Agenda — Jurupa Valley City Council, January 16, 2025 (part 4 of 4)

2. The City Cannot Deny A Waiver Because A Project Can Be Redesigned Importantly, if a developer proposes a project that qualifies under the SDBL, “the law provides a developer with broad discretion to design projects with additional amenities even if doing so would conflict with local development standards.” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 774 [emphasis added].) “The statute does not say that what must be precluded is a project with no amenities, or that amenities may not be the reason a waiver is needed.” (Id.) If the project is a SDBL project, “a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed.” (Id. [emphasis added].)
Further, to obtain a waiver, “[t]he showing or ‘reasonable documentation’ required by the applicant is that the project qualifies for a density bonus.” (HCD Notice of Violation to City of Encinitas (Jan. 20, 2022), at p. 3.1) Under this standard, the fact that the Project includes the required number of very low income units to qualify for SDBL benefits is all the justification needed for the City to grant the requested waiver.

In more than one letter, the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) has confirmed that the SDBL does not permit an agency to second-guess the design of a project that qualifies for SDBL benefits and instead must grant a waiver if requested. For example:
 HCD Notice of Violation to City of Encinitas (Jan. 20, 2022): Encinitas violated SDBL by denying waivers requested for height and stories, and private storage.

HCD reaffirmed that “applicants need not consider various alternatives that might be plausible on the site without concessions, incentives, or waivers.” Instead, “[a]s the applicant provided reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the waivers requested—in that it qualified for a density bonus and could not build the project as designed without them—the City must waive the development standards requested.” (Id., citing Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1347 [emphasis added].)
 HCD Notice of Violation to San Francisco (Dec. 29, 2022)2: San Francisco violated SDBL by conditioning approval of a project on reducing its height from six stories to five stories despite the applicant’s request for a waiver. (Id., at p. 1.) HCD found that the conditional approval “directly conflicts” with settled SDBL interpretation that a jurisdiction cannot redesign an applicant’s project. (Id., at pp. 2–3, citing Bankers Hill 150, supra, and Wollmer, supra.) San Francisco failed to justify the denial of the waiver based on the required health and safety findings,

1 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/docs/sdiencinitas-nov-012022.pdf . 2 Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/san-francisco-NOV- 122922.pdf.

Ms. Maricela Marroquín
October 7, 2024

Page 3 ends

likely because there was no specific, adverse impact that would occur by allowing an extra floor. HCD concluded that San Francisco “violated the SDBL pursuant to Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1).” (Id. at p. 3.) Here, the application of the requirement that no more than 25 percent of the Project homes have two stories would preclude construction of the Project as designed. Indeed, the need for this waiver flows directly from waivers staff recommends granting that allow smaller lots than typically required, including a reduction in the following: minimum overall area for each dwelling unit by approximately half, minimum lot area for a residential building site, minimum lot width, minimum lot depth, and increased in allowed floor to area ratio (“FAR”). Once lot size is effectively cut in half, the only way to fit a home that includes the “amenity” of bedrooms is to have a two-story home.

Stated differently, if the Project had fewer units, such that each unit could meet 6,000 square foot minimum overall site area, then a one-story unit could be 2,400 square feet given the permitted FAR of 0.40. This is sufficient space to allow the Project’s proposed units, which range from 1,735 square feet to 2,039 square feet. But the average Project lot size is 3,036 square feet, which results in a maximum home size of 1,214 square feet. Since a garage is at least 400 square feet, that leaves 814 square feet for living space, which is not large enough for rooms required (kitchen) and generally desired in a home, including two bedrooms. This is borne out by reviewing the first-floor plan of the proposed units, which do not include bedrooms (one first floor plan has an office space that could be a bedroom but is not currently designed as such and, as noted above, the City is not allowed to redesign the Project). Denying the requested waiver to allow an increase in stories is the same as denying the Project at the density proposed because Warmington cannot construct the Project as the City wants it redesigned.

3. The City Cannot Make The Findings For Denial Of The Waiver A city can deny a requested waiver in only very limited circumstances, as follows:
 The waiver “would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact”3;

3 As defined, “a ‘specific, adverse impact’ means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. The following shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety: (A) [i]nconsistency with the zoning ordinance or general plan land use designation [and] (B) [t]he eligibility to claim a welfare exemption under subdivision (g) of Section 214 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (d)(2).) “It is the intent of the Legislature that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, as described in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) . . . arise infrequently.” (Id., subd. (a)(3).)
Ms. Maricela Marroquín
October 7, 2024

Page 4 ends

 The waiver “would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or”
 The waiver “would be contrary to state or federal law.” (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)(1).) The Staff Report provides no evidence to support a conclusion that granting the waiver for the Project to have all two-story homes would meet any of the above-listed circumstances. And no such evidence exists. Allowing 67 two-story homes on the Property would not have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, would not adversely impact a listed historic resource, and does not violate state or federal law.

4. Conclusion
In sum, approving the Project conditioned on making 75 percent of the homes one story and denying the requested waiver to this standard violates the SDBL. The City should remember that “[i]f a court finds that the refusal to grant a waiver or reduction of development standards is in violation of this section, the court shall award the plaintiff reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit.” (Id., § 65915, subd. (e)(1).) Further, imposition of the proposed condition is tantamount to denying the Project because it is not practicable to construct it as improperly redesigned by the City.

For the foregoing reasons, we request that the City grant the requested waiver to allow all Project homes to have two stories and revise the Staff Report prior to the hearing to reflect that decision.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

Linda C. Klein

Cc: Joe Perez, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Annette Tam Chyan, Planning Manager
Miguel Del Rio, Senior Planner
Joe Oftelie, Warming Residential
Brian Taylor, Taylor & Clark
James Purvis, Cox, Castle & Nicholson, LLP

105186\18074972v2

ATTACHMENT NO. 6
Letter from State of California Housing and Community
Development Department dated November 12, 2024
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
651 Bannon Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95811
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
November 12, 2024

Joe Perez Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Ave.

Jurupa Valley, CA 92509

Dear Joe Perez:

RE: City of Jurupa Valley, 7586 Jurupa Road Project – Notice of Potential Violation

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) understands the City of Jurupa Valley (City) Planning Commission will be considering a housing project proposed at 7586 Jurupa Road, (APN: 183-030-014) (Project) at its November 13, 2024 meeting. As discussed during the October 29, 2024 meeting between City staff and HCD, this letter provides additional technical assistance regarding this Project and provides notice to the City that the denial of the waivers requested for the Project may result in a violation of the State Density Bonus Law (SDBL)
1 as described in this letter.

Background

HCD understands the Project proposes 67 single-family residential units, including 56 market-rate units and 3 units affordable to very low-income households. The Project utilizes the SDBL to achieve a 20-percent density bonus and is facilitated by several SDBL concessions and waivers. HCD understands the City’s Traditional Neighborhood Design standard limits two-story dwelling units to 25-percent of the total units proposed in a project.
2 Additionally, the standard restricts the placement of two-story units, prohibiting two-story units from being adjacent to other two-story units and from being located on corner lots. The applicant is requesting a total of 34 SDBL waivers, including three waivers to allow 100-percent of the dwelling units to be two-stories. HCD understands that staff is recommending3 that the Planning Commission deny the waivers that would allow all of the dwelling units to be two-stories, among other recommendations to deny additional requested waivers related to landscaping and open space standards.
4 1 Gov. Code, § 65915 et. seq.
2 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code § 9.240.550(E)(3).
3 City Staff Report for the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission Hearing:
https://www.jurupavalley.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2785?fileID=2584. 4 Jurupa Valley Municipal Code §§ 9.240.550 (E)(13) and 9.240.550 (E)(5).

Joe Perez, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director

Page 2 ends

Denial of Waivers under State Density Bonus Law

A project that meets the eligibility requirements of the SDBL is entitled to a density bonus, concessions, waivers, and limited parking ratios. 5 Importantly, the City is strictly
limited in denying requested waivers to circumstances where the waiver would have a specific, adverse impact on health or safety for which there is no feasible method to mitigate; or the waiver would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; or if granting the waiver would be . contrary to state or federal law.6 Please note that of the three findings of denial available to the City, none involves a determination that the Project could theoretically be redesigned to achieve the same density without the requested waivers. The staff recommendation to deny the waivers appears to be based on exactly such a presumption, that the denial would not preclude the construction of 67 dwelling units on the project site if the project design was modified. Therefore, the Planning Commission should approve the project and its waivers as submitted.

Conclusion

The State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. The City should remain mindful of the City's obligations under the SDBL as it considers this project in its upcoming Planning Commission approval. HCD urges the Planning Commission to approve the Project as proposed with the requested waivers unless the City makes findings that comply with the requirements of the SDBL.

HCD would also like to remind the City that HCD has enforcement authority over the SDBL, among other state housing laws. Accordingly, HCD may review local government actions and inactions to determine consistency with these laws. If HCD finds that a city’s actions do not comply with state law, HCD may notify the California Office of the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of state law. 7 Should you have any questions regarding this letter or require additional technical assistance, please feel free to contact Troy Andres, of our staff, at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief

5 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (b).
6 Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e).
7 Gov. Code, § 65585, subd. (j).

ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Letter from YIMBY Law dated November 27, 2024
YIMBY Law
2261 Market Street STE 10416
San Francisco, CA 94114
[email protected]
1 11/27 /2024
City of Jurupa Valley
Planning Commission
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
[email protected]
Via Email
Re: 7586 Jurupa Road
Dear Planning Commission,
YIMBY Law is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation, whose mission is to increase the accessibility and affordability of housing in California. YIMBY Law sues municipalities when they fail to comply with state housing laws, including the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). You have an obligation to abide by all relevant state housing laws when evaluating the above captioned proposal, including the HAA. Should the City fail to follow the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to file suit to ensure that the law is enforced.

This project will consist of 67 lots of single-family detached homes, with three set aside for Very Low Income residents. Despite your RHNA obligations, the recommendations of HCD and your own staff1, and the state of California law as outlined in the code itself and reiterated by state courts, this Commission denied the project at its November 13, 2024 meeting. The stated reasoning was the Commission’s displeasure over specific waivers that would have allowed the project to include all 2-story residences. Despite assurances of the developer, the 1 Miguel Del Rio, Senior Planner, MASTER APPLICATION (MA) NO. 23357: DENSITY BONUS APPLICATION (DB) NO. 24001, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM) NO. 38888, AND SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) NO. 23172, AND ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, November 13, 2o24, available at
https://www.jurupavalley.org/AgendaCenter/ViewFile/Item/2785?fileID=2584. 2 Commissioners stated 2 several3 times4 that the project should be able to move forward without said waivers, and that as such the Density Bonus Law allows them to deny those waivers. Not only did the Commission deny the waivers, it denied the project outright.

This is not the law of California. Your Commission did not have authority to deny the project for those reasons or deny the waivers at all, and finalizing such a denial will waste time and resources on a lawsuit that Jurupa Valley will lose.

While governments may not deny Density Bonus waivers if they would make the project infeasible, this does not allow them to deny waivers that would not make the project infeasible.

The law at issues makes explicit that a waiver may only be denied:
“if the waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact … upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact[, or] would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, or … would be contrary to state or federal law."5
Your Commission is well aware of this, as HCD notified you before the November 13th hearing:

Please note that of the three findings of denial available to the City, none involves a determination that the Project could theoretically be redesigned to achieve the same density without the requested waivers. The staff recommendation to deny the waivers appears to be based on exactly such a presumption, that the denial would not preclude the construction of 67 dwelling units on the project site if the project design was modified. Therefore, the Planning Commission should approve the project and its waivers as submitted.6
2 See Jurupa Valley Planning Commission Hearing, November 13, 2024 starting at 15:00:00 https://jurupavalleyca.new.swagit.com/videos/320109
3 See note 2 at 41:57.
4 See note 2 at 1:21:30.
5 CA Gov. Code § 65915, subd. (e)(1).
6 California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Jurupa Valley, 7586 Jurupa Road Project – Notice of Potential Violation, November 12, 2024. Attached with this correspondence.
3 HCD was not ambiguous in this letter to you, nor in its letters to Mill Valley7, Oceanside8 (multiple times)9, or San Francisco10 when it explained these same principles.

In case a reading of the statute, the recommendations of your own staff, and HCD’s explicit communication on the matter are not enough, California case law has reviewed and ruled on this exact point multiple times.

That "amendments to the [Density Bonus Law] in 2008 had the effect of deleting the requirement that an applicant for a waiver of development standards must show that the waiver was necessary to render the project economically feasible. While the Density Bonus Law sets forth certain limited exceptions under which local governments are not required to waive development standards,17 the court explained that the existence of alternative compliant project designs is not among them:
“[U]nless one of the statutory exceptions applies, so long as a proposed housing development project meets the criteria of the Density Bonus Law by including the necessary affordable units, a city may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed..."11
In fact, the courts have found that current Density Bonus law has the direct effect of “delet[ing] the requirement that an applicant for a waiver of development standards must show that the waiver was necessary to render the project economically feasible.”12 Disliking or disagreeing with the law doesn’t make it not the law. With authority this established, this commonly reiterated, and this obvious on a first read-through, there is no debate to be had on this point. California Government Code § 65589.5, the Housing Accountability Act, prohibits localities from denying housing development projects that are compliant with the locality’s zoning ordinance or general plan at the time the application was 7 California Department of Housing and Community Development, Blithedale Terrace Mixed- Use Project - Notice of Potential Violation, January 9, 2023. Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and-community/HAU/mill-valley- NOPV-010923.pdf
8 California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Oceanside, Ocean Creek Mixed-Use Development – Letter of Technical Assistance, January 10, 2023. Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/OceansideTA011023.pdf
9 California Department of Housing and Community Development, City of Oceanside, Breeze Luxury Apartment Residences – Letter of Support and Technical Assistance, November 29, 2022.

Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/oceanside-LOS-TA-112922.pdf
10 California Department of Housing and Community Development, City and County of San Francisco – Letter of Inquiry, August 11, 2022. Available at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/sites/default/files/docs/planning-and- community/HAU/sfrSanFrancisco-LOI-081122.pdf
11 Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Francisco, 74 Cal. App. 5th 755, at 775 (Cal Ct. App. 2022). 12 Wollmer v. City of Berkeley, 179 Cal.App.4th 1329 at 1346 (Cal Ct. App. 2011). 4 deemed complete, unless the locality can make findings that the proposed housing development would be a threat to public health and safety.

In this case, a Density Bonus is being sought in order for the Project proponent to be granted waivers to which they are entitled under California state Density Bonus Law, California Government Code § 65915(e), so long as there are no specific, adverse impacts, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and there are no feasible methods to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impacts. The HAA, § 65589.5 (j)(3) specifies that the receipt of a density bonus does not constitute a valid basis on which to find a proposed housing development project is inconsistent, not in compliance, or not in conformity, with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.

With the requested concessions and/or waivers available under State Density Bonus Law, the above-captioned project is zoning and general plan compliant. Therefore, your local agency must approve the application, or else make findings to the effect that the proposed project would have an adverse impact on public health and safety, as described above. Should the City fail to comply with the law, YIMBY Law will not hesitate to take legal action to ensure that the law is enforced.

I am signing this letter both in my capacity as the Executive Director of YIMBY Law, and as a resident of California who is affected by the shortage of housing in our state and would be eligible to apply for residency in the proposed housing development project.

Sincerely,
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law

ATTACHMENT NO. 8
Letter from California Housing Defense Fund
dated December 5, 2024
Dec 5, 2024
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 7586 Jurupa Road To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Dear Jurupa Valley Planning Commission and City Staff,
The California Housing Defense Fund (“CalHDF”) submits this letter to remind the Commission and City Staff of their obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 67-unit, 100% affordable (three low income units, 64 moderate income units) housing development project at 7586 Jurupa Road. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”), the Density Bonus Law (“DBL”), and binding caselaw from the California Court of Appeal.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Notwithstanding the appellants’ arguments, increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov. Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3).)
CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in 360 Grand Ave #323, Oakland 94610
www.calhdf.org

residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to area per dwelling unit, lot area, lot width, lot depth, front yards, side yards, rear yards, structural encroachments, number of lots with two story dwellings, two story dwellings adjacent to lots with two story dwellings, two story dwellings on corner lots, open space permeability, landscaping of open space, setbacks, interior side yards, street facing side yards, rear yard setbacks, garage setbacks, garage location, distance between curb cuts, street layout, street stub-outs, right of way and roadway widths, alley widths, parkway width, landscaping and walls/fences, front yard landscaping areas, and rear yard landscaping areas, unless it makes written findings as required by Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (p).)
Based on the staff report for the November 13, 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the City is proposing to deny the project certain waivers that the project is entitled to pursuant to the DBL, such that the project will not be able to be constructed as proposed. Specifically, the staff report indicates that the City is planning to deny waivers requested with respect to the number of lots with two-story homes, two-story homes being adjacent to other two-story homes, two story-homes on corner lots, and landscaping of open space including front and rear setbacks. However, as discussed above, the City must make specific findings pursuant to Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) in order to deny these waivers.

Specifically, the City must find that the “waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65589.5, upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact.” Alternatively, the City must find that the waiver would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources” or that the waiver would be contrary to state or federal law. (Ibid.) Obviously such findings are impossible in this case, as the number of two-story homes and the proportion of landscaping clearly have no impact on health and safety, nor do these waivers impact historic properties or violate state or federal law.

Beyond the plain language of the statute, there is controlling caselaw on this topic that requires the City to approve the waivers. The California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed …” (Bankers Hill 150 v. City of San Diego(2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.) Denying the requested waivers in this case would physically preclude the project as it is designed, an action that is squarely contrary to the rule articulated by the Court of Appeal.
2 of 3
The Commission should be aware that should the City persist in its denial, and face a lawsuit, it will be liable for attorney’s fees and costs of suit pursuant to Government Code, section 65915, subdivision (e)(1). If the City is found to have violated the HAA in addition to wrongly denying requested waivers under the DBL, additional penalties apply. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (k)(1)(B).) The liability for violating state housing law can be severe. As an example, the City of Berkeley was recentlyforced to pay $4 million after wrongfully denying a housing development project.

Beyond the legal arguments, it is unclear why the City would want to deny the proposed waivers. The applicant is proposing a 100% affordable homeownership project. These projects are very rare and challenging to develop, and the City will receive valuable RHNA credit, along with 67 new affordable units to house its residents and workforce.

As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households.

You may learn more about CalHDF atwww.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

ATTACHMENT NO. 9
Second letter from attorney for Developer
dated December 12, 2024

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Linda C. Klein
415.262.5130
[email protected]
File No. 105186
December 12, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Planning Commissioners
c/o Vicki Wasko
City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: 7586 Jurupa Road (APN: 183-030-014)
To the Planning Commissioners:

We write on behalf of our client, Warmington Residential (“Warmington”), concerning its proposed 67-lot subdivision (“Project”) at 7586 Jurupa Road (“Property”) in the City of Jurupa Valley (“City”). We previously wrote to the City expressing our concern that the City will violate State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”) by denying the requested waiver for all Project homes to be two stories, which would be tantamount to denying the Project despite the protection afforded by the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). (See Attachment 1.) Based on the Project’s staff report, we now have a new concern, which is that the City plans to violate the law by making unsupported and pretextual findings to deny Project approval.

1. Factual Background
At no time during the processing of the Project application did the City raise concerns regarding the Project’s impact on traffic safety. As the December 11, 2024, staff report (“December Staff Report”) states, staff originally recommended “to the Planning Commission that the project be approved except for waivers of certain development standards related to two- story homes and landscaping.” (December Staff Report, p. 2.) The Planning Commission considered the Project on October 9, 2024, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, voted 4-0-1 to continue the public hearing to October 23, allegedly to consider whether it must grant a certain waiver under SDBL. (Id.) But the City canceled the October 23 meeting, rescheduling the hearing to November 13. At that hearing, without providing any objective reasons why it wanted to disapprove the Project, the Planning Commission voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution denying the Project.

Likely knowing that no reason existed to deny the waiver under SDBL, staff instead focused on the Subdivision Map Act (“SMA”) findings and corresponding Site Development Planning Commission
December 11, 2024

Page 2 ends

Permit (“SDP”) findings to create a pretense for denial. Specifically, the December Staff Report pivots from the prior staff reports and for the first time finds that “as designed, the Project creates a public safety risk for the [six] neighboring properties that use Kirby Drive as their only access point to Jurupa Road” due to a proposed “six foot perimeter wall parallel to Jurupa Road” that “will obstruct the line of sight of drivers who are traveling northwest along Kirby Drive and prevent drivers from being able to see if a train is coming before they enter Jurupa Road.” (Id., pp. 11–12.) Staff then used the same alleged public safety concern to find that the Planning Commission can deny the Project under the HAA. (Id., p. 12.) As discussed in more detail below, the proposed six-foot, solid perimeter wall (“Perimeter Wall”) does not create a public safety risk. Further, even if it did (although no evidence supports such a conclusion), the City could reduce that risk by conditioning Project approval on providing a differently designed wall, such as a wall that is angled or one that allows vision through it, such as a tube steel fence. Under the law, the City cannot deny a Project if the City can instead condition it to reduce an alleged risk. Additionally, the City cannot deny the Project without making required “no net loss” findings, which are not included in the draft resolution.

2. The SMA And SDP Findings Are Unsupported By Substantial Evidence Since the first application, the Project has proposed the Perimeter Wall. No one raised concerns about that wall through the entire application and environmental review process. The Public Works Department did not raise concerns. The City Engineer did not raise concerns. The City’s traffic and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) consultants did not raise concerns.

Further, the City approved this exact same wall on November 17, 2022, when it approved a tentative map and SDP for a project known as the “Madone Collection.” (See Nov. 17, 2022, Staff Report, p. 5 [recommending map approval]; id., Attachment 7, Sheet 2, Section A, p. 453 of the pdf [showing a proposed, six-foot block wall]; id., pp. 455–456 of the pdf [additional detail regarding the proposed, six-foot block wall].) When evaluating the Madone Collection, the City found that the design, including the Perimeter Wall, “will not cause substantial environmental damage, harm any wildlife, nor cause serious public health problems.” (Id., at p. 16; see Resolution No. 2022-109, § 10 [SDP findings state: “The proposed overall development of the land, as demonstrated in the Project site plan(s), is designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare.”]; id., § 11 [SMA findings state: “The design of the proposed land division or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems.”].)
There have been no changes that could cause the City to now reach a different conclusion except as a pretense to deny the Project, which is denser than the Madone Collection due to Warmington’s application of SDBL. The City may claim that a neighbor raised a concern around vehicular sight lines at the October Planning Commission hearing. But such unsubstantiated lay opinion does not undermine the earlier analysis from City staff and CEQA consultants for the Madone Collection and the Project concluding the Perimeter Wall has no Planning Commission
December 11, 2024

Page 3 ends

safety issues. (Cf. Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 925 [questions about the transportation analysis are not substantial evidence of an impact]; see Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771, 790–791 [substantial evidence does not include lay opinion based on technical information that requires expertise, or lay observations unrelated to similar projects in the past].) Accordingly, the City cannot in good faith make a finding that the Perimeter Wall creates a public safety risk, particularly when the City previously approved the Perimeter Wall, and no substantial evidence exists that undermines the prior determination that the Perimeter Wall would not create a safety issue. Absent such evidence, the City cannot deny the tentative map or SDP.

3. The City Cannot Make The Findings Required To Deny The Project Under The HAA
The City also cannot make the finding required by the HAA to deny the Project. As the staff report notes, the HAA states:

When a proposed housing development project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove the project or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density, the local agency shall base its decision regarding the proposed housing development project upon written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:
(A) the housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density; and (B) there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to paragraph (1), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.
(Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1).)
The City justifies its proposed denial of the Project by claiming it would “have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety due to the perimeter wall proposed to be located along Kirby Drive that would obstruct the line of sight residents who own homes located on the corner of Kirby Drive and Jurupa Road.” (December Staff Report, p. 12.) This finding is insufficient to meet the requirements of the HAA for at least three reasons.

First, the City fails to identify a “specific, adverse impact” as the HAA defines that term.

A “specific, adverse impact” means “a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, Planning Commission
December 11, 2024

Page 4 ends

based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.” (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(1)(A).) The City did not quantify the alleged impact or identify a written standard with which the Project conflicts. Nor can the City do so because it previously found the Project consistent with all applicable, objective standards related to traffic safety. The City had 30 days from when it found the Project application to be complete to identify any inconsistencies with applicable, objective standards and did not identify any related to public health or safety requirements. (Id., subd. (j)(2)(A)(i).) The City’s failure to timely identify any such conflicts resulted in the Project being “deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with the applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision.” (Id., subd. (j)(2)(B).) Stated differently, the Project is by law consistent with all City public health and safety standards, including those related to a driver’s vision at an intersection.

Second, the City fails to explain why “there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact” other than to disapprove the Project. The City is concerned about Perimeter Wall obstructing drivers’ line of sight, which “could” lead to injury. (December Staff Report, p. 12.) Rather than deny the Project (or condition it on fewer units), the City could condition the Project on an additional analysis confirming that the Perimeter Wall would not obstruct a driver’s line of sight. Or the City could require that the Perimeter Wall taper down as it approaches Kirby Drive. Or the City could require that a small portion of the wall closest to Kirby Drive be made of a different material, such as tubular steel, that allows drivers to see through it. There are multiple ways to address the City’s concern without denying the Project.

Third, the City fails to provide a “preponderance of evidence” showing both that there is a specific, adverse impact and that such an impact cannot be mitigated or avoided through Project modification rather than denial. The City provides only conclusory statements and no evidence that the Perimeter Wall will obscure a driver’s line of sight in a manner that would create a safety issue. And there is much evidence to the contrary, including the City’s findings supporting the design when it approved the Perimeter Wall in 2022, and the analysis in the Madone Collection Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) and the addendum to that MND prepared for the Project finding no unmitigable transportation impacts. The lack of any comments from the City until the December Staff Report that the Perimeter Wall could create a safety hazard is additional evidence that the late raised claim is pretextual. The City also provides no evidence that the alleged safety concern cannot be addressed through means other than Project denial, which as discussed in the preceding paragraph, it can.

In short, the City cannot deny the Project without violating the HAA. We remind the City that willful violation of the HAA can result in fines between $10,000 and $50,000 per unit (which here would total $670,000 to $3,350,000) and potential liability for petitioner’s attorneys’ fees. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (k), (l).)
Planning Commission
December 11, 2024

Page 5 ends

4. The City Failed To Make No Net Loss Findings
The Housing Element identifies the Property as having a “Pipeline Project” with thirty- six above-moderate income units (i.e., the Madone Collection). (Housing Element, p. 5-66.) The City counted Pipeline Projects towards meeting its regional housing needs assessment (“RHNA”). (Id., p. 5-64.)
Under Housing Element Law, the City must ensure its Housing Element always has capacity throughout the applicable planning period to accommodate the RHNA by income group. (Gov. Code, § 65863, subd. (a).) In addition, the City must make written findings supported by substantial evidence as to whether the remaining sites identified in the Housing Element are adequate if the City allows a development with lower density than assumed in the Housing Element or disallows a housing development when the Housing Element assumes approval. (Id., subd. (b)(2).)
The draft resolution fails to make these required findings and therefore violates Housing Element Law.

5. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the City cannot deny the Project. There is no evidence showing that the Project would have an adverse impact on health or safety (and there is evidence that no such impacts would occur), there is no evidence that denial of the Project is necessary to address City concerns related to a few drivers’ line of sight, and the draft resolution fails to make findings required by the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Element Law.

We therefore urge the Planning Commission to approve the Project, including all requested waivers, which are addressed in more detail in Attachment 1.

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

Linda C. Klein

Attachment 1: Letter from Author to the City, dated October 7, 2024

Cc: Joe Perez, Assistant City Manager/Community Development Director Annette Tam Chyan, Planning Manager
Miguel Del Rio, Senior Planner
Maricela Marroquin, City Attorney
Joe Oftelie, Warming Residential

105186\18225729v3

VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Maricela Marroquín
Assistant City Attorney
City of Jurupa Valley
350 South Grand Avenue
37th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Re: 7586 Jurupa Road (APN: 183-030-014)
Dear Ms. Marroquín:

1. Waivers Can Vary Height And Floor Limits
As documented though correspondence between Warmington and the City, as well as the Planning Commission staff report for the October 9 hearing (“Staff Report”), the Project qualifies for SDBL benefits because it includes the required number of affordable housing units.

Among other SDBL benefits, the Project is entitled to waivers or reductions of any “development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction” of the Project. (See Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (e)(1) [a city may not “apply any development standard that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of a development meeting the criteria of subdivision (b) at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted”].) The SDBL defines “development standard” to include any “site or construction condition, including, but not limited to, a height limitation, a setback requirement, a floor area ratio, an onsite open- space requirement, a minimum lot area per unit requirement, or a parking ratio.” (Id., subd. (o)(2) [emphasis added].) The limitation on the number of allowed two story structures is a development standard under the SDBL.

Ms. Maricela Marroquín
October 7, 2024

Page 2 ends

Ms. Maricela Marroquín
October 7, 2024

Page 3 ends

Page 4 ends

Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP

Linda C. Klein

105186\18074972v2

ATTACHMENT NO. 10
Letter from Housing Action Coalition dated December 19, 2024

555 Montgomery Street
Suite 720
San Francisco, CA 94111
[email protected]
rg
housingactioncoalition.org
To the Planning Commission:

The Housing Action Coalition (“HAC”) is a member-supported nonprofit that advocates for building more homes at all levels of affordability to help alleviate the California’s housing shortage, displacement, and affordability crisis. As an organization dedicated to housing advocacy, HAC is interested in the uniform and correct application of California’s housing laws across jurisdictions.

HAC writes regarding the 67-home subdivision with three very-low income units (“Project”) proposed by Warmington for an approximately 6.92-acre property at 7586 Jurupa Road (“Property”) in Jurupa Valley (“City”). While we have not reviewed the details of the Project itself, we have been made aware of the unique approval process the Project has faced. The Project proposes to use State Density Bonus Law to increase the density by 20 percent, which increases the unit count from the 55 units anticipated by the Housing Element to 67 units. The Project also proposes multiple waivers to City development standards allow Warmington to fit the 67 units proposed. One of the requested waivers is to allow all the homes rather than only 25 percent of them to be two stories.

HAC understands that the Planning Commission plans to deny the Project and that City staff has consistently recommended denial of a requested waiver to the two-story limit. Project denial would violate the Housing Accountability Act (“Act”) and denial of the waiver would violate both the Act and the State Density Bonus Law (“SDBL”).

The Housing Accountability Act is strong medicine to fix the state’s ailing housing production. The Legislature’s intent in enacting the Act “in 1982 and in expanding its provisions since then was to significantly increase the approval and construction of new housing for all economic segments of California’s communities by meaningfully and effectively curbing the capability of local governments to deny, reduce the density for, or render infeasible housing development projects and emergency shelters.” Therefore, the Act is intended to “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a).)

The Act prohibits the City from denying the Project or conditioning it on fewer units unless it makes written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence on the record that both of the following conditions exist:

(A) The housing development project would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. “Specific, adverse impact” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

(B) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition that it be developed at a lower density.

555 Montgomery Street
Suite 720
San Francisco, CA 94111
[email protected]
rg
housingactioncoalition.org

(§ 65589.5(j).) The City has presented no evidence that the Project, located on a site long planned for housing, would have a “specific, adverse impact” that can be addressed only by Project denial. The definition of “specific, adverse impact” sets a high bar, consistent with the Legislature’s intent that “that the conditions that would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety . . . arise infrequently.” (§ 65589.5(a)(3).)

Assuming the Planning Commission follows staff’s recommendation to approve the Project but not the second story waiver, that action would still violate state housing law. HAC recommends that the City read the letter that HCD wrote to the City of San Francisco when that city approved a project conditioned on one story less than requested. (See HCD Letter of Technical Assistance to San Francisco (Aug. 11, 2022).) As HCD noted, the SDBL does not authorize a city to condition a project based on a theory that another project might conceivably be designed differently and accommodated without waivers. (Id., citing Wollmer v. City of Berkeley (2011)193 Cal.App.4th 1329, 1346-47.) The courts have made it clear that if a project qualifies under SDBL, and if waivers are needed to physically allow that project as designed to go forward with the incentives and concessions granted, the waivers must be granted. The only exception is where a local jurisdiction can make findings about specific adverse impacts that, as discussed above, cannot be made here. (Id.)

Denial of the requested second-story waiver also would violate the Act because such a denial is akin to approval of the Project conditioned on fewer units. Warmington has stated that it could not build homes, which must have bedrooms, if it is limited to one-story structures (currently, the units have the bedrooms on the second floor). Thus, waiver denial amounts to approving the Project conditioned on reducing its size by 75 percent even though nothing in the record shows that having two-story homes (the height of which are within the height allowed by the zoning) would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety.

HAC reminds the City that we believe in using every tool available to enforce state housing law. HAC hopes the City will do its part to address the housing crisis by complying with state laws intended to promote housing production by reducing local barriers to housing approval.

Sincerely,

Corey Smith, Executive Director
Housing Action Coalition (HAC)

Page | 1
120

STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: HO

NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.A
AP

POINTMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY

COMMITTEE AND ANNUAL RECONFIRMATION PROCESS
RECO

MMENDATION
1) That the City Council ratify Council Member Veronica Sanchez’s appointment to the Community Development Advisory Committee, which shall expire in December 2028.
2) That the City Council ratify Council Member Guillermo Silva’s appointment to the Community Development Advisory Committee , which shall expire in December 2028.
3) That the City Council ratify Council Member Armando Carmona’s appointment to t he Community Development Advisory Committee, which shall expire in December 2026.
4) That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointments of Community Development Advisory Committee Members George Ruiz and Sonia Wraich pursuant to Section 2.36.030(B) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

Counc
il Member Guillermo Silva appointed Committee Member Rachel Lopez on March 16, 2023. He may re -appoint Ms. Lopez for an additional four -year term or he may nominate one member to fill the scheduled vacancy, which expires in December 2028.

The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

Due to Council Member Leslie Altamirano’s unsuc cessful re-election, Council Member Veronica Sanchez will be asked to either make a new appointment or re-appoint David McEachern, which term expires in December 2028. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

Due to the resignation of Joanna Medina on December 31, 2024, Council Member Armando Carmona will be asked to make a new appointment, which term expires in December 2026. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

ANALYSIS
Section 2.36.020 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that each member of the City Council shall nominate one member of the Community Development Advisory Committee, which nomination shall be ratified a majority vote of the entire City Council.

Section 2.3 6.030.A provides that “the t erm of each member of the Community Development Advisory Committee shall be for four (4) years or until their successors are appointed and sworn in as members, whichever is later.” Section 2.36.030 provides that “Each year the City Council shall reconfirm the appointment of each member of the Community Development Advisory Committee.” Section 2.36.030.B.3. provides that:
“If a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee is not reconfirmed by a majority vote of the entire City Council, then at the time of this vote the member shall be deemed removed from the Community Development Advisory Committee, the member's term and tenure as a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee shall end, and a vacancy shall exist for that position.”
If a member of the Community Development Advisory Committee’s term is expiring, or if a vacancy should occur on the Community Development Advisory Committee by resignation or failure to be reconfirmed, the positions shall be filled by appointment of a new member by the City Council pursuant to the procedures of subsection A of Section

2.36.020.

The noticing procedures outlined in Section 2.36.020(A) require that not less than ten (10) working days before the City Council appoints a person to a position on the Community Development Advisory Committee, the City Clerk shall post a notice that the Council intends to appoint a member or members to the Community Development Advisory Committee and inviting qualified persons to apply for the position or positions. The notice shall be posted on the City’s website, in the City Clerk’s office, and at the locations for the posting of ordinances and resolutions as established by r esolution of the City Council.

These locations shall include the Glen Avon Library and the Louis Robidoux Library.

QUALIFICATIONS
Pursuant to Section 2.36.040 of the Municipal Code, no member of the Community Development Advisory Committee shall be a city employee, nor shall any member of the

Page | 1
120

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.B

APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND ANNUAL

RECONFIRMATION PROCESS

RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council ratify Council Member Veronica Sanchez’s appointment to the Planning Commission, which shall expire in December 2028. 2) That the City Council ratify Council Member Guillermo Silva’s appointment to the Planning Commission, which shall expire in December, 2028. 3) That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointments of Planning Commissioners Uriel De La Torre, Penny Newman and Arleen Pruitt pursuant to Section 2.35.030(E) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND:

Council Member Guillermo Silva appointed Planning Commissioner Laura Shultz on January 21, 2021. He may re-appoint Ms. Schultz for an additional four-year term or he may nominate one member to fill the scheduled vacancy, which term shall expire in December 2028. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

Due to Council Member Leslie Altamirano’s unsuccessful re-election, Council Member Veronica Sanchez will be asked to make a new appointment or she may re-appoint Hakan Jackson, which term shall expire in December 2028. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

ANALYSIS
Section 2.35.020 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that each member of the City Council shall nominate one member of the Planning Commission which nomination shall be ratified a majority vote of the entire City Council. Section 2.35.030.A. provides that the “term of each member of the Planning Commission shall be for four (4) years or until their successors are appointed and sworn in as members of the Planning Commission, whichever is later.

On December 5, 2013, the Cit y Council adopted Ordinance No. 2013 -11, amending Section 2.35.030.E which provides that “ Each year the City Council shall reconfirm the appointment of each Planning Commissioner.” Section 2.35.030.E.2. provides that each Planning Commissioner shall be “r econfirmed by a majority vote of the entire City Council.” Section 2.35.030.E.3. provides that:
“If a Planning Commissioner is not reconfirmed by a majority vote of the entire City Council, then at the time of this vote the Planning Commissioner shall be deemed removed from the Planning Commission, the Planning Commissioner’s term and tenure as a member of the Planning Commission shall end, and a vacancy shall exist for that position.” If a Planning Commissioner’s term is expiring, or if a vacancy should occur on the Planning Commission by resignation or failure to be reconfirmed, the positions shall be filled by appointment of a new member by the City Council pursuant to the procedures of subsection A of Section 2.35.020.

The noticing procedures outlined in Section 2.35.020(A) require that not less than ten (10) working days before the City Council appoints a person to a position on the Planning Commission, the City Clerk shall post a notice that the Council intends to appoint a member or members to the Planning Commission and inviting qualified persons to apply for the position or positions. The notice shall be posted on the City’s website, in the City Clerk’s office, and at the locations for the posting of ordinances and resolutions as established by resolution of the City Council. These locations shall include the Glen Avon Library and the Louis Robidoux Library.

Resolution No. 2011 -44 provides further detail concerning these requirements. These provisions include the requirement that any letters of interest received will be public documents, the City Clerk will distribute the letters of interest received to the City Council at the end of each working day during the notice period, and that all persons interested in being appointed will have the opport unity to address the City Council prior to an appointment being made. Section 2.E. of Resolution No. 2011-44 also provides that “The Council may consider any qualified person for appointment to the Planning Commission whether or not such person submitted a letter of interest to the Council.”

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact.

Page | 1
120

STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: HO

NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: VICTORIA WASKO, CMC, CITY CLERK
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.C
AP

POINTMENTS TO THE PUBLIC WORKS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

AND ANNUAL RECONFIRMATION PROCESS
RECO

MMENDATION
1) Requested Action: That the City Council ratify Council Member Veronica Sanchez’s appointment to the Public Works Advisory Committee, which shall expire in December 2028.
2) That the City Council ratify Council Member Guillermo Silva’s appointment to the Public Works Advisory Committee, which shall expire in December 2028. 3) That the City Council consider the reconfirmation of the appointments of Public Works Advisory Committee members Robert Galindo, Mayra Jackson, and Josh Steffy.

BACKGROUND
At their July 21, 2022 meeting, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2022- 13 establishing the Public Works Advisory Committee (“Committee”) and its duties and responsibilities.

ANALYSIS
Th
e Committee consist s of five (5) members appointed by the City Council. Each Committee member nomination requires confirmation by a majority vote of the entire City Council. The Committee generally meets on a quarterly basis and may conduct special meetings as needed.

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

Council Member Guillermo Silva appointed Committee Member Alondra Munoz on August 18, 2022. He may re- appoint Ms. Munoz for an additional four -year term or he may nominate one member to fill the scheduled vacancy, which expires in December 2028. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

Due to Council Member Leslie Altamirano’s unsuccessful re- election, Council Member Veronica Sanchez will be asked to either make a new appointment or re- appoint Jose Cuellar, which term expires in December 2028. The nomination shall be ratified by a majority vote of the entire City Council.

The vacancies for the Public Works Advisory Committee were published in the Press Enterprise newspaper on December 20, 2024. The vacancies were also publicized on the City’s various social media sites.

Pursuant to Ordinance No. 2022-13, members of the Public Works Advisory Committee shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council and a member of the Public Works Advisory Committee may be removed from the Committee by his or her appointing authority for any reason, with or without cause.

The Committee shall act as an advisory body to the City Council on matters relating to public works, listed as follows:

● Advise the City Council regarding Public Works programs, including but not limited to, roads, storm drains, parkways, planted medians, traffic control devices, traffic signal maintenance, and other public infrastructure obligati ons of the City; and

● Assist staff to develop, review, and recommend a tree planting/maintenance policy; and

● Assist staff in reviewing refuse rates and recycling programs; and

● Recommend and prioritize to the City Council all Public Works capital improvement projects or any other significant project as selected by Staff or the Committee from a list of capital improvement projects for inclusion in an upcoming Capital Improvement Program; and

● Review and recommend clean energy, energy conservation, and environmental sustainability programs reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and

● Receive regular updates of the active Capital Improvement Projects; and

● Provide assistance in developing programs and/or recommendations to the City Council regarding the most efficient and cost effective methods of providing for Public Works needs and requirements of the City.

Page | 1

ST AFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: M

AYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD B. BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.D
URGE
NCY ORDINANCE ADDING SECTIONS 9.05.105 AND 9.05.108 TO

THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING AN APPEAL

PROCESS FOR STREAMLINED , MINISTERIAL HOUSING PROJECTS

AND FOR INCOMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS UNDER THE

PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council adopt, by a four-fifths vote, Interim Urgency Ordinance No. 2025-03, entitled:

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ADDING SECTIONS 9.05.105 AND 9.05.108 TO TITLE 9 (PLANNING AND ZONING) OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

ESTABLISHING AN APPEAL PROCESS FOR STREAMLINED, MINISTERIAL

HOUSING PROJECTS AND FOR INCOMPLETENESS DETERMINATIONS

UNDER THE PERMIT STREAMLINING ACT, AND MAKING A FINDING OF

EXEMPTION UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, the State of California has created processes by which local jurisdictions must streamline and ministerially approve housing development projects that meet certain criteria. Ministerial approval means a project is approved by staff on the basis of objective standards and is not subject to a public hearing, discretionary findings, or consideration by the Planning Commission or City Council.

KEY LEGISLATIVE UPDATES
There are three bills this past legislative session that create or expand streamlined approval processes for certain housing development projects.

RETURN TO AGENDA

Page | 2

Senate Bill 1123
Senate Bill 1123 requires a local agency to ministerially consider a parcel map or a tentative and final map for a housing development project that meets certain requirements, including that the housing development project on the lot proposed to be subdivided will contain 10 or fewer residential units, and is (1) no larger than five acres, zoned for multifamily residential development, and will create parcels no smaller than 600 square feet, or (2) is vacant, no larger than one and a half acres , zoned for single family residential development, and will create parcels no smaller than 1,200 square feet.

Assembly Bill 2243
The Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022, requires the streamlined approval of an affordable housing development or a mixed-income housing development that meets specified objective standards and affordability and site criteria, including being located within a zone where office, retail, or parking are a principally permitted use.

Assembly Bill 2243, among other things, amends the Affordable Housing and High Roads Jobs Act to also allow for streamlined approval of regional mall sites and allows a housing development located within 500 feet of a freeway to be subject to streamlined, ministerial approval if the building meets certain standards.

Assembly Bill 3122
Existing law (commonly referred to as “ SB 35”) requires the streamlined approval of a multifamily housing development, if the development satisfies specified objective planning standards, including, among others, that the development is subject to a requirement mandating a minimum percentage of below market rate housing . Assembly Bill 3122 changes some of the criteria that makes a housing development project eligible for the SB 35 streamlined approval process.

These, and other laws mandated by the State, require streamlined ministerial approval of housing projects. Staff is then tasked with evaluating whether a project meets the criteria for streamlined approval. If staff determ ines that the criteria is met, the project is approved. If staff determines that the criteria is not met, the project is denied. At present, the City’s Municipal Code does not include a specific procedure for an applicant to appeal this staff-level determination.

In addition to the need to create an appeal process for ministerial approval processes, the City also needs to create an appeal process for staff determinations regarding development application completeness. The Permit Streamlining Act requires that a local agency identify the information that must be submitted for a development project to be “complete” and ready for processing. The local agency must respond regarding completeness (or incompleteness) within 30 days of receiving the application materials.

Under state law, local agencies must provide a process for the applicant to appeal an incompleteness determination. M any agencies rely on broadly applicable appeal processes to ensure compliance with this state law requirement . However, an ag ency may establish a process that is specifically applicable to incompleteness determinations.

Staff has prepared a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to establish an appeal process that is specific to incompleteness determinations. Without such a process in place, there may be confusion regarding the appropriate process for such appeals.

Page | 3

URGENCY ORDINANCE
Ordinarily, to adopt an ordinance the City Council must introduce the ordinance at a first meeting, and then adopt it at a second reading. Additionally, once adopted, the ordinance normally will not become effective for 30 days. If the ordinance pertains to planning and zoning, it also requires that the Planning Commission first consider the ordinance for recommendation to the City Council. Using that procedure to adopt the attached ordinance would mean that it would not become effective until April. Staff has concluded that it is legally and operationally important for the City to have an appeals process in place for streamlined, ministerial housing projects and for incompleteness determinations under the Permit Streamlining Act before April 2025.

Government Code Section 36937(b) authorizes a city council to adopt at a single meeting an “urgency” ordinance that will take effect immediately, in cases where the council makes findings that it is required “ for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety” and the ordinance is passed by a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the city council. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached ordinance as an urgency ordinance pursuant to this statute. The proposed ordinance contains findings of fact setting forth why an urgency ordinance is necessary, and if adopted by a four -fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council, the ordinance will go into effect immediately.

The Urgency Ordinance adds Section 9. 05.105 to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to create an appeals process for streamlined housing development projects that are approved ministerially. This will allow any person that is aggrieved by the decision of staff to appeal that decision to the Planning Commission or City Council. Currently, no appeals process exists which means that any approval or disapproval of a streamlined ministerially approved or disapproved project would only be appealable to a court.

The Urgency Ordinance also adds Section 9.05.108 to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to create an appeals process for incompleteness determinations under the Permit Streamlining Act. This will allow an applicant that is aggrieved by the decision of staff to appeal that decision to the City Council.

City staff will concurrently process an ordinance adding Sections 9.05.105 and 9.05.108 to the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code that will be considered by the Planning Commission at it s Ja nuary 22, 2025 meeting. We anticipate that City Council will consider the ordinance at its February 20, 2025 City Council meeting.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The Urgency Ordinance has been reviewed pursuant to the Califo rnia Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), and the State CEQA Guidelines. It is recommend ed that the City Council find that the Urgency Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because the Urgency Ordinance does not have any potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Staff also recommends that the City Council finds that even if the Urgency Ordinance is a project under CEQA that it fall within the “ common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Sec tion

-1-

ORDINANCE NO. 2025-03

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CIT Y COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY ADDING SECTIONS

9.05.105 AND 9.05.108 TO TITLE 9 (PLANNING AND

ZONING) OF THE JURUPA VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE

ESTABLISHING APPEALS PROCESSES FOR

STREAMLINED, MINISTE RIAL HOUSING PROJECT S

AND FOR INCOMPLETENE SS DETERMINATIONS

UNDER THE PERMIT STR EAMLINING ACT , AND

MAKING A FINDING OF EXEMPTION UNDER THE

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. New State laws require streamlined ministerial review of housing development projects on the basis of objective standards. These projects must be approved without a public hearing, discretionary findings, or review by the Planning Commission or City Council.

The City’s Municipal Code does not includ e a process to appeal (1) an approval or denial of a housing project, or (2) a determination made by the Community Devel opment Director or staff that an application for a development project is incomplete as required by Government Code Section 65943. The City does not have sufficient time to adopt a regular ordinance establishing this appeal process before the new laws go into effect.

Section 2. A new Section 9. 05.105 is hereby added to Chapter 9. 105 (Land Use Ordinance) of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code to read as follows:
“Sec. 9.05.105 Appeals process for streamlined, ministerial housing projects A. Applicability. This section shall apply to a ny housing development project that must be approved ministerially pursuant to State law . For purposes of this section, ministerial approval means a project that is approved by staff on the basis of objective standards and is not subject to a public hearing before the Planning Commission or City Council.

B. Appeals to Planning Commission . Any person seeking to appeal the decision of the Community Development Director to either approve or deny a housing development project that is subject to ministerial review, may appeal such decision by filing an appeal with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days of the date of the written notice of the decision. The appeal shall be made on the forms pro vided by the Community Development Department and shall be accompanied by the applicable filing fee as set forth by resolution . Upon receipt of a completed appeal form, the City Clerk shall set the matter of the appeal for a hearing before the Planning Commission not less than fifteen (15 ) nor more than sixty (60) days thereafter and shall give written notice of the hearing to the applicant, appellant. and the Community Development Director. The Planning Commission shall hear the appeal de novo. The Planning Commission shall render its decision within thirty (30) days following the close of the appeal hearing.

-2-
12774-0007\3059920v4.doc
C. Appeals to City Council . An appeal of the Planning Commission decision to the City Council shall be filed and processed pursuant to the procedures set forth in Section 9.05.100.

An appeal may be filed by the applicant, owner of the property subject to the application, a person who presented oral or written comments to the Planning Commission, or any other interested person. An appeal may also be filed by an individual Council Member or by the City Council, provided, however, that any such appeal shall be solely on the basis that the issues related to the application are important to the city and should be decided by the entire City Council, and , provided further, that an appeal by an individual Council Member or the Council shall not mean, nor shall it be construed to mean, that the individual Council Member or the City Council is expressing a view in favor of or in opposition to the application .” Section 3. Sec. 9.05.108 Appeals process for incompleteness determinations under the Permit Streamlining Act.

A. Applicability. This section shall apply to any development project that is subject to California Government Code Section 65920 (the Permit Streamlining Act).

B. An applicant for a development project that is subject to the Permit Streamlining Act may appeal staff’s determination that the zoning application is incomplete.

C. The appeal shall be in writing and shall state the facts and basis for the appeal, and the relief or action sought, and shall be accompanied by the required fee.

D. The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk within 15 calendar days of the date of the written determination that the application is incomplete.

E. The appeal shall be heard by the City Council no later than sixty days after the filing of the appeal.

F. After receiving an appeal from the determination that the application is incomplete, and following a public hearing, the City Council, whose decision is final, by the affirmative vote of a majority of its voting members, shall determine whether the application is complete or incomplete. In order to determine that an application is incomplete, the City Council must make all of the following findings:
(1) The item or items identified as incomplete by the city were included in the city's submittal requirement checklist.
(2) The city provided the applicant with a notice of the incomplete item or items within thirty calendar days after the city received the applicant's application. (3) The notice specified those parts of the application that were incomplete and indicated the manner in which they could be made complete, including a list and thorough description of the specific information needed to complete the application. (4) The applicant resubmitted the application.
(5) The materials provided by the applicant with the r esubmitted application did not include information identified and described in the notice of incompleteness.

G. The city shall provide the applicant a written notice of the City Council’s decision following the hearing and before the expiration of the sixty-day period for hearing the appeal.”

-3-
12774-0007\3059920v4.doc
Section 4. Urgency Declaration. The City Council finds that this ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and declares that it shall take effect immediately upon its adoption as an urgency ordinance pursuant to Government Code Sections 36934 and 36937. The public peace, health, and safety require the adoption of this urgency ordinance since the City is required, by State law, to ministerially approve certain housing development projects. The City does not currently have an appeals process for ministerially approved projects which means that if a project is approved or denied, that approval or de nial is considered final without the opportunity for the Planning C ommission or the City Council to review the project and ensure it is designed in a manner that protects the public health and safety.

Similarly, an applicant aggrieved by a decision of the Community Development Director would not have an opportunity to have that decision reviewed by the Planning Commission or City Council which could result in a delay of the approval of a housing development project. There is also not an appeals process for staff determinations that a development application is inco mplete under the Permit Streamlining Act. For these reasons, as well as the reasons set forth in Section 1 above, the City adopts this ordinance as an urgency ordinance so that it can take effect immediately.

Section 5. CEQA. The City Council finds that the Urgency Ordinance does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and CEQA G uidelines Section 15378 because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The City Council further finds that even if the Urgency Ordinance is a proj ect under CEQA that it falls within the “common sense” CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where “it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significan t effect on the environment.” Adoption of the Urgency Ordinance does not allow for the approval or disapproval of any development in the City. Instead, it merely creates an appeals process by which streamlined housing development projects and incompleteness determinations for development projects may be appealed.

Section 6. Severability. If any section or provision of this Urgency Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, or contravened by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining sections and/or provisions of this Urgency Ordinance shall remain valid. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Urgency Ordinance, and each section or provision thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more section(s) or provision(s) may be declared invalid or unconstitutional or contravened via legislation.

Section 7. Certification. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of thi s Urgency Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published and posted in the manner required by law.

Section 8. Effective Date. This Urgency Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon introduction.

-4-
12774-0007\3059920v4.doc
____________________________________
Brian Berkson
Mayor

ATTEST:

_____________________________
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )

I, Victoria Wasko, CMC, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on January 16, 2025 by the following vote of the City Council:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 16th day of January, 2025.

Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: HO

NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.E

CONSIDER PROPOSALS FOR ENHANCEMENTS TO THE

EQUESTRIAN LIFESTYLE PROTECTION OVERLAY AND PROVIDE

DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH POSSIBLE CHANGES

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council consider appropriating $30,000 for the preparation of an existing conditions analysis of the Equestrian Lifestyle Program Overlay (ELPO), and directing that the findings of the analysis be presented at a joint City Council and Planning Commission study session.

BACKGROUND
During the September 21, 2023 City Council meeting, Councilmember Carmona initiated a discussion regarding potential improvements to the Equestrian Lifestyle Protection Overlay (ELPO). He requested the current regulations in the ELPO, such as setbacks, lot sizes, animal keeping, and placement of accessory structures, be reviewed to see how they can be updated to better support the City’s equestrian community. He requested that the City gather examples from other jurisdictions with successful equestrian overlays.

After discussion, the City Council directed that they be provided with an estimated cost to update ELPO requirements and a report for further evaluation and potential action.

ANALYSIS
While the existing overlay provides basic protections for equestrian activities, there are opportunities to enhance its effectiveness through updated zoning regulations, improved funding mechanisms, and stronger integration with other C ity planning initiat ives. The considerations in this report draw from successful models in cities such as Norco and Woodside, while remaining sensitive to Jurupa Valley's unique character and needs.

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

Existing ELPO General Plan Policy
The General Plan ELPO in Jurupa Valley is intended to protect and promote the City’s equestrian culture, ensuring that land use and development are compatible with equestrian activities. The General Plan provides policies and programs designed to create a comprehensive approac h to maintaining and enhancing Jurupa Valley's equestrian character, balancing preservation of this unique lifestyle with the needs of a growing community.

This section summarizes the existing General Plan policies (Attachment 1) and standards governing the ELPO, focusing on General Plan policies and zoning ordinance requirements.

Key aspects of the General Plan ELPO policies include:

1. Preservation of Equestrian Areas: The ELPO is applied to specific areas where equestrian uses, facilities, and trails are encouraged.

2. Land Use Planning: Prioritizing equestrian uses in public planning and allowing equestrian facilities by right in designated areas.

3. Development Standards: Requiring new developments to be equestrian-friendly and integrate with existing equestrian neighborhoods.

4. Residential Compatibility: Promoting semi -rural, equestrian-friendly residential development within the overlay area.

5. Infrastructure and Mobility : Planning for equestrian- specific infrastructure, including designated "equestrian streets" and trail networks.

6. Economic Considerations : Recognizing the economic benefits of equestrian activities and facilities for the community.

7. Balance with Other Uses: Ensuring compatibility between equestrian uses and other necessary urban functions.

To carry out these policies, the General Plan outlines several specific programs:

1. Zoning Ordinance Update : Revising zoning regulations to better protect and encourage equestrian uses within the ELPO.

2. Density Transfer Program : Exploring a program to incentivize open space preservation and equestrian uses through density transfers.

3. Public Awareness Campaign : Collaborating with various stakeholders to improve public understanding of equestrian uses, rules, and activities.

4. Funding Mechanisms : Consider special as sessment districts or joint -powers agreements to fund trail acquisition, construction, and maintenance.

5. Easement Acquisition: Working with agencies and private landowners to secure access easements for equestrian trails.

6. Equestrian Facilities Requirement : Mandating new developments within the overlay to install hitching posts and related equestrian facilities.

Page | 3

Generalized Equestrian Trails Plan
The General Plan establishes different types of equestrian trail routes and identifies the planned routes on the Generalized Equestrian Trails plan (Figure 3- 17 of the General Plan). In accordance with the General Plan policies, the construction of trails would be implemented mainly through development projects.

ELPO Z oning Development Standards
Within the ELPO boundaries, there are a total of 29 zoning designations. These include industrial, commercial, residential , recreation, and open space land uses. During the development review process, residential, commercial, and industrial projects within the overlay are evaluated for consistency with the ELPO General Plan policies. Typically , these projects will be required to provide equestrian facilities that may include equestrian trail connections, hitching posts, watering stations, trailheads, and similar amenities.

Horse and animal-keeping uses are allowed in some residential (R-1 R-2, R-2A, R-3, R- R, R-A) and agricultural zones (A-1, A-2, A-P). The tables below summarize the zoning districts that allow equestrian and agricultural uses and the development standards for these zones:

Page | 4

Allowed Animal Keeping Uses
Animal Type Basic Residential (R-1, R-2,
R-3)
Agricultural Zones (A-1, A-2, A-
P)
Rural Residential
(R-R)
Dogs 4 maximum 4 maximum 4 maximum
Cats 4 maximum 4 maximum 4 maximum
Horses 2 on lots over 20,000 SF 5 per acre 5 per acre
Chickens 4-12 hens (no roosters)
depending on lot size
50-100 hens, 10-20 roosters
depending on zone/lot size
12 hens (no
roosters)
Goats/Sheep 2 on lots over 2 acres 5 per acre 5 per acre Cattle Not permitted 5 per acre 5 per acre on
lots > 1 acre
Miniature
Pigs 1-2 depending on lot size 5 on lots > 20,000 SF 5 on lots > 20,000 SF

General Development Standards
Zone Type Minimum Lot
Size
Building
Height
Front
Setback
Side
Setback
Rear
Setback
Residential
7,200-
20,000 sq ft
35-40 ft 20-50 ft 5-50 ft 5-50 ft
Agricultural
20,000 sq ft-
5 acres
40-50 ft 30-50 ft 10-50 ft 10-50 ft
Natural
Assets 20 acres 20 ft 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft

This summary provides an overview of the zoning regulations within the ELPO (see Attachment 2 for detailed development standards for animal keeping). The regulations are designed to balance residential needs with the preservation of equestrian and agricultural activities, reflecting Jurupa Valley's commitment to maintaining its rural character.

Current P
lanning Efforts
There are t hree major planning efforts that are in process that will help implement and strengthen the General Plan Equestrian Lifestyle Overlay (ELPO) policies: Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan, Pedley Town Center Plan, and Trails Master Plan, which are summarized below. When considering enhancements to the ELPO , it is important to understand how ELPO policies are being implemented across these studies to ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and promote integrated solutions. Figure 1 shows the geographic boundaries of the ELPO, Town Center Overlays and key corridors.

Page | 5

1. Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan . The City is developing a Jurupa Valley Citywide Corridors Plan (“Corridors Plan”) which will provide a comprehensive framework for corridor improvements throughout the C ity, demonstrating how modern urban planning can effectively integrate with traditional equestrian lifestyles. This strategic document will be an essential tool for identifying and prioritizing various corridor enhancements that align with the City's core objectives, including improving corridor safety, strengthening Jurupa Valley's distinctive image and identity, and enhancing the economic performance of corridors and town centers. It is anticipated that the Corridors Plan w ill be presented to City Council for consideration in Spring of 2025.

2. P
edley Town Center Plan. The Pedley Town Center Plan is a land use plan focused on revitalizing the area around Limonite Avenue and Pedley Road, which is outlined in blue hatch and labeled “Pedley Town Center” in Figure 1. The plan aims to create a vibrant town center that supports local businesses, provides a variety of housing options, and improves the overall quality of life for residents.

The Pedley Town Center Plan prioritizes the integration of equestrian use into the developing town center by creating a network of off -street equestrian trails and enhanced crossing facilities that connect key destinations within Pedley.

Recognizing the importance of the area's equestrian lifestyle, the plan emphasizes promoting driver awareness through signage, providing convenient horse-friendly amenities, and establishing clear design standards for new development that consider the needs of equestrians . Future Town Center Plans Figure 1 ELPO Boundary, Town Center Boundary, Key Corridors Page | 6

will be developed for Glen Avon and Rubidoux, which will also consider how to incorporate equestrian goals in these locations where it makes sense.

A draft plan was presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at a joint study session in 2024 and it is also posted on the City’s website. It is anticipated that the City Council will consider the plan in spring of 2025.

3. Trails Master Plan. This is a joint project between the City and JARPD. A detailed needs assessment was presented to the City Council in January of 2024. The Trails Master Plan will address the community's desired vision for the design and construction of future parks, recreation opportunities, trails and open spaces.

Summary of
Equestrian Programs in Norco and Woodside
The City Council requested information on other cities' equestrian programs. Provided below is a summary of two successful equestrian programs in the C ities of Norco and Woodside.

City of Norco
The City of Norco's equestrian and animal -keeping policies are outlined in its municipal code and zoning ordinances, specifically within the Animal-Keeping Overlay (AKO) zone.

These policies are designed to preserve and encourage the city's equestrian lifestyle while managing land use. Below is an overview of what is included in Norco's regulations:

Animal-Keeping Overlay (AKO) Zone: The AKO zone is created to designate properties for animal keeping while maintaining their underlying zoning. It allows and encourages animal keeping on properties meeting established criteria, providing an overlay that works with existing land use regulations without changing the base- zoning category. All standard development requirements of the underlying zone still apply, with added regulations for animal keeping, such as setbacks, usable area requirements, and adjacency to horse trails.

Animal-Keeping Standards:
• Number of Animals: The maximum number of adult animal units (mainly horses) is determined by lot size. For example, a 10,001-12,500 square-foot lot can keep one animal, while a lot larger than 30,000 square feet can keep up to eight. Additional units may be allowed with a conditional use permit.
• Land and Space Requirements: A minimum of 500 square feet of flat, usable area is required for each adult animal unit. Additionally, animal units must be kept at least 35 feet away from adjacent residences unless separated by a solid fence at least six feet high.
• Adjacent to Horse Trails: Properties with the AKO designation are required to be adjacent to a horse trail.
• Commercial Restrictions : Commercial boarding or other animal -keeping operations are not permitted within the AKO.

Page | 7

Zoning and Use Compatibility:
• The AKO zone is superimposed over the established zoning, ensuring compatibility with the city's land use policies. It allows flexibility in animal keeping while maintaining residential and other permitted uses in the base zone.

Preservation and Enhancement:
• Public Awareness: The city works with community service districts, equestrian groups, realtors, and homebuilders to promote awareness of equestrian uses, responsibilities, and activities.
• Funding and Easement Acquisition: Norco considers funding mechani sms, such as assessment districts, for maintaining multi -purpose trails and works to acquire easements for equestrian trail use.
• Infrastructure Requirements: The policies also cover infrastructure standards, such as the installation of hitching posts in new developments to promote equestrian use and safety.

Primary Animal Keeping Area:

The PAKA (Primary Animal Keeping Area) document establishes a restriction on a designated area of a property in the City of Norco for animal -keeping purposes. This agreement, between the City and property owner, ensures that specific areas within properties in Norco remain dedicated to equestrian and animal -keeping activities in perpetuity.

City of Woodside
Woodside, California, is known for its strong commitment to preserving its rural and equestrian character. The town's General Plan and land use regulations play a crucial role in maintaining this unique lifestyle. Here's an overview of how Woodside approaches equestrian preservation:

General Plan Provisions

1. Rural Quality Goal:
o Preserve and enhance Woodside's rural quality, including its equestrian heritage.

2. Open Space and Conservation:
o Maintain open spaces that support equestrian activities. o Preserve natural habitats that contribute to the rural, equestrian atmosphere.

3. Circulation Element:
o Incorporate equestrian trails in the overall circulation network. o Ensure safe passage for horses and riders on roadways.

4. Land Use Element:
o Designate areas specifically for equestrian uses.

Page | 8

o Encourage low -density residential development that supports horse keeping.

Land Use Regulations

1. Zoning Ordinances:
o Special Conservancy (SCP -5) and Western Hills (WH) zones allow for horse keeping.
o Minimum lot sizes (often 3 acres or more) to accommodate horses.

2. Equestrian Overlay Zone:
o Applied to areas particularly suitable for equestrian activities. o Provides additional protections and allowances for horse-related uses.

3. Stable Regulations:
o Allow private stables as an accessory use in residential zones. o Permit commercial stables in certain zones with a conditional use permit.

4. Setback Requirements:
o Specific setbacks for barns, corrals, and other equestrian structures to minimize impacts on neighbors.

5. Trail Easements:
o Require new developments to provide trail easements to maintain and expand the town's trail network.

6. Fencing Regulations:
o Allow for horse-friendly fencing options.
o Restrict certain types of fencing that could be harmful to horses.

Additional Measures

1. Equestrian Committee:
o Advises the Town Council on equestrian matters.
o Reviews development proposals that may impact equestrian activities.

2. Trail System Master Plan:
o Comprehensive plan for maintaining and expanding equestrian trails. o Connects private trails with public open spaces and regional trail systems.

3. Design Review:
o Ensures new construction and renovations are compatible with the town's rural and equestrian character.

4. Community Events:

Page | 9

o Supports equestrian-themed events to promote and celebrate the town's heritage.

By integrating these provisions into their General Plans and land use regulations, both the City of Norco and the Town of Woodside have created comprehensive frameworks for preserving their equestrian lifestyles. Each city offers valuable examples of how to balance equestrian preservation with modern development needs effectively . As Jurupa Valley considers improvements to its ELPO program, these communities provide proven strategies that could be adapted to our local context.

Proposal to Improve Jurupa Va
lley’s Equestrian Lifestyle Program
Phased Approach
If the City Council provides direction to move forward with improvements to the ELPO , a phased approach is recommended, beginning with a comprehensive existing conditions analysis, followed by a joint s tudy session with the Planning Commission and City Council, before proceeding with the process of completing program updates. By beginning with an existing conditions analysis, the City will gain a comprehensive understanding of current regulations, development patterns, and community needs through stakeholder engagement and detailed surveys. This timing aligns strategically with other ongoing planning efforts, including the Citywide Corridors Plan and Trails Master Plan, allowing for better coordination and preventing duplicate work.

This approach enables the City Council and Planning Commission to make informed decisions based on thorough data and community input before implementing policy changes. The initial analysis phase will help identify priority improvements, understand resource requirements, and develop targeted solutions for specific areas within the overlay. Additionally, early stakeholder engagement will ensure equestrian groups' needs are properly understood while building community support for future improvements. By taking this measured approach, the City can efficiently allocate resources and develop a well-coordinated strategy for enhancing its equestrian community.

Existing Conditions Analysis – Timing and Cost
The Existing Conditions Analysis is estimated to take approximately three months to complete, with an estimated cost for staff time between $25,000 to $30,000. The existing conditions analysis would include the following tasks:
o Review existing General Pla n policies, zoning land uses, and development regulations that apply to the ELPO
o Review of the results of JARPD’s Master Plan Needs Assessment Survey o Review a sample of past development projects approved within the ELPO boundary to assess how well the ELPO General Plan policies were implemented. o Survey existing land use conditions within the ELPO boundary to evaluate each area's consistency with ELPO goals and policies. Identify geographic areas within the Overlay that are better suited or less suited to meet the goals of the Overlay and identify opportunities and constraints of each area.

Page | 1

STAFF REPORT
DATE: JANUARY 16, 2025
TO: HO

NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY

DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 18.F
PARADISE KNOLLS PROJECT ; ACCEPTANCE OF OWNER’S
DEDICATION OF 2.75 ACRES OF PROPERTY FOR PARK AND
RECREATION PURPOSES; CONVEYANCE OF THE 2.75-ACRE PARK

PROPERTY TO JURUPA AREA PARK AND RECREATION DISTRICT
(JARPD)

RECOMMENDATION

1. That the City Council:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-09, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA

VALLEY ACCEPTING PARK PROPERTY WITHIN THE PARADISE

KNOLLS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA PURSUANT TO THAT CERTAIN

IRREVOCABLE OFFER OF DEDICATION OF REAL PROPERTY
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 7050 DATED OCTOBER
6, 2022 AND RECORDED IN THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ON OCTOBER 7, 2022 AS DOCUMENT NO. 2022-0422107 b. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-10, entitled:

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO CONVEY 2.75 ACRES OF

PARK PROPERTY TO JURUPA AREA RECREATION AND PARK

DISTRICT WITHIN PARADISE KNOLLS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA FOR

PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES

BACKGROUND
On June 16, 2016, the City Council approved a Development Agreement between the City of Jurupa Valley and the Developer of the property, Paradise Jurupa, LLC and Equity

RETURN TO AGENDA
Page | 2

Three Properties, LLC (“Owners”). On December 2, 2021, the City Council approved the First Amendment to the Development Agreement. The Development Agreement and the First Amendment will be referred to as the “Development Agreement.” The Development Agreement authorizes Developer to develop an approximately 107- acre property located south west of Limonite Avenue and Downey Street with a mixture of commercial, residential and parks and recreational uses, as described in the Development Agreement and the Paradise Knolls Specific Plan No. 1402.

The Development Agreement requires the Developer to convey to the City of Jurupa Valley 15 acres of land to be used for open space along the Santa Ana River at the southerly boundary of the Project and an additional 2.75 acres of land to be used for park and recreational purposes located in the eastern portion of the Project (abutting Downey Street, and between 64
th Street and Equestrian Way) at no cost to the City (Section 6.B.3 of First Amendment to Development Agreement).

In addition to the conveyance of the Open Space and Park Properties to the City, the Development Agreement also requires the Developer to:

1. Pay to the City a Community Benefit Fee of $1,500 per residential unit for public purposes (Section 5.D.1 of Development Agreement);

2. Pay to the City a Community Benefit Fee of $500,000 for general community benefits as determined by City Council (Section 5.D.2 of Development Agreement);

3. Pay to the City a Community Benefit Fee of $600,000 to be used for open space, park and recreational purposes (Section 5.F of First Amendment to Development Agreement);

4. Construct not less than 7,000 linear feet of equestrian- multi-purpose trail per city standards starting at the intersection of Limonite and Downey going south on Downey Street to the Development's south-eastern boundary and an equestrian-multi-purpose trail through the 15-acre green space along the Santa Ana River (Section 6.B.4 of First Amendment to Development Agreement); and

5. Install fiber-optic conduit in streets within the Specific Plan Area (Section

6.B.8 of the Development Agreement).

CONVEYANCE OF 15 -ACRE OPEN SPACE PROPERTY AND 2.75 -ACRE PARK

PROPERTY TO THE CITY
The action to be taken by the City Council as part of this Agenda Item is to (1) accept the

2.75-acre Park Property and (2) convey it to the Jurupa Area Park and Recreation District (“JARPD”) for park and recreation purposes. The Council is authorized to accept the 15- acre Open Space Property at a future date.

The first step in the conveyance of the 2.75- acre park property to the City occurred on October 6, 2022 when the City and the Developer approved and then recorded an “Irrevocable Offer of Dedication” for the Park Property and the 15- acre Open Space Property. The document locked-in the City’s right to accept the two properties at any time and complete the conveyance. This process is used for the conveyance of property for Page | 3

use as roads, storm drains or parks in a subdivision and provides the City with the maximum flexibility in deciding when to accept the properties.

The second step in the conveyance of the 2.75- acre park property to the City will occur when the City Council adopts the recommended Res olution (see Attachment No. 1 ) accepting the Park Property as provided in the Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. Once the Certificate of Acceptance is recorded, the City will be the owner of the 2.75- acre park property.

On or before January 31, 2025, per the Development Agreement (as supplemented by the Tenth Operating Memorandum), City may elect, in its sole discretion, to return the

2.75-acre park property to the Owner and, if returned to Developer, Developer shall construct and maintain a public park on the Park Property at Developer's sole cost and expense.

CONVEYANCE OF THE 2.75 ACRE PARK PROPERTY TO JURUPA AREA PARK

AND RECREATION DISTRICT
The second recommended action is to convey the 2.75-acre Park Property to the Jurupa Area Park and Recreation District (“JAPRD”). JAPRD is an independent park and recreation district formed under State law that owns, develops, and operates most of the parks and recreational facilities in the City.

On January 12, 2023, the Board of Directors of the JAPRD adopted a l etter of intent indicating its desire to acquire the 2.75-acre park property from the City. At their January 9, 2025 meeting, the Board of Directors of JAPRD approved and executed the Conveyance Agreement.

Development of 2.75-A
cre Park
JARPD plans to develop the park with a shaded tot lot, dog park (separate areas for both large and small dogs), half-court basketball court, and a walking path along the perimeter of the park . For public safety and security, LED solar lighting, security cameras, and a perimeter fence would be constructed /installed. T he park would be locked overnight.

There would be five gated access points located east of Planning Area 5 . Three access points would be along Equestrian Way, one access point on 64th Street, and the final access point is proposed to be located west of Downey Street and northwest of Equestrian Way, connecting to Planning Area 5. Drought-tolerant plants and shade trees would be planted throughout the park.

JARPD expects to commence grading in summer of 2025 pending an approved grading plan for Planning Area 5. There is no set final construction date but JARPD’s goal is to provide residents with one of the two parks proposed at Paradise Knolls ( 2.75-acre park or Planning Area 5 linear park) as soon as possible. There is a proposed 233 single-family residential subdivision for Planning Area 5 that is in process at this time. It will require a public hearing by the Planning Commission, which is anticipated to take place in summer of 2025.

The 2.75-acre park will be funded 100% by the property owners, Jurupa Paradise, LLC and Equity Three Partners. In 2003, JARPD and the property owners agreed that JARPD would construct the 2.75-acre park and 4.25-acre linear park. The owners will reimburse JARPD 100% of the construction costs to complete both parks. In addition, the owners

ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Certificate of Acceptance of the 2.75 acre Park
Property

ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Agreement for Conveyance of Real Property conveying
the 2.75 acre Park Property to JARPD

ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Development Agreement for Paradise Knolls Project

ATTACHMENT NO. 6
First Amendment to Development Agreement for Paradise
Knolls

Jurupa Valley City CouncilJanuary 16, 2025

Jurupa Valley City Council
January 16, 2025