| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
116
Back to T.O.C
E. ESTABLISH A “PARK-ONCE” DISTRICT
One of the most compelling attributes of town centers - setting them apart from conventional suburban commercial shopping environments - is that visitors and customers arriving by car are encouraged to “park once” upon arrival and explore and enjoy the town center on foot.
In conventional commercial strip retail environments, each shopping center or freestanding business has its own parking lot in front of the store, and customers are most often required drive between destinations. This typically results in large numbers of sometimes very short car trips, each of which adds congestion to the street and presents numerous opportunities for conflicts and accidents with other vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles or horses, sometimes taking longer than it would have taken to just walk.
In traditional town center environments on the other hand, higher concentrations of businesses are located closer to each other - typically with “active” storefronts lining comfortable sidewalks and public spaces - and a compact, network of walkable blocks make navigation comfortable and interesting enough, that most people will choose to walk between destinations based on convenience and enjoyment. Over the past 20 years, the prevailing trend in retail (diven by customer choice) has been away from strip shopping centers and toward historic downtowns and other “experiential retail” environments where the place itself is the “anchor tenant” attracting visitors and customers spend time with friends and family, and often to shop, eat and drink.
Action: Concurrently with the formation of a Town Center Management Entity, described in Section organize a Town Center Park-Once District to develop and manage a shared parking supply to support the establishment, growth and success of the Town Center.
different times of the day or week that others.
Dinner restaurants need more parking nights and
weekends, while donut shops need more in the
morning. Offices need more parking during regular
business hours but movie theaters, family fun
centers, and many bars and restaurants need more
parking nights and weekends. Typical shopping
centers and office buildings have parking lots
that are mostly empty during long stretches of
time, and town centers let a variety of uses “pool
their parking supply” and they may cut by up to
half the total number of spaces required. In strip
shopping centers, walking from the farthest space
is a chore, but in town centers walking is just
part of the experience. And through competent,
active management of a shared parking supply, a
sufficient number of very convenient short-term
parking spaces can be balanced with longer-term
parking spaces a block away or around the corner.
+ Parking Study: Start with a comprehensive parking
study, prepared by a consultant that specializes
in organizing and managing such districts. Key
elements of the parking study would include
identifying some options for the boundaries of the
Park-Once District, taking an inventory of existing
public and private parking spaces including
potential new on-street parking spaces, an analysis
of current utilization rates for existing parking
lots by time of the day and week, and estimates
of future parking demand for future uses as
envisioned by the Public Realm Master Plan.
Then, based on generally accepted guidelines
and case study analysis, identify potential parking
reduction factors to account for the fact that fewer
parking places per business are required when
many customers arrive on foot, having already
parked elsewhere nearby. Additional reductions
may be considered based on the fact that the
peak parking demand for some uses occur at
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
117
Back to T.O.C
+ Parking Management and Financing Strategy/
Plan: In a successful Town Center, businesses
come and go, the customer base and residential
population grows over time, and special event
programming may at some point require
overflow parking lots or shuttles from other
shopping centers or office parks. In such a context,
convenient parking becomes a valuable resource.
For example, the most convenient on-street
parking spaces right in front of the stores must be
managed so that new customers have a fair chance
to park there rather than having them all taken by
employees first thing in the morning.
If a BID is formed to manage and finance district
maintenance (as described earlier in this section),
managing the parking supply might be assigned
to the BID professional staff. Alternatively, the City
might assign staff from the planning or public
works department to manage the parking. In
either case, at regular intervals—perhaps every
year or two—parking surveys should be conducted,
including customer and business satisfaction
surveys—to identify any parking shortages,
conflicts, and management issues, so that
adjustments to time limits on parking meter rates
can be made, and at some point additional public
parking facilities can be planned and constructed.
To enable and encourage the development of
smaller infill projects in forms not surrounded by
surface parking, the City should establish and “in-
lieu fee program” that allows a developer to pay
into the Park-Once system in lieu of constructing
new parking spaces.
Parking spaces on streets, in frontage lanes, in lots, and in structures (where feasible) provide a shareable supply of parking. When located within a walkable framework, people can use this shareable parking supply to park once and walk between multiple destinations.
Parking in a side access lane (far right)
Curbside street parking
Parking Parking
StructureStructure
ParkingParking
ParkingParking
Parking Lot Parking Lot
within Blockwithin Block
Street ParkingStreet Parking Street ParkingStreet Parking Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
INTRODUCTION AND APPLICABILITY
Appendix A
APPROVAL OF INTERIM
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
IN THIS APPENDIX
A.1. Findings of Consistency for Interim Development Proposals. . . . . . . . .122 Prior to the adoption of new/updated development standards to implement the vision for the Pedley Town Center Plan (PTCP) area, all development proposals in the Pedley Town Center Plan area shall meet the Findings of Consistency established by this Appendix.
Back to T.O.C
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
120
Back to T.O.C
A.1 | FINDINGS OF CONSISTENCY
Prior to the adoption of new/updated development standards to implement the vision for the Pedley Town Center Plan (PTCP) area, as described in Section 3.2.B, this section provides key findings that can be made by staff and decision makers when reviewing “interim” development proposals within the PTCP area to ensure that such proposals are consistent with the vision, goals and intended outcomes of the PTCP. These findings are organized topically, in the subsections to follow. Only projects found to be substantially consistent with the following findings should be considered for approval/permitting.
A. CONNECTED, WALKABLE, ATTRACTIVE PUBLIC REALM
The findings of this section ensure that the public realm connectivity goals of the Pedley Town Center Plan (provided in general, in sections Sections 2.2 and 2.3, and specifically to each Focus Area in Section 2.4) are accomplished for incoming development proposals. All new projects in the Pedley Town Center area must be found to provide or contribute to (and not detract from or inhibit) safe, comfortable, and attractive multi-modal access between homes, businesses, transit, and other key destinations in the Pedley Area—as appropriate to the specific contexts depicted and discussed in Chapter 2 of the PTCP.
The following public realm requirements and findings apply, as noted:
1. Public Realm Network Connectivity:
Project Application shall include a Public Realm Site Plan Diagram (PRSPD), overlaid on Chapter 2 figures as specified below, which demonstrates that the proposed project accounts for, provides and/or contributes to—and does not inhibit or detract from: 1) required connections and/or priority routes; 2) open spaces and community gathering spaces; and 3) connections to existing streets that are equal to or greater than those illustrated in the corresponding figures. The Public Realm Site Plan Diagram shall be overlaid per the following:
□ All projects: PRSPD shall be overlaid on Figure 2.1 (Pedley Area Framework Plan) and on Figure 2.14 (Parks and Community Gathering Spaces), in addition to being overlaid on Focus Area-specific figures as required below:
□ For projects in Focus Area 1: PRSPD shall be overlaid on Figure 2.16. □ For projects in Focus Area 2: PRSPD shall be overlaid on Figure 2.20. □ For projects in Focus Area 3: PRSPD shall be overlaid on Figure 2.21. □ For projects in Focus Area 4: PRSPD shall be overlaid on Figure 2.22.
Required Findings:
□ The proposed plan appropriately accounts for, provides and/or contributes to – and does not inhibit or detract from – any existing or recommended “Priority Connection(s)” (equestrian and/or bicycle routes and facilities) as identified in Figure 2.1.
□ The proposed plan appropriately accounts for, provides and/or contributes to park and community gathering spaces equal to or larger than those identified in Figure 2.14, or approximately 7% of the overall project area, whichever is greater. If agreed upon with the City, a project may contribute “in-lieu” fees of equivalent value to this open space requirement. That value will be calculated as the sum of: a) 7% of the overall project land value, and b) the estimated cost to improve a new public open space, as determined per development agreement. □ The proposed plan appropriately accounts for, provides and/or contributes to – and does not inhibit or detract from – at least as many connections to all existing streets as illustrated in Figure 2.16, Figure 2.20, Figure 2.21, or Figure 2.22.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
121
Back to T.O.C
2. Large Site Subdivision & Public Realm Completion:
“Large Development Sites” (sites larger than 4 acres) must additionally be subdivided into multiple walkable “blocks”. For all such projects, the proposed PRSPD (see §A.1.A.1 above) shall demonstrate the following:
Complete
Block
Complete
Block
Open Space
Complete
Block
Complete
Block
Closed Site / Infrastructure
Alley
Closed Site / Infrastructure
Alley and Lots along Closed Edge Open Space Along Closed Edge Half Block
Curbs
Existing Streets
Closed Edge
Proposed Development Site
Connection to adjacent dead end
Conceptual Building Lots
Public R.O.W
Required Public Connections
Legend
Required Findings for Large Sites (>4.0 acres):
□ All blocks in are “Complete Blocks”—that is, bounded on all sides by publicly accessible Streets [2] or Open Spaces [2] (see Figure
3.1).
□ All blocks have a perimeter of 1,800 feet or less, as measured along the public rights-of-way / block faces (see Figure 3.1). □ The following exceptions apply:
□ Block perimeters larger than 1,800 feet may be considered, if a publicly accessible mid-block Paseo [2] is provided (see Figure
3.1).
□ The proposed project site abuts a walled, fenced, or otherwise “closed edge” of an existing adjacent development, such that the resulting “block” formed by the assembled new and existing “partial block” exceeds the maximum block perimeter (see Figure 3.2).
□ The project site abuts a “closed edge” of public infrastructure – such as freeways, aqueducts, or railroads – that may not be crossed or intersected by a new public connection or open space, such that a “Complete Block” may not be formed (see Figure 3.2).
□ The project site abuts a natural feature – such as a mountain, hillsides, lake, or river – into which a future public connection cannot be extended, such that a “Complete Block” may not be formed (see Figure 3.2).
[2] See additional required findings for “Street and Public Frontage Design” to follow.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
122
Back to T.O.C
B. STREET, PUBLIC FRONTAGE, & OPEN SPACE DESIGN
The findings of this section ensure that all required new or improved Streets and Public Frontages are properly designed (see also Section 2.3.1) to provide an attractive streetscape and public realm character, safe and comfortable pedestrian access (and potentially other non-vehicular modes) between private properties, and a privacy buffer that is appropriately calibrated to the intended ground-floor uses of adjacent building spaces, enabling them to front onto, activate, and “keep eyes on” the Public Realm environment.
Required Findings:
□ Existing Street Improvements: the proposed project appropriately accounts for, provides and/or contributes to—and does not inhibit or detract from—any existing or recommended “Priority Connection” related improvements identified in Figure 2.3, and/or any other planned or required future streetscape improvements as identified by the city (Including the Draft Jurupa Valley Corridor Improvement Plan, currently underway).
This may include additional building setbacks, right-of-way adjustments, and/or mapping of public access easements along the public right-of-way abutting edges of the proposed development site(s). □ New Streets and Public Frontages: All new streets in the proposed project are designed to include, as appropriate or required, all “Street Anatomy Zones” identified in Figure 2.2—“Typical Complete Street Anatomy” (Travel Zone; Curbside Zones; Landscape and Furnishing Zone; and a Sidewalk and Access Zone). If applicable, new streets also include a Secondary Access Zone, and bicycle, equestrian and transit facilities (i.e. bike lanes, equestrian trails, bike / equestrian parking, transit stops, and other furnishings) as required to complete any Recommended Equestrian and Bicycles Priority Street Improvements identified in Figure 2.3. □ Safety & Design Standards: All Streets and Public Frontage improvements are designed to be safe for all— including pedestrians, horseback riders, cyclists, and motorists—utilizing NACTO design standards and/or city standards.
□ Design Aesthetics: All components of the public realm are designed to support or enhance the intended semi- rural character described and envisioned in the PTCP—including landscape design, hardscape design, signage, and streetscape furnishings. In particular, refer to the public realm components described and depicted in PTCP §2.3.2 (Street Improvement Case Studies) and PTCP §2.4 (Focus Area Opportunities). Examples include:
□ Equestrian trail fences (see PTCP Figure 2.9);
□ Drought tolerant landscaping with gravel, stones, and/or dirt (see PTCP Figure 2.17, the Jurupa Valley Suggested Tree List, and the County of Riverside California Friendly Plant List); □ Shade structures (including bus shelters) with sloped roofs and exposed wood rafters (see PTCP Figure 2.17); □ Pedestrian-oriented lighting (see PTCP §2.3.1.A.2);
□ Low walls, fences, or other partitions made from stones, pots, barrels, and/or plant pallets (see images with such elements in PTCP §2.4.1.A, §2.4.1.C, and §2.4.4);
□ Landscape, hardscape, and furnishing design are natural and informal—rather than using formal, rigid geometries or artificial materials—to emphasize the semi-rural character of the Pedley Area. □ Building Access: The Public Frontage provides clear, comfortable, safe, and direct pedestrian access to the Private buildings that line it.
□ Paseos & Open Spaces: for private frontages abutting and fronting onto paseos or open space, the paseo or frontage edge of the open space provides pedestrian access (and secondary access if required), landscaping and furnishing, and privacy, as appropriate to the adjacent buildings, to the same degree that would otherwise be required for new streets.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
123
Back to T.O.C
C. BUILDING PLACEMENT, ORIENTATION, FORM & CHARACTER
The findings of this section ensure that all new or improved buildings in the proposed project are appropriately sited and orientated to shape the public realm, and that their scale, massing, form and character is appropriate to the intended semi-rural, small-town character envisioned for the Pedley Town Center.
Required Findings (Building Placement and Orientation):
□ Building Location / Orientation: new primary buildings are sited near or at the front of the site, and oriented to “front onto” the Public Realm, such that they collectively define the “walls of public outdoor rooms” (the streets, paseos, and open spaces of the Public Realm). The following additional building setback findings apply:
□ Retail / “Retail-Ready” ground floors: are built at or within 10-15 feet of the back of sidewalk, front property line or public access easement, and the setback area (if provided) is designed as an extension of the sidewalk to facilitate outdoor dining, furnishing, and merchandising. □ General Commercial ground floors: are built at or within 10-15 feet of the back of sidewalk, front property line or public access easement, and may include a landscaped privacy buffer for the ground floor use. □ Residential ground floors: are set back 10-20 feet from the sidewalk, front property line or public access easement, with the setback area designed as a semi-private landscaped yard/dooryard. □ Access from the Public Realm: All primary buildings take their primary access directly from the street/sidewalk or a semi-public “extension” of the public realm (i.e. shared yard, courtyard, forecourt, paseo, rosewalk, etc.). See also Private Frontage findings in §A.1.D.
□ Location of Parking: On-site parking is located beside or behind buildings, accessed by alleys wherever possible, to ensure a consistent pattern of buildings lining the Public Realm. □ Location of Services and Utilities: On-site services and utilities are located behind buildings, accessed by alleys wherever possible.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
124
Back to T.O.C
Required Findings (Building Form):
□ Rhythm of Building Facades: The lengths and heights of building facades which line the Public Realm— collectively known as the “street wall”—are scaled to the desired character of the local community and immediate context. In lower density contexts, many smaller, individual building facades line the Public Realm, forming a consistent yet broken street wall. In higher density contexts, facades line the Public Realm more continuously, creating a less broken, or completely unbroken, street wall. □ Building Types at Neighborhood Edges: Within 75 feet of a single-family zone, building height and intensity is scaled down appropriately to generally match (and with massing elements of similar proportions to) the existing surrounding context. Buildings or portions of buildings within 75 feet of a single-family zone are house- form with eaves and pitched roofs. They are no more than one half story taller than the maximum height permitted in the neighboring zone. They are one of the following types:
□ Detached Building. A detached building here is no wider than 60 feet. It has at least one minor facade mass—such as a projecting bay, porch, or tower—that is no wider than 30 feet. □ Townhouses. A row of townhouses here is no more than 3 units long and no wider than 70 feet. Each townhouse has its own front door.
□ Larger Building Broken into Massing Increments. Massing Increments in this location are distinct, 60-foot wide (maximum) portions of a longer facade. They are distinguished by a gap (i.e., recess) in the facade that is a minimum of 15 feet wide by 20 feet deep in plan and extends from the ground to the top of the facade.
Massing Increments here are also distinguished using at least one of the following strategies: a change in facade material; a change in facade color; and/or a change in type and/or arrangement of windows and doors.
□ Building Types Central to New Development: Buildings or portions of buildings more than 75 feet from a single-family zone are house-form (with pitched roofs) or block-form (with parapets). They are one of the following types:
□ Detached Building. A detached building here is no wider than 80 feet. It has at least one minor facade mass—such as a projecting bay, porch, or tower—that is no wider than 30 feet. If the building is longer than 60 feet, it has at least two minor facade masses.
□ Townhouses. A row of townhouses here is no more than 5 units long and no wider than 115 feet. Each townhouse has its own front door.
□ Larger Building Broken into Massing Increments. Massing Increments in this location are distinct, 80- foot wide (maximum) portions of a longer facade. They are distinguished by either: a gap (i.e., recess) in the facade that is a minimum of 15 feet wide by 20 feet deep in plan and extends from the ground to the top of the facade; OR a facade height difference of 6 feet minimum (the latter strategy shall not be used twice in a row). Massing Increments here are also distinguished using at least one of the following strategies: a change in facade material; a change in facade color; and/or a change in type and/or arrangement of windows and doors.
□ Building Intensity: Building height and intensity is appropriate to the use and location or the proposed project; increased building height and intensity is concentrated at important and highly accessible (i.e. by transit) locations within the PTCP area, including near the following (see PTCP Fig. 2.16 for mapping of these locations):
□ The Jurupa Valley / Pedley Metrolink Station;
□ The future Pedley Station Transit Plaza;
□ The future Pedley Town Green; and/or
□ The gateway intersection at Limonite Ave and Pedley Rd.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
125
Back to T.O.C
Required Findings (Architectural Character):
Building façade designs utilize a consistent and authentic architectural style and elements shown to be appropriate to that style.
□ Traditional Building Shape. Primary building masses are square or rectilinear in plan, or made up of multiple adjoining squares or rectangles. Circular and polygonal shapes in plan are only used to emphasize particular features, such as a tower. Overlapping shapes, creating complex massing geometries are avoided. □ Vertically Proportioned Openings. All openings on the facade—whether windows or doors—are at least as tall as they are wide. Doors and/or windows may be grouped to create a wider area of fenestration, but the vertical proportion of each individual window/door visually prevails. □ Traditional Expression of Structure. Traditional rural buildings communicate the way their structure works in the following ways:
□ Vertical Structure. The vertical structural elements of a building—comprising piers, columns, or portions of solid wall which flank each bay of the facade—visually carry the apparent weight of upper floors down to the ground. If any vertical structural element is expressed but does not extend to the ground, it is supported by structure beneath it, with a visual system of weight transference from the supported element to the ground. □ Horizontal Structure. Horizontal structural elements—such as beams and lintels—are sized to appropriately support the visual weight of the building mass and elements above them with respect to the distance they span and the material they are made from.
□ Materials. Authentic, natural building materials are used and preferred, including smooth plaster, fine concrete block, brick, stone, tile, wood, terra cotta tiles and appropriate metals. Synthetic materials that simulate natural materials are used sparingly, provided:
□ That the material faithfully simulates the appearance of the natural material it imitates; □ That the material has a demonstrated ability to weather gracefully, aging similarly to or better than the natural material it imitates.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
126
Back to T.O.C
D. PRIVATE FRONTAGE DESIGN
The findings of this section ensure that all new or improved buildings in the proposed project appropriately activate and enhance the safety of the Public Realm environment as envisioned for the Pedley Area. A building’s “Private Frontage” determines how it interfaces between the private and public realms; its design includes the configuration and design of the ground floor, its facade, and the setback area between the ground floor facade and the public right of way. Private frontages must be designed to balance the privacy/exposure needs of the ground floor use with the needed activation of the public realm.
Required Findings:
□ Public Realm Activation and Safety: Building facades line the streets with ample windows, fenestrations and other semi-public spaces (i.e. porches, terraces, stoops, etc.) that enliven and provide “eyes on” the street and public realm environment.
□ Building Privacy: Building facade design provides an adequate level of privacy for the ground floor use – enabling building tenants and visitors to feel safe and protected while enjoying and engaging with the Public Realm.
□ Retail ground floors:
□ Activity: Ground floor spaces are designed to allow activity to spill out into the sidewalk/setback area and activate the Public Realm.
□ Ground floor level: The ground floor is at-grade (within 8”), unless site topography warrants a ground-floor entry terrace/dooryard.
□ Ground floor height: The ground floor height (measured floor-to-ceiling) is 12 feet minimum to accommodate a wide range of retail and restaurant uses. □ Access and fenestration: Ground floor facades are built out as highly fenestrated shopfronts, providing access from the adjacent sidewalk and maximizing visibility for ground floor businesses. Facade openings (doors and windows) comprise at least 75% of the ground floor facade. □ “Retail-Ready” ground floors:
□ Activity: Ground floor spaces are designed to provide privacy and protection in the near term; however, they are designed to be ready to transform into shopfronts, allowing activity to spill out into the sidewalk/setback area and activate the Public Realm.
□ Ground floor level: The ground floor is at-grade (within 8”), unless site topography warrants a ground-floor entry terrace/dooryard.
□ Ground floor height: The ground floor height (measured floor-to-ceiling) is 12 feet minimum to accommodate a wide range of retail and restaurant uses, regardless of what use occupies them in the near term.
□ Access and fenestration: Ground floor facades are shopfronts, providing access from the adjacent sidewalk and maximizing visibility for future ground floor businesses. Facade openings (doors and windows) comprise at least 60% of the ground floor facade.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
127
Back to T.O.C
□ General Commercial ground floors:
□ Activity: Some businesses require a high level of Public Realm engagement and exposure, while others (like many office spaces) require as much privacy as residences. Frontage design therefore varies widely and is calibrated to the particular commercial use.
□ Ground floor level: The ground floor is 0–5 feet above the level of the adjacent grade. □ Ground floor height: The ground floor-to-ceiling height is 9 feet minimum. □ Access and fenestration: Ground floors have shopfronts, dooryards, stoops, terraces, and/or lobby entries— as appropriate to the particular commercial use—providing access from the adjacent sidewalk. Facade openings (doors and windows) comprise at least 35% of the ground floor facade. □ Residential ground floors:
□ Activity: The frontage design allows building tenants and visitors to feel safe and protected while enjoying and looking out over the Public Realm.
□ Ground floor level: The ground floor is 0–5 feet above the level of the adjacent grade. Unless they are designed to be ADA-accessible, they are typically at least 2 feet above grade, so that ground floor windowsills can be near or above eye-level.
□ Ground floor height: The ground floor height (measured floor-to-ceiling) is 9 feet minimum. □ Access and fenestration: Ground floors have dooryards, stoops, porches, terraces, and/or lobby entries, providing access from the adjacent sidewalk. Facade openings (doors and windows) comprise at least 35% of the ground floor facade.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
| PEDLEY TOWN CENTER PLAN | CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CA
128
Back to T.O.C
E. “RETAIL-READY” FRONTAGE LOCATIONS
The findings of this section help ensure that new development provides active retail or “retail-ready” spaces in key locations of the Pedley Town Center to generate the level of activity, visitor-draw, and fiscal performance envisioned by the PTCP. Retail-Ready spaces are designed to either: 1) contain retail and/or food and beverage establishments in the near term; or 2) be feasibly adaptable to accommodate such uses in the future when feasible.
Required Findings:
□ Retail / Retail-Ready Locations: Using the same Development Program Sit Plan, project applications must identify and map locations within their proposed development where Retail and Retail-Ready uses are intended/envisioned/required by the PTCP as illustrated for each Focus Area to support the envisioned active Pedley Town Center environment. These locations include all new development frontages along Limonite Ave, Pedley Rd, and Clay St.
□ Retail & Retail-Ready Ground Floor Design: All such spaces are designed as retail or adaptable retail-ready spaces; refer to Private Frontage Design findings for Retail-Ready spaces in §A.1.D above. □ Feasibility of Near-Term Retail / Retail-Ready Space: To ensure that the locations within the PTCP area where retail and retail-ready spaces are envisioned are preserved (and/or implemented), the city may offer incentives and bonuses (such as streamlined permitting, reduced development impact and permitting fees, increased building density, etc.) to help offset the costs of retail and retail-ready spaces that may not be supported by market development in the near term.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
ADOPTION DRAFT | MARCH 2025 |
129
Back to T.O.C
Page Intentionally Left Blank
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
EXHIBIT C OF ATTACHMENT 1
Addendum to the City of Jurupa Valley General Plan Certified Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2016021025)
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
March 2025 | General Plan EIR Addendum
ADDENDUM TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
2017 GENERAL PLAN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
SCH No. 2016021025
FOR THE
Pedley Town Center Plan
City of Jurupa Valley
Prepared for:
City of Jurupa Valley
Joe Perez, Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Jurupa Valley City Hall, 8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Mark Teague, AICP
3 MacArthur Place Ste 1100
Santa Ana, CA 92707
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Table of Contents
March 2025 Page i
Section Page
1. ADDENDUM TO THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN EIR ............................................................... 1
1.1 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT .................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 GENERAL PLAN EIR ..................................................................................................................................... 5
1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM ......................................................................................................... 6
2. CEQA ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................ 9
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 9
2.2 FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 FINDING .......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Appendices Page
A. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A copy of this addendum, and all supporting documentation, may be reviewed or obtained at the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509 , during business hours of 8:00 am through 5:00 pm Monday to Friday. https://www.jurupavalley.org/ Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Table of Contents
Page ii PlaceWorks
This page intentionally left blank.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
March 2025 Page 1
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
1.1 BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
The City of Jurupa Valley (City) has prepared this Addendum to the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan Environmental Impact Report (GPEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2016021025) to address the potential environmental impacts associated with adopting the Pedley Town Center Plan (PTCP, proposed project). This Addendum is prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) (Cal.
Public Resources Code Section 21000, et. seq., as amended) and its implementing guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 1 5000 et. seq.) consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., Title 14, Section 15162 and Section 15164).
In 2017, the City adopted its first General Plan and prepared the GPEIR to analyze potential citywide impacts, broad policy alternatives, and programmatic mitigation measures associated with the 2017 General Plan. The 2017 General Plan consists of 11 elements that cover major planning topics. In addition to the eight State mandated elements (Land Use, Circulation (Mobility), Conservation, Open Space, Housing, Safety, Noise, and Environmental Justice), the 2017 General Plan includes 4 optional elements: Air Quality, Community Safety, Services, and Facilities (combined with the required Safety Element), Healthy Communities, and Economic Sustainability. Each of the elements contains goals, policies and programs that outline how the City wants to grow and develop over the course of 10-20 years. The primary purpose of the 2017 General Plan is to address the City’s most pressing planning needs until the resources are available to prepare a more comprehensive, long- range General Plan Update.
The GPEIR is a Program EIR as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15161 and prepared in compliance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15168. The Final GPEIR was certified and the findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, and Mitigation Monitoring and Repo rting Program (MMRP) adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2017 (Resolution No. 2017-14). Following the adoption of the 2017 General Plan and certification of the GPEIR in 2024, the City adopted technical amendments to the 2017 General Plan to make clarification and correct inaccuracies. Per the GPEIR, future discretionary review may rely on analysis provided in the GPEIR for the purpose of tiering and/or streamlining. The purpose of tiering is to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR (such as the GPEIR) with later CEQA documents on narrower or more site-specific projects (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152). Tiering serves to reduce repetitive analysis and provide subsequent site-specific analysis at a time when it is meaningful. Tiering is common and appropriate when the sequence of analysis is from a General Plan EIR to a program of lesser scope, such as the proposed PTCP.
Therefore, CEQA review required for the proposed project may tier from the GPEIR pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15152.
This addendum demonstrates that the analysis in th e GPEIR adequately addresses the potential physical impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project and that the proposed project would not trigger any of the conditions described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 calling for further environmental review.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
March 2025 Page 2
1.2 PROPOSED PROJECT
1.2.1 Project Background
One of the key policy areas of the 2017 General Plan is to encourage high-quality development of vacant infill properties and to stimulate economic development of the City’s historic town centers. To implement this vision, the 2017 General Plan adopted a Town Center Overlay to encourage the development of traditional, pedestrian-oriented town centers with characteristics that distinguish them from surrounding areas. These areas are intended to function as walkable, small downtown environments that attract locals to shop, dine and socialize, in keeping with their historic uses.
One of these town centers identified in the 2017 General Plan is the 1,605-acre Pedley Town Center community.
The historic community of Pedley was developed around a Union Pacific Railroad station in the early 20 th century that now serves as the City’s Metrolink rail station. The community was annexed in June 2011 along with other town centers of the City, Rubidoux and Glen Avon, and has developed similarly to other areas of the City with primarily suburban subdivisions . In addition to its Metrolink Rail access, the community is and intersection of several other important regional circulation routes, including Limonite Avenue, VanBuren Boulevard, and the Santa Ana River Trail. Pedley is currently also the civic hub of Jurupa Valley with City Hall located on Limonite Avenue, west of Van Buren Boulevard.
1.2.2 Project Location
The Pedley Town Center is largely c entered around the intersection of Limonite Avenue and Van Buren Boulevard, as shown in Figure 1, Pedley Town Center Plan Boundaries. It encompasses the area west of Clay Street and east of Beach Street that is south of Limonite Avenue and is bound by the Santa Ana River to the south.
It also includes neighborhoods north of Limonite Avenue and south of 58th Street.
1.2.3 Project Description
The proposed project is intended to implement the 2017 General Plan’s policies and programs for the Town Center Overlay designation in the Pedley Plan area. Chief among these measures is Program LUE 5.1.7 which states that City will prepare an area plan for each of its three town centers to establish a consensus and a vision that is shared by the stakeholders and the City Council. This program lists the Pedley Town Center as the first- priority area plan. To implement this program, the PTCP presents a preferred community vision for Pedley and provides a blueprint for strategic actions that the City may pursue and prioritize to begin to realize this vision incrementally over time. The proposed project does not propose any regulatory changes and is instead intended to inform the future preparation of updated zoning and design standards for public realm improvements (streets, trails, parks and open spaces) and private development that ensure s that all future development is authentic to Pedley’s semi-rural town character.
The PTCP is organized into three chapters, Chapter 1, “Pedley Area Context and Opportunities” ; Chapter 2, “Pedley Area Vision”, and Chapter 3, “Implementing the Vision”. Chapter 1 defines nine goals and priorities for the proposed project which include:
▪ Preserve Pedley’s unique quality of life
▪ Improve Public Safety
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
▪ Strengthen Pedley’s identity and community character
▪ Promote Healthy Living and Walkability
▪ Increase Transit Ridership at Pedley Station
▪ Environmental Sustainability - Ensure Pedley’s natural resources are available and enjoyable for future generations
▪ Economic Resiliency - Respond to a changing economy
▪ Incremental Growth & Change
▪ Clearly Defined Implementation-Focused Outcomes
Chapter 2 reviews opportunities for improvements to the public realm, including specific circulation and park improvements, and defines and discusses the vision for focus areas. Chapter 3 outlines the future steps needed for implementation of the PTCP including three pathways for integrating t he plan into either the existing General Plan or a General Plan Update, and three pathways for adopting development standards and custom zoning. As mentioned above, the proposed project does not propose any of these outlined regulatory changes at this time.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
March 2025 Page 4
Figure 1 Pedley Town Center Plan Boundaries
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
1.3 GENERAL PLAN EIR
The following summarizes the significant environmental impacts identified in the GPEIR that could not be reduced to less than significant.
Agricultural and Forestry Resources
▪ 4.2.5.4 Farmland Conversion: The City is underlain by approximately 2,000 acres of Class I-III soils which can support agricultural or farmland activities according to the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Future development will eventually cover over these soils with rural and suburban development. The goals and policies of the 2017 General Plan establish a process for the eventual transition of land from agriculture to development based on market conditions, and impacts of this conversion process will be less than significant. ▪ 4.2.5.5 Loss of Prime Farmland: The State Department of Conservation (SDOC) designates 612 acres of land in the City as prime farmlands and their loss is considered a significant impact because the SDOC believes these soils are a significant regional or state -wide resource. Future devel opment will also remove 2,077 acres of land classified as farmland of local importance (i.e., not prime farmland) which is not considered a significant impact of General Plan implementation. ▪ 4.2.6 Cumulative Agricultural and Forestry Resources: Implementation of the 2017 General Plan will smooth the transitional loss of agriculture in the region, but development in the City will eventually cover over 612 acres of prime agricultural soils of statewide significance, contributing to the regional loss.
Air Quality
▪ 4.3.5.1 Violate Air Quality Standards: Future development will emit air pollutants in amounts far in excess of South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regional thresholds for ROG, NOx, CO, PM10, and PM 2.5. Implementation of the 2017 General Plan will help reduce future emissions to the greatest extent feasible at a programmatic level but will not be able to reduce them below SCAQMD thresholds for criterial pollutants.
Noise
▪ 4.12.5.1 Long-Term Noise Impacts: Future development within the City may result in noise levels along major roadways that result in significant noise impacts in the future as growth occurs. The goals, policies, and programs of the General Plan are intended to reduce these impacts to the greatest degree practical, but it may not reduce them to less than significant levels due to physical limitations of roadways, intersections, or adjacent properties.
▪ 4.12.6 Cumulative Noise Impacts: Future noise impacts from local traffic as growth occurs may contribute to regional incremental noise impacts in combination with growth and traffic increases in other nearby communities.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
March 2025 Page 6
Transportation
▪ 4.16.5.2 Level of Service Impacts: Future development in the City will eventually result in a number of local road segments and intersections exceeding the City’s LOS standards. Due to physical limitations, this impact will be significant even after mitigation. ▪ 4.16.6 Cumulative Traffic Impacts: Potential short-term and long -term cumulative traffic -related impacts cannot be reduced to less than significant levels because of physical limitations and the City does not have authority or control over all the affected transportation facilities. Specifically, the City does not have control over freeway ramps or mainline improvements The GPEIR contains mitigation measures designed to reduce other environmental impacts to a less than significant level. The mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) for the proposed project, provided as Attachment A to this Addendum, incorporates the mitigation measures from the GPEIR.
1.4 PURPOSE OF AN EIR ADDENDUM
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(a), an addendum shall be prepared if some changes or additions to a previously adopted EIR are necessary, but none of the conditions enumerated in CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162(a)(1)–(3) calling for the preparati on of a subsequent EIR have occurred. As stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations):
Section 15162
When an EIR has been certified or negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantia l increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(a) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
(b) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
(c) Mitigation Programs or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation Program or alternative; or (d) Mitigation Programs or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation Program o r alternative.
Section 15164
(a) The lead agency or responsible agency shall prepare an addendum to a previously certified EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. (b) An addendum to an adopted negative declaration may be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. (c) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR or adopted negative declaration.
(d) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR or adopted negative declaration prior to making a decision on the project. (e) A brief explanation of the decision not to prepare a subsequent EIR pursuant to Section 15162 should be included in an addendum to an EIR, the lead agency’s findings on the project, or elsewhere in the record. The explanation must be supported by substanti al evidence.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
1. Addendum to the Adopted General Plan EIR
March 2025 Page 8
This page intentionally left blank.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
March 2025 Page 9
2. CEQA Analysis
2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Under CEQA Guideline Section 15164, a lead agency shall prepare an addendum to a previous EIR if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. In the absence of substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the project changes may result in significant environmental impacts not previously studied, an addendum to the EIR is required. The following review proceeds with the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15162.
Impacts analyzed under the GPEIR adequately address the potential physical impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. The proposed project does not propose any specific development projects nor does it involve adopting amendments to the 2017 General Plan or the City Zoning Code. The PTCP outlines a vision for and framework to achieve future development in the Pedley Plan area and acknowledges that future regulatory and land use changes may be needed to implement its vision. However, at this stage, the details of any of these future potential implementation actions are unknown and not a part of the project currently proposed. At the time these future regulatory changes are proposed, the City will analyze the potential impacts of these actions.
2.2 FINDINGS
The discussion in this Addendum confirms that the proposed project has been evaluated for significant impacts pursuant to CEQA. The discussion is meaningfully different than a determination that a project is “exempt” from CEQA review because the proposed project is not exempt. Rather, the determination here is that the GPEIR adequately evaluated the adoption of the proposed project as a guide to developing future regulatory and development projects for the Pedley Area consistent with the General Plan. The following identifies the standards set forth in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines as they relate to the proposed project.
1. No substantial changes are proposed in the project which would require major revisions of the EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
The PTCP presents a vision for future development in the Pedley Plan area that would be implemented through future amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Code . The environmental impacts of these future regulatory actions in addition to development of individual projects would be evaluated when these actions and individual projects are proposed. Additionally, the proposed project would not modify or change the intent of the 2017 General Plan and instead seeks to assist in achieving the goals and visions outlined in the 2017 General Plan for the Pedley Plan area. As such, the proposed project is consistent with all relevant policies, goals, and programs in the 2017 General Plan, as analyzed in Appendix A, Relevant General Plan Policies & State Law, in the PTCP.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
2. CEQA Analysis
March 2025 Page 10
While the proposed project is intended to initiate future regulatory actions that would lead to improvements in line with the Plan, it does not increase the development potential of the Pedley Plan area (e.g. no changes to land use designations or densities) beyond what was contemplated under the 2017 General Plan and analyzed in the GPEIR.
2. No substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the sev erity of previously identified significant effects.
The 2017 General Plan anticipated and prompted the preparation of town center plans for specific areas of the City with the Town Center Overlay designation, which includes the Pedley Plan area. Development has occurred in the Pedley Plan area since adoption of the General Plan pursuant the General Plan land use plan. Several General Plan Amendments throughout the City have also been adopted since adoption of the 2017 General Plan to change land use designations or make minor technical changes to the language in the General Plan. However, none of these changes, including the physical changes to the environment in the Plan area through development or regulatory changes to the General Plan have significantly changed the circumstances of the proposed project. All developments that have occurred in the Pedley Plan area between adoption of 2017 General Plan and the preparation of the PTCP have occurred in conformance with the General Plan . Likewise, the proposed project would not change the development potential th at was contemplated for the Plan area in the General Plan, nor would it increase the severity of any previously identified significant effects that were assessed in the GPEIR.
3. No new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the EIR was certified shows:
a. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR.
All developments that would occur pursuant to the PTCP at this stage would also be consistent with the adopted 2017 General Plan. Therefore, th e density and intensity of development was fully contemplated within the GPEIR and would result in the same level of environmental impacts.
Additionally, some environmental impacts associated development in specific areas of the City, like the significant and unavoidable loss of important farmland, would be reduced since the Pedley Plan are does not contain any impor tant farmland. However, overall, there would be no new environmental impacts, or an increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts. b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR.
As stated, the development potential under the proposed project would not change when compared to the 2017 General Plan since it involves no land use or regulatory changes that would not result in development in areas that were not previously contemplated. There is no increase in development potential associated with the PTCP. There is no new information that would demonstrate that significant effects examined would be substantially more severe than shown in the certified GPEIR.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
2. CEQA Analysis
c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.
The proposed project does not create new impacts or the need for mitigation measures. All mitigation measures included in the mitigation and monitoring program adopted for the GPEIR, would continue to apply to development in the Pedley Plan area. As no development would occur at this phase of the proposed project, future development in the Plan area may have site-specific mitigation appropriate to the individual project. For example, biological resources need to be evaluated prior to construction as the natural environment changes. Even if no additional CEQA review is necessary through a by-right or ministerial act determination by the state, the provisions of the endangered species act, wetlands, tribal consultation, migratory bird treaty act, and similar b iological and cultural state and federal laws would still apply. The proposed project does not create new impacts or the need for additional mitigation measures.
d. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure o r alternative.
As the proposed project has the same impacts as the existing project, there are no new mitigation measures that would apply.
2.3 FINDING
For the reasons explained in this addendum, the proposed project would not cause any new significant environmental impacts or substantially increase the severity of significant environmental impacts disclosed in the GPEIR. Thus, the proposed project does not trigger any of the conditions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 allowing the preparation of a subsequent EIR, and the appropriate environmental document as authorized by CEQA Guidelines Section 15164(b) is an addendum.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
2. CEQA Analysis
March 2025 Page 12
This page intentionally left blank.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
APPENDIX A:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Addendum to the 2017
General Plan EIR
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
March 2025 Page 1
March 2025 | Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ADDENDUM TO 2017 GENERAL PLAN EIR
SCH No. 2016021025
FOR THE
Pedley Town Center Plan
City of Jurupa Valley
Prepared for:
City of Jurupa Valley
Joe Perez, Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Jurupa Valley City Hall, 8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Prepared by:
PlaceWorks
Mark Teague, AICP
101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 202
Folsom, California 95630
[email protected]
www.placeworks.com
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
March 2025 Page 1
1. Introduction
1.1 PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MM RP) has been developed to provide a vehicle to monitor mitigation measures and conditions of approval outlined in th e 2017 City of Jurupa Valley General Plan EIR (GPEIR) for the 2017 General Plan. The MMRP has been prepared in conformance with Section 21081.6 of the Public Res ources Code and City of Jurupa Valley (City) monitoring requirements. Section 21081.6 states:
(a) When making the findings required by paragraph (1) of subdivision subsection (a) of Section 21081 or when adopting a mitigated negative declaration pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section 21080, the following requirements shall apply:
(1) The public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The reporting or monitoring program sha ll be designed to ensure compliance during project implementation. For those changes which have been required or incorporated into the project at the request of a responsible agency or a public agency having jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, that agency shall, if so requested by the lead agency or a responsible agency, prepare and submit a proposed reporting or monitoring program.
(2) The lead agency shall specify the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which its decision is based. (b) A public agency shall provide that measures to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment are fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures.
Conditions of project approval may be set forth in referenced docume nts which address required mitigation measures or, in the case of the adoption of a plan, policy, regulation, or other public project, by incorporating the mitigation measures into the plan, policy, regulation, or project design.
(c) Prior to the close of the public review period for a draft environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration, a responsible agency, or a public agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project, shall either submit t o the lead agency complete and detailed performance objectives for mitigation measures which would address the significant effects on the environment identified by the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N M M R P
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
over natural resources affected by the project, or refer the lead agency to appropriate, readily available guidelines or reference documents. Any mitigation measures submitted to a lead agency by a responsible agency or an agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by the project shall be limited to measures which mitigate impacts to resources which are subject to the statutory authority of, and definitions applicable to, that agency. Compliance or noncompliance by a responsible agency or ag ency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project with that requirement shall not limit the authority of the responsible agency or agency having jurisdiction over natural resources affected by a project, or the authority of the lead age ncy, to approve, condition, or deny projects as provided by this division or any other provision of law.
CEQA requires that a reporting or monitoring program be adopted for the conditions of project approval that are necessary to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment (Public Resources Code 21081.6). The mitigation monitoring and reporting p rogram is designed to ensure compliance with adopted mitigation measures during implementation of the Approved Project.
The mitigation measures presented below are applicable to the proposed Pedley Town Center Plan (proposed project).
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R P L A N M M R P
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2025 Page 3
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification
4.5 Cultural Resources
4.5.5.1A Prior to issuance of a demolition permit for any structure older than 45 years at the time of application and according to City building records or other official documentation, a project applicant shall provide an historical assessment of the structure prepared by a qualified professional (i.e., certified historian or architectural historian) with a determination whether the structure represents a significant historical resource according to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The assessment shall include contact with a local historical society regarding the structure’s potential local significance. If the structure is determined to not be historic or potentially historic, either at a state or local level, the structure may be demolished without further documentation. If the structure is not historic on a state level but has local historical significance, the structure may be demolished with City Council approval, provide that the property is photo-recorded and archived prior to demolition. If the structure has state historical significance, the project historian shall prepare a preservation plan which shall address in-place or onsite preservation, relocation to an appropriate offsite location, or demolition only if it can be clearly demonstrated that preservation in place is not physically, or structurally feasible. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
City Planning Department Once for each
required
document
submittal
Prior to issuance of
demolition permit
C.7.2A Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a project applicant must demonstrate if the proposed project grading will impact underlying soil units or geologic formations that have a moderate to high potential to yield fossiliferous materials. If the potential for fossil discovery is low, no pre- grading monitoring needs to be established. If the potential for fossil discovery is moderate to high, the applicant must provide a paleontological monitor during rough grading of the project. If a paleontologist is not onsite and possible fossil materials are found, work shall be halted in that area until the material can be assessed by a qualified professional. If materials are found onsite during grading, a qualified professional shall evaluate the find and determine if it represents a significant paleontological resource. If the resource is determined to be significant, the paleontologist shall supervise removal of the material and determine the most appropriate archival storage of the material. This measure shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Planning Department.
City Planning Department Once prior to issuance of
grading permit and
anytime during grading
Prior to issuance of
grading permit and
at time of discovery
of paleontological
resources
4.6 Geology and Soils
4.6.5.1A Before a project is approved or otherwise permitted within an A-P Zone or within 150 feet of any other active or potentially active fault mapped in a published United States Geologic Survey (USGS) or CGS reports, or within other potential earthquake hazard area (as determined by the City), a site-specific geologic investigation shall be prepared to assess potential seismic hazards resulting from development of the project site. Where and when required, the geotechnical investigation shall address the issue(s), hazard(s), and geographic area(s) determined by the City of Jurupa Valley Planning and Building Departments to be relevant to each development.
The site-specific geotechnical investigation shall incorporate up-to-date data from government City Engineering Department
City Building and Safety
Department
Twice for each site-
specific geotechnical
investigation
Prior to issuance of
grading permit
Prior to issuance of
building permit
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R M A S T E R P L A N M M R P
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification and non-government sources. Based on the site-specific geotechnical investigation, no structures intended for human occupancy shall be constructed across active faults. This site- specific evaluation and written report shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to City of Jurupa Valley Planning and Building Departments for review and approval as part of the environmental and entitlement process and prior to the issuance of building permits. If an active fault is discovered, any structure intended for human occupancy shall be set back at least 50 feet from the fault. A larger or smaller setback may be established if such a setback is supported by adequate evidence as presented to and accepted by the City.
4.6.5.2A As determined by the City, a site-specific assessment shall be prepared prior to grading to ascertain potential ground shaking impacts on development. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall incorporate up-to-date data from government and non-government sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation. The site-specific ground shaking assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential ground shaking hazards to protect public health and safety. This site-specific ground shaking assessment shall be prepared by a licensed geologist and shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning and Building Departments for review and approval as part of the environmental and entitlement process and prior to the issuance of building permits.
City Engineering Department
City Building and Safety
Department
Once Prior to issuance of
building permit
4.6.5.7A As determined by the City, a site-specific soil assessment shall be prepared prior to grading to ascertain potential soil expansion on development within the Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5- 15% slopes identified on Figure 4.6.2. The site-specific soil assessment shall incorporate up-to- date data from government and nongovernment sources and may be included as part of any site-specific geotechnical investigation. The site-specific soils assessment shall include specific measures to reduce the significance of potential soil swell/shrink potential sufficient to protect public health and safety. This site-specific soils assessment shall be prepared by a licensed soils engineer or geologist and shall be submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning and Building Departments for review and approval as part of the environmental and entitlement process andvprior to the issuance of building permits.
City Engineering Department
City Building and Safety
Department
Once Prior to issuance of
building permit
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
4.9.5.6A Upon issuance of an occupancy permit, all non -residential development shall be required to mechanically sweep its truck and vehicular parking areas at least once every two weeks to reduce particulate materials that can contribute to degradation of local surface and groundwater quality. This measure may also be applied to institutional uses on a discretionary basis depending on the amount of parking area required.
City Public Works and
Engineering Departments
Every two weeks Every two weeks
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R M A S T E R P L A N M M R P
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
March 2025 Page 5
Mitigation Measure Responsible for Monitoring Monitoring Frequency Timing of Verification
4.16 Transportation and Traffic
4.16.5.2A Within two years of adopting the 2017 General Plan, the City will develop a Strategic Traffic Congestion Management Plan that will identify the type and timing of roadway and intersection improvements as well as other solutions that may not involve road widenings or standard intersection improvements. The goal of this plan will be to identify those specific improvements or actions that will achieve the City’s Level of Service standards to the greatest degree practical, including potential funding and the critical timing of improvements. Future development will be required to be consistent.
City Public Works and
Engineering Departments
Once Within two years of
adopting the 2017
General Plan
4.16.5.2B The City shall seek to enter into a cooperative agreement with each of the surrounding jurisdictions regarding reciprocal fair share contributions for intersection and/or roadway improvements of mutual benefit to the City of Jurupa Valley and each cooperative jurisdiction.
The City would then require future development to make the identified fair share payment, if any, under this agreement. This agreement would apply to any private or public development project that contributed 50 or more peak hour trips to a particular street or intersection, based on a project-specific traffic study that met the traffic study requirements of the City at the time the project was proposed.
City Public Works and
Engineering Departments
Once for each
cooperative agreement
and once for each
subsequent development
under applicable
agreement
Prior to issuance of
Occupancy permit
for each subsequent
Development under
Applicable
agreement
4.16.5.2C The City of Jurupa Valley shall seek to participate in a multi-jurisdictional study with Caltrans to identify fair share contribution funding sources attributable to and paid from future private and public development, to supplement other regional and State funding sources, to implement necessary improvements to local freeways and freeway ramps to meet Caltrans Level of Service Standards. Once the study identifies appropriate improvements, costs, and fair share fee amounts, the City shall enter into a cooperative agreement with Caltrans to collect such fees from developers of future projects in the City to help fund the identified improvements. The City would then require future development to make the identified fair share payments under this agreement.
City Public Works and
Engineering Departments
Once for participation
in multijurisdictional
study, once for entry into
cooperative agreement,
and once for each
subsequent development
under the agreement
Beaumont Unified
School District
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
A D D E N D U M T O T H E 2 0 1 7 G E N E R A L P L A N E I R F O R T H E P E D L E Y T O W N C E N T E R M A S T E R P L A N M M R P
C I T Y O F J U R U P A V A L L E Y
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
This page intentionally left blank.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
EXHIBIT B OF ATTACHMENT 1
Proposed General Plan Text Amendments (Redlined)
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
Page xii Jurupa Valley General Plan
Figure 11-1: Vernola Marketplace, Jurupa Valley .............11-1 Figure 11-2: Jurupa Valley Food Fest .................................11-3 Figure 11-3: New housing under construction near
Vernola Marketplace ....................................................11-5 Figure 11-4: Logistics building, Jurupa Valley ....................11-7 Figure 11-5: New office/business park space, Jurupa
Valley .............................................................................11-8 Figure 11-6: 2016 Dedication of the Clay Street Grade
Separation Project ..................................................... 11-10 Figure 11-7: Fishing lake, Rancho Jurupa County Park
and Campground ....................................................... 11-12 Figure 11-8: Economic Opportunity Areas ..................... 11-15 Figure 12-1: Jurupa Mountains Discovery Center .............12-1 Figure 12-2: Typical Class II bicycle path design
(Complete Streets Manual, City of Los Angeles) .........12-3 Figure 12-3: Diagram showing floor area ratio (City of
Austin, Texas) ................................................................12-4 Figure 12-4: Cluster development layout to preserve
open space (City of Durango, Colorado) .....................12-6 Figure 12-5: Typical creek corridor and setbacks (City of San Luis Obispo, California).......................................... 12-7 Figure 12-6: Craftsman building façade features (City of San Luis Obispo, California)........................................ 12-12 Figure 12-7: Example of form-based code (City of San
Luis Obispo, California) .............................................. 12-13 Figure 12-8: Wildlife habitat buffer and ecotone areas
along the Santa Ana River .......................................... 12-14 Figure 12-9: Heavy trucks and heavy truck tractors
(MAIPF) ....................................................................... 12-15 Figure 12-10: Example of vertical mixed use (State of
Oregon Transportation and Growth Management
Program) ..................................................................... 12-20 Figure 12-11: Duplex patio home (houzbuzz.com;
American Style)........................................................... 12-23 Figure 12-12: Paseo development, Southern California. 12-24
Appendices to General Plan
1.0 City Council Resolutions:
- Approving 2017 General Plan
- Approving General Plan Map Amendments
- Certifying the EIR
- Approving Findings of Overriding Considerations
2.0 Summary of General Plan Amendments in 2017
Jurupa Valley Interim General Plan
3.0 General Plan Technical Reports: Traffic and Noise
4.0 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility
Plan
5.0 GPAC Final Report
6.0 Meeting Minutes: Planning Commission and City
Council
7.0 Summary: General Plan Public Workshops
8.0 Community Values Statement
9.0 General Plan Implementation
10.0 Final Programmatic Environmental Impact
Report
11.0 Traffic Volumes Worksheets
12.0 Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan (MSHCP)
13.0 Homeless Count Report, Riverside County
14.0 Public and Agency Comments on Jurupa Valley
Housing
15.0 Economic Development Strategy and
Implementation Plan Summary
16.0 JARPD Multi-Purpose Community Trails Plan
17.0 Mira Loma Warehouse Distribution Center
Administrative Policy
18.0 Jurupa Valley’s Communities
19.0 Multi-Modal Transportation Options
20.0 5
th Cycle Housing Element – Site Inventory and
Analysis
Appendices to Housing Element
A Specific Plan Capacity and Vacant Sites Inventory
B Proposed Redesignation/Rezone Sites
C Public Participation
D Evaluation of Previous Housing Element/Past
Accomplishments
E Fair Housing Assessment
Appendices to Land Use Element
A Pedley Town Center Plan
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
places that attract residents from adjacent areas to socialize, shop, and dine.
To address potential land use compatibility issues, and to enhance town centers’ historic and architectural character, design guidelines are applied to each center within the Overlay. Allowable land uses within the Town Center Overlay include:
• High, Very High, and Highest Density Residential in the core area
• High Density Residential in the surrounding core support area
• Commercial Retail
• Commercial Office
• Public Facilities
• Open Space-Recreation
A typical mix of uses may include public or quasi -public uses (schools, plazas, theaters, cultural centers, offices, and parks), traditional residential neighborhood- or community -serving retail centers, recreational uses, offices, and where appropriate, courtyard-style or attached residential dwellings. Land use emphasis is generally on uses within the Commercial Retail designation such as a grocery store, a drug store, and other retail outlets, and the Commercial Office designation such as professional se rvices and financial institutions. Residential densities range from 5.0 to 25.0 dwelling units per acre, while non-residential intensities range from
0.2 to 0.5 FAR.
Policies, General
The following policies apply within the Town Center Overlay.
LUE 5.13 Town Center Development. Require development
within the Town Center Overlay, to be compact,
pedestrian-oriented, and designed to accommodate a
broad range of uses, including commercial, residential, and public facility uses, consistent with the Community’s historic character.
LUE 5.14 Locations. Apply the Town Center Overlay to the historic community centers of downtown Rubidoux, downtown
Glen Avon , and downtown Pedley as shown in Figure
2-10 (page 2-25). The City Council may consider applying the Town Center Overlay to other areas determined to be consistent with the intent and policies of this section.
LUE 5.15 Development Standards. Require areas within Town Center Overlay designations to develop in accordance
with Town Center Plans and development standards for
Town Centers. the land use standards for Town Centers as detailed in the Town Center Design Standards and the
Rubidoux Area Design Standards of the Zoning Regulations.
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025
and mitigate potential conflicts between uses,
considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, trash and recycling storage, deliveries, truck and automobile access, and parking.
LUE 5.27 Architectural Compatibility. Require that town center development be designed to be architecturally
compatible with its surroundings and visually enhance
the character of the surrounding neighborhood and
designated scenic highways or public view corridors.
Programs, General
LUE 5.1.7 Town Center Area Plans. The City will prepare an area plan for each of its three town centers to establish a
consensus and a vision that is shared by the stakeholders and the City Council. The area plans are as follows:
The
master plans will be prepared in the following order of priority:
1. Pedley Town Center
2. Glen Avon Town Center
3. Rubidoux Town Center
The Pedley Town Center Plan is included as Appendix A
to the Land Use Element Appendices.
LUE 5.1.8 Town Center Standards. The City will prepare Town Center Standards and update the Zoning Ordinance to
include them and to integrate the Rubidoux Design
Standards with the new standards. At the time new Town
Center Zones are adopted, the General Plan land use
designations will be amended to be consistent.
LUE 5.1.9 Density Transfer . Consider establishing a Zoning Ordinance provision to allow the transfer of develop-
ment credits – i.e., residential density – from environ - mentally sensitive sites to Town Center sites, where
appropriate.
Policies, Pedley Overlay
The Pedley Overlay is the location of City Hall and the Jurupa Valley/Pedley train station, as shown in Figure 2-21. Its potential as a key component of the City’s identity, its ability to preserve its historical heritage and establish a downtown environment that attracts locals to shop, dine and socialize is critical. An area A master plan for Pedley Town Center will guide development to create a cohesive center that will anchor the new City and help solidify its internal identity with its citizens. The area master plan will be the basis for future land use decisions and capital improvements . and may ultimately take the form of a specific plan.
LUE 5.28 Semi-Truck Traffic. Limit semi-truck traffic generated by uses to a maximum of 15 trucks per day, Monday
through Friday.
Figure 2-20: Pedley Town Center area,
looking south towards the Santa Ana River
Regular City Council Meeting - May 1, 2025