.24. Electrical power, telephone, communication, street lighting, and cable television lines shall be designed to be placed underground in accordance with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Title 7. The Applicant is responsible for coordinating the work with the serving utility company. A disposition note describing the above shall be reflected on design improvement plans whenever those plans are required.

Written proof confirming initiation of the design and/or application or the relocation, issued by the utility company, shall be submitted to the Engineering Department.

4. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT (ENGINEERING)

4.1 The Applicant is responsible for the completion of all post -construction water quality BMP facilities and features. These facilities and features will require operation and maintenance in perpetuity by the Property Owner(s).

4.2 All improvement plans specified in these conditions of approval shall be approved by the City Engineer.

4.3 All utility extensions within the site shall be placed underground unless otherwise specified or allowed by these conditions of approval.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 17 of 19 ends

4.3.1 Utility extensions from the mainline or other points of connection within the public right-of-way require that the Applicant obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Engineering Department. The City shall make a final inspection of work to verify that any impacts that the work might have had to other City owned infrastructure is restored or repaired to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL INSPECTION/ CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY (ENGINEERING)

5.1. The Applicant is responsible for the completion of all grading within the corresponding parcel for which occupancy is requested.

5.2. A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall certify to the completion of grading in conformance with the lines and grades shown on the approved grading plans

5.3. Grading and construction of all infrastructure improvements within the public and private right-of-way in accordance with approved plans, with City of Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.70, and with all other applicable requirements, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.

5.4. The Project geotechnical/soils engineer shall provide a Final Grading Certification and Building Pad Certification, certifying to the completion of the grading in conformance with the approved grading plans, the recommendation of the Geotechnical/Soils report approved for this project and the California Building Code.

5.5. The Project Civil Engineer shall provide Record ("As -built") Drawings of grading and all infrastructure improvements

5.6. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, all improvements within the public and private right-of-way shall be completed and accepted by the City.

5.7. Prior to completion and acceptance of improvements or prior to the final building inspection, whichever occurs first and as determined by the City Engineer, assurance of maintenance is required by the completion of annexation into the City’s CFD for all applicable improvements specified in these conditions of approval.

5.8. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall complete the annexation into the City’s CFD for public safety.

5.9. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within the public right of way, required from this project, are energized.

5.10. Prior to the occupancy of any building, Applicant shall ensure that all streetlights within a 100- ft of any building along “A” Street, required from this project, are energized.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 18 of 19 ends

5.11. Prior to the first certificate of occupancy, Applicant shall obtain acceptance of applicable improvements by RCSD. Written proof shall be provided to the Engineering Department.

5.12. The Applicant shall comply with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 659 (Development Impact Fees, DIF), as adopted by the City, or later ordinance adopted by the City, which requires the payment of the appropriate fee set forth in the Ordinance in accordance with the fee schedule in effect at the time of the final inspection.

5.13. The Applicant is responsible to ensure all cash-in-lieu fees shall be paid to the City.

RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC)

1. Any outdoor lighting installed shall be hooded or shielded to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. Outdoor lighting shall be downward facing.

2. The following uses shall be prohibited:

(a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA - approved navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.

(b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport.

(c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. (Such uses include landscaping utilizing water features, aquaculture, outdoor production of cereal grains, sW1flower, and row crops, composting operations, wastewater management facilities, artificial marshes, trash transfer stations that are open on one or more sides, recycling centers containing putrescible wastes, construction and demolition debris facilities, fly ash disposal, and incinerators.)

(d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.

(e) Children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and buildings with more than three abovegroW1d habitable floors.

(t) Highly noise-sensitive outdoor nonresidential uses.

SADDLEHORN RANCH MA21256 (GPA21008 and TTM38171)

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-12-13-01

Page 19 of 19 ends

(g) Any use which results in a hazard to flight, including physical (e.g. tall objects), visual, and electronic forms of interference with the safety of aircraft operations.

3. The "Notice of Airport in Vicinity" provided by ALUC shall be provided to all prospective purchasers and occupants of the property, and be recorded as a deed notice.

7. An application to the Federal Aviation Administration Obstruction Evaluation Service shall be made to review the project's potential for height obstacle obstruction.

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment”

AERONAUTICS PROGRAM

DIVISION OF TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
P.O. BOX 942873, MS –40 | SACRAMENTO, CA 94273 –0001
(916) 654- 4959
www.dot.ca.gov

January 17, 2024

Mr. Thomas Gorham
Principal Planner
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509-5019

Dear Mr. Gorham:

One of the goals of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Aeronautics, is to assist cities, counties, and Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUC) in the development and implementation of policies that protect the safety and general welfare of the communities in which aeronautical activities take place. Caltrans encourages collaboration with our partners in the planning process and thanks you for including the Caltrans Aeronautics in the review of the proposed overrule of the Riverside County ALUC for Flabob Airport.

The Caltrans Aeronautics recently became aware of the Proposed Decision to Overrule the ALUC Determination of Inconsistency by the City of Jurupa Valley (City). This is regarding the proposed overrule of dividing the subdivision of 19.36 acres into 31 single family residential lots (Project), located westerly of Riverview Drive and easterly of Limonite Frontage Road, Jurupa Valley CA, near Flabob Airport.

On October 14, 2021, the proposed Project was found inconsistent by the ALUC with the current Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for Flabob Airport (ALUCP), adopted in 2004. The Project is located in the ALUCP’s Airport Compatibility Zone C and D of the Flabob Airport Influence Area, and exceeds the maximum density allowed both for residential density due to its proximity to Flabob Airport. It should be noted that the ALUCP limits residential units to 0.2 per acre for Zone C and either below 0.2 per acre or above 5 per acre for Zone D. This project is proposing over 1.6 residential units per acre, which is double the density allowed in the ALUCP even when considering the project as an infill project.

Caltrans Aeronautics has reviewed the proposed findings provided by the City and has determined the findings are insufficient to warrant this proposed overrule. Specifically, the findings are not consistent with the purposes of the statutes set forth in the California <Mr. Thomas Gorham >, <Principal Planner>
<January 17, 2024>
<Page 2

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Public Utilities Code (PUC) section 21670. These findings do not provide substantial evidence that the proposed Project will meet the requirements of PUC, section 21670(a) (1) and (2).

California Public Utilities Code, section 21670(a)(1) and (2),

It is in the public interest to provide for the orderly development of each public use airport in this state and the area surrounding these airports so as to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards adopted pursuant to Section 21669 and to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems.

It is the purpose of this article to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that m inimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses.

The City’s findings as to why this Project is consistent with the purp oses of PUC focus mainly on airspace protection, which is not the reason the ALUC found the Project inconsistent with the ALUCP. As mandated (PUC sections 21674(c), 21675, and 21676 (b)), the ALUC used the criteria of the ALUCP in making its determination of inconsistency. Thus, the ALUC is correct in its determination that the proposed residential density is incompatible with Zone C and D residential criteria. In addition, as for Finding Number Four , “No feasible mitigation is available to eliminate the identified inconsistency of the Project with the Flabob ALUP, related to density or open space.” The project has not designated any ALUC open area in the project, and there has been no significant effort made to meet the ALUC open space criteria.

It is important to note that pursuant to PUC section 21675.1(f), “i f a city or county overrules the commission pursuant to subdivision(d) with respect to a publicly owned airport that the city or county does not operate, the operator of the airport is not liable for damages to property or personal injury resulting from the c ity’s or county’s decision to proceed with the action, regulation, or permit.”

Caltrans Aeronautics agrees with the ALUC determination regarding this Project and supports their decision of inconsistency.

Please note: Caltrans Aeronautics comments are to be included in the public record of any decision to overrule the ALUC.

If you have questions or we may be of further assistance, please contact me at (916) 216-8689 or via email at [email protected]
.

<Mr. Thomas Gorham >, <Principal Planner>
<January 17, 2024>
<Page 3

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” Sincerely,

Yuying Ma
Associate Transportation Planner

c: Paul Rull, ALUC Director, Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission

Ray Desselle, Deputy District Director, Caltrans District 8

MA21256 Public No�ce Radius Map

11/29/23, 11:47 AM PROPOSED PROJECT MA21256 : (GPA1010 & TTM38171) - Thomas Gorham - Outlook about:blank 1/1
PROPOSED PROJECT MA21256 : (GPA1010 & TTM38171)
Adriana Gonzalez <[email protected]> Wed 11/29/2023 10:19 AM
To: Thomas Gorham <[email protected]>
To whom it may concern,
My name is Adriana Gonzalez and I live in Jurupa Valley. I am not okay with the proposed project listed above.
--
All the best,
Adriana Gonzalez
Senior Associate
California Alliance Group
www.Californiaalliancegroup.com
11/29/23, 12:09 PM Mail - Thomas Gorham - Outlook
https://outlook.office.com/mail/inbox/id/AAMkADI2MTY0ZDdkLTdjMmQtNGFlMC04NjQ5LTFmZjExYjQ4M2YzOABGAAAAAAAPoC9itMBoRY%2F7wa… 1/1 Comment: MA No.21256
Melissa Tsugawa <[email protected]>
Wed 11/29/2023 11:50 AM
To: Thomas Gorham <[email protected]>
Dear Community Development Department,
I am Melissa Gonzalez, owner of property 6008 Maverick Lane, Jurupa Valley and I strongly oppose the proposed Saddlehorn Ranch Residential project. A proposed designation change of EDR to LDR is a threat to the integrity, health, and growth of our equestrian community. Overall, I do not approve of the project. 6008 Maverick Lane is my childhood home where I was raised along with my three younger brothers. As current property owner, I intend to maintain it for the future of my children and grandchildren.

My brothers and I grew up with memorable stories of our horses, cows, chickens and goats but the most memorable of all was the ranch behind our home; the working ranch that once was on the property of the proposed project adjacent to our home. The people that worked at the ranch were our friends and we loved visiting the ranch as kids. When the ranch was sold, it was tragic for us to lose our friends then to see their homes be demolished. As kids we did not understand and were heartbroken, yet we kept our hopes up with the dream of another ranch. Unfortunately, we grew up and that lot has been empty ever since.

The change of designation to LDR would consequently never allow for another ranch. The amount of homes to be placed in this property will also change the dynamics of the community that has thrived as an equestrian community with another working ranch right next to the property, along with other small ones parallel to it. We would like to see the lot developed but not in this manner proposed.

I hold this community very dear to my heart for its love of nature and animals, especially horses. And hoped the ranch that once existed would come to be once again when I had kids and grandchildren, so they could have the same beautiful memories I have and hold very dear. The proposed project goes completely against our family and community values of nature and love of our pets/animals.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have any questions or comments please reach out to me through email: [email protected] or cell phone 951-966-6350. I will be at the meeting this evening if you need me to speak on behalf of my family.

Best,
Melissa Gonzalez
11/29/23, 11:47 AM Proposed project MA21256: (GPA21010 & TTM38171) - Thomas Gorham - Outlook about:blank 1/1
Proposed project MA21256: (GPA21010 & TTM38171)
Carmen Silva <[email protected]>
Wed 11/29/2023 11:17 AM
To: Thomas Gorham <[email protected]>
Dear Community Development Department
My name is Carmen Silva , long time resident of Jurupa Valley. The proposed project of Saddlehorn Ranch Residential is being proposed in my backyard, I do not agree with the designation change of EDR to LDR and I'm also concerned for the integrity of our equestrian community. Overall, I do not approve of the project. 5890 Emery st is my childhood home where I was raised along with my brother and sisters.

The amount of homes to be placed in this property will change the integrity of the community that has thrived as an equestrian community with another working ranch right next to the property, along with other small ones parallel to it. We would like to see the lot developed but not in this manner. I hold this community very dear to my heart for its love of nature and animals, especially horses. The proposed project goes completely against our family and community values of nature and love of our pets/animals. Thank you in advance for your consideration. If you have any questions or comments please reach out to me through email: [email protected] or cell phone 951-858-5509.

Best, Carmen Silva
11/29/23, 11:47 AM proposed project MA21256: (GPA21010 & TTM38171) - Thomas Gorham - Outlook about:blank 1/1
proposed project MA21256: (GPA21010 & TTM38171)
violet <[email protected]>
Wed 11/29/2023 10:28 AM
To: Thomas Gorham <[email protected]>
We are not in favor of this proposed project. As a citizen in the city of Jurupa Valley it concerns us. proposed project MA21256: (GPA21010 & TTM38171)
Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone
Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: FEBRUARY 15, 2024
TO
: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
F
ROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
S
UBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 15.B

PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS (GPA23018) TO: 1) AMEND TABLE 2-
4 “SUMMARY OF GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS”
BY ADDING MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES; 2) REVISE
TABLE 2 -5 “GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND
CONSISTENT ZONE DISTRICTS” TO CORRECT INACCURACIES;
AND 3) MAK E OTHER UPDATES AND CLARIFICATIONS AND

FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony regarding the proposed General Plan Technical Amendments, and then consider adopting Resolution No. 2024- 07 adopting the General Plan Technical Amendments and General Plan Amendment No. 21008, Saddlehorn Ranch, as part of Item No. 15.C, General Plan Amendments batch.

BACKGROUND
The City’s first Genera l Plan was adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2017.

Adoption of the General Plan was the culmination of over two years of public input, research, analysis and deliberation, which resulted in a robust planning document tailored to the City’s unique characteristics and circumstances. The General Plan consists of 11 chapters or “elements” that cover major planning topics. In addition to the eight State- mandated elements (Land Use, Circulation (Mobility), Conservation, Open Space, Housing, Safety, Noise, and Environmental Justice), the General Plan includes 4 optional elements: Air Quality, Community Safety, Services, and Facilities (combined with the required Safety Element), Healthy Communities, and Economic Sustainability.

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

From time to time, amendments to the General Plan are needed to reflect specific issues in the community. The City Council has approved several amendments to the General Plan since adoption, including amendments to change the land use designations on specific properties and a comprehensive update to the Housing Element in December of 2021.

As outlined in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.30.040, “Technical” General Plan Amendments “involve changes of a technical nature including, without limitation; statistical corrections; mapping error corrections; changes in spheres of influence and city boundaries; changes in Communities of Interest; editorial clarifications that do not change the intent of the General Plan or appendix information useful in interpreting the General Plan, but which does not change the General Plan intent.” The proposed amendments to the General Plan are technical in nature in that they involve minor changes to the document, do not involve changes to General Plan policies or land use designations, and would not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Like other General Plan Amendments, Technical General Plan Amendments are subject to the initiation requirements of Section 9.30.040.B, which provides that the City Council may initiate Gen eral Plan Amendment proceedings at any time and that such an order shall not require a public hearing and shall not imply that the amendment will be approved.

On June 15, 2023, the City Council approved a motion to initiate the proposed General Plan Technical Amendment.

On January 24, 2024, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and voted 4 to 0 to adopt a Resolution that recommended City Council approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment.

ANALYSIS
The City has identified several updates, clarifications and corrections to the General Plan, which require a General Plan Technical Amendment. These include: 1) the addition of minimum density requirements to residential land use designations in Table 2- 4; 2) additions and corrections to Table 2- 5 showing consistent General Plan and zoning designations; and 3) other needed updates and clarifications. The amendments are identified in strike-out/underline format in Attachment 1 with the major changes outlined below. Blue text identifies new text and red with strikeout text represents proposed deletions.

1. Table 2-4 – Summary of General Plan Land Use Designations Table 2-4 of the General Plan includes a comprehensive listing of all the land use designations in the City, including the maximum density allowed for each residential designation, the floor area ratio allowed for non- residential designations, and other notes and information. The table does not include minimum densities for the residential land use designations. Because of this, the City has generally interpreted residential projects at or below the maximum densities listed to be consistent with the General Plan density requirements.

During preparation of the 2021- 2029 Housing Element, the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) required the City to adopt minimum residential densities to establish density “ranges” for each residential designation

Page | 3

that development would need to achieve. This was required to ensure that development would not come in at lower than anticipated densities to ensure that available land is not underutilized and to promote smaller and more affordable units. Thus, the Housing Element includes Action Item 1.1.8 which requires the City to update General Plan density provisions to establish minim um density requirements. If approved, the establishment of minimum densities will require residential development to fall within the density range of the applicable land use designation to be consistent with the General Plan.

Table 1 below outlines the proposed changes to the residential densities outlined in Table 2-4 of the General Plan. It should also be noted that to offer maximum flexibility for new residential units in higher density residential projects, the minimum lot size specification has been removed.

Table 1: Proposed Changes to General Plan Table 2.4: Summary of General Plan Land Use Designations (Excerpt from Table 2.4) Residential
*Small Farm (RR) 1 DU per 5
acres
5 acres
minimum
• Single-family detached residences of at least 5 acres • Allows animal keeping and agricultural uses, recreational uses, compatible resource development (not including the commercial extraction of mineral resources), and governmental uses. *Ranch (EDR) 1-2 DU per
5 acres
2 acres
minimum
• Single-family detached residences of at least 2 acres • Allows agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses. *Rural Neighborhood (VLDR) 1-2 DU per
2 acres
1 acre
minimum
• Single-family detached residences of at least 1 acre
• Allows limited agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses.
*Country Neighborhood (LDR) 1-2 DU per
acre
½ acre
minimum
• Single-family detached residences of ½ to 1 acre
• Allows limited agriculture, intensive equestrian and animal keeping uses.
• Formerly designated RC-LDR.

Medium Density Residential (MDR) 2-5 DU per
acre
Up to 5 DU
per acre
• Single-family detached and attached dwellings with a density range of 2 to 5 dwelling units per acre.
• Limited agriculture and animal keeping is permitted; however, intensive animal keeping is discouraged.
• Lot sizes range from 5,500 to 22,000 sq. ft.

Medium-High Density Residential (MHDR) 5-8 DU per
acre
Up to 8 DU
per acre
• Single-family attached and detached residences with a density range of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre.
• Lot sizes range from 5,000 to 8,700 sq. ft.

High Density Residential (HDR) 8-14 DU per
acre
Up to 14
DU per acre
• Single-family attached and detached residences, including townhouses, stacked flats, courtyard homes, patio homes, and zero lot line homes.

Very High Density Residential (VHDR) 14-20 DU
per acre
Up to 20
DU per acre
• Single-family attached residences and all types of multi-family dwellings.

Page | 4

Highest Density Residential2 (HHDR) 20-25 DU
per acre
25 DU per
acre
• Multi-family dwellings, includes apartments and condominiums. • To achieve affordable housing goals, minimum target density set at 20 dwelling units per acre. Maximum base density is 25 dwelling units per acre.

2. Table 2-5 - General Plan Land Use Designations and Consistent Zone Districts Table 2-5 (see Attachment No. 2) summarizes the City’s land use designations and identifies which zones are consistent with each designation. However, one designation is missing several consistent zones and some zones are included in error. In addition, the table has been modified and a note added indicating that Specific Plan (SP) and Planned Unit Development (PUD) zones are consistent with all General Plan Land Use designations . Modifications to Table 2-5 are proposed as shown on Attachment 2 to correct inaccuracies and include missing designations and zones.

3. Incorporate Previously Approved Amendments
Three major General Plan Amendments have been approved in the last three years that need to be incorporated into the General Plan. These include the 6th Cycle Housing Element, Agua Mansa Industrial Development Center Overlay, and revisions to the Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element. a. 6 th Cycle Housing Element (GPA 21012). The 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2021 and certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on April 21, 2022. The adopted and certified Housing Element is available on the City’s website but has not yet been incorporated into the online General Plan document. This change will replace the 5
th Cycle Housing
Element with the 6th Cycle Element in the General Plan and add a note concerning the adoption to Page iii of the Introductory section of the General Plan. Exhibit A of the City Council Resolution incorporates the new Housing Element into the proposed revisions to the General Plan. b. A
gua Mansa Warehouse & Distribution Center Overlay. In 2021, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment to adopt the Agua Mansa Warehouse and Distribution Center Overlay and, subsequently, established this Overlay on two additional industrial projects: Agua Mansa Road Development, and The District at Jurupa Valley. These approved changes will be incorporated into the General Plan document. c. C
ommunity Safety, Services and Facilities Element Updates . The Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element was updated in May of 2023 to include a more comprehensive discussion of the local fire hazards including historical data on wildfire damage from 2007 through 2019, an updated map of wildfire severity zones that now includes essential public facilities, and a new map of evacuation routes with hazard areas. In addition, the policies and programs sections of the Fire Hazards section have been updated to reflect the requirements of the State laws mentioned above. The new and updated policies relate to development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Areas, Evacuation Page | 5

Standards, Fuel Modification, and Emergency Service Needs among other related topics. The new and updated programs include Emergency Preparedness Programs, Emergency Service Training, creation of Fire Safe Development Codes, and an update to the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Lastly, the Element was also updated to include a section on Climate Adaptation. Climate adaptation is the process of adjusting to climate change and to moderate its potential impacts. The new section includes policies related to developing adaption strategies and leveraging regional planning to align implementation strategies as well as programs including adaptation planning and public outreach campaigns with community-based organizations.

4. Other Minor Updates and Clarifications. Other minor changes include correcting references to figures, tables, and densities, adding a reference to the adoption of the 6th Cycle Housing Element and modifying Figures 2- 10, 2-16 and 2- 24 to correct the Rubidoux Town Center Overlay boundary and add the missing Business Park Overlay boundary. These maps are included as Attachment 3.

NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the Press Enterprise on February 5, 2024. At the time of preparation of this report, no comments had been received.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed amendments to the General Plan are exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s local CEQA Guidelines pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments could have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments involve technical changes to the General Plan document that will not result in any direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
Since this action was initiated by the Community Development Department, the City has incurred the cost of its preparation and adoption through its General Fund. The preparation of the technical amendments is estimated to have been approximately $15,000 - $20,000.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Recommended Action : That the City Council , b y motion, adopt Resolution No. 2024-05, approving the updates and corrections to the General Plan.

2. Decline to adopt the recommended Resolution to update and correct the General Plan.

3. Defer action and request additional information.

General Plan
Proposed Technical
Amendments
to the General Plan
February 2024

Jurupa Mountains

General Plan
Proposed Technical Amendments
to the General Plan

Community Development Planning Department
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

February 2024

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page iii

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

2017 General Plan
Adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2017 (Reso. No. 2017-14) Amended by the City Council on April 16, 2020 (Reso. No. 2020-19) Amended by the City Council on July 1, 2021 (Reso. No. 2021-54) Housing Element adopted by the City Council on December 2, 2021 (Reso. No. 2021-99
City Council
Guillermo Silva Verne Lauritzen – Mayor
Brian Berkson Micheal Goodland – Mayor Pro-Tem
Leslie Altamirano Brian Berkson – Council Member
Chris Barajas Anthony Kelly, Jr. – Council Member
Armando Carmona Laura Roughton – Council Member
Planning Commission
Penny Newman Matthew R. Burris – Chair
Arleen Pruitt William Hofferber – Chair Pro-Tem
Laura Schultz George Ruiz – Commissioner
Hakan Jackson Aaron Pfannenstiel – Commissioner
Frank Johnston – Commissioner
General Plan Advisory Committee
Frank Johnston – City Council Representative, Chair
Penny Newman – Member, Vice Chair
Laura Roughton – City Council Representative
John West – Planning Commission Representative
Robert Zavala – Planning Commission Representative
Robert Alleborn – Member
Patty Carver – Member
Lynne Craig – Member
Sheila Ehrlich – Member
Joe Forgiarini – Member*
Diana Fox – Member
Josie Gaytan – Member
Katie Hall – Member
Trent Hansen – Member*
William Hofferber – Member
Jason Horton – Member*
Susanna Hughes – Member
David Irish – Member*
Robin Kilcoyne – Member
Diana Leja – Member
Donald Oaks – Member
Christopher Piper – Member
Edward Quinonez – Member*
Brenda Reynolds – Member*
Ted Rozzi – Member*
Iris Sanchez – Member
Justin Scribner – Member*
Rosa Sifuentes – Member
Zina Whitney – Member
Randy Young – Member
Ron Young – Member*
(*Ex Officio refers to non-voting public agency members)

Page iv Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY

2017 General Plan

City Administration
Rod Butler Gary Thompson – City Manager
Michael Flad George Wentz – Assistant City Manager
Connie Cardenas – Director of Administrative Services
Alan Kreimeier – Finance Director
City Attorney
Peter Thorson – City Attorney
Maricela Marroquin Serita R. Young – Assistant City Attorney City Clerk
Victoria Wasko, CMC – City Clerk
Community Development Planning Department
Joe Perez – Community Development Director
Dianne Guevara – Deputy Community Development Director
Annette Tam Chyan – Planning Manager
Roberto Gonzalez – Senior Planner
Thomas G. Merrell, AICP – Planning Director
Mary P. Wright, AICP – General Plan Program Manager
Jeff Hook, AICP – Principal Planner
Ernest Perea – CEQA Administrator
Public Works/Engineering Department
Paul Toor – Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Octavio Duran – Assistant Engineer
Rob Olson – Transportation Manager
Jim Smith, P.E. – City Engineer/Public Works Director
Steve Loriso, P.E. – Deputy City Engineer
Consultants to the City
In the Preparation of the 2017 General Plan
Civic Solutions – Staff Services/Project Management
Tamara Campbell – Community Planning Services Manager
Jean Ward – Senior Vice President
HR Green – Engineering Services
LSA Associates – Environmental Documentation
Lynn Calvert-Hayes, AICP – Principal-in-Charge
Kent Norton, AICP – Lead Environmental Planner
Ambarish Mukherjee, AICP – Traffic Engineer
VTA Associates – Housing Needs Assessment
Veronica Tam – Principal
Thomas Communications Group – Public Outreach
Barbara Thomas – Principal
Document All Stars – Document Production
Karen Herb – Principal/Editor

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page v
Contents
1 – Introduction ................................ ................... 1-1 A. Welcome to the City of Jurupa Valley’s 2017
General Plan! ........................................................ 1-1 B. Overview ............................................................... 1-1 C. Vision Statement................................................... 1-2 D. Community Values ................................................ 1-2 A Community of Communities............................. 1-4 E. General Plan Elements ......................................... 1-4 The General Plan’s Purpose ................................. 1-8 Planning Context .................................................. 1-9 Background to the General Plan .......................... 1-9 Public Participation and General Plan
Workshops .................................................. 1-10 Public General Plan Workshops and
Stakeholder Meetings .............................. 1-10 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) .. 1-10
Planning Commission .................................... 1-11 City Council .................................................... 1-11 Using the General Plan ....................................... 1-11 Policy Interpretation ..................................... 1-12 General Plan Relationship to Other Plans
and Regulations ........................................ 1-13 Community and Specific Plans ..................... 1-14 Setting ............................................................ 1-15 Location ......................................................... 1-16 Unique Features ................................................. 1-17 Santa Ana River ............................................. 1-17 Jurupa Mountains/Pyrite Canyon................. 1-18
Pedley Hills .................................................... 1-19 F. Looking Ahead – Updating the General Plan .... 1-19
2 – Land Use Element ................................ .......... 2-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 2-1 General Plan Advisory Committee Guidance ...... 2-1
Primary City Goal .................................................. 2-2 Land Use Objectives of General Plan .................. 2-2 Land Use Assets, Issues, and Needs .................... 2-2 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 2-3 B. Background ........................................................... 2-4 Existing Conditions ............................................... 2-4 Existing Land Uses ................................................ 2-6 Land Use Plan ....................................................... 2-9 City Development Potential under This General
Plan .............................................................. 2-13 General Plan Land Use Designations and
Land Use Intensity .................................... 2-17 Promoting Economic Sustainability and
Prosperity .................................................. 2-23 Commercial Corridors ................................... 2-23 Preserving Historic Town Centers ................ 2-25
Preserving Jurupa Valley’s Small Town
Rural Character ......................................... 2-27 C. Land Use Element Goals, Policies and Programs2-27
Goals.................................................................... 2-27 Land Use Categories – Descriptions .................. 2-28 LUE 1 – Open Space ...................................... 2-28 LUE 2 – Residential ........................................ 2-32 LUE 3 – Commercial, Industrial and
Business Park ............................................ 2-37 LUE 4 – Public Facility/Institutional .............. 2-42 LUE 5 – Land Use Overlays ............................ 2-44 LUE 6 – General Plan Administration ........... 2-74
LUE 7 – General Plan Land Use
Implementation ........................................ 2-75 LUE 8 – Land Use Compatibility .................... 2-76 LUE 9 – Hillside Development ....................... 2-77 LUE 10 – Community Design and
Aesthetics .................................................. 2-77 LUE 11 – Project Design ................................ 2-79 LUE 12 – Infrastructure, Public Facilities,
and Services .............................................. 2-82 LUE 13 – Fiscal Impacts ................................. 2-82 3 – Mobility Element ................................ ........... 3-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 3-1 General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
Recommendations ........................................ 3-2 Primary Mobility Goal ........................................... 3-3 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 3-3 B. Background............................................................ 3-3 Setting and Regional Context ............................... 3-3 An Overall Mobility Vision .................................... 3-4 Public Participation/Intergovernmental
Coordination ................................................. 3-4 C. Mobility Element Goals, Policies, and Programs . 3-5 Goals ................................................................ 3-5 Policies and Programs .......................................... 3-6 ME 1 – Mobility Corridors ............................... 3-6 ME 2 – Roadway Network ............................ 3-11 ME 3 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities ...... 3-36
ME 4 – Equestrian and Multi-Purpose
Trails Network ........................................... 3-44 ME 5 – Public Transit ..................................... 3-53 ME 6 – Freight Movement and Airports ...... 3-59
ME 7 – Scenic Corridors, Street Character,
and Design ................................................ 3-66 ME 8 – System Operation, Maintenance,
and Funding .............................................. 3-70 4 – Conservation and Open Space Element .......... 4-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 4-1 Primary Goal ......................................................... 4-5 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 4-6 B. Conservation and Open Space Element Goals,
Policies and Programs ........................................... 4-6

Goals ...................................................................... 4-6 Policies and Programs .......................................... 4-8 COS 1 – Biological Resources .......................... 4-8

Page vi Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017
COS 2 – Wildlife Habitats .............................. 4-13 COS 3 – Water Resources ............................. 4-15 COS 4 – Agricultural Resources .................... 4-24 COS 5 – Renewable Energy Resources ......... 4-26
COS 6 – Non-Renewable Resources ............. 4-30
COS 7 – Cultural and Paleontological
Resources .................................................. 4-34 COS 8 – Open Space and Recreation
Resources .................................................. 4-41 COS 9 – Scenic Resources ............................. 4-43 COS 10 – Dark Skies ....................................... 4-48 5 – Housing Element ................................ ............ 5-1 A. Introduction........................................................... 5-1 Primary Goals ........................................................ 5-2 State Housing Element Requirements ................. 5-2 Consistency with Other Elements of the
General Plan .................................................. 5-3 Public Participation ............................................... 5-5 Website and Community Housing Survey ...... 5-5
Planning Commission and City Council
Study Sessions: Housing Element
Overview, Sites Inventory and New
Housing Laws .............................................. 5-6 Community Workshops................................... 5-7 Public Review Draft Housing Element ............ 5-7
Planning Commission and City Council
Joint Study Session: Final Sites
Inventory and Draft Housing Element ....... 5-8
Public Review of Draft Housing Element...... 5-10
B. Community Profile .............................................. 5-11 Data and Methodology ....................................... 5-11 Population Trends and Characteristics .............. 5-13 Historical, Existing, and Forecast Growth .... 5-13
Special Needs Groups ......................................... 5-20 Seniors ........................................................... 5-21 Persons with Disabilities ............................... 5-22 Persons with Developmental Disabilities ..... 5-24
Families with Children and Single-Parent
Households ............................................... 5-24 Large Households .......................................... 5-25 Extremely Low-Income Households ............. 5-26
Homeless Persons ......................................... 5-27 Farm Workers ................................................ 5-28 Housing Growth .................................................. 5-30 Composition of Housing Stock ........................... 5-30 Vacancy Rates ..................................................... 5-32 Housing Conditions ............................................. 5-32 Age of Housing Stock..................................... 5-32 Housing Conditions ....................................... 5-33 Neighborhood Improvements and Removal
of Blight ....................................................... 5-34 Code Enforcement Activities .............................. 5-35 Housing Costs and Affordability ......................... 5-35 Home Prices and Rents ................................. 5-35 Affordability Gap Analysis ............................. 5-36 C. Existing Housing Needs ....................................... 5-37 Housing Cost Burden .......................................... 5-38 Overcrowding ...................................................... 5-39 Publicly Assisted Housing ................................... 5-40 Public Housing ............................................... 5-40 Housing Choice Vouchers Program .............. 5-40
Other Affordable Housing Developments .... 5-41
Units at Risk of Converting to Market-Rate
Housing ........................................................ 5-41 Projects at Risk ............................................... 5-41 Preservation and Replacement Options ....... 5-42
Fair Housing in Jurupa Valley.............................. 5-44 Resources for Special Needs Groups ................. 5-45 Seniors ............................................................ 5-45 Persons with Disabilities ................................ 5-47 Single Parent Households ............................. 5-47 Large Families ................................................ 5-48 Farm Workers ................................................ 5-48 Homeless Persons .......................................... 5-49 Families ................................................................ 5-50 Housing Resources .............................................. 5-51 Residential Density and Affordable
Housing ...................................................... 5-51 Variety of Housing Opportunity .................... 5-53 D. Housing Opportunities and Resources ............... 5-63 Credits toward RHNA .......................................... 5-64 Approved Units Built and/or Entitled Since
June 30, 2021 ............................................ 5-65 Units Pending Approval (Pipeline Projects) .. 5-65
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) .................. 5-66 Development Potential in Specific Plans ...... 5-67
Vacant Sites .................................................... 5-71 Progress in Meeting Housing Needs .................. 5-73 Additional Sites Needed to Meet RHNA ............ 5-74
E. Financial Resources for Housing ......................... 5-74 SB 2/LEAP Grants ................................................ 5-74 Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program ..... 5-75
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
Funds ........................................................... 5-76 Additional Resources .......................................... 5-76 F. Opportunities for Energy Conservation ............. 5-76 State Regulations ................................................ 5-77 State and Federal Programs ............................... 5-77 Private Sector Programs ..................................... 5-77 G. Housing Constraints ............................................ 5-78 Governmental Constraints ................................. 5-78 Land Use Element .......................................... 5-78 Types of Residential Communities ............... 5-79
Development Requirements ......................... 5-81 Parking Requirements ................................... 5-81 Density Bonus Ordinance .............................. 5-82 Building Codes and Enforcement ................. 5-82
Housing for Persons with Disabilities ........... 5-82
Building Code ................................................. 5-83

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page vii
Planning and Development Fees .................. 5-83
Code and Fee Transparency ......................... 5-84 Local Processing and Permit Procedures ..... 5-84
Ministerial Site Development Permits
(SDPs) ........................................................ 5-85 Objective Residential Development
Standards .................................................. 5-85 Parcel Maps ................................................... 5-86 Building Permit Processing Timeline ............ 5-86
Pre-Application Review ................................. 5-86 Discretionary Site Development Permits
(SDPs) ........................................................ 5-87 Environmental Constraints ................................ 5-90 Seismic Hazards ............................................. 5-90 Flooding ......................................................... 5-91 Fire Hazards ................................................... 5-91 Noise .............................................................. 5-91 Hazardous Materials ..................................... 5-92 Infrastructure Constraints .................................. 5-92 Water Supply ................................................. 5-93 Wastewater Treatment ................................ 5-95 Market Constraints ............................................. 5-95 Land Prices..................................................... 5-95 Construction Costs ........................................ 5-96 Financing ....................................................... 5-96 Energy Conservation Constraints ...................... 5-98 H. Housing Element Goals, Policies, and Programs5-99
Goals.................................................................... 5-99 Policies ................................................................ 5-99 I. Housing Action Plan .......................................... 5-105 Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing ............. 5-114 J. Quantified Objectives ....................................... 5-119 6 – Air Quality Element ................................ ........ 6-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 6-1 Primary Goal ......................................................... 6-2 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 6-2 B. Background ........................................................... 6-3 Regulatory Restrictions ........................................ 6-4 Ambient Air Quality Standards ............................ 6-4 C. Air Quality Goals, Policies, and Programs ............ 6-6 Goals...................................................................... 6-6 Policies and Programs .......................................... 6-6 AQ 1 – Multi-Jurisdictional Cooperation........ 6-6
AQ 2 – Sensitive Receptors ............................. 6-7 AQ 3 – Stationary Source Pollution ................ 6-7 AQ 4 – Particulate Matter ............................... 6-8 AQ 5 – Energy Efficiency and Conservation . 6-10
AQ 6 – Jobs and Housing .............................. 6-10 AQ 7 – Transportation .................................. 6-12 AQ 8 – Special Events .................................... 6-15 7 – Noise Element ................................ ................ 7-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 7-1 Primary Goal ......................................................... 7-1 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 7-1 B. Background............................................................ 7-2 Land Use Compatibility ......................................... 7-4 Noise Measurement ............................................. 7-4 Noise Attenuation ................................................. 7-5 Ground-Borne Vibration ....................................... 7-5 C. Noise Element Goals, Policies and Programs ...... 7-6 Goals ...................................................................... 7-6 Policies and Programs .......................................... 7-6 NE 1 – Land Use Compatibility ....................... 7-6 NE 2 – Mobile Noise Sources .......................... 7-9 NE 3 – Stationary Noise Sources .................. 7-18 NE 4 – Ground-Borne Vibration .................... 7-20 8 – Community Safety, Services, and Facilities
Element ................................ ........................... 8-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 8-1 Goals and Policy Sections ..................................... 8-2 B. Background............................................................ 8-2 Community Safety ................................................ 8-2 Community Services and Facilities....................... 8-3 Climate Change ..................................................... 8-3 C. Community Safety, Services, and Facilities
Goals, Policies and Programs ............................... 8-5 Goals ...................................................................... 8-5 Policies and Programs .......................................... 8-5 CSSF 1 – Community Safety ............................ 8-5 CSSF 2 – Provide a High Level of
Community Services and Facilities to
Serve the Existing and Future Needs of
Jurupa Valley ............................................. 8-30

9 – Environmental Justice Element ...................... 9-1 A. Introduction .......................................................... 9-1 Primary Goal ......................................................... 9-2 Policy and Program Sections ................................ 9-2 B. Background............................................................ 9-2 Environmental Justice Defined ............................ 9-2 CCAEJ and the Mira Loma Settlement ................. 9-3 Land Use and Transportation ............................... 9-3 Environmental Justice Communities .............. 9-4
Demographics .................................................. 9-5 Air Quality ........................................................ 9-5 C. Key Findings and Recommendations ................... 9-6 Environmental Justice Issue Areas ....................... 9-6 New Residential Development Adjacent to
Freeways ..................................................... 9-6 Mira Loma Village ............................................ 9-7 Other Industrial Zoned Land Adjacent to
Residential Neighborhoods ........................ 9-7
Stringfellow Remediation Site ........................ 9-7 D. Environmental Justice Goals, Policies, and
Programs ............................................................... 9-8 Goals ...................................................................... 9-8 Policies and Programs .......................................... 9-8 EJ 1 – Meaningful Public Input and
Capacity Building ........................................ 9-8

Page viii Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017
EJ 2 – Land Use and the Environment .......... 9-10
EJ 3 – Mobility and Active Living ................... 9-12 EJ 4 – Healthy and Affordable Housing ........ 9-13
10 – Healthy Communities Element ..................... 10-1 A. Introduction......................................................... 10-1 Primary Goal ....................................................... 10-2 Goals and Policy Sections ................................... 10-2 B. Background .......................................................... 10-2 C. Healthy Communities Goals, Policies, and
Programs ............................................................. 10-4 Goals .................................................................... 10-4 Policies and Programs ........................................ 10-5 HC 1 – Overall Health .................................... 10-5 HC 2 – Access to Healthy Foods and
Nutrition .................................................... 10-5 HC 3 – Health Care Facilities and Services ... 10-7
HC 4 – Land Use and Mobility ....................... 10-7 HC 5 – Social Interaction and Community
Participation ............................................ 10-13 HC 6 – Urban Forestry ................................. 10-14 11 – Economic Sustainability Element .................. 11-1 A. Introduction......................................................... 11-1 Primary Goal ........................................................ 11-1 Goal and Policy Sections ..................................... 11-1 B. Background .......................................................... 11-2 Setting .................................................................. 11-2 Socio-Economic Profile ....................................... 11-3 Housing ................................................................ 11-3 GPAC Findings and Recommendations .............. 11-3
Economic Analysis ............................................... 11-4 C. Economic Sustainability Element Goals,
Policies, and Programs ........................................ 11-4 Goals .................................................................... 11-5 Policies and Programs ......................................... 11-5 ES 1 – Economic Development and Fiscal
Sustainability ............................................. 11-5 ES 2 – Industrial Base..................................... 11-7 ES 3 – Retail Commercial Base ...................... 11-8 ES 4 – Tourism Base .....................................11-12 ES 5 – Workforce Development ..................11-13
ES 6 – Special Economic Opportunity
Areas ........................................................11-14 12 – Glossary ................................ ...................... 12-1

List of Tables
Table 1.1 : Community Values Statement ........................... 1-3 Table 1.2 : General Plan Policy Numbering System ..........1-12 Table 1.3 : Adopted Specific Plans, 2017 ...........................1-15 Table 2.1 : Comparison of Previous and General Plan
Land Use Designations .................................................2-12 Table 2.2 : Residential Land Use Statistics and Buildout Projections ....................................................................2-15 Table 2.3 : Non-Residential Land Use Statistics and
Buildout Projections .....................................................2-16 Table 2.4 : Summary of General Plan Land Use
Designations..................................................................2-18 Table 2.5 : General Plan Land Use Designations and
Consistent Zone Districts..............................................2-22 Table 2.6 : Adopted Specific Plans in Jurupa Valley ..........2-61 Table 3.1 : Mobility Corridor Classifications ........................ 3-8 Table 3.2 : Level of Service Definitions ..............................3-18 Table 3.3 : Select Link Analysis for Roadway Segments
Operating at LOS D, E, or F (Year 2035) ......................3-21 Table 4.1 : Designated Historic Structures in
Jurupa Valley* ...............................................................4-39 Table 5.1 : Regional Population Trends, 2000-2019 .........5-13 Table 5.2 : Age Distribution – Percent of Total
Population, 2010-2019 .................................................5-14 Table 5.3 : Racial and Ethnic Composition, 2010-2019 ....5-14 Table 5.4 : Employment by Industry, 2019 ........................5-15 Table 5.5 : Total Households and Household Growth,
2010-2019 .....................................................................5-16 Table 5.6 : Household Characteristics, Percent of Total ...5-16 Table 5.7 : Occupied Units by Tenure, 2019 ..................... 5-17 Table 5.8 : Household Size Distribution, 2019 .................. 5-17 Table 5.9 : Household Income by Tenure, 2019 ............... 5-18 Table 5.10 : Distribution by Income Group, Percent of
Total Households .......................................................... 5-19 Table 5.11 : Elderly with Disabilities Limiting
Independent Living in Jurupa Valley, 2009-2013 and
2019 .............................................................................. 5-21 Table 5.12 : Householders by Tenure and Age ................. 5-22 Table 5.13 : Disability Characteristics, Percent of Total Population, 2019 .......................................................... 5-23 Table 5.14 : Large Households (5 persons or more) by
Tenure, 2019 ................................................................ 5-26 Table 5.15 : Extremely Low Income (ELI) Households ...... 5-26 Table 5.16 : Homeless Population in Jurupa Valley and
Riverside County, 2017-2020....................................... 5-28 Table 5.17 : Farm Worker Employment Profile,
Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metropolitan
Statistical Area .............................................................. 5-28 Table 5.18 : Housing Unit Growth Jurupa Valley and
Nearby Jurisdictions ..................................................... 5-30 Table 5.19 : Unit Type by Tenure, 2019 ............................ 5-31 Table 5.20 : Unit Size by Tenure, 2019 .............................. 5-31 Table 5.21 : Household Occupancy Status, 2010-2019 .... 5-32 Table 5.22 : Tenure by Age of Housing Stock
(Occupied Units) ........................................................... 5-33 Table 5.23 : Number of Dwellings Lacking Plumbing or
Complete Kitchen Facilities, 2019 ............................... 5-34

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page ix
Table 5.24 : Average Rent by Unit Size .............................. 5-36 Table 5.25 : Housing Affordability Matrix, Riverside
County, 2020 ................................................................ 5-37 Table 5.26 : Income Limits ................................................. 5-38 Table 5.27 : Overcrowding by Tenure, Percent of Total
Households ................................................................... 5-40 Table 5.28 : Non-Public Housing Affordable Units in
Jurupa Valley ................................................................ 5-41 Table 5.29 : Rental Subsidies Required – Mission Villas, 2019 .............................................................................. 5-43 Table 5.30 : Senior Housing Development ........................ 5-47 Table 5.31 : Homeless and Special Needs Housing
Resources...................................................................... 5-49 Table 5.32 : Inland Empire Affordable Housing Project
Examples ....................................................................... 5-52 Table 5.33 : Jurupa Valley Permitted Uses by Zone .......... 5-54 Table 5.34 : City of Jurupa Valley 6th Cycle RHNA
Allocation ...................................................................... 5-64 Table 5.35 : Approved Units Built/Entitled June 30-
September 30, 2021 ..................................................... 5-65 Table 5.36 : Pipeline Projects (Units Pending Approval) as of September 30, 2021 ............................................ 5-66 Table 5.37 : ADU Affordability Assumptions, 2021-2029 . 5-67 Table 5.38 : Approved I-15 Corridor Specific Plan
Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 ............................... 5-69 Table 5.39 : Approved Emerald Meadows Ranch
Specific Plan Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2029 .......... 5-69 Table 5.40 : Proposed Rio Vista Specific Plan
Amendment (2021) Anticipated Build-Out 2021-
2029 .............................................................................. 5-70 Table 5.41 : Approved Paradise Knolls Specific Plan
Anticipated Build-Out 2021-2019 ............................... 5-71 Table 5.42 : 2021-2029 Projected Specific Plan
Development ................................................................ 5-71 Table 5.43 : General Plan Affordability Level
Assumptions ................................................................. 5-71 Table 5.44 : City Council and Planning Commission
Approved Projects by Density and Affordability,
January 1, 2019-October 15, 2021 .............................. 5-72 Table 5.45 : Sites Inventory ............................................... 5-73 Table 5.46 : Progress in Meeting 6th Cycle Regional
Housing Need Allocation ............................................. 5-73 Table 5.47 : RHNA Summary With Redesignation Sites ... 5-74 Table 5.48 : Jurupa Valley General Plan Residential Land Use Designations .......................................................... 5-80 Table 5.49 : Summary of Residential Zoning Districts
Development Standards .............................................. 5-81 Table 5.50 : Residential Parking Requirements ................ 5-82 Table 5.51 : Planning Fees ................................................. 5-83 Table 5.52 : Residential Development Impact Fees
(Per Unit) ...................................................................... 5-84 Table 5.53 : Street Design Standards ................................ 5-93 Table 5.54 : Disposition of Home Loans, 2019 ................. 5-97 Table 5.55 : Housing Action Plan Summary, 2021-2029 5-106 Table 5.56 – Fair Housing Program Action Items ........... 5-115 Table 5.57 : Quantified Objectives .................................. 5-119 Table 6.1 : South Coast Air Basin 2016 Attainment
Status – Six Criteria Pollutants ....................................... 6-5 Table 7.1 : Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels ..................... 7-4 Table 7.2 : Human Sensitivity to Typical Vibration Levels .. 7-5 Table 8.1 : 2015 Police Response Times, Jurupa Valley
Sheriff’s Station ............................................................ 8-32 Table 8.2 : Jurupa Valley Fire Stations ............................... 8-34 Table 9.1 : Jurupa Valley Racial and Ethnic Population – 2013 ................................................................................ 9-5 Table 9.2 : Jurupa Valley Income and Poverty Level
Comparison .................................................................... 9-5

List of Figures
Figure 1-1: City of Jurupa Valley communities.................... 1-5 Figure 1-2: Aerial view of Jurupa Valley looking north
toward Jurupa Mountains ............................................. 1-7 Figure 1-3: Role of the General Plan ................................... 1-9 Figure 1-4: Community input into the General Plan
process .......................................................................... 1-10 Figure 1-5: GPAC meeting on the General Plan ................ 1-10 Figure 1-6: General Plan implementation ......................... 1-13 Figure 1-7: A view of Jurupa Mountains from the Pedley
Hills ................................................................................ 1-15 Figure 1-8: Regional setting ............................................... 1-16 Figure 1-9: Santa Ana River in Jurupa Valley ..................... 1-17 Figure 1-10: Aerial photograph of Jurupa Mountains
and Pyrite Canyon, with SR 60, looking northeast ..... 1-18 Figure 1-11: Aerial view of Pedley Hills with housing ....... 1-19 Figure 2-1: City location ....................................................... 2-5 Figure 2-2: Existing land use by acres, as a percent of total City land area (SCAG, 2015) .................................. 2-7 Figure 2-3: Existing land use by number of acres, City of Jurupa Valley, 2015 ........................................................ 2-7 Figure 2-4: Existing land uses with vacant land, 2015 ........ 2-8 Figure 2-5: General Plan Land Use Map (February 2024) 2-10 Figure 2-6: Areas of General Plan expected to change
over time ...................................................................... 2-14 Figure 2-7: Agua Mansa and Mira Loma Warehouse and
Distribution Center Overlays ....................................... 2-24 Figure 2-8: Rubidoux, looking north, with Jurupa
Mountains in background ............................................ 2-25 Figure 2-9: Metrolink stop, Jurupa Valley ......................... 2-25 Figure 2-10: Town Center Overlay map ............................ 2-26 Figure 2-11: Wine grapes, Jurupa Valley ........................... 2-28 Figure 2-12: New housing in Mira Loma ........................... 2-32 Figure 2-13: Potential housing sites .................................. 2-33

Page x Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017
Figure 2-14: Newer office development, Riverside
County ...........................................................................2-37 Figure 2-15: Louis Robidoux Library, Jurupa Valley ..........2-42 Figure 2-16: Combined Land Use Overlay Map.................2-45 Figure 2-17: Equestrian “parking,” Jurupa Valley .............2-46 Figure 2-18: Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay .......2-47 Figure 2-19: Typical equestrian neighborhood signage ....2-49 Figure 2-20: Pedley Town Center area, looking south
towards the Santa Ana River ........................................2-55 Figure 2-21: Pedley Overlay map .......................................2-56 Figure 2-22: Mission Boulevard in Rubidoux Town
Center, looking south toward the City of Riverside ....2-57 Figure 2-23: Glen Avon Overlay map .................................2-58 Figure 2-24: Rubidoux Town Center Overlay map ............2-59 Figure 2-25: Thoroughbred Farms Business Park
Specific Plan, November 2012 .....................................2-61 Figure 2-26: Mixed use senior housing over retail
commercial, Riverside County (KTGY Architects) .......2-62 Figure 2-27: Heavy commercial traffic in Mira Loma ........2-63 Figure 2-28: Stringfellow remediation site and Pyrite
Canyon, looking north ..................................................2-66 Figure 2-29: Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley (photo by
Osmar Duran, 2013) .....................................................2-66 Figure 2-30: Flabob Airport – aerial view looking
northeast .......................................................................2-68 Figure 2-31: Airport Safety Zones, Flabob and Riverside Airports .........................................................................2-70 Figure 2-32: Historic Jensen-Alvarado Ranch and
Museum, Jurupa Valley ................................................2-72 Figure 3-1: Mobility corridors map ...................................... 3-7 Figure 3-2: 2016 circulation network ................................3-13 Figure 3-3: Segment of Limonite Avenue near the
Spectrum Center...........................................................3-14 Figure 3-4: Conventional roadway cross sections .............3-15 Figure 3-5: Relationship between mobility and access
on roadways ..................................................................3-16 Figure 3-6: Levels of service ...............................................3-19 Figure 3-7: Roadway segments Levels of Service (2016) ..3-20 Figure 3-8: Street classifications (2017) ............................3-23 Figure 3-9: Future (2035) roadway segments levels of
service with General Plan buildout ..............................3-29 Figure 3-10: Future (2035) intersections AM peak hour
levels of service with General Plan buildout ...............3-30 Figure 3-11: Future (2035) intersections PM peak hour
levels of service with General Plan buildout ...............3-31 Figure 3-12: Santa Ana River Class 1 multi-use path ........3-37 Figure 3-13: Public sidewalks in 2016 ................................3-38 Figure 3-14: Equestrians at Mary Tyo equestrian staging area................................................................................3-44 Figure 3-15: Bain Street primary equestrian trail, along San Sevaine Flood Channel ..........................................3-44 Figure 3-16: Santa Ana River trailhead ..............................3-45 Figure 3-17: Generalized equestrian trails plan ................3-48 Figure 3-18: Primary equestrian trail looking north on El Camino Real ..................................................................3-50 Figure 3-19: Riverside Transit Authority bus ..................... 3-53 Figure 3-20: Metrolink station in Jurupa Valley ................ 3-54 Figure 3-21: Transit routes and commuter rail ................. 3-55 Figure 3-22: Metrolink commuter rail system .................. 3-56 Figure 3-23: Commercial semi-truck/trailer in Jurupa
Valley ............................................................................. 3-59 Figure 3-24: Commercial truck traffic, 2016 ..................... 3-60 Figure 3-25: Commercial truck restrictions, 2016 ............ 3-61 Figure 3-26: Union Pacific freight locomotive ................... 3-63 Figure 3-27: Historic Flabob Airport .................................. 3-63 Figure 3-28: Historic airliner, Flabob Airport .................... 3-63 Figure 3-29: Jurupa Valley vista ......................................... 3-66 Figure 3-30: Scenic corridors ............................................. 3-67 Figure 3-31: City entry monument .................................... 3-70 Figure 4-1: Santa Ana River, Jurupa Valley .......................... 4-1 Figure 4-2: Headwaters of the Santa Ana River, San
Bernardino Mountains ................................................... 4-2 Figure 4-3: Protected open space in Jurupa Valley ............ 4-3 Figure 4-4: Hidden Valley Wildlife Area, school tour
(Riverside County Parks) ................................................ 4-8 Figure 4-5: Local vegetation communities .......................... 4-9 Figure 4-6: Biological resources of Jurupa Valley ............. 4-10 Figure 4-7: Bobcat, Riverside County ................................ 4-13 Figure 4-8: Great blue heron, Santa Ana River in Jurupa Valley ............................................................................. 4-15 Figure 4-9: Rancho Jurupa Lake ......................................... 4-15 Figure 4-10: Water resources, Riverside County .............. 4-16 Figure 4-11: Van Buren Bridge collapse during 1969
Santa Ana River flooding .............................................. 4-20 Figure 4-12: Existing floodways and drainage facilities in Jurupa Valley ................................................................. 4-21 Figure 4-13: State Farmland Designations in Jurupa
Valley (2016) ................................................................. 4-25 Figure 4-14: Residential roof-mounted photovoltaic
solar collectors ............................................................. 4-27 Figure 4-15: Former Jensen Quarry (last active mining
1974-79); now the Oak Quarry Golf Club ................... 4-30 Figure 4-16: Jurupa Valley mineral resources ................... 4-32 Figure 4-17: Historic Jensen-Alvarado Ranch House,
1870 .............................................................................. 4-35 Figure 4-18: Paleontological sensitivity in Jurupa Valley .. 4-36 Figure 4-19: Historic resources in Jurupa Valley ............... 4-37 Figure 4-20: Mount Jurupa Trail overlooking Jurupa
Valley ............................................................................. 4-41 Figure 4-21: Open Space resources in a subdivision (City of San Luis Obispo, California) ..................................... 4-42 Figure 4-22: San Bernardino Mountains in snow,
looking northeast from Jurupa Valley ......................... 4-43 Figure 4-23: Jurupa Valley scenic corridors and
roadways ....................................................................... 4-47 Figure 4-24: Dark sky preservation in Borrego Springs .... 4-48 Figure 5-1: Housing Diversity in Jurupa Valley .................... 5-1 Figure 5-2: Senior housing, Country Village Apartments, Jurupa Valley ................................................................. 5-21 Figure 5-3: Dwelling with universal access design ............ 5-22

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page xi
Figure 5-4: Large families and multi-generational
households ................................................................... 5-25 Figure 5-5: Jurupa Valley homeless camp ......................... 5-27 Figure 5-6: I-P Zoned Sites in Jurupa Valley ...................... 5-59 Figure 5-7: I-P Zones in Proximity/Access to Commercial Zones and Tranist ......................................................... 5-60 Figure 5-8: Housing construction in Jurupa Valley ......... 5-105 Figure 6-1: San Bernardino Mountains from Agua
Mansa ............................................................................. 6-1 Figure 6-2: Smoggy day in Jurupa Valley ............................. 6-3 Figure 6-3: Temperature inversion process ........................ 6-3 Figure 6-4: Children playing at the Cove Waterpark in
Jurupa Valley .................................................................. 6-6 Figure 6-5: Jurupa Valley warehouse development and
housing ........................................................................... 6-7 Figure 6-6: Former Riverside Cement Company plant,
Jurupa Valley .................................................................. 6-7 Figure 6-7: House with photovoltaic solar panels ............ 6-10 Figure 6-8: Mixed use housing near jobs and Metrolink
Station, Inland Empire (KTGY.com) ............................. 6-11 Figure 6-9: Inland Empire Freeway with heavy traffic ...... 6-12 Figure 7-1: Rural setting, Jurupa Valley ............................... 7-2 Figure 7-2: Noise testing locations in Jurupa Valley ........... 7-3 Figure 7-3: Land use/noise compatibility matrix ................ 7-7 Figure 7-4: Freeway-generated noise ................................. 7-9 Figure 7-5: Noise contour map, existing (2015) ............... 7-10 Figure 7-6: Noise contour map, future (2035) .................. 7-11 Figure 7-7: Typical railroad noise contours, commuter
train ............................................................................... 7-13 Figure 7-8: Typical railroad noise contours, freight train . 7-14 Figure 7-9: Airport land use constraints ............................ 7-15 Figure 7-10: Leaf blower use in residential
neighborhood ............................................................... 7-18 Figure 7-11: Construction graders, Inland Empire ............ 7-20 Figure 8-1: Glen Avon Regional Library in Jurupa Valley .... 8-1 Figure 8-2: CAL FIRE crew responding to structure fire ..... 8-2 Figure 8-3: Long-term ozone reductions in Southern
California ......................................................................... 8-4 Figure 8-4: Baseline greenhouse gas emissions by
jurisdiction (MT CO2e) .................................................... 8-5 Figure 8-5: Hillside neighborhoods in Jurupa Valley........... 8-5 Figure 8-6: Mapped fault zones ........................................... 8-7 Figure 8-7: Liquefaction susceptibility in Jurupa Valley...... 8-8 Figure 8-8: Landslide susceptibility in Jurupa Valley .......... 8-9 Figure 8-9: Van Buren Bridge collapse during the 1969
Santa Ana River flood (Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District) .................. 8-12 Figure 8-10: Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) ................ 8-14 Figure 8-11: CAL FIRE strike crew fighting a wildland fire 8-19 Figure 8-12: Wildfire severity zones in Jurupa Valley ....... 8-20 Figure 8-13: Jurupa Valley City Hall ................................... 8-30 Figure 8-14: Jurupa Valley High School ............................. 8-35 Figure 8-15: Louis Robidoux Library, Jurupa Valley .......... 8-37 Figure 8-16: “The Cove” Waterpark, Jurupa Valley .......... 8-38 Figure 8-17: Jurupa Area Recreation and Parks District
(JARPD) parks ............................................................... 8-38 Figure 8-18: Jurupa Valley area parks ............................... 8-40 Figure 8-19: JARPD facilities and parks ............................. 8-41 Figure 8-20: Water desalter plant, Jurupa Valley (Press- Enterprise) .................................................................... 8-45 Figure 8-21: Water Treatment Facility, Rubidoux
Community Services District ........................................ 8-46 Figure 8-22: Flood levee along Santa Ana River in
Jurupa Valley ................................................................ 8-47 Figure 8-23: Residential waste and recycle bins ............... 8-49 Figure 9-1: Ensuring a community that is a healthy
place for all residents is the goal of the
Environmental Justice Element ..................................... 9-1 Figure 9-2: Jurupa Valley’s setting and location provide challenges and opportunities as the community
strives to ensure environmental justice for its
residents. ........................................................................ 9-2 Figure 9-3: The Environmental Justice Element includes
policies that promote environmental equity................ 9-3 Figure 9-4: The proximity of major air pollution sources such as Interstate 15 poses health risks to many
Jurupa Valley residents. ................................................. 9-3

Figure 9-5: The Inland Empire’s topography,
concentration of industrial and distribution
facilities, and transportation networks often
contribute to poor air quality. ....................................... 9-6

Figure 9-6: The Mira Loma Village neighborhood is
surrounded by industrial land. ...................................... 9-7 Figure 9-7: Ongoing remediation of the Stringfellow
Acid Pits has helped reduce the impacts of prior
ground and water contamination. ................................ 9-7 Figure 9-8: Public engagement activities can go far
beyond traditional meetings to include festivals,
cultural fairs, and community-specific events. ............. 9-9

Figure 9-9: Participatory events and workshops are
useful to help educate and share ideas on
environmental justice in the community. ................... 9-10

Figure 9-10: Providing adequate vegetative buffers
between residential properties and features such as
rail lines can mitigate negative visual and
environmental conditions............................................ 9-10 Figure 9-11: Recreation is a core component of a
healthy, active lifestyle for area youth. ...................... 9-11 Figure 9-12: Amenities such as the bike trail along the Santa Ana River encourage healthy activity and
alternative transportation modes. .............................. 9-13 Figure 9-13: Community gardens can engage, educate,
and nourish neighborhoods. ....................................... 9-13 Figure 9-14: Affordable housing projects are
particularly beneficial to families who face
challenges in finding safe and desirable places to
live. ................................................................................ 9-14

Figure 10-1: Second tee, Jurupa Hills Country Club ......... 10-1 Figure 10-2: Community health fair .................................. 10-3

Page xii Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017
Figure 10-3: Equestrians on the Santa Ana River Trail ......10-4 Figure 10-4: Garden to table – part of a healthy diet .......10-5 Figure 10-5: Community garden ........................................10-7 Figure 10-6: Urgent care center .........................................10-7 Figure 10-7: Granite Hills Elementary School garden
project ........................................................................ 10-10 Figure 10-8: Multi-use urban trail ................................... 10-13 Figure 10-9: Public art in Jurupa Valley (courtesy of
Christine Chavez, artist) ............................................ 10-14 Figure 10-10: Canopy street trees .................................. 10-15 Figure 11-1: Vernola Marketplace, Jurupa Valley .............11-1 Figure 11-2: Jurupa Valley Food Fest .................................11-3 Figure 11-3: New housing under construction near
Vernola Marketplace ....................................................11-5 Figure 11-4: Logistics building, Jurupa Valley ....................11-7 Figure 11-5: New office/business park space, Jurupa
Valley .............................................................................11-8 Figure 11-6: 2016 Dedication of the Clay Street Grade
Separation Project ..................................................... 11-10 Figure 11-7: Fishing lake, Rancho Jurupa County Park
and Campground ....................................................... 11-12 Figure 11-8: Economic Opportunity Areas ..................... 11-15 Figure 12-1: Jurupa Mountains Discovery Center .............12-1 Figure 12-2: Typical Class II bicycle path design
(Complete Streets Manual, City of Los Angeles) ........ 12-3 Figure 12-3: Diagram showing floor area ratio (City of
Austin, Texas) ................................................................ 12-4 Figure 12-4: Cluster development layout to preserve
open space (City of Durango, Colorado) ..................... 12-6 Figure 12-5: Typical creek corridor and setbacks (City of San Luis Obispo, California).......................................... 12-7 Figure 12-6: Craftsman building façade features (City of San Luis Obispo, California)........................................ 12-12 Figure 12-7: Example of form-based code (City of San
Luis Obispo, California) .............................................. 12-13 Figure 12-8: Wildlife habitat buffer and ecotone areas
along the Santa Ana River .......................................... 12-14 Figure 12-9: Heavy trucks and heavy truck tractors
(MAIPF) ....................................................................... 12-15 Figure 12-10: Example of vertical mixed use (State of
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management
Program) ..................................................................... 12-20 Figure 12-11: Duplex patio home (houzbuzz.com;
American Style)........................................................... 12-23 Figure 12-12: Paseo development, Southern California. 12-24

Appendices to General Plan

1.0 City Council Resolutions:
-Approving 2017 General Plan
-Approving General Plan Map Amendments
-Certifying the EIR
-Approving Findings of Overriding Considerations

2.0 Summary of General Plan Amendments in 2017
Jurupa Valley Interim General Plan

3.0 General Plan Technical Reports: Traffic and Noise

4.0 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan

5.0 GPAC Final Report

6.0 Meeting Minutes: Planning Commission and City
Council

7.0 Summary: General Plan Public Workshops

8.0 Community Values Statement

9.0 General Plan Implementation

10.0 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report

11.0 Traffic Volumes Worksheets

12.0 Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP)

13.0 Homeless Count Report, Riverside County

14.0 Public and Agency Comments on Jurupa Valley
Housing

15.0 Economic Development Strategy and
Implementation Plan Summary

16.0 JARPD Multi-Purpose Community Trails Plan

17.0 Mira Loma Warehouse Distribution Center
Administrative Policy

18.0 Jurupa Valley’s Communities

19.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Options

20.0 5th Cycle Housing Element – Site Inventory and
Analysis

Appendices to Housing Element
A Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory
B Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites
C Public Participation
D Evaluation of Previous Housing Element/Past
Accomplishments
E Fair Housing Assessment

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-1
1 – INTRODUCTION
A. WELCOME TO THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY ’S 2017 GENERAL PLAN !
It is with much pride and excitement that the City Council presents the City of Jurupa Valley’s first General Plan. As the City’s first “grass roots” general plan, it sets an up -to-date framework to help guide this young City’s future. The 2017 General Plan addresses only key issues that are critical to the transition from county to cityhood, and has been referred to as an “ Interim General Plan” due to budget constraints. Although more work is needed in future years to address all community values and local needs, this 2017 General Plan provides comprehensive, mid - to long-term goals and policies for maintaining and enhancing Jurupa Valley’s quality of life. It guides land use, circulation, open space preservation, housing, and many other facets of the City’ s growth and development. At the same time, it recognizes that the City’s ability to achieve its goals depends to a large degree on its people, and on its physical, economic, and environmental resources.

We hope you enjoy the new Plan, its content, its easily accessible information, and more. There is a wealth of useful information here about Jurupa Valley, its people, its places, and its resources. Finally, the Plan establishes policies and programs to ad dress community needs and issues, and to create a prosperous, healthy, and bright future. General plans are not static; they can and do change, and should be updated over time to meet changing community needs. If you have questions or want to comment on th e Plan or your experience using it, please contact the City. We want to hear from you!
B. OVERVIEW
The incorporation of Jurupa Valley in 2011 marked the culmination of years of effort to create a city and to protect its character, quality, and way of life. Residents banded together to protect the area and prevent the continued suburbanization of the Inland Empire. Their goal was to gain direct control over their own affairs, including land use and development, neighborhood revitalization, and economic sustainability. This General Plan marks an important step in achieving that goal, and in planning for gr owth and development that is consistent with the City’s goals and aspirations for the future.

Page 1 ends

C. VISION STATEMENT
Jurupa Valley’s Vision Statement is an aspirational statement of what the City wants to become through the implementation of the 2017 General Plan. The Vision Statement provides a sense of the purpose and mission of the General Plan and sets the tone for t he Plan’s goals, policies, and programs. The Vision Statement functions as a beacon to guide the City and ensure that growth and develop - ment occur in a manner consistent with the City’s vision. Jurupa Valley’s Vision Statement is:

The Vision Statement is further defined by detailed Community Values, as outlined below.

D. COMMUNITY VALUES
Jurupa Valley’s 2017 General Plan is guided by values that reinforce the Vision Statement and describe what is most important to City residents. These values are at the core of what people enjoy most about living, working, and recreating in Jurupa Valley —the scenic views, the Santa Ana Ri ver, the small- town feel, the equestrian lifestyle, the natural environment, a vibrant economy, friendly residents, healthy and safe neighborhoods, and respect for our history and diverse cultures. These values will enhance and sustain this young City’s he alth and prosperity for generations to come.

Proclaiming our values is essential if we are to create a new General Plan that truly reflects the needs, aspirations, and values of Jurupa Valley residents.

The City Council, in adopting this General Plan for Jurupa Valley, hereby affirms that these Community Values ( Table 1.1 ) are the foundation and heart of the 2017 General Plan.

Jurupa Valley is a special city characterized by its
small-town feeling, exceptional natural beauty, and
distinctive communities; whose citizens enjoy healthy
active lifestyles and a prosperous economy.

Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-3
Table 1.1: Community Values Statement
City of Jurupa Valley Community Values Statement
Small-Town Feel. Maintain Jurupa Valley’s small-town feel, where neighbors know neighbors and merchants, the built environment reflects and is compatible with the area’s character, and residents can grow gardens, raise and keep livestock, and choose from diverse lifestyles in a semi-rural town setting.

Community of Communities. Jurupa Valley consists of nine distinct communities in a valley surrounded by stunning natural scenery and views. These are Belltown, Crestmore Heights, Glen Avon, Indian Hills, Jurupa Hills, Pedley, Rubidoux, Sunnyslope, and Mira Loma, as shown in Figure 1-1. As a “community of communities,” we will preserve and enhance those positive qualities that make our communities unique, enhance our “gateways” to welcome residents and visitors, and embrace a unifying community theme and spirit. Our ability to offer the choice of a semi-rural, equestrian lifestyle is an essential part of who we are as a community and of our quality of life.

Open Space and Visual Quality. We value and protect the Santa Ana River and river plain, and the ridgelines and slopes of the Jurupa Mountains and Pedley Hills 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.

Active Outdoor Life. Many Jurupa Valley residents were drawn here because of the City’s unique outdoor setting and the recreation opportunities it offers. Our parks and recreation facilities are essential to maintain and improve our health and quality of life. We place a high value on our public parks, sports fields, and pedestrian and equestrian trails, and support facilities, golf courses, outdoor use areas, historic sites and nature centers, campgrounds, and airport and joint use school facilities.

Public Safety. Support for public safety, law enforcement, and emergency medical services is a value that is widely held by Jurupa Valley residents. We honor and respect the safety professionals who faithfully serve Jurupa Valley. We support strong, collaborative effort s to prevent crime and homelessness, enforce planning and building codes, and improve the safety of neighborhoods, homes, public facilities, streets, trails, and other transportation facilities. We take proactive measures to cope with and recover from emergencies and natural and manmade disasters.

Education, Culture and Technology. We place a high priority on maintaining and improving our educational, cultural, and technical opportunities, including programs and events at schools, libraries, museums, performing arts facilities, and other community venues. We support the establishment of new community centers as well as college-level, life-enrichment, and career training opportunities in Jurupa Valley.

Mobility. We support the creation and maintenance of transporta tion networks (e.g., multi -use equestrian, pedestrian and bicycle trails, complete streets, sidewalks, airport, rail, and public transit) that are safe, attractive, and efficient and provide connectivity to meet the diverse needs for the movement of people and goods.

Diversity. We value Jurupa Valley’s cultural and social diversity and celebrate our cultural richness through arts and culture, community festivals, educational programs and exhibits, seasonal and equestrian-themed events, preservation of historic landmarks, and youth and adult sports.

Environmental Justice. We value the health, well-being, safety, and livability of all our communities and strive to distribute public benefits and resources equitably. We endeavor to enhance underserved communities so that all residents can thrive and share in a high quality of life.

Page 1 ends

City of Jurupa Valley Community Values Statement
Healthy Communities. We have a comprehensive view of health. We enhance existing opportunities for healthy living and create new opportunities by encouraging residents to make the healthy choice the easy choice. The health and well- being of all individuals, families, neighbor hoods, and businesses is our shared value and concern. We take positive steps to maintain a clean, visually attractive City, to improve Jurupa Valley’s physical, social, and environmental health, and to share and teach these values to achieve and sustain a healthy, clean, and safe environment for current and future generations.

Economic and Fiscal Health. We support high quality economic growth and development that are environmentally sustainable and that foster housing, living wage jobs, retail goods and services, public facilities and services, environmental benefits, destination tourism, and medical and educational facilities. We seek ways to be good stewards of our local assets, to make wise land use and fiscal decisions, to conduct open and accessible government, and to preserve and enhance the City’s prosperity and quality of life.

A Community of Communities
One of the most unique and delightful aspects of Jurupa Valley is the variety and number of distinct communities located here. The City’s motto, “A Community of Communities,” is an apt description, because residents strongly identify with their own communi ty among the nine communities shown in Figure 1 -1. These
communities offer a range of housing, recreational, and retail opportunities and are further described in Appendix 18.0, Jurupa Valley’s Communities. Each community varies in size, visual character, and focus. While each community differs, residents in each community are united in their commitment to preserve their community’s quality of life and to work together to create a prosperous and healthy future for the City as a whole.

E. GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
General Plan adoption is a major accomplishment. It reflects consensus and compromise among citizens, businesses, and property owners. All cities and counties in California must prepare and adopt general plans and, per state law, they must include seven sections, or “elements:” Land Use, Housing, Circulation (Mobility), Noise, Safety, Open Space, and Conservation. The organization of these seven elements, and any optional elements, is determined by the local jurisdiction. Jurupa Valley’s 2017 General Plan includes these elements, plus additional “optional” elements: 1) Community Safety, Services, and Facilities; 2) Air Quality; 3) Environmental Justice; 4) Healthy Communities; and 5) Economic Sustainability.

Due to consolidation of some topics, the 2017 General Plan includes ten elements.

Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-5

Figure 1-1: City of Jurupa Valley communities

Jurupa Valley General Plan

Page 1 ends

Each General Plan element contains goals, policies, and programs to guide the future growth and development of the City while preserving its unique and special character. In addition, the General Plan includes several new and innovative concepts to address the specific issues in Jurupa Valley. The General Plan elements and their “big ideas” can be found in Chapters 2 through 11 of the General Plan and are summarized below.

The Land Use Element guides the land use pattern of the City including residential, commercial industrial, open space, recreation and public uses and how they are arranged. It contains a color-coded map detailing where the different types of land uses are allowed. A new component of the Land Use Element is the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay, which contains policies and programs to preserve the equestrian lifestyle in specific areas of the City and ensure that new development accommodates and is com patible with equestrian activities. Other new land use overlays include the Town Center Overlay, the Community Development Overlay, and the Historic Resource Overlay.

The Mobility Element recognizes the implications of land use policy on all modes of movement and establishes policies, standards, and implementation measures that address existing and potential circulation opportunities and deficiencies. The Mobility Element introduces the “Mobility Corridor” concept of multimodal mobility— conduits for the movement of people and goods rather than vehicular streets dedicated almost exclusively to the motor vehicle.

In addition, the element acknowledges that much of Jurupa Valley’s existing and future traffic is regional “pass -through” traffic, and a key objective of the Plan is to manage vehicular traffic that is using local arterials for trips that begin and end outside Jurupa Valley.

Consequently, the City proposes only limited street and intersection improvements to minimize the effects of regional traffic on local streets, while accommodating local transportation needs. The Mobility Element promotes strategies and techniques to mitigate the need to create six- lane arterials through our small- town communities that would mainly serve regional “cut-through” traffic.

The Conservation and Open Space Element contains policies and programs to protect natural resources and open spaces, including natural habitat areas, environmentally sensitive areas, watersheds, recreation areas, agricultural land, and other open space amenities.

Some of the key policies of the element address the protection of significant trees and vegetation, wildlife corridors, and cultural resources. In addition, policies are included regarding preserving scenic corridors and dark night skies in Jurupa Valley.

Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-7
The Housing Element outlines the City’s existing and projected housing needs including its share of the regional housing need.

Subject to strict state statutory requirements, the Housing Element is one of the most lengthy and detailed elements of the General Plan. To increase the City’s affordable housing stock, the element calls for various incentives to allow housing to be built at a density of up to 25 dwelling units per acre. Such incentives might include permit expediting, housing grants, and development assistance.

The Air Quality Element contains policies and programs intended to help maintain healthy air quality in Jurupa Valley. The pattern of land use transportation systems can help reduce motor vehicle emissions and have positive, healthy effects on the quality of life for residents and visitors. The element is particularly important because Jurupa Valley, and the Inland Empire as a whole, has some of the worst air quality in the South Coast Air Basin due to prevailing wind patterns that transport pollution to the area.

The Noise Element contains policies that protect residents and land uses from noise and vibration impacts while allowing development of a mix of compatible land uses. The element includes policies to reduce the effects of noise from trucks and rail operations on Jurupa Valley residents.

The Community Safety, Services, and Facilities Element identifies hazards that influence the locations and types of proposed land uses and includes policies and programs to ensure the City is prepared for disasters such as earthquakes, fires, and floods. The element also contains policies related to many different agencies providing services and facilities in close coordination to the City.

The Environmental Justice Element contains policies and programs that seek to ensure that all members of the community have meaningful input into the decision -making process and are protected from adverse environmental impacts. Adoption of the Environmental Justice Element preceded adopti on of the General Plan, and the American Planning Association has commended the City on the element’s innovative approach to addressing environ - mental inequities and advocating for disadvantaged populations.

Figure 1-2: Aerial view of Jurupa Valley looking north toward Jurupa Mountains

Page 1 ends

The Healthy Communities Element includes policies and programs that address community design, access, and overall health. The element places a strong emphasis on opportunities for residents to improve their physical and mental well- being while meeting daily needs. The element builds on the work of the Healthy Jurupa Valley initiative to raise awareness of health issues, increase access to healthy foods, and promote healthy living.

The Economic Sustainability Element addresses how to grow, sustain, and enhance the local economy. One of the big ideas in the Economic Sustainability Element is the designation of six “Opportunity Areas” where private commercial and industrial development could significantly and positively affect the City’s fiscal revenue and job creation forecasts. The element also identifies the desire to attract new point-of-sale retails center to the City.

The General Plan’s Purpose
This General Plan is a statement of fundamental values and a shared vision for the future of Jurupa Valley. Its primary purpose is to address the young City’s most pressing planning needs until the resources are available to prepare a more comprehensive, l ong- range General Plan update. It was not the City’s intent, nor has the City attempted, to address all of the planning issues, needs, and opportunities that a more extensive planning process would allow.

Instead, the 2017 General Plan provides the focused vision, goals, policies, and programs to address the most important issues identified by residents, the City Council, the Planning Commission, and the General Plan Advisory Committee, including:
• Protecting the City’s semi -rural character and equestrian lifestyle;
• Reducing conflicts between residential and industrial land uses;
• Improving housing quality, availability, affordability, and choice;
• Creating economic sustainability through diversified, quality development and job growth; and
• Enhancing residents’ safety, convenience and quality of life.

This Plan directs and coordinates near -term planning decisions to improve the quality of life for all Jurupa Valley residents and businesses, and guides the use and protection of various resources to meet community needs and circumstances. It does this by setting goals, policies, and programs to gu ide the City’s orderly and sustainable growth and development during an interim period through the year 2022 —a relatively brief 5 -year planning horizon.

Within approximately 5 years of adopting this General Plan, or by Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-9
2022, the City should initiate a more comprehensive, longer- term planning process to update the 2017 General Plan and address the full range of community planning needs and issues, as more extensive resources allow.

City decision -makers will refer to this Plan when considering land use, planning, capital improvements, and budgets. City staff will use the Plan on a day-to-day basis in evaluating development proposals, protecting environmental resources, and preparing o ther mid- and long-range plans. Jurupa Valley residents, businesses, and property owners will use the Plan to understand City development policies and programs, make important land use and development decisions, work together to achieve a healthy and prosp erous City, and help guide the use and enjoyment of their properties.

Planning Context
The 2017 General Plan is consistent with and derives its authority from California state law. Once adopted, the General Plan becomes the basis for land use and other important municipal decisions; however, the Plan itself is not a regulation. The General Plan is implemented through zoning regulations, adopted standards, and other City laws. As required by state law, capital improve ment programs, zoning regulations, and related land use policies must be consistent with the General Plan.

Background to the 2017 General Plan
At a public hearing held on September 7, 2017, the Jurupa Valley City Council approved the 2017 General Plan and the Plan’s Final Environmental Impact Report by Resolution 2017-14. This is the first General Plan prepared by and specifically for the new City. When Jurupa Valley was incorporated in 2011, the City adopted the Riverside County General Plan, the Jurupa Area Plan, and the Zoning Ordinance applicable to the City. Adoption of existing plans and policies is the normal procedure when new cities incorporate. To establish a new General Plan that truly reflects the goals, vision, and values of the residents of the City, the City Council approved a work program in August 2014 and directed City staff to update the existing General Plan. The program approved by the Council was designed to fit the limited time and resources available. As such, it constituted an “Interim” General Plan, with the objective of identifying the most pressing needs of the City until a more comprehensive update could be done. The 2017 General Plan updates and merges the previously adopted County General Plan and the Jurupa Area Plan to cre ate a new General Plan within a limited budget and time frame.

Figure 1-3: Role of the General Plan

Page 1 ends

Public Participation and General Plan
Workshops
Public General Plan Workshops and
Stakeholder Meetings
In all, including public General Plan workshops, GPAC meetings, Planning Commission meetings, and City Council meetings, Jurupa Valley citizens provided valuable input at over 40 public workshops, meetings and hearings. A vigorous public outreach effort wa s launched and was designed to: 1) inform the Community about the 2017 General Plan process and 2) solicit public input on Community issues, needs, and opportunities to help inform and guide the General Plan effort. The outreach effort was also designed to reach out to diverse groups and areas within the City, including but not limited to Spanish-speaking residents, seniors, families, businesses, Healthy Jurupa Valley, the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, the Chamber of Commerce, the Rotary Club, environmental groups, houses of worship, homeowner associations, youth sports leagues, and school districts. The workshop promotion and publicity strategy was extensive. Workshop publicity and notices were provided in English and Spanish.

Eight public workshops were held between January 10 and February 7, 2015. A total of 128 community members participated in the workshops, including 5 individuals attending multiple workshops, and provided many wide -ranging and valuable comments on various Community issues, needs, and oppor tunities.

That input was provided to the General Plan Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission, and the City Council and provided key guidance in the development of this General Plan. A final report summarizing the res ults of the public workshops is included as Appendix 7.0.

General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC)
Prior to commencing the 2017 General Plan effort, the City Council appointed a General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) to guide City staff and planning consultants in the development of the Plan. The GPAC was made up of 31 community members, representing various agencies, commissions, committees, organizations, and citizens at - large. The GPAC’s main roles were: 1) to provide input into what topics should be addressed in the 2017 General Plan , 2) to serve as a channel for the Community to make recommendatio ns to the Planning Commission and the City Council regarding Community needs, values, issues, and goals, and 3) to help define a vision for Jurupa Valley’s future.

Figure 1-4: Community input into the
General Plan process
Figure 1-5: GPAC meeting on the General
Plan
Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-11
The GPAC’s first major effort was to prepare a Community Values Statement on which the goals, policies, and programs of the new General Plan would be based ( Table 1.1, page 1-3). Following that effort, the GPAC reviewed a series of worksheets that were designed to help define the City’s major issues, assets, and needs. GPAC members worked in teams to provide recommendations on the main policy areas of the General Plan, including land use, circulation and mobility, and conservation and open space. After identifying key policy issues, assets, and needs, the GPAC prepared a Final Report listing its findings and recommendations, included here as Appendix 5.0.

In addition, City staff held a number of meetings with key stakeholders to further engage the community and to involve those agencies and groups that might be directly affected by potential changes. Meetings were conducted with stakeholders from service providers, surrounding cities and other agencies.

Planning Commission
Throughout the course of the effort, the Planning Commission held 16 public meetings to consider GPAC’s recommendations and other matters regarding the new General Plan. In addition, two members of the Planning Commission served on the GPAC. Based on GPAC and public input, and with the assistance of technical consultants and City staff, the Planning Commission prepared the draft 2017 General Plan for review and final action by the City Council.

City Council
In addition to unanimously adopting the final 2017 General Plan document and certifying its accompanying Environmental Impact Report, the City Council set the initial work program for the General Plan effort and provided key input and guidance during the 2½-year effort. Additionally, two Council members served on the GPAC.

Using the 2017 General Plan
The General Plan expresses the Community’s values and broad consensus in the form of goals, policies, and programs. Goals are aspirational statements of intent that are not necessarily achievable within the 5- to 10-year planning period of this General Plan. Policies are statements that guide decision -making; they identify decisions the City must take to implement the General Plan and to make progress in achieving its goals. Programs are specific actions to be taken to carry out the General Plan’s intent. T ypically, programs require time and resources to accomplish and produce measurable results.

Page 1 ends

Policies are typically organized in each element by topical area or issue. For instance, policies related to “land use compatibility” can be found under that topical area in the Land Use Element. For policies and programs to be successfully implemented, they must be clear as to purpose and method of implementation. Additional information that may be included is implementation timing, responsible party, and resources required for implementation.

Details for implementing policies in the General Plan are contained in the Implementation Program in the form of action items (see Appendix 9.0). Programs describe specific steps necessary to achieve the City’s objectives and describe the desired outcome. To allow easy reference, a numbering system has been established. Both an element and a sequential number (see the example in Table 1.2 below) identify each policy. For instance, the first policy in the Land Use Element is identified as LUE 1.1. Policies are followed by programs, and programs are listed by the section number followed by “.1”, plus consecutive numbers of programs.

Table 1.2: General Plan Policy Numbering System
Land Use Element Section LUE 1
Policy LUE 1.1
Program LUE 1.1.1
Policy Interpretation
For a policy to be useful, it must be clear. However, not all policies are worded the same; they differ in terms of expected results, commitment of resources, and importance or urgency. Therefore, this General Plan uses simple and clear language to explain the different types of policies and how they are to be applied. The following definitions provide guidance in interpreting the policy language of the General Plan.
• Shall – Policies containing the word shall indicate that an action must be taken in all cases. This represents absolute commitment to the policy, and the expectation is that the policy will always be carried out.
• Should – Policies containing the word should indicate that an action will be taken, in most cases, but exceptions are possible for good reason.
• Allow – Policies containing the word allow indicate that a proposed action will be supported within certain
parameters and following certain guidelines.
• Coordinate – Policies containing the word coordinate
indicate that an action will be taken with the cooperation and/or assistance of some other entity, and the City will fulfill its share of the burden or responsibility.

Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-13
• Explore – Policies containing the word explore indicate that an action will be taken to investigate the subject at hand to discover whether some further commitment is needed and
appropriate.
• Consider – Policies containing the word consider indicate that an action may or may not be taken, depending upon
the results of analysis that remain to be completed.
• Limit – Policies containing the word limit indicate that an action will be taken to keep the subject within certain limits, or at least operate to make undesired change more difficult.
• Restrict – Policies containing the word restrict indicate that an action will be taken to actively keep the undesired action to a minimum.

The reader should refer to Section 12 – Glossary for the meanings of other frequently used General Plan terms.

General Plan Relationship to Other Plans and
Regulations
A number of plans and ordinances implement or are affected by the City’s General Plan.

Zoning Ordinance: The General Plan is implemented primarily through its Zoning Ordinance. While the General Plan designates land uses to be accommodated in the long term, zoning identifies the specific land uses allowed and development standards that describe how they should be developed and operated. The General Plan’s successful implementation depends, in large measure, upon the regular updating of the Zoning Ordinance to maintain consistency with the General Plan, as required by state law.

Subdivision Ordinance: State law mandates local approval of land subdivision via the Subdivision Map Act. Local review of proposed subdivisions and parcel maps includes assessment of consistency with, and implementation of, General Plan objectives and policies.

Specific Plans: Specific plans are customized regulatory documents in lieu of standard zoning that are typically used to plan large development projects and delineate land uses, infrastructure, development phasing and standards, and implementa tion
measures. Specific plans must be consistent with the General Plan and can be used to implement the General Plan within a limited area.

Figure 1-6: General Plan implementation

Page 1 ends

Planned Unit Developments (PUDs): Planned Unit Developments are custom zones applied to specific areas. They contain develop - ment standards intended to provide land use, site planning, and/or design flexibility to create more innovative developments than would otherwise be possible under conventional standards.

Development Agreements: Developers and local governments may enter into development agreements. These agreements define permitted uses of property, density, and intensity of uses, develop - ment criteria, and provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes. They are in effect for predetermined periods and identify vested development rights that apply to the specific development project they govern. Development agree- ments assure that General Plan objectives and policies are carried out as development occurs.

Community and Specific Plans
The General Plan is not the only long-range “blueprint” for the City.

From time to time, the City may adopt “Community,” “Village,” or “Area” plans. These are typically smaller-scale plans that address the localized needs and conditions of a particular neighborhood or community within the Jurupa Valley Planning Area. Such plans refine the policies of the Jurupa Valley General Plan as they apply to a smaller area. They are implemented by local ordinances such as those regulating land use and design. Area pla ns are focused planning policy documents that become part of, and must be internally consistent with, the Jurupa Valley General Plan.

Specific Plans are another type of long -range plan, typically associated with a specific, master planned development project or a large area to be developed. Unlike an area plan or a community plan, a specific plan is not an amendment to the General Plan, but is designed to implement the goals and policies of the General Plan for a specific geographical area. When a specific plan is adopted, it represents a separate document that must be fully consistent with the goals and policies stated in the General Plan. A specific plan is a hybrid policy statement and/or regulatory tool that places the emphasis on development standards and supplements those stated in the General Plan. Specific plans must address land use (including open space), infrastructure, develop ment phasing, standards for development and natural resource conservation, and implementa - tion measures.

Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-15
The City already has several adopted specific plans in effect. These Specific Plans are available for review on the City’s website at www.jurupavalley.org. As of the adoption date of this General Plan, the City has adopted specific plans listed in Table 1.3.

Table 1.3: Adopted Specific Plans, 2017
Specific Plan Specific Plan Number
Mission de Anza 123
Agua Mansa Industrial Corridor 210
Rio Vista 243
I-15 Corridor 266
Emerald Meadows Ranch 337
Thoroughbred Farms 376
Paradise Knolls 650
Agua Mansa Commerce Park 16002
The District at Jurupa Valley 21001
Vernola Ranch 22001
Setting
Jurupa Valley is a distinct and special environment. From virtually any place in Jurupa Valley, one has a sweeping view of distant mountains and nearby hills. Rock outcroppings accent the hillsides and provide a distinct texture to the landscape. The hills, mountains, and watercourses that frame this valley also serve to focus urban development in the more suitable portions of the landscape. Jurupa Valley’s open hills, fields, and river plain provide a habitat for many native plant and animal species, while the more distant mountains provide a scenic backdrop. The Santa Ana River provides another spectacular, contrasting natural feature. Located along the southern and eastern edges of Jurupa Valley, the river and the river plain buffer Jurupa Valley from dev elopment in the neighboring City of Riverside and provide habitat for numerous species of plants and animals. The Mission Boulevard and Van Buren Boulevard corridors augment the strong swaths of Interstate 15 (I -15) and State Route 60 (SR 60) to knit the l and together in a strong pattern of travel routes. Jurupa Valley occupies a pivotal position along I -15 and SR 60, anchoring the northwestern portion of western Riverside City, western Riverside County, and southern San Bernardino County. The 2017 General Plan seeks to capitalize upon not only the Figure 1-7: A view of Jurupa Mountains from the Pedley Hills

Page 1 ends

spectacular visual qualities of Jurupa Valley, but its strategic location as well.

Location
The City’s strategic Inland Empire location within Southern California is evident in Figure 1 -8. The map shows the location of the City of Jurupa Valley relative to the surrounding cities of Riverside and Corona to the south, San Bernardino and Fontana to the north, Pomona and Ontario to the northwest, and Orange County to the west. Jurupa Valley is located in the northwestern portion of Riverside County, and it stretches east beyond the curve of the Santa Ana River, just touching the corner of San Bernardino County’s City of Colton.

The distinctiveness of the Jurupa Valley area can be found in its unique communities and wonderful natural setting. From the lush riparian corridor of the Santa Ana River, to the slightly undulating flatlands of Mira Loma, to the dramatic rolling terrain of the Pedley Hills, to the stark, rugged outcroppings of the Jurupa Mountains, Jurupa Valley provides diverse habitat for wildlife and an outstanding location for a semi-rural city that values preservation of its equestrian heritage in balance with new, high- quality economic and residential growth.

Figure 1-8: Regional setting
Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-17
The western portion of Jurupa Valley is primarily flat, with gentle rolling foothills scattered throughout the Glen Avon and Mira Loma areas. North of SR 60 lies the dramatic sloping terrain of the Jurupa Mountains, which provide a natural backdrop for the communities of Sunnyslope and Belltown. The Pedley Hills provide a picturesque setting for the community of Pedley as well as a pleasing backdrop for communities adjacent to the hills. The Santa Ana River, with its lush riparian habitat, provides a natural contrast along the southern boundary of Jurupa Valley. Though not located within the City’s boundaries, Mount Rubidoux serves as a prominent visual landmark for residents in Jurupa Valley’s eastern communities.

Unique Features
Santa Ana River
Located along the southern boundary of Jurupa Valley, the Santa Ana River represents a significant recreational, habitat, and visual resource. This watercourse is one of the most significant in the nation, partly because it serves such a major part of this entire region and is associated with one of the fastest growing metropolitan areas in the continental United States. Moreover, it offers outstanding value in the area of drainage, flood control, water conservation, and natural habitat conservation/restor ation. The Figure 1-9: Santa Ana River in Jurupa Valley

Page 1 ends

2017 General Plan reinforces these functions through the pattern of recreation and open space designations in combination with extensive policies.

Throughout the area, interconnecting trails provide access to a scenic wildlife setting. The Santa Ana River Wildlife Area serves as a nature center that includes hiking and equestrian activities. The river, which drains a watershed of more than 2,840 square miles, is also the general alignment of the long-awaited Santa Ana River trail that will connect the far reaches of the San Bernardino Mountains with the Pacific Ocean.

Jurupa Mountains/Pyrite Canyon
Located between the northern boundary of Jurupa Valley and SR 60, the Jurupa Mountains are the dominant visual resource in the northern portion of Jurupa Valley. The highest peak, Mount Jurupa, stands at an elevation of 2,217 feet. In addition, substantial portions of the mountains ar e identified as potential habitat for the endangered Delhi Sands flower -loving fly. Industrial and mineral extraction uses were formerly located in Pyrite Canyon, located southwest of Mount Jurupa. The Stringfellow Reclamation Site is also located here. Th e site was designated a Superfund site to remediate and recover from the toxic pollution associated with decades-old waste disposal practices.

Figure 1-10: Aerial photograph of Jurupa Mountains and Pyrite Canyon, with SR 60, looking northeast Introduction
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 1-19
Pedley Hills
Reaching a peak elevation of 1,424 feet, the Pedley Hills provide the most significant physical feature in central Jurupa Valley and serve as a backdrop for several communities, especially Indian Hills and Pedley. The Hills’ distinctive rock outcroppings and rugged landforms add visual interest and create scenic vistas in combination with the nearby Jurupa Mountains and distant San Bernardino Mountains.

Figure 1-11: Aerial view of Pedley Hills with housing
F. LOOKING AHEAD –

UPDATING THE GENERAL PLAN
Once adopted, the General Plan is not a static document.

Community needs, values, land use patterns, environmental conditions, and economic factors may change over time, and the General Plan must change and evolve with them. To meet the needs of change and to ensure continued General Plan relevance and value, state law permits up to four amendments per mandatory element per year. Most amendments usually propose either a change in the land use designation of a particular property or a change in the General Plan’s wording, or “text.” Any changes to the General Plan must be done with due consideration to maintaining consistency between the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map and the General Plan.

The City intends to review the General Plan annually to determine if amendments are needed. General plans are based on analyses and assumptions concerning land use, environmental, or other planning factors that may change over time. If the City Council determines that changes have occurred that merit General Plan amendments, the City will update the Plan to reflect new conditions and

Page 1 ends

information. General Plan Amendments must be supported by findings of fact. Findings provide a rationale for City Council approval or denial of an amendment. While special findings may be applied on an individual amendment basis, the following standard fin dings should be made for each General Plan amendment.
• The amendment is deemed to be in the public interest. • The amendment is consistent and compatible with the rest of the General Plan and any implementation programs that may be affected.
• The potential impacts of the amendment have been
assessed and have been determined not to be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the community. • The amendment has been processed in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the California Government
Code and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

City-initiated amendments, as well as amendments requested by property owners, developers, and other public agencies, are subject to the same basic process and requirements described above to assure consistency and compatibility with the General Plan. This includes appropriate environmental review, public notice, and public hearings leading to an official action by City Council resolution.
###

Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-1
2 – LAND USE ELEMENT
A. INTRODUCTION
The Land Use Element is an essential tool in achieving Jurupa Valley’s goals. It is one of ten sections, or “elements” that comprise the 2017 General Plan. Traditionally, the Land Use Element is considered the General Plan’s most important policy document, because it describes the allowed types and configurations of land uses and where they can be located, including residential, commercial, mixed use, indus trial, open space, recreation, and public uses. In combination with the other elements, the Land Use Element guides how the City plans, arranges, develops, and conducts these land uses and serves as a key tool in ensuring a high quality of life for all Jurupa Valley citizens. Land use decisions have the potential to add value to our Community in terms of s afety, convenience, environmental quality, aesthetics, and economic benefits.

To help guide land use and development -related decisions, this element provides:

1. A Land Use Plan that graphically depicts where different types of land uses are allowed;

2. A description of Land Use Designations that comprise the Land Use Plan, including density and development intensity standards;

3. A summary of population and employment build -out
estimates for the City;

4. Goals and policies that help guide public and private land use actions; and

5. Detailed policies and programs for individual communities and Overlay areas.

General Plan Advisory Committee Guidance
The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) provided extensive and essential guidance in shaping the Land Use Element’s vision and policies. Committee members noted that the City of Jurupa Valley is defined by its small-town feel and is best described as a “Community of Communities.” These aspects of Jurupa Valley life are so important that they were adopted as Community Values and have an overarching role in shaping the goals, policies, and programs of the Land Use Element. The GPAC’s Final Report is in Appendix 5.0.

The GPAC identified nine distinct communities within the overall Jurupa Valley community, as shown in Figure 1 -1 (page 1-5 above ).

Of these nine, four are predominantly suburban or small town neighborhoods (Rubidoux, Belltown, Jurupa Hills, and Indian Hills).

The other five— Mira Loma, Pedley, Glen Avon, Sunnyslope, and

Page 2 ends

Crestmore Heights—are predominantly semi-rural and low density in character. Pedley is the most diverse; with a combination of old - style small town neighborhoods and large lots with animal keeping.

Primary City Goal
To be a city that maintains and enhances its unique, small -town character and equestrian -friendly neighborhoods while promoting economic opportunities and prosperity for all. The City will accomplish this goal by preserving its semi-rural character and by realigning its mix of land uses to help provide the housing, shopping, employment, and cultural opportunities its residents desire while improving the quality and compatibility of land uses within each community.

Land Use Objectives of 2017 General Plan
Based on public and GPAC input, the City identified these primary land use objectives.

1. Preserve small-town character and equestrian lifestyle;

2. Provide sustainable prosperity by expanding appropriate housing, strengthening the employment base; and

3. Promote a more balanced range of land uses that meets the needs and values of the wider community, and ensure that vacant land and resources are used wisely.

Land Use Assets, Issues, and Needs
The GPAC played a major role in identifying land use assets, issues, and needs. Committee members’ discussion of land use was wide- ranging and quite detailed, for certain topics. Overall, the primary issues discussed were: 1) preserving and enhancing community character; 2) achieving balanced land uses and healthy, safe neighborhoods; 3) maintaining large-lot semi-rural, equestrian and animal-keeping lifestyles; 4) attracting much -needed community - serving uses such as medical services, quality retail and restaurants, higher education and job training facilities, a civic center, cultural, arts, entertain ment, and recreation uses; 5) allowing mixed use development where appropriate; 6) removing and preventing “blight,” and 7) allowing high-quality multi-family housing where appropriate.

Additional issues discussed were: 8) promoting Jurupa Valley as a destination city; 9) expanding and preserving trails and open spaces within the City; 10) correcting and preventing illegal construction and land uses or activities; 11) providing community centers at various locations throughout the City; 12) preventing incompatible uses or p roviding “buffers” between incompatible uses; and Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-3
13) addressing the effects of commercial truck traffic on streets, neighborhoods, and public safety.

In response to GPAC recommendations and the input received during eight public workshops on the General Plan, the primary land use issues identified were:

1. Warehousing – Address warehousing location, design, and potential impacts, including traffic, noise, and streets.

2. Vacant Land – Many large, vacant parcels that may be suitable for development.

3. Freeway Access and Visibility – Good freeway access and visibility from Interstate 15 (I- 15) and State Route 60 (SR 60).

4. Regional Connection – Regional Metrolink station linking Jurupa Valley with larger urban centers.

5. Flabob Airport – Local airport with potential community benefits as a historic, cultural, and recreational hub.

6. Recreation Facilities and Open Space – The Community has many attractive and well- used recreational facilities, including community parks, community centers, a
Discovery Center, a County campground and sports park,
and includes several large open space areas.

7. Scenic Valley and Agricultural Setting – The Community’s scenic backdrop, with distinctive rocky hills, riparian woodlands, farmed land, and long views of the San
Bernardino Mountains helps define Jurupa Valley’s
character and contributes to its quality of life.

Policy and Program Sections

1. Open Space

2. Residential

3. Commercial, Industrial, and Business Park

4. Public Facility/Institutional

5. Land Use Overlays

6. General Plan Administration

7. General Plan Land Use Implementation

8. Land Use Compatibility

9. Hillside Development

10. Community Design and Aesthetics

11. Project Design

12. Infrastructure, Public Facilities, and Services

13. Fiscal Impacts

Page 2 ends

B. BACKGROUND
Jurupa Valley’s unique setting, with rocky hills and mountains to the north, northeast, and south, adjacent to the wide and mostly natural Santa Ana River, is a major reason so many residents come here and stay. Located in the northwest corner of Riverside County, Jurupa Valley is within commuting distance for many residents employed in neighboring Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties, as shown in Figure 2-1. With a total land area of 45 square miles and a 2017 population estimated at 101,315, Jurupa Valley is one of the largest, yet lowest density cities in the western Riverside- San Bernardino Region with a citywide average density of a little over one dwelling unit per acre. This, coupled with its historic development as an unincorporated area under County of Riverside jurisdiction, has contributed to the evolution of Jurupa Valley into nine distinct communities–each with its own character, qualities, and challenges.

Existing Conditions
In 2017, t The young city is experiencing significant residential and industrial growth and has a mix of medium - and low -density residential development, equestrian and agricultural activities, and a mix of retail commercial, office, and industrial uses. In particular, the City is experiencing significant development interest for more industrial warehousing, and the Inland Empire’s booming transportation/logistics industry has resulted in industrial and warehouse uses encroaching into historically residential and rural neighborhoods. This trend may have limited opportunities for development in the retail commercial, office, and job -rich manufacturing sectors.

Two primary transportation corridors traverse the Jurupa Valley area: I-15, which runs north and south; and SR 60, which runs east and west. In recent years, residential development and economic activity have increased, in particular in the areas adjacent to the I-15 and SR 60 freeways. The City has significant capacity for expansion of residential and commercial development.

Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-5

Figure 2-1: City location

Jurupa Valley General Plan

Page 2 ends

Existing Land Uses
According to a 2016 study, the City of Jurupa Valley’s existing land uses consist primarily of Single-Family Residential (31% of the City’s total land area), Vacant Land (28%), and Industrial Land (11%), as shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3.

In 2017, about 28% of the City’s land area is vacant and undeveloped or minimally developed (e.g., agriculture, open space, parks, and playgrounds), as shown in Figure 2-2. Undeveloped areas contribute to the City’s semi-rural “country” character and include permanent open space areas, such as the Santa Ana River and most of the Jurupa Mountains, public parks and campgrounds, and land designated for urban uses but not yet developed. Figure 2 -4 shows existing land uses along with vacant areas.

The existing pattern of land use and development has resulted in a homogenous employment base that should be strengthened and diversified with skilled labor, professional, and management job opportunities. Moreover, new housing and retail-commercial opportunities have lagged behind those of other nearby cities. The City’s relatively high percentages of single -family housing, vacant land, and industrial land uses when compared with retail commercial and services, offices and public facilities, suggest an imbalance in providing sufficient land to meet a broad range of commercial, residential, and public services needs. There is also significant retail “leakage” to shopping areas in neighboring cities.

Moreover, virtually no land is committed to high density multi- family housing, visitor- or traveler -oriented uses, such as hotels, motels, conferencing, travel centers, and other similar uses.

Residents must leave the Jurupa Valley for many services such as dining and entertainment. Consequently, the City’s 2017 General Plan Land Use strategy expands the areas to be devoted to retail commercial sales and services, visitor-oriented uses, professional offices and business parks, and multi -family housing while maintaining adequate land resources for Industrial and Open Space/Agricultural uses.

Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-7

Figure 2-2: Existing land use by acres, as a percent of total City land area (SCAG, 2015)

Figure 2-3: Existing land use by number of acres, City of Jurupa Valley, 2015

Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-8

Figure 2-4: Existing land uses with vacant land, 2015

Jurupa Valley General Plan
Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-9
Jurupa Valley’s rich heritage of
rural living continues to be
accommodated in areas
committed to that lifestyle, and
its environmental and economic
sustainability are reinforced by
strong commitments to open
space preservation and urban
development, as provided in this
2017 General Plan.

Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan, Figure 2-5, focuses on preserving the unique features in the Jurupa area, guiding the City’s growth and improvement, and on preserving and enhancing its citizens’ quality of life. To accomplish this, the City has updated and refined many of its General Plan land use designations that were originally established by Riverside County before Jurupa Valley’s
incorporation. The acreages of the various land uses under Riverside County and City jurisdictions are compared in Table 2.1 (page 2-12 ).

The proposed General Plan Land Use designations are summarized in
Table 2.4 (page 2-18).

Figure 2-5 (page 2-10), shows the location and boundaries of planned land uses. The Plan is organized around 23 land use designations and 11 land use overlays, as summarized in Table 2.4
(page 2-18). The table describes the allowed maximum residential density, development intensity (as measured by floor area ratio or FAR), typical allowable land uses, and general characteristics for each of the land use designations. Sections LUE 1 through LUE 5 describe the General Plan’s land use designations and list pertinent policies and programs.

The proposed land use designations represent a wide range of uses that respond to community needs, natural characteristics of the land, and the economic potential to accommodate a range of compatible uses. Many factors led to the designation of land use patterns. Among the most influential were previous County plans, established land use patterns, public input, transportation plans and needs, conservation and habitat plans, citizen input, and Planning Commission and City Council guidance.

Due to the 2017 General Plan’s intent as an interim plan, the Land Use Plan takes a focused approach on land use changes, emphasizing those changes deemed most necessary in achieving near- and mid- term community goals. The 2017 General Plan was prepared with the expectation that within 5 years, or by 2022, the City will initiate a more comprehensive General Plan update. It will address land use issues that could not be fully addressed in the current update due to the lack of resources and will refine and up date the General Plan elements based on Jurupa Valley’s evolving needs, priorities, and issues during its first 11 years of cityhood.

Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-10

Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Map Plan (February 2024)

Land Use
Jurupa Valley General Plan, 2017 Page 2-11

Figure 2-5: 2017 General Plan Land Use Plan

Page 2 ends

Jurupa Valley City CouncilFebruary 15, 2024

Jurupa Valley City Council
February 15, 2024