Engineer’s Report
JV L&LMD No. 89-1-C
Zone Y (Wheeler Upfitters)
20 C. Maximum Assessment Methodology
The purpose of establishing a Maximum Assessment formula is to provide for reasonable increases and inflationary adjustments to annual assessments without requiring costly noticing and mailing procedures, which would add to the Zone costs and assessments.
The following are the Cost per Acre and Total Cost/Max Assessment by improvement Type summarized:
Table 14
Total Cost/Max Assessment Summary
The Maximum Assessment formula shall be applied to all assessable parcels of land within the Zone.
For Zone Y, the initial Maximum Assessment for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 shall be a total of $16,973.65 or $1,107.94 per Acre as detailed in Part III.
The initial Maximum Assessment is subject to an annual inflator starting in Fiscal Year 2026-2027.
The initial Maximum Assessment may be adjusted by the greater of four percent (4%) per year or the cumulative percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for (“CPI- U”) for the Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario California Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (“Index”) published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor. The annual CPI-U adjustment will be based on the cumulative increase, if any, in the Index as it stands in March of each year over the base Index of 2025.
The Maximum Assessment is adjusted annually and is calculated independent of the Zone Y annual budget and proposed annual assessment. The annual assessment (rate per assessable parcel) applied in any fiscal year is not considered to be an increased assessment if less than or equal to the Maximum Assessment amount for that fiscal year. In no case shall the annual assessment exceed the Maximum Assessment.
Improvement Cost per Acre Acres
Total
Cost/Max
Assessment
Landscaping Cost 674.67$ 15.32 10,336.00$
Streetlighting Cost $ 163.90 15.32 2,510.92$ Contingency (20%) 179.58$ 15.32 2,751.18$
Operating Reserves (10%) 89.79$ 15.32 1,375.59$ Rounding (0.04)$
Total Cost/Max Assessment 1,107.94$ 16,973.65$ Total Cost/Max Assessment
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Engineer’s Report
JV L&LMD No. 89-1-C
Zone Y (Wheeler Upfitters)
21 Although the Maximum Assessment will increase each year, the actual Zone Y assessments may remain virtually unchanged. The Maximum Assessment adjustment is designed to establish a reasonable limit on Zone Y assessments. The Maximum Assessment calculated each year does not require the annual assessment be raised to the adjusted maximum but can be less than maximum.
If the budget and assessments for the fiscal year require an increase to an amount greater than the adjusted Maximum Assessment, it is considered an increased assessment.
To impose an increase greater than the annually adjusted maximum assessment, the City of Jurupa Valley must comply with the provisions of California Constitution Articles XIII C and XIII D, which require a public hearing and certain protest procedures including mailed notice of the public hearing and property owner protest balloting. Through the balloting process, property owners must approve the proposed maximum assessment increase. If the proposed change is approved, then a new Maximum Assessment is established for Zone Y. If the proposed change is not approved, the City may not levy an assessment greater than the annually adjusted Maximum Assessment previously established for Zone Y.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Engineer’s Report
JV L&LMD No. 89-1-C
Zone Y (Wheeler Upfitters)
22 PART IV – ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM/BOUNDARY MAP
Part IV – Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map
Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Zone Y
The Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map for Zone Y by this reference is incorporated and made a part of this Report. Only the parcels identified within the Zone Y Assessment Diagram/Boundary Map are within said boundary.
If any parcel submitted for collection is identified by the County Auditor-Controller to be an invalid parcel number for the current fiscal year, a corrected parcel number and/or new parcel number (or numbers) will be identified and resubmitted to the County Auditor-Controller. The assessment amount to be levied and collected for the resubmitted parcel and/or new parcel number(s) shall be based on the method of apportionment and the assessment rate as defined in this Report.
Therefore, if a single parcel has changed to multiple parcels, the assessment amount applied to each of the new parcels shall be recalculated and applied according to the approved method of apportionment and the assessment rate rather than as a proportionate share of the original assessment.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Engineer’s Report
JV L&LMD No. 89-1-C
Zone Y (Wheeler Upfitters)
23 Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Engineer’s Report
JV L&LMD No. 89-1-C
Zone Y (Wheeler Upfitters)
24 PART V – ASSESSMENT ROLL
Parcel identification for each lot/unit or parcel within Zone Y shall be the parcel as shown on the Riverside County Secured Roll for the year in which this Report is prepared and reflective of the Assessor’s Parcel Map. Zone Y includes the following APNs as of the date of this Report:
178-330-028
The initial Maximum Assessment for each parcel will be as follows1:
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 89-1-C, ZONE Y
PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 MAXIMUM ASSESSMENT
Assessor Parcel
Number Acres
Maximum
Assessment1,2,3
178-330-028 15.32 $16,973.65
TOTAL 15.32 $16,973.65
1 The Actual Assessment for each Assessable Parcel, when submitted to the tax roll, will be rounded to even pennies, as required by the Riverside County Auditor-Controller to allow for the equal division of 2 installment payments on the property tax bill.
2 The initial Maximum Assessment may be adjusted annually by the greater of four percent (4%) per year, or the cumulative percentage increase in the CPI-U, if any, as it stands in March of each year over the base Index of 2025. 3 Max Assessment includes effect for rounding.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
120
ST
AFF REPORT
DATE: June 26, 2025
TO: HO
NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: SUSAN PARAGAS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.Q
RES
OLUTION AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2025-26
RECO
MMENDATION
1) That
the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-96, entitled:
A RES
OLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF
INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
BACKGRO
UND
Sec
tion 53606 of the State of California Government Code, limits the authorization of the legislative body to delegate investment authority to a one- year period. California Government Code Sections 53607 and 53608 authorize the legislative body of a local agency to invest, deposit, and provide for the safekeeping of the local agency’s funds or to delegate those responsibilities to the treasurer of the local agency.
The i
nvestment policy is typically updated and presented to Council for adoption by June 30th each year and is effective July 1st through fiscal year end June 30th.
ANALY
SIS
Per
the Fiscal and Budgetary Policies included in the budget document : The City will invest cash balances in conformance with the California Government Code and the three main investment objectives are safety, liquidity and yield. The City will adhere to the prudent investor standard and best practices in Treasury Management.
Cal
ifornia Government Code Section 53600 et seq. authorizes the investment of public funds and establishes permitted investments parameters for local governments. Jurupa
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Valley's annual Statement of Investment Policy defines the suitable and authorized investments specifically for Jurupa Valley which may be more restrictive than the State Code but can never be less restrictive than the State Code. Additionally, the Investment Policy serves as a guide for setting and achieving Jurupa Valley's particular investment objectives and defines the overall guidelines for management of the portfolio.
The City of Jurupa Valley Investment Policy has three primary goals:
• To assure compliance with federal, state, and local laws governing the investment of public monies under the control of the offices of the City Manager and Finance Director.
• To protect the principal monies entrusted to the City. • To generate the maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of prudent risk management as defined in this Investment Policy.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Annual adoption of the Investment Policy is required by State Law and allows the City to continue investing available funds to maximize earnings within the constraints of the law.
Reviewed by:
Susa&===
Finance Director
�
Michael Flad
Assistant City Manager
Attachment:
for: Rod B. Butler, City Manager
Resolution 2025-96 with Exhibit 1-City Investment Policy w,vw. j uru pava 11 ey.o rg
Page I 2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE
ANNUAL STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 53600 et seq. governs the investment of public funds by local governments; and
WHEREAS, The Fiscal and Budgetary Policies for the City of Jurupa Valley states the following: The City will invest cash balances in conformance with the California Government Code and the three main investment objectives of safety, liquidity and yield.
The City will adhere to the prudent investor standard and best practices in Treas ury Management. The City will maintain a Statement of Investment Policy. And, WHEREAS, pursuant to California Government Code Section 53607, the City Council of the City of Glendora has delegated its investment authority under California Government Code Section 53601 to the City Treasurer.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals True. The above recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Adoption of Statement of Investment Policy. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby adopts the Statement of Investment Policy in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein as though set forth in full. Any and all prior resolutions adopting a Statement of Investment Policy for the City of Jurupa Valley shall be hereby rescinded.
Section 3. Delegation of Investment Authority to City Treasurer . Pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 53607, the authority of the City Council to invest or to reinvest funds of the City, or to sell or exchange securities so purchased, is hereby delegated for a one-year period beginning July 1, 2025 and ending June 30, 2026 to the Finance Director (City Treasurer) and Investment Officers as provided in the Investment Policy approved by this Resolution, who shall thereafter assume full responsibility for those transactions until the delegation of authority is revoked or expires, and shall make a quarterly report of those transactions to the City Council. Subject to review, the City Council may renew the delegation of authority pursuant to this section each year.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 26th day of June 2025.
______________________________
Brian Berkson
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Maria Morris
City Clerk
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Maria Morris, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-96 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of th e City of Jurupa Valley on the 26 th day of June 2025 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 26th day of June 2025.
________________________________
Maria Morris, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
City of Jurupa Valley
Statement of Investment Policy
Fiscal Year 2025-26
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to outline the policy on the investment of public monies.
It is the policy of the City of Jurupa Valley to predicate it’s investment policies, procedures, and practices upon the limitations placed upon them by the City Council. These policies shall have three primary goals:
• To assure compliance with federal, state, and local laws governing the investment of public monies under the control of the City Manager and Finance Director.
• To protect the principal monies entrusted to the City.
• To generate the maximum amount of investment income within the parameters of prudent risk management as defined in this Statement of Investment Policy.
For the purposes of this policy, "Investment Officers" shall be defined as the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and the Finance Director.
1.0 Scope
This Statement of Investment Policy shall apply to all funds that are under the control of the Finance Director, including, but not limited to, the general fund; special revenue funds; debt service funds; capital project funds; enterprise funds; trust and agency funds; and any other funds under the control of the Finance Director. These funds are accounted for in the City’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.
Investment of bond proceeds and related reserve funds shall be governed by the documents authorizing the issuance of such indebtedness.
The City's Deferred Compensation Plan ("Plan") shall be excluded from the scope of this Statement of Investment Policy if: (1) a third-party administrator manages the Plan; (2) individual plan participants have control over the selection of investments; and (3) the City has no fiduciary responsibility to act as a "trustee" for the Plan. The only exception to the foregoing shall be that if the City retains the fiduciary responsibility to act as a trustee for the Plan, then the provisions of this Statement of Investment Policy shall apply to the investment of Plan assets. Under these circumstances, the Finance Director shall provide the Investment Committee and the City Council with a quarterly report on the investment of Plan assets.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
2.0 Standard of Care
Investment Officers, as trustees of public monies, shall adhere to the “prudent investor" standard when managing the City's investment portfolios. They shall invest "...all governing bodies of local agencies or persons authorized to make investment decisions on behalf of those local agencies investing public funds pursuant to this chapter are trustees and therefore fiduciaries subject to the prudent investor standard. When investing, reinvesting, purchasing, acquiring, exchanging, selling, or managing public funds, a trustee shall act with care, skill, prudence , and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing, including, but not limited to, the general economic conditions and the anticipated needs of the City, that a prudent person acting in a like capacity and familiarity with those matters would use in the conduct of funds of a like character and with like aims, to safeguard the principal and maintain the liquidity needs of the City. Within the limitations of this section and considering individual investments as part of an overall strategy, investments may be acquired as authorized by law."
Investment Officers who follow the provisions of this Statement of Investment Policy, and who exercise due diligence shall be relieved of personal responsibility for a security's credit risk or market price risk provided that they report substantial deviations from expectations to the City Manager and to the Investment Committee in a timely manner and that they take appropriate action to control adverse developments. "Substantial deviations" shall be defined as either a decline of 10 percent or more in the market value of a security due to issuer default or a credit risk downgrade or the premature sale of a security at 10 percent or more below its acquisition cost.
3.0 Objectives
The City's investment objectives, in order of priority, shall be:
3.1 Safety. Safety of principal shall be the foremost objective. Investments shall be made with the aim of avoiding capital losses due to issuer default; broker-dealer default; or market value erosion. Principal shall be preserved by mitigating:
3.1.1 Credit Risk, the risk of loss due to the failure of the issuer of the security, shall be mitigated by investing in only the highest quality securities and by diversifying investments; and
3.1.2 Market Risk, the risk of loss due to a decline in bond prices because of rising market interest rates, shall be mitigated by structuring the portfolios so that issues mature concurrently with the City's anticipated cash requirements, thereby eliminating the need to sell securities prematurely on the open market.
3.1.3 It is recognized, however, that in a diversified portfolio, Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
occasional measured losses are inevitable and must be
considered within the context of the overall investment strategy.
3.2 Liquidity. An adequate percentage of the portfolios shall be maintained in liquid, short -term securities that can be converted to cash, if necessary, to meet disbursement requirements. Since all cash requirements cannot be anticipated, the portfolios should consist largely of securities with active secondary markets. These securities should have a relatively low sensitivity to market risk. Maximum overall portfolio maturities are referenced in section 15.0, paragraph 2 of this Statement of Investment Policy.
3.3 Yield. Yield shall be considered only after the basic requirements of safety and liquidity have been met.
4.0 Delegation of Authority
California Government Code Sections 53607 and 53608 authorize the legislative body of a local agency to invest, deposit, and provide for the safekeeping of the local agency ' s funds or to delegate those responsibilities to the treasurer of the local agency.
The Finance Director, City Manager, or Assistant City Manager shall have the exclusive authority to buy and sell securities on behalf of the City. They shall engage in mutual consultation and in collective decision making on economic trends, investment opportunities, and portfolio structuring.
The City may engage the services of one or more external investment advisers, who are registered under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, to assist in the management of the City’s investment portfolio in a manner consistent with the City’s objectives. External investment advisers may be granted discretion to purchase and sell investment securities in accordance with this investment policy.
5.0 Internal Controls
The Finance Director shall be responsible for ensuring that all investment transactions comply with the City’s Statement of Investment Policy and for establishing internal controls that are designed to prevent losses due to fraud, negligence, and third- party misrepresentation. The Finance Director shall update the written procedures for the operation of the City’s investment program that are consistent with this Statement of Investment Policy.
Internal controls deemed most important shall include: avoidance of collusion; separation of duties and administrative controls; separating transaction authority from accounting and record keeping; custodial safekeeping; clear delegation of authority; management approval and review of investment transactions; specific limitations regarding securities losses and remedial action; written confirmation of telephone transactions; documentation of Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
investment transactions and strategies; and monitoring of results.
The Investment Committee consists of the Finance Director (City Treasurer), City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Director of Public Works/City Engineer. The Committee shall be responsible for reviewing changes to the City investment reports, transactions, policies and procedures, and strategies, on a quarterly basis.
6.0 Ethics and Conflict of Interest
Investment Officers shall refrain from personal business activity that could conflict with the proper execution of the City's investment program or impair their ability to make impartial investment decisions. They shall disclose to the City Council any material financial interest in financial institutions that conduct business within the City's jurisdiction. They shall also disclose any personal investment positions that could be related to the performance of the City's investment portfolios. Investment Officers shall subordinate their personal investment transactions to those of the City, particularly with regard to the timing of securities purchases and sales, and shall avoid transactions that might impair public confidence.
Investment Officers and their immediate relatives shall not accept or solicit any gifts, gratuities, honorariums, or favors from persons or entities who provide or who are seeking to provide financial services to the City.
All participants in the investment process are required to comply with terms of the Political Reform Act, Fair Political Practices Commission Regulations promulgated thereunder (2 C.C.R. §§ 18110 through 18998), the City’s Conflict of Interest Policy, including, without limitation, filing of Form 700, notification and recusal obligations, and Government Code section 1090 prohibitions.
7.0 Authorized Financial Institutions, Depositories and Broker-Dealers
The Finance Director or City Manager shall have the authority to select any qualified broker -dealer(s) deemed necessary in facilitating investment transactions. All professional services will be acquired through a fair and competitive bidding process, (Request for Proposal) every three years. Eligible institutions may include "primary" dealers or regional dealers that qualify under Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 15c3- 1 (uniform net capital rule). In accordance with Section 53601.5, institutions eligible to transact investment business with the City include:
• Institutions licensed by the state as a broker -dealer, as defined in Section 25004 of the Corporations Code, with proof of FINRA certification. • Institutions that are members of a federally regulated securities exchange. • Primary government dealers as designated by the Federal Reserve Bank and non-primary government dealers.
• Nationally or state-chartered banks.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
• Savings association or federal association (as defined in Section 5102 of the Financial Code).
• The Federal Reserve Bank.
• Direct issuers of securities eligible for purchase.
Any broker-dealer that has made a political contribution within any consecutive four-year period following January 1, 1996 in an amount that exceeds the limits in Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board ("MSRB") Rule G-37, to any member of or candidate for the City Council or Finance Director shall not be eligible to transact business with the City.
The Finance Director shall conduct an annual review of the financial condition and the registrations of all approved broker -dealers. In addition to other requirements, the City shall give all approved broker -dealers a copy of the City’s current Statement of Investment Policy and a certification form. The completion and submission of the certification form by an approved broker - dealer shall constitute proof that it has received the City's Statement of Investment Policy, read it, and intends to comply with it. The Finance Director shall keep current audited annual financial statements on file for each approved broker-dealer with which the City does business.
Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, the investment officer shall make their best efforts to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities.
Selection of broker/dealers used by an external investment adviser retained by the Agency will be at the sole discretion of the adviser. Where possible, transactions with broker/dealers shall be selected on a competitive basis and their bid or offering prices shall be recorded. If there is no other readily available competitive offering, best efforts will be made to document quotations for comparable or alternative securities. When purchasing original issue instrumentality securities, no competitive offerings will be required as all dealers in the selling group offer those securities at the same original issue price.
8.0 Authorized Public Depositories
The Finance Director shall maintain an Approved List of all commercial banks that the Investment Committee authorized as public depositories of City monies.
The City shall only deposit public monies in financial institutions that have: (1) at least $100 million in total assets; (2) a core capital -to-total assets ratio of at least five percent; (3) favorable statistical ratings from a nationally recognized rating service, as determined by the Finance Director; (4) a federal or a state charter; and (5) a branch office within Riverside County/San Bernardino County and/or Los Angeles County. The only exception to the foregoing shall be 100% Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
Federal Deposit Insurance Company (FDIC) insured securities purchased through a broker-dealer.
Under no circumstances shall the City’s deposits in a financial institution exceed the total shareholder’s equity of that institution.
9.0 Delivery, Safekeeping and Custody
DELIVERY-VERSUS-PAYMENT (DVP). Investment Officers shall conduct all security transactions on a delivery-versus
- p
ayment ("DVP"). A third-party bank
trust department ("Custodian") that acts as an agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed between both parties shall hold the securities. The City's Custodian shall be represented on the Approved List .
SAFEKEEPING AND CUSTODY. To protect against potential losses due to failure of individual securities dealers, and to enhance access to securities, interest payments and maturity proceeds, all cash and securities in the City’s portfolio shall be held in safekeeping in the City’s name by a third-party custodian, acting as agent for the City under the terms of a custody agreement executed by the bank and the City. All investment transactions will require a safekeeping receipt or acknowledgment generated from the trade. A monthly report will be received by the City from the custodian listing all securities held in safekeeping with current market data and other information.
The only exception to the foregoing shall be securities purchases made with:
(1) local government investment pools; (2) time certificates of deposit, (3) money market mutual funds; and (4) Federal Reserve Banks ("Treasury Direct Program") since the purchased securities are not deliverable. No securities broker-dealer or investment advisor shall have access to City monies, accounts, or investments. Any transfer of monies to or through a securities broker-dealer must have the Finance Director or City Manager’s prior written approval.
If they
are unavailable, then the management authorization chain- of-command specified in section 4.0, paragraph 2 of this Statement of Investment Policy shall be followed.
10.0 Collateralization
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT (CDS). Investment Officers shall ensure that all demand deposits and all non-negotiable certificates of deposit that exceed the FDIC insured limit, shall be fully collateralized with securities authorized under state law and under this Statement of Investment Policy. Collateral may be waived up to the FDIC limit for CD's since these will be insured by the FDIC.
Any amount on deposit over the FDIC limit plus accrued interest, however, shall be collateralized with United States Treasury or federal agency securities at a constant margin ratio of
110 percent or with mortgage- backed collateral at a
constant margin ratio of 150 percent.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
COLLATERALIZATION OF BANK DEPOSITS. This is the process by which a bank or financial institution pledges securities, or other deposits for the purpose of securing repayment of deposited funds. The City shall require any bank or financial institution to comply with the collateralization crit eria defined in California Government Code, Section 53651.
R
EPURCHASE AGREEMENTS. The City requires that Repurchase Agreements be collateralized only by securities authorized in accordance with California Government Code:
• The securities which collateralize the repurchase agreement shall be priced at Market Value, including any Accrued Interest plus a margin. The Market Value of the securities that underlie a repurchase agreement shall be valued at 102% or greater of the funds borrowed against those securities. • Financial institutions shall mark the value of the collateral to market at least monthly and increase or decrease the collateral to satisfy the ratio requirement described above.
• The City shall receive monthly statements of collateral.
11.0 Authorized
Investments
The City’s investments are governed by California Government Code, Sections 53600 et seq. Within the investments permitted by the Code, the City seeks to further restrict eligible investments to the guidelines listed below. In the event a discrepancy is found between this policy and the Code, the more restrictive parameters will take precedence. Percentage holding limits and minimum credit requirements listed in this section apply at the time the security is purchased.
Any investment currently held at the time the policy is adopted which does not meet the new policy guidelines can be held until maturity, and shall be exempt from the current policy. At the time of the investment’s maturity or liquidation, such funds shall be reinvested only as provided in the current policy.
An appropriate risk level shall be maintained by primarily purchasing securities that are of high quality, liquid, and marketable. The portfolio shall be diversified by security type and issuer to avoid incurring unreasonable and avoidable risks regarding specific security types or individual financial institutions.
11.01 United States Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, and Certificates of Indebtedness
There shall be no concentration limit on the purchase of Treasuries.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
11.02 Federal Agency or US Government Sponsored Enterprise obligations, participants, or other instruments
Investment shall be permitted in the following discount and coupon security issuers: the Federal Farm Credit Bank, the Federal Home Loan Bank, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, the Federal National Mortgage Association, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Export-Import Bank of the United States, the Federal Land Bank, the Small Business Administration, the Student Marketing Loan Association, and the Farm Credit Consolidated System. Purchases of callable securities shall not exceed 20 percent of the market value of the City's total portfolio. No more than 50 percent of the market value of the City's total portfolio may be invested in any one issuer.
11.03 Municipal Securities
Obligations of the City, the State of California, any of the other 49 states, and any local agency within the State of California, including bonds payable solely out of the revenues from a revenue- producing property owned, controlled, or operated by a state or by a department, board, agency, or authority of any of the other 49 states, in addition to California.
Purchases must be rated in a rating category of “A” or higher by at least one nationally recognized s tatistical rating organization (NRSRO). No more than 30% of total portfolio may be in Municipal Securities.
11.04 Medium-Term Notes
Defined as all corporate and depository institutions debt securities with a maximum remaining maturity of five years or less issued by corporations organized and operating within the United States or by depository institutions licensed by the United States or any state and operating within the United States. Investment shall be limited to medium-term notes ("MTN") rated in a rating category of "A" or better by an NRSRO.
Purchases shall not exceed 30 percent of the market
value of the City's total portfolio.
11.05 Bankers' Acceptances
Investment shall be permitted in prime banker' s acceptances ("BA") issued by commercial banks which have short -term debt obligations rated ”A-1” or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical - rating organization; or long- term debt obligations which are rated in a rating category of "A" or higher by at least one nationally recognized statistical rating organization. Purchases of BAs shall not exceed 180 days to maturity. Purchases of BAs shall not exceed 40 percent of the market value of the City's total portfolio. No more than 30 percent of the market value of the City's investment portfolios shall be invested in BAs issued by any one bank.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
11.06 Commercial Paper
Investment shall be permitted in prime commercial paper ("CP") that is rated "A" by an NRSRO. The issuing corporation must be (i) organized and operating in the United States; (ii) have total assets of $500 million or more; (iii) have securities that are rated in category “A-1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO and, if the issuer has other debt obligations, they must be rated in a rating category of "A" or higher by a NRSRO.
SECURITIES issued by other entities must be have (i) the issuer be organized within the United States as a special purpose corporation, trust, or limited liability company; (ii) the securities must have program- wide credit enhancements including, but not limited to, overcollateralization, letters of credit, or a surety bond; and (iii) the securities are rated “A -1” or its equivalent or better by at least one NRSRO.
Purchases of CP shall not exceed 270 days to maturity. No more than 25 percent of the market value of the City's total portfolio shall be invested in CP. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2026, no more than 40% of the total portfolio may be invested in Commercial Paper if the Agency’s investment assets under management are greater than $100,000,000. No more than 10 percent of the outstanding CP of any one issuer shall be purchased.
11.07 A sset Backed, Mortgage -Backed, Mortgage Pass -Through securities and Collateralized Mortgage Obligations
The securities must be rated in a rating category of “AA" or higher by a nationally recognized statistical rating organization. No more than 20% of the total portfolio may be invested in these securities. There is no issuer limitation on any security in this section where the issuer is the US Treasury or a Federal Agency/GSE. The maximum maturity must not exceed five years.
11.08 Certificates of Deposit
Investment shall be permitted in negotiable and non- negotiable, collateralized certificates of deposit ("CD") issued by public depositories that meet the criteria specified in section 8.0, paragraph 2 of this Statement of Investment Policy. CDs that exceed the FDIC insured limit shall be collateralized pursuant to the provisions of this Statement of Investment Policy. No more than 30 percent of the market value of the City’s total portfolio shall be invested in CDs. If collateralization will not be involved, then no more than the maximum insured amount may be invested in any one issuer.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
11.09 Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds
Mutual Funds and Money Market Mutual Funds that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Investment Company Act of 1940, provided:
Mutual Funds invest in the securities and obligations as authorized under California Government Code, Section 53601 (a) to (k) and (m) to (q) inclusive and that meet either of the following criteria: (1) attained the highest ranking or the highest letter and numerical rating provided by not less than two NRSROs ; and (2) retained an investment adviser registered or exempt from registration with the Securities and Exchange Commission with not less than five years’ experience investing in the securities and obligations authorized by California Government Code, Section 53601 and with assets under management in excess of $500 million. Commission (e.g., sales load on purchases, reinvested dividends, redemptions, and exchanges) shall not be included in the purchase of any fund shares. No more than 10 percent of the total portfolio may be invested in shares of any one mutual fund. No more than 20 percent of the total portfolio may be invested in mutual funds and money market mutual funds.
Money Market Mutual Funds investments shall be permitted in shares of beneficial interest issued by diversified management companies that are money market funds ("MMF") registered with the SEC under the Investment Company Act of 1940. In seeking to maintain a stable share price of $ l.00, the MMF shall have a dollar -weighted average maturity of 90 days or less and shall purchase securities with an effective maturity of 13 months or less. Commission (e.g., sales load on purchases, reinvested dividends, redem ptions, and exchanges) shall not be included in the purchase of any fund shares. A qualifying MMF must have: (1) total portfolio net assets of $500 million or more; and (2) the highest rating of the two largest nationally recognized rating services OR an investment advisor who is registered with the SEC, and who has five years or more of experience investing for MMFs of $500 million or more in total portfolio net assets. The City shall require audited annual financial statements from each MMF in which it has public monies invested. No more than 20 percent of the market value of the City’s total portfolio may be invested in mutual funds and MMFs.
11.10 Local Agency Investment Fund ("LAIF")
Investment shall be permitted in this pool which is organized and managed by the State Treasurer’s Office for the benefit of local agencies, pursuant to California Government Code Section 16429.1.
The City Council approved City participation in LAIF by Resolution 11- 20 on July 1, 2011. Investment shall be limited to the maximum amount Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
per legal entity that is permitted under state law.
11.11 Supranational Securities
Investment shall be permitted in issues that are US dollar denominated senior unsecured unsubordinated obligations issued or unconditionally guaranteed by the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, International Finance Corporation, or Inter -American Development Bank. The securities shall be rated in a rating category of “AA” or its equivalent or better by a NRSRO . No more than 30 percent of the total portfolio invested in these securities. No more than 10 percent of the total portfolio may be invested in any single issuer, and the maximum maturity shall not exceed five years.
11.12 Repurchase Agreements
Collateralized with securities authorized under California Government Code, maintained at a level of at least 102% of the market value of the Repurchase Agreement. There are no limits on the dollar amount or percentage that the Agency may invest, provided that: (i) Securities used as collateral for Repurchase Agreements will be delivered to an acceptable third party custodian and (ii) Repurchase Agreements are subject to a Master Repurchase Agreement between the Agency and the provider of the repurchase agreement. The Master Repurchase Agreement will be substantially in the form developed by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA). The maximum maturity does not exceed one (1) year.
12.0 Prohibited Investments and Practices
Investment Officers shall not invest public monies in financial instruments that are not authorized under this Statement of Investment Policy.
Prohibited investments shall include, but shall not be limited to, equity securities, bond mutual funds, and derivative contracts (forwards, futures, and options).
In accordance with Government Code, Section 53601.6, investment in inverse floaters, range notes, or mortgage derived interest-only strips is prohibited.
Investment in any security that could result in a zero-interest accrual if held to maturity is prohibited. Under a provision sunsetting on January 1, 2026, securities backed by the U.S. Government that could result in a zero- or negative-interest accrual if held to maturity are permitted.
Trading securities for the sole purpose of speculating on the future direction of interest rates is prohibited.
Purchasing or selling securities on margin is prohibited.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
The use of reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending or any other form of borrowing or leverage is prohibited.
The purchase of a security with a forward settlement date exceeding 45 days from the time of the investment is prohibited.
LAIF and MMFs shall be exempt from the prohibitions on derivative contracts, derivative securities, repurchase agreements, reverse repurchase agreements, securities lending, short selling, and other hedging strategies.
13.0 Investment Pools / Mutual Funds
Investment Officers shall investigate all local government investment pools ("LGIPs") and mutual funds prior to investing public monies and periodically thereafter while City public monies are invested in the LGIP. With the exception of LAIF, all LGIPs shall meet the criteria specified for money market funds in this
Statement of Investment Policy. Annually, the Designated Official shall seek responses to the following questions from any investment pool or mutual fund in which the Agency invests:
• A description of eligible investment securities, and a written statement of investment policy and objectives.
• A description of interest calculations and how it is distributed, and how gains and losses are treated.
• A description of how the securities are safeguarded (including the settlement processes), and how often the securities are priced and the program audited.
• A description of who may invest in the program, how often, what size deposit and withdrawal are allowed.
• A schedule for receiving statements and portfolio listings. • Are reserves, retained earnings, etc. utilized by the pool/fund? • A fee schedule, and when and how it is assessed.
• Is the pool/fund eligible for bond proceeds and/or will it accept such proceeds?
14.0 Diversification
Investment Officers shall diversify the City's investment portfolio by security type and by issuer to avoid incurring unreasonable risks inherent in over - investing in specific instruments, individual financial institutions or maturities.
No more than 5 percent of the total portfolio market value may be invested in securities of any single issuer, except where the issuer is the US Government, its Agencies and GSEs, s upranational securities, collateralized deposits , mutual funds, money market mutual funds or local government investment pools.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
15.0 Maximum Maturity
Investment Officers shall not invest in securities with maturities exceeding five years. The Investment Committee and City Council, however, may approve longer maturities for the investment of bond reserve, bond escrow, and other funds if the maturities of such investments are expected to coincide with the use of the funds.
Maturities may vary from 1 day to five years at the investment officers’ discretion. The portfolio should be managed in such a manner as to to meet the City’s liquidity, safety and capital preservation needs.
16.0 Portfolio Rebalancing
In the event that portfolio percentage constraints are violated due to a temporary imbalance in the portfolio, then Investment Officers may hold the affected securities to maturity in order to avoid capital losses. If no capital losses would be realized upon sale, however, then the Investment Officers shall consider rebalancing the portfolio after evaluating the expected length of time that it will be imbalanced. Portfolio percentage limits are in place in order to ensure diversification of the City investment portfolio; a small, temporary imbalance, not to exceed three months, will not significantly impair that strategy. Bond or note proceeds shall not be factored into the balance of the portfolio.
17.0 Credit Downgrading
This Statement of Investment Policy sets forth minimum credit risk criteria for each type of security. This credit risk criteria applies to the initial purchase of a security; it does not automatically force the sale of a security if its credit risk ratings fall below policy limits.
If a security is downgraded below the minimum credit risk criteria specified in this Statement of Investment Policy, then:
• Any actions taken by related to the downgrade by the investment manager will be communicated to the Investment Officer in a timely manner. • T he Investment Officers shall evaluate the downgrade on a case- by-case basis in order to determine if the security should be held or sold.
The Finance Director shall inform the Investment Committee at its next regular meeting of the credit downgrade and of the Investment Officer's decision to hold or sell the downgraded security.
The Investment Officers shall review the credit standing of all securities in the City's investment portfolios on a semiannual basis.
18.0 Portfolio Benchmark
The Treasurer shall monitor and evaluate the portfolio’s performance relative Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
to market benchmark, which will be included in the Treasurer's monthly report.
The Treasurer shall select an appropriate, readily available index to use as a market benchmark.
The City’s portfolios may be actively managed for purposes of improving portfolio risk structure, liquidity, or yield in response to market conditions or to meet City requirements.
19.0 Performance Reporting
The Finance Director shall provide monthly transaction reports to the Investment Committee at the regularly scheduled meeting in accordance with California Government Code Section 53607.
This report shall include a complete portfolio inventory with details on issue, par value, market value, coupon/rate, original settlement date of purchase, final maturity date, average weighted yield, and average days to maturity, and market value (including source of market valuation). The report will include a statement on compliance or noncompliance with the City’s Statement of Investment Policy and a statement on whether there are or are not sufficient funds to meet the City's anticipated cash requirements for the next six months.
20.0 Policy Review and Adoption
The Finance Director shall submit a Statement of Investment Policy to the City Council annually for their review and adoption.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
GLOSSARY OF INVESTMENT TERMS
Agencies. Shorthand market terminology for any obligation issued by a government sponsored entity (GSE), or a federally related institution. Most obligations of GSEs are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government. Examples are:
FFCB. The Federal Farm Credit Bank System provides credit and liquidity in the agricultural industry. FFCB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLB. The Federal Home Loan Bank provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLB issues discount notes and bonds.
FHLMC. Like FHLB, the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation provides credit and liquidity in the housing market. FHLMC, also called "FreddieMac" issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
FNMA. Like FHLB and FreddieMac, the Federal National Mortgage Association was established to provide credit and liquidity in the housing market. FNMA, also known as "FannieMae" issues discount notes, bonds and mortgage pass-through securities.
GNMA. The Government National Mortgage Association, known as "GinnieMae" issues mortgage pass-through securities, which are guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US Government.
PEFCO. The Private Export Funding Corporation assists exporters.
Obligations of PEFCO are not guaranteed by the full faith and credit of the US government.
TVA. The Tennessee Valley Authority provides flood control and power and promotes development in portions of the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi River valleys. TVA currently issues discount notes and bonds.
Approved List. A list maintained by the Finance Director of all commercial banks that the Investment Committee authorized as public depositories of City monies.
Asset Backed Securities. Securities supported by pools of installment loans or leases or by pools of revolving lines of credit.
Average Life. In mortgage-related investments, including CMOs, the average time to expected receipt of principal payments, weighted by the amount of principal expected.
Bankers' Acceptance. A money market instrument created to facilitate international trade transactions. It is highly liquid and safe because the risk of the trade transaction is transferred to the bank which "accepts" the obligation to pay the investor.
Benchmark. A comparison security or portfolio. A performance benchmark is a partial market index, which reflects the mix of securities allowed under a specific investment policy.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
Bid. The price at which a buyer offers to buy a security.
Broker. A broker brings buyers and sellers together for a transaction for which the broker receives a commission. A broker does not sell securities from his own position.
Callable. A callable security gives the issuer the option to call it from the investor prior to its maturity. The main cause of a call is a decline in interest rates. If interest rates decline since an issuer issues securities, it will likely call its current securities and reissue them at a lower rate of interest. Callable securities have reinvestment risk as the investor may receive its principal back when interest rates are lower than when the investment was initially made.
Certificate of Deposit (CD). A time deposit with a specific maturity evidenced by a certificate. Large denomination CDs may be marketable.
Collateral. Securities or cash pledged by a borrower to secure repayment of a loan or repurchase agreement. Also, securities pledged by a financial institution to secure deposits of public monies.
Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (CMO). Classes of bonds that redistribute the cash flows of mortgage securities (and whole loans) to create securities that have different levels of prepayment risk, as compared to the underlying mortgage securities.
Commercial Paper. The short-term unsecured debt of corporations.
Cost Yield. The annual income from an investment divided by the purchase cost.
Because it does not give effect to premiums and discounts which may have been included in the purchase cost, it is an incomplete measure of return.
Coupon. The annual rate of interest which is paid on a bond.
Credit Risk. The risk that principal and/or interest on an investment will not be paid in a timely manner due to changes in the condition of the issuer.
Current Yield. The annual income from an investment divided by the current market value. Since the mathematical calculation relies on the current market value rather than the investor’s cost, current yield is unrelated to the actual return the investor will earn if the security is held to maturity.
Dealer. A dealer acts as a principal in security transactions, selling securities from and buying securities for his own position.
Delivery vs. Payment (DVP). A securities industry procedure whereby payment for a security must be made at the time the security is delivered to the purchaser’s agent.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
Derivative. Any security that has principal and/or interest payments which are subject to uncertainty (but not for reasons of default or credit risk) as to timing and/or amount, or any security which represents a component of another security which has been separated from other components ("Stripped" coupons and pr incipal). A derivative is also defined as a financial instrument the value of which is totally or partially derived from the value of another instrument, interest rate, or index.
Discount. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is below par. Some short -term securities, such as T -bills and banker’s acceptances, are known as discount securities. They sell at a discount from par, and return the par value to the investor at maturity without additional interest. Other securities, which have fixed coupons, trade at a discount when the coupon rate is lower than the current market rate for securities of that maturity and/or quality.
Diversification. Dividing investment funds among a variety of investments to avoid excessive exposure to any one source of risk.
Duration. The weighted average time to maturity of a bond where the weights are the present values of the future cash flows. Duration measures the price sensitivity of a bond to changes in interest rates. (See modified duration).
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). An independent US agency that insures bank deposits, including deposits in a checking account, negotiable order of withdrawal (NOW) account savings account, money market deposit account (MMDA), time deposit such as a certificate of deposit (CD), or an official item issued by a bank (such as a cashier's check or money order), currently up to $250,000 per depositor, per issued bank, for each account ownership category.
Federal Funds Rate. The rate of interest charged by banks for short-term loans to other banks. The Federal Reserve Bank through open-market operations establishes it.
Federal Open Market Committee. A committee of the Federal Reserve Board that establishes monetary policy and executes it through temporary and permanent changes to the supply of bank reserves.
Fiduciary. A person or organization that acts on behalf of another person(s) or organization that puts their clients’ interest ahead of their own as they are bound both legally and ethically to act in the other’s best interests of their clients.
Investment Advisor. As defined by the Investment Advisors Act of 1940, any person or group that makes investment recommendations or conducts securities analysis in return for a fee, whether through direct management of client assets or via written publications.
An investment advisor who has sufficient assets to be registered with the SEC is known as a Registered Investment Advisor, or RIA. Investment advisors are prohibited from disseminating advice known to be deceitful or fraudulent and from acting as a principal on their own accounts by buying and selling securities between themselves and a client without prior written consent.
Leverage. Borrowing funds in order to invest in securities that have the potential to pay Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
earnings at a rate higher than the cost of borrowing.
Liquidity: The speed and ease with which an asset can be converted to cash without a substantial loss in value
Local Government Investment Pool (LGIP). The aggregate of all funds from political subdivisions that are placed in custody of the State Treasurer for investment and reinvestment.
Make Whole Call. A type of call provision on a bond that allows the issuer to pay off the remaining debt early. Unlike a call option, with a make whole call provision, the issuer makes a lump sum payment that equals the net present value (NPV) of future coupon payments that will not be paid because of the call. With this type of call, an investor is compensated,
or "made whole.11
Margin: The difference between the market value of a security and the loan a broker makes using that security as collateral.
Market Risk. The risk that the value of securities will fluctuate with changes in overall market conditions or interest rates.
Market Value. The price at which a security can be traded.
Marking to Market. The process of posting current market values for securities in a portfolio.
Maturity. The final date upon which the principal of a security becomes due and payable.
An investment’s term or remaining maturity is measured from the settlement date to final maturity.
Medium Term Notes. Unsecured, investment -grade senior debt securities of major corporations which are sold in relatively small amounts on either a continuous or an intermittent basis. MTNs are highly flexible debt instruments that can be structured to respond to market opportunities or to investor preferences.
Modified Duration. The percent change in price for a 100 basis point change in yields.
Modified duration is the best single measure of a portfolio's or security’s exposure to market risk.
Money Market. The market in which short-term debt instruments (Tbills, discount notes, commercial paper, and banker’s acceptances) are issued and traded.
Mortgage Pass-Through Securities. A securitized participation in the interest and principal cash flows from a specified pool of mortgages. Principal and interest payments made on the mortgages are passed through to the holder of the security.
Municipal Securities. Securities issued by state and local agencies to finance capital and operating expenses.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
Mutual Fund. An entity which pools the funds of investors and invests those funds in a set of securities which is specifically defined in the fund's prospectus. Mutual funds can be invested in various types of domestic and/or international stocks and bonds, and money market. Instruments, as set forth in the individual fund’s prospectus. For most large, institutional investors, the costs associated with investing in mutual funds are higher than the investor can obtain through an individually managed portfolio.
Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization (NRSRO). A credit rating agency that the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States uses for regulatory purposes. Credit rating agencies provide assessments of an investment's risk. The issuers of investments, especially debt securities, pay credit rating agencies to provide them with ratings. The three most prominent NRSROs are Fitch, S&P, and Moody's.
Premium. The difference between the par value of a bond and the cost of the bond, when the cost is above par.
Prepayment Speed. A measure of how quickly principal is repaid to investors in mortgage securities.
Prepayment Window. The time period over which principal repayments will be received on mortgage securities at a specified prepayment speed.
Primary Dealer. A financial institution (1) that is a trading counterparty with the Federal Reserve in its execution of market operations to carry out U.S. monetary policy, and (2) that participates for statistical reporting purposes in compiling data on activity in the U.S.
Government securities market.
Prudent Person (Prudent Investor) Rule. A standard of responsibility which applies to fiduciaries. In California, the rule is stated as "Investments shall be managed with the care, skill, prudence and diligence, under the circumstances then prevailing, that a prudent person, acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters, would use in the conduct of an enterprise of like character and with like aims to accomplish similar purposes."
Realized Yield. The change in value of the portfolio due to interest received and interest earned and realized gains and losses. It does not give effect to changes in market value on securities, which have not been sold from the portfolio.
Regional Dealer. A financial intermediary that buys and sells securities for the benefit of its customers without maintaining substantial inventories of securities and that is not a primary dealer.
Repurchase Agreement (RP, Repo). Short-term purchases of securities with a simultaneous agreement to sell the securities back at a higher price. From the seller’s point of view, the same transaction is a reverse repurchase agreement.
Safekeeping. A service to bank customers whereby securities are held by the bank in the customer’s name.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Investment Policy for Fiscal Year 2025-26 Exhibit 1
Structured Note. A complex, fixed income instrument, which pays interest, based on a formula tied to other interest rates, commodities or indices. Examples include inverse floating rate notes which have coupons that increase when other interest rates are falling, and which fall when other interest rates are rising, and "dual index floaters," which pay interest based on the relationship between two other interest rates - for example, the yield on the ten -year Treasury note minus the Libor rate. Issuers of such notes lock in a reduced cost of borrowing by purchasing interest rate swap agreements.
Supranational. A Supranational is a multi -national organization whereby member states transcend national boundaries or interests to share in the decision making to promote economic development in the member countries.
Time Deposit. A savings account or certificate of deposit (CD) that pays a fixed rate of interest until a given maturity date.
Total Rate of Return. A measure of a portfolio's performance over time. It is the internal rate of return, which equates the beginning value of the portfolio with the ending value; it includes interest earnings, realized and unrealized gains, and losses in the portfolio.
U.S. Treasury Obligations. Securities issued by the U.S. Treasury and backed by the full faith and credit of the United States. Treasuries are considered to have no credit risk, and are the benchmark for interest rates on all other securities in the US and overseas. The Treasury issues both discounted securities and fixed coupon notes and bonds.
T
reasury Bills. All securities issued with initial maturities of one year or less are issued as discounted instruments, and are called Treasury bills. The Treasury currently issues three
- an
d six -month T -bills at regular weekly auctions. It also issues "cash management" bills as needed to smooth out cash flows.
Treasury Notes. All securities issued with initial maturities of two to ten years are called Treasury notes, and pay interest semi-annually.
Treasury Bonds. All securities issued with initial maturities greater than ten years are called Treasury bonds. Like Treasury notes, they pay interest semi-annually.
Volatility. The rate at which security prices change with changes in general economic conditions or the general level of interest rates.
Yield to Maturity. The annualized internal rate of return on an investment which equates the expected cash flows from the investment to its cost.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2025
TO: HONO
RABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FRO
M: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: SUSAN PARAGAS, FINANCE DIRECTOR
SUBJE
CT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 10.R
ADOPT
ION OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING THE FISCAL YEAR
2025-2026 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
RECOM
MENDATION
It i
s recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 2025-97, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, ESTABLISHING AN AMENDED APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
BACKGROUND
1. In Nov
ember 1979, Proposition 4 was approved by the voters adding Article XIIIB, also known as the Gann Limitation, to the State Constitution to ensure that limits were placed on all state and local government appropriations. These appropriations calculations must be approved by the City Council on an annual basis.
2. In 1980,
the State Legislature added Section 9710 of the Government Code stating that the governing body of each City must establish, by resolution, an appropriations limit for the following year.
3. In Ju
ne 1990, the voters of California approved Proposition 111 which revised the annual adjustment factors applied to the 1986-87 Limit and each year thereafter.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
ANALYSIS
Article XIII-B provides limits to the amount of tax proceeds state and local governments can spend each year. The limit for any fiscal year is equal to the previous year’s limit, adjusted for population changes and the change in the U.S. Consumer Price Index or California per capital personal income, whichever is less.
Staff has complied with all the provisions of Article XIIIB in determining the Limit for FY 2025-2026, and the City Council is required to confirm all factors used for calculating the Limit by adoption of a resolution (Attachment “A”). For FY 2025- 2026, the price factor and population cost of living from the State Department of Finance were applied to the FY 2024-2025 Limit. The City of Jurupa Valley’s Limit for FY 2025- 2026 is $56,789,667 with appropriations subject to the Limit of $51,776,653, or $5,013,014 below the Limit.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of Resolution No. 2025-97 does not have an impact on the FY 2025-26 budget.
This resolution sets the FY 2025-26 Appropriations Limit at $56,789,667.
ALTERNATIVES
1. None. The Appropriations Limit is required to be set by state law.
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Prepared by:
Finance Director
Reviewed by:
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
Submitted by:
for: Rod B. Butler, City Manager
1. Resolution No. 2025-97 Adopting FY 2025-2026 Appropriations/Gann Limit
2. Exhibit 1, Calculation of FY 2025-2026 Tax Appropriations Subject to Gann Limit Page I 3
--· www.jurupavalley.org -
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-97
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIIIB OF THE
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, in June of 1990, the voters of the State of California enacted Proposition 111, "The Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990; and
WHEREAS, this Act amended Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California regarding spending limitations of cities; and
WHEREAS, Article XIIIB of the California Constitution provides that the total annual appropriations subject to limitation of each governmental entity, including this City, shall not exceed the appropriation limit of such entity of government for the prior year, adjusted for changes in the cost of living or personal income and population, except as otherwise provided for in said Article XIIIB and implementing State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to said Article XIIIB of said California Constitution, and Section 7900 et seq. of the California Government Code, the City is required to set its appropriation limit for each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director of the City of Jurupa Valley has caused a technical review to be made of the documentation for the City's said appropriation limitation, and has caused the numbers upon which the City's appropriation limit is based to be researched and said limit to be calculated; and
W
HEREAS, based on such calculations, as described in the attached documentation as Exhibit 1, the Finance Director has determined the said appropriation limit and, pursuant to Section 7910 of the said California Government Code, has made available to the public the documentation used in the determination of said appropriation limit; and
WHEREAS, the City Council elects to utilize said calculations which are attached for reference.
Section I. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
City of Jurupa Valley, California, that said appropriation limit for Fiscal Year 2025- 26 shall be adopted in the amount of $56,846,354 for said Fiscal Year.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 26th day of June 2024.
______________________________
Brian Berkson
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Maria Morris
City Clerk
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Maria Morris, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-97 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of th e City of Jurupa Valley on the 26 th day of June 2025 by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 26th day of June 2025.
________________________________
Maria Morris, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 1
ARTICLE XIII-B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION (GANN INITIATIVE) Effective July 1, 1980, Proposition 4 (Gann) established a limit on the City's expenditures from tax revenues based on 1978-79 appropriations. This limit is adjusted annually by the Consumer Price Index and population changes. Non-Proceeds of Taxes (Fines and Forfeitures and User Fees) were not subject to this limit.
In 1989-90 Proposition 111 was passed, which changed the base year to 1986-87 and allows cities to adjust the limit annually by either the change in the California per capita income or the percentage change in growth in total assessed valuation due to non residential construction. For population changes, cities now have the option of using either the percentage increase of the City or the percentage increase of the entire county. The law also allows for the exclusion from the limit of "qualified capital outlay" which includes any appropriation for fixed assets costing over $100,000.
The 2025-20 budget expenditures are well within the statutory limit.
It should be noted that future revenues exceeding the limitation require a return of the excess to the taxpayers or a substantial portion of such excess will be forfeited for State uses.
COMPUTATION OF 2025-26 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT
2024-25 limit $53,257,825
Per Capita Income and City population change
factor applied to 2025-26 appropriations limit 1.0663
2025-26 Appropriations Limit $56,789,667
APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT TO LIMIT
Proceeds of Taxes $52,941,653
Less Exclusions:
Qualified Capital Outlay 1,165,000
Appropriations Subject to Limit $51,776,653
Appropriations Margin $5,013,014
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 2
CALCULATION OF
PROCEEDS OF TAXES
Worksheet #1
CITY: JURUPA VALLEY Funds Included: ALL
FY: 2025-26
PROCEEDS PROCEEDS
REVENUE OF TAXES OF NON-TAXES TOTAL
TAXES:
Property Tax 12,114,350$ 12,114,350$
Sales & Use Tax / In Lieu Sales Tax 22,000,000 22,000,000 Transient Occupancy Tax 222,000 222,000
Other Taxes: Real Estate (Property Transfer Tax) 450,000 450,000 Measure A 3,353,000 3,353,000
Measure L 208,986 208,986
Subtotal 38,348,336$ 0$ 38,348,336$ FROM STATE:
Motor Vehicle In Lieu / In Lieu VLF 12,692,880$ 12,692,880$ State Cops Grant 300,000 300,000
Gasoline Tax 2,962,220 2,962,220
State-Mandated Cost Reimb 1,000 1,000
SB1 2,749,640 2,749,640
CalRecycle Grant 255,000 255,000
Retail Theft Grant 186,335 186,335
MORE Grant 1,196,905 1,196,905
Subtotal 12,692,880 7,651,100 20,343,980
OTHER GOVERNMENTS
Community Development (CDBG) 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Air Quality Improvement 140,000 140,000
County Reimb 5,000 5,000
ARPA 8,144,055 8,144,055
TUMF 1,383,000 1,383,000
DOJ 150,000 150,000
Subtotal 0$ 10,822,055$ 10,822,055$ LOCAL
Franchise fees 5,617,160$ 5,617,160$
Franchise fees-In-lieu 0
Developer Agreements 150,000 150,000
Development Fees-Public Facilities 60,000 60,000
Development Fees-Fire Facilities 145,000 145,000
Development Fees-Transportation-Roads 2,448,555 2,448,555 Development Fees-Transportation-Signals 0 0
Development Fees-Regional Parks 250,000 250,000
Development Fees-Regional Trails 0 0
Development Fees-Library Books 19,000 19,000
Development Fees-Community Parks 0 0
Development Fees-Roads & Bridge Ben Dist 0 0
Fines, forfeitures, penalties/Traffic Safety 0
LLMD 1,612,600 1,612,600
CFD 2,592,550 2,592,550
Subtotal 0$ 12,894,865$ 12,894,865$ Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 3
USER FEES
Business Registration 100,000$ 100,000$
Alcohol Sales Regulatory Fee 8,000 8,000
Vending Permit Fee 5,000 5,000
NPDES Fees 125,000 125,000
Permit Building 2,000,000 2,000,000
Haul Fixed Fee 30,000 30,000
Permit - Misc 3,000 3,000
Engineering Fees 1,250,000 1,250,000
Planning Fees 1,650,000 1,650,000
SB 9 Application Fee 3,000 3,000
Microfilm Fees 110,000 110,000
Processing Fee 160,000 160,000
SMIP Admin Fee 4,000 4,000
Green Bldg Admin Fee 1,600 1,600
DIF Admin Fee 450 450
Local Development MSHCP Admin Fee 60,000 60,000
Code Enforcement Fees 70,000 70,000
Foreclosure Registration Fees 5,000 5,000
Animal License/Shelter Fees 160,000 160,000
LMS Fee 152,000 152,000
Fines - Parking 900,000 900,000
Fines - Court 260,000 260,000
Vehicle Impound Fees 100,000 100,000
Fines - Code Citations 125,000 125,000
AMR System Enhancement Fees (County) 48,000 48,000
Reimbursement Projects 1,500,000 1,500,000
Subtotal 0$ 8,830,050$ 8,830,050$
OTHER MISCELLANEOUS
Admin Fees-Trash Liens 50,000$ 50,000$
Billboard Application 30,000 30,000
Other Revenue 40,000 40,000
Rental Income 36,000 36,000
Vehicle Abatement 40,000 40,000
0 Subtotal 0$ 196,000$ 196,000$
PROCEEDS NON-PROCEEDS
REVENUE OF TAXES OF TAXES TOTAL
SUB TOTAL (For Worksheet #3) 51,041,216$ 40,394,070$ 91,435,286$ INTEREST EARNINGS 1,900,437 1,554,903 3,455,340
(From Worksheet #3)
TOTAL (Use For Worksheet #4) 52,941,653$ 41,948,973$ 94,890,626$ Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 4
INTEREST EARNINGS
PRODUCED BY TAXES
Worksheet #2
CITY: JURUPA VALLEY
FY: 2025-26
AMOUNT SOURCE
A. Non-Interest Tax Proceeds 51,041,216$ (Worksheet #2) B. Minus Exclusions 1,165,000$ GF Capital Project
C. Net Invested Taxes 49,876,216$ (A - B)
D. Total Non-Interest 91,435,286$ (Worksheet #2)
E. Tax Proceeds as Percent of Budget 55% (C / D)
F. Interest Earnings 3,455,340$ (Budget or Actual) G. Amount of Interest Earned from Taxes 1,900,437$ (E * F) H. Amount of Interest Earned from
Non-Taxes 1,554,903$ (F - G)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 5
APPROPRIATIONS SUBJECT
TO LIMITATION
Worksheet #3
CITY: JURUPA VALLEY
FY: 2025-26
Amount Source
A. Proceeds of Taxes 52,941,653$ (Worksheet #2)
B. Exclusions 1,165,000$ GF Capital Project
C. Appropriations Subject to Limitation 51,776,653$ (A - B) D. Current Year Limit 56,789,667$ (Worksheet #6)
E. Over/(Under) Limit (5,013,014)$ (C - D)
PROCEEDS NON-PROCEEDS
CAPITAL PROJECTS OF TAXES OF TAXES
General Fund 1,165,000$
*LESS PROJECTS UNDER $100,000 0
Total 1,165,000$ 0$
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT 1, Page 6
City County
Population Percent Population Percent
2025-26:
1-1-24 2,491,037
1-1-25 -0.90% 2,495,640 0.18%
Source: State Department of Finance
Amount Source
A. LAST YEAR'S LIMIT $53,257,825
B. ADJUSTMENT FACTORS:
1. Population % (from State Finance Dept.) 1.0018 (Worksheet #5)
2. Inflation % (from State Finance Dept.) 1.0644
C. ATOTAL ADJUSTMENT FACTOR 1.0663 (B1 * B2)
D. ADJUSTMENTS: 3,531,842$ (A * C)
F. THIS YEAR'S LIMIT $56,789,667 (A + D)
105,928
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT CALCULATION
Worksheet #4
106,888
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
cr120
STAFF REPORT
DATE
: June 26, 2025
TO: HO
NORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FR
OM: ROD B. BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: MICHAEL FLAD, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
SUBJ
ECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.A
PUBL
IC HEARING PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
3502.3 (AB 2561) REGARDING A REPORT ON THE CIT Y OF JURUPA
VALLEY VACANCIES AND RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
EFFORTS
RECO
MMENDATION
1) Open
the public hearing to take testimonial and documentary evidence 2) Close the public hearing and consider the evidence
3) Receive the informational report on City of Jurupa Valley Vacancies, and Recruitment and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Government Code Section 3502.3 (AB 2561); and
4) Take such additional, related, action that may be desirable.
BACKGROUND
On September 22, 2024, Governor Newson signed Assembly Bill (AB) 2561, codified in Government Code section 3502.3 , into law to amend the Meyers -Milias Brown Act (MMBA) and create a new obligation for public agencies to publicly address the status of their vacancies.
The
assembly bill requires that public agencies report out the agency’s vacancy status through a public hearing. This public hearing will ensure compliance with the new law. AB 2561 imposes three requirements on local agencies during the hearing: (1) At least once each fiscal year, an agency’s governing board must hold a public hearing and receive the agency’s report on the status of vacancies and recruitment and retention efforts before the budget is adopted; (2) During the hearing, the agency must identify any necessary changes to policies, procedures, and recruitment activities that may lead to hiring obstacles; and, (3) The agency must allow the recognized employee organization for a bargaining unit to make a presentation at the hearing should the vacancies exceed 20% of the authorized positions in bargaining units. Although the City does not have bargaining
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
units, Human Resources will report on each City Department ’s turnover rate and recruitment activities.
For the Fiscal Year 2024/25 Annual Budget, the City Council approved a total 101 full and part time equivalent budgeted positions excluding City Council Members.
As of June 12, 2025, the city experienced a vacancy rate of 32% for all departments.
Vacancies within the City can arise for a variety of reasons, including the addition of newly funded positions, internal promotions or transfers, or the departure of employees due to retirement, voluntary resignation, or termination.
The top reasons employees in this fiscal year separated from the City due to promotional opportunities at other local surrounding agencies who offered higher pay and CalPERS Retirement benefits. The second reason was retirement.
When a position becomes vacant, the Human Resources Division works with the respective departments to fill it quickly through the development of a recruitment plan and determination on how to strategically place advertisements for the best target candidates.
Such efforts help to maintain uninterrupted services, support ongoing operations, and reduce the need for overtime. Timely recruitment and hiring help prevent departmental disruptions and contribute to the overall stability of the organization’s workforce.
The City of Jurupa Valley employees are unrepresented. Given that the City vacancies are above 20%, the follow data is required to be presented:
Department FY 25 Authorized FTE Vacancy Rate
City Manager’s Office 9 1 11%
City Clerk’s Office 3 2 66%
Finance & IT 15 2 13%
Human Resources 3.5 0 No turnover
Public Works 34 11 32.35%
Community Development 36 17 47.22%
In fiscal year 2024-2025, the City successfully filled the following 31 positions and 2 current vacancies**:
Department # Applicants Max Rate Min Rate HITS
Online
PLANNING
TECHNICIAN*(Promotional)
2 39.68 29.61 0
ASSOCIATE PLANNER* 42 113,755.20 84,884.80 1159
PLANNING TECHNICIAN 102 39.68 29.61 1917
CITY CLERK 96 177,444.80 132,412.80 2920
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
Department # Applicants Max Rate Min Rate HITS
Online
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
PERMIT TECHNICIAN
16 42.73 31.88 1094
SENIOR PLANNER 24 131,934.40 98,446.40 1121
MAINTENANCE WORKER I 294 33.38 22.57 5970
CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER I
174 42.73 31.88 3950
MANAGEMENT ANALYST 74 125,569.6 93,704 2232
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT
ANALYST
30 138,611.2 103,438.4 2244
ACCOUNTANT I/II 59 44.89 33.5 867
SENIOR CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER (Promotional)
2 52.06 38.85 29
PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR
I/II
56 47.16 31.88 1938
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERN 118 26.82 2754
SENIOR BUILDING PERMIT
TECHNICIAN
15 42.73 31.88 719
SENIOR PUBLIC WORKS
INSPECTOR
19 42.73 31.88 796
CODE ENFORCEMENT
OFFICER II
103 47.16 35.19 1814
MANAGEMENT AIDE – PW 100 40.67 30.35 1487
CITY CLERK 84 177,444.8 132,412.80 2897
PLANNING TECHNICIAN 61 39.71 29.61 1276
CODE ENFORCEMENT
SUPERVISOR
37 98,446.40 131,934.4 1065
MAINTENANCE WORKER I 98 30.54 22.57 1551
BUILDING INSPECTOR I/II 53 47.16 31.88 817
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC
WORKS/ ASSISTANT CITY
ENGINEER
22 200,761.6 149,801.6 684
BUILDING INSPECTOR I/II 56 47.16 31.88 973
BUILDING PERMIT
TECHNICIAN I/II
1 28.89 24.91 17
CUSTODIAN 77 26.08 19.46 1089
MAINTENANCE WORKER I 74 30.24 22.57 1182
PRINCIPAL PLANNER 2 138,611.2 103,438.4 14
BUILDING, SAFETY AND CODE
MANAGER
9 153,004.8 114,171.2 616
HOUSING MANAGER 28 153,004.8 114,171.2 1508
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 4
Department # Applicants Max Rate Min Rate HITS
Online
DEPUTY CITY CLERK I/II 75 39.68 25.53 1608
In February 2022, the City implemented the Classification and Compensation Plan to improve compaction issues and to assist with retaining and attracting quality candidates.
This action has had a direct impact on the number of applicants submitting applications for consideration. As outline in the Compensation Plan, the City staff will conduct market data analysis every three years and as positions are vacant to ensure the City remains competitive with the surrounding markets. Over the past two years, the City has improved its benefit package specifically the Cafeteria Allowance for health, dental and vision benefits.
Engineering remains a recruitment challenge for all agencies in California. Retention incentives have been implemented for retaining our current staff who are working on their EIT or PE Certifications. The City created a succession plan for employees after meeting the training and entry level to advance journey level experiences. The Engineer Career Ladder includes: Engineering Technician I/II, Engineer Intern, Jr. Engineer, Assistant/Associate Engineers, Sr. Engineer, Principal Engineer, Deputy Director of Public Works and Director of Public Works/City Engineer.
Other recruitment methods beyond social media and local advertisement involves job fairs, alumni events, local community events, and direct mail pieces to targeted specialties. This year in collaboration with Public Works, on site interviews at Jurupa Valley Operations center were conducted. Applicants were provided an opportunity to walk thru the work environment and interaction with the PW Team.
All of the City’s recruitment outreach efforts in Human Resources support equal employment opportunities and we look forward to continuously meeting the City’s Goals and expectations of finding quality candidates to fill vacancies in a timely manner.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
None. This item does not require an expenditure of funds.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Reject or amend the proposed recommended changes
************************** SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE **************************
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
POSITION TITLE BY DEPARTMENT FY24
Budget
FY24 Class
& Comp
FY25
Requests
AMENDED
11/2024
FY25
Budget
1110 - CITY COUNCIL
Mayor 1.00 1.00
Mayor Pro Tem 1.00 1.00
Council Member 1.00 1.00
Council Member 1.00 1.00
Council Member 1.00 1.00
Total City Council: 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00
1130 - CITY MANAGER
City Manager 1.00 1.00
Assistant City Manager 1.00 1.00
Assistant to the City Manager 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Principal Management Analyst 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Deputy City Manager 1.00 1.00
Marketing & Communications Manager 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 2.00 (2.00) 0.00
Management Aide 2.00 2.00
Executive Assistant 1.00 1.00
Event Coordinator 1.00 1.00
Intern 2.00 (2.00) 0.00
* Administrative Intern 2.00 (1.00) 1.00
Total City Manager: 10.00 0.00 -1.00 9.00
1131 - HUMAN RESOURCES
Human Resources/Risk & Safety Manager 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Human Resources & Risk Manager 1.00 1.00
Human Resources Analyst 1.00 1.00 2.00
Human Resources Specialist 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
* Administrative Intern 1.00 1.00
Total Human Resources 3.00 0.00 1.00 4.00
Total City Manager & HR: 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00
1140 - CITY CLERK
City Clerk 1.00 1.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Deputy City Clerk II 1.00 1.00
Deputy City Clerk 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Deputy City Clerk II 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
* Deputy City Clerk III 1.00 1.00
Total City Clerk: 3.00 0.00 0.00 3.00
City of Jurupa Valley
Schedule of Authorized Positions by Division/Department Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
POSITION TITLE BY DEPARTMENT FY24
Budget
FY24 Class
& Comp
FY25
Requests
AMENDED
11/2024
FY25
Budget
City of Jurupa Valley
Schedule of Authorized Positions by Division/Department 1150 - FINANCE
Administrative Services Director 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Finance Director 1.00 1.00
Principal Accountant 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Finance Manager 1.00 1.00
Purchasing Analyst 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Contract/Purchasing Analyst 1.00 1.00
Accountant II 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Senior Accountant 1.00 1.00
Accountant II 1.00 1.00
Accountant I 1.00 1.00
Senior Accounting Technician 1.00 1.00
Accounting Technician 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Accounting Technician II 1.00 1.00
Accounting Clerk 2.00 (2.00) 0.00
Accounting Assistant 2.00 2.00
Office Assistant II 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Senior Office Assistant 1.00 1.00
Office Assistant I 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Office Assistant II 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Receptionist 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Office Assistant I 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
IT Technician 1.00 0.00 1.00
IT Analyst 1.00 1.00
IT Business Analyst 1.00 1.00
Intern 2.00 (2.00) 0.00
* Administrative Intern 1.00 1.00
Total Finance: 15.00 1.00 -1.00 15.00
1200-COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1210 - ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Management Analyst 1.00 1.00
Total Economic Development 0.00 1.00 0.00 1.00
1220 - PLANNING
Community Development Director 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Assistant City Manager/Community Development & Building/Code Director 0.50 0.50 Deputy Director of Community Development 1.00 1.00
Planning Manager 1.00 1.00
Principal Planner 1.00 1.00
Senior Planner 3.00 (1.00) 2.00
Associate Planner 2.00 2.00
Assistant Planner 1.00 1.00
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
POSITION TITLE BY DEPARTMENT FY24
Budget
FY24 Class
& Comp
FY25
Requests
AMENDED
11/2024
FY25
Budget
City of Jurupa Valley
Schedule of Authorized Positions by Division/Department 1220 - PLANNING - Continued
Planning Technician 2.00 2.00
Administrative Services Coordinator 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Executive Assistant 0.00 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant II 1.00 1.00
Office Assistant I 1.00 1.00
Management Analyst 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
IT Business Analyst 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
* Planning Intern 1.00 1.00
Total Planning 14.50 -0.50 0.50 14.50
1221 - Housing
Housing Manager 1.00 1.00
Total Housing 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00
1230 - BUILDING & SAFETY
Assistant City Manager/Community Development & Building/Code Director 0.25 0.25 Chief Building Official 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
Assistant Building Official 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager 0.50 0.50
Building Inspections Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Senior Building Inspector 1.00 1.00
Building Inspector II 1.00 1.00
Building Inspector I 2.00 (1.00) 1.00 2.00
Permit Tech Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Senior Permit Technician 2.00 (1.00) 1.00
Permit Technician I 2.00 2.00
Management Analyst 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
IT Business Analyst 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
Senior Office Assistant 0.00 0.50 0.50
Office Assistant II 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
Total Building & Safety: 10.50 -0.25 0.00 10.25
1240 - CODE ENFORCEMENT
Assistant City Manager/Community Development & Building/Code Director 0.25 0.25 Chief Building Official 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
Building & Safety/Code Enforcement Manager 0.50 0.50
Code Enforcement Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 1.00 1.00
Code Enforcement Officer II 1.00 3.00 4.00
Code Enforcement Office I 4.00 (3.00) 1.00
Senior Office Assistant 0.00 0.50 0.50
Office Assistant I 0.50 (0.50) 0.00
Office Assistant II 1.00 1.00
Total Code Enforcement: 8.00 -0.25 1.50 9.25
Total Community Development 33.00 0.00 3.00 36.00
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
POSITION TITLE BY DEPARTMENT FY24
Budget
FY24 Class
& Comp
FY25
Requests
AMENDED
11/2024
FY25
Budget
City of Jurupa Valley
Schedule of Authorized Positions by Division/Department 1310 - PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING
Director of Public Works-City Engineer 1.00 1.00
Assistant City Engineer 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
* Deputy Director Public Works/Assistant City Engineer 1.00 1.00 2.00 Engineering Manager 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Principal Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00
Senior Civil Engineer 1.00 1.00
Assistant Engineer 1.00 1.00
Associate Engineer 1.00 1.00
Junior Engineer 1.00 1.00
* Deputy Director Public Works Operations 0.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 * Public Works Operations Manager 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Public Works Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00
Public Works Field Services 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Public Works Facilities 1.00 1.00
Maintenance Worker III 2.00 2.00
Maintenance Worker II 3.00 2.00 5.00
Maintenance Worker I 1.00 (1.00) 0.00
Custodian 1.00 1.00
Environmental Program Manager 1.00 1.00
Senior Management Analyst 1.00 1.00
Traffic Management Analyst 1.00 1.00
Senior Public Works Inspector 3.00 (1.00) 2.00
Senior Environmental Programs Inspector 1.00 1.00 2.00
Public Works Inspector 2.00 (1.00) 1.00
Engineering Technician I/II 2.00 2.00
Permit Technician 1.00 1.00
Engineering Technician 1.00 1.00
Management Aide 1.00 1.00
Administrative Assistant II 1.00 1.00
* Engineering Intern 2.00 (1.00) 1.00
Total Public Works: 29.00 1.00 4.00 34.00
Total Authorized Positions: 93.00 2.00 6.00 106.00
Total City Council: 5.00 5.00
* Total Part-Time: 8.00 6.00
Total Full-Time: 85.00 95.00
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
120
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER / COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.B
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MA2 5012 EXTENSION OF TIME
(EOT) NO. 1 FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP) NO. 23008 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 98,157 SQUARE -FOOT GATED MINI-
STORAGE FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN
BOULEVARD, NORTH OF CLAY STREET (APN: 163 -400-046) AND
MAKING A FINDING THAT NO FURTHER CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT
TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162(A)
RECOMMENDATION
1. That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive testimony, and:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2025-99 entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23008 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NINETY-EIGHT THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED FIFTY-SEVEN (98,157) SQUARE FOOT GATED MINI- STORAGE FACILITY WITH FIVE (5) STORAGE BUILDINGS, A MANAGER’S OFFICE, CUSTOMER PARKING, AND
PERIMETER WALLS AND LANDSCAPING ON APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES
OF R EAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD, NORTH OF CLAY STREET, (APN: 163 -400-046) AND MAKING
A FINDING THAT NO FURTHER CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162(A).
BACKGROUND
In 2020, the applicant submitted entitlement applications (known collectively as Master Application (MA) No. 20219) to construct a self -storage facility on 4.73-acre land along the north side of Clay Street and east of Van Buren Boulevard. See Exhibit A for Project Location. In 2023, the City Council approved the project following Planning Commission’s recommendations of approval.
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
EXHIBIT A. SITE LOCATION
EXHIBIT B: APPROVED SITE PLAN
The approval is to develop a 4.73-acre site with a ninety-eight thousand one hundred fifty- seven (98,157) square foot gated mini -storage facility with five (5) storage buildings, a manager’s office, customer parking, and perimeter walls and landscaping. Table 1 presents the approved sizes of the buildings, and Exhibit B for Approved Site Plan.
TABLE 1. SIZE OF BUILDINGS
Building No. Building Size
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
1 (one story) 12,179 sq. feet
2 (two stories) 45, 282 sq. feet
3 (one story) 18,875 sq. feet
4 (one story) 15,049 sq. feet
5 (one story) 6,132 sq. feet
Managers Office 640 sq. feet
Total 98,157 sq. feet
The approved entitlements are as follows:
• General Plan Amendment: C hanged the Land Use Designation from Business Park (BP) to Light Industrial (LI);
• Change of Zone: Changed the zone from Manufacturing Heavy (M-H) to Industrial Park (I-P);
• Site Development Permit: To construct the self-storage facility; and • Setback Adjustment: Reduce the required 50- foot rear yard setback from 50 feet to 23 feet along the rear property boundary (adjacent to the railroad).
Planning Commission
On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of MA20219 by a vote of 4- 0. In their deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended that the Applicant continue to work with staff on architectural detailing changes for the building facing Van Buren Boulevard to be in keeping with the Pedley Town Center historic theme.
City Council
On May 4, 2023, the City Council took the following actions to approve the project:
• Approved Resolution No. 2023- 28 (see Attachment 2) adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP);
• Approved Resolution No. 2023-29 (see Attachment 3) approving Site Development Permit No. 23008 and Setback Adjustment No. 23001;
• Approved Resolution No. 2023- 32 (see Attachment 4) approving General Plan Amendment No. 2003.
• Conducted a first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-06 for the Change of Zone (see Attachment 5)
On May 18, 2023, the City Council conducted a second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 2023-6.
The City Council staff report for MA20219 is provided as Attachment No. 6 and the approved architectural set of plans is provided as Attachment No. 7.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 4
Substantial Conformance
The applicant submitted a Substantial Conformance application proposing minor changes to the building configurations, resulting in an overall reduction of approximately 3,000 square-foot of building area and minor changes to on- site landscaping. The Substantial Conformance application is in the process of being approved.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant (“Applicant” or “Corona South Main Development LP ”) requests approval of a three (3) year Extension of Time (EOT) to the approved Site Development Permit No. 23008 (SDP23008) for the construction of a mini -storage facility . If approved, the expiration date would be extended from May 4, 2023 to May 4, 2028. Table 2 presents the details of the SDP approval date and expiration dates.
TABLE 2. EXPIRATION DATE OF SDP
Approval Date May 4, 2023
Expiration Date May 4, 2025
Requested Expiration Date May 4, 2028
According to the applicant’s letter of justification (Attachment No. 7), the request for an extension is due to the market conditions and proposed project design changes. The applicant is currently processing Building and Grading permits, and these applications are currently under review. No changes to the project are proposed with this EOT application.
ANALYSIS
On January 14, 2025, prior to the May 4, 2025 expiration date, the Applicant applied for an Extension of Time (EOT). Approval of the EOT application would extend the approval periods for three (3) years to May 4, 2028.
Section 9.240.330(7) of the Municipal Code requires that an SDP be used within two (2) years of the effective date or within such additional time as may be set in the Conditions of Approval which shall not exceed a total of five (5) years, otherwise the permit shall be null and void. Per Condition of Approval No. 6 of MA20219, the SDP shall be used within two (2) years of the May 4, 2023 approval date. Prior to the expiration date, the applicant may request up to three (3) years in extension of time in which to use the permit. The request shall be considered by the officer or hearing body that originally approved the SDP, therefore, the Extension of Time for SDP23008 shall be heard by the City Council.
An Extension of Time for a Site Development Permit may be granted upon determination that valid reason exists for the applicant not using the Site Development Permit within the required period. In this case , the applicant has mentioned that due to the uncertainty of market conditions and their financial climate they held off moving forward on the project.
Additionally, they proposed minor design changes which requires the changes to the plans and Substantial Conformance application. The applicant stated that, if an extension is approved, they will move forward with construction as soon as Building and Grading permits are issued. They are ready to move forward with the overall project and have Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 5
already begun the process of receiving approval of a Substantial Conformance application for the minor design changes. This is a valid reason, and it is recommended to approve the Extension of Time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the project was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2023. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows a previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to be used as the environmental assessment for a project (including a request for an extension of time) if it is determined that the project currently under review is “within the scope” of the earlier Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a). As there are no changes with this Extension of Time to the previously approved entitlement, and the Project does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts than anticipated in the adopted MND, the project is considered “within the scope” of the adopted MND, see the Previous Environmental Determination provided as Attachment 8.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Extension of Time (EOT) for SDP23008 is in conformance with the General Plan and Municipal Code. The subject site is physically suitable for the project and as conditioned, is not expected to cause substantial environmental impacts, nor a decrease in public health, safety and welfare, as demonstrated in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously adopted for this project. Granting the EOT will provide the Applicant with sufficient time to comply with the required conditions of approval and ultimately obtain the required building permits to begin construction of the proposed development.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Staff time to process this application is covered by a developer application deposit. No additional costs to the City are anticipated.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 202 5-99 approving MA25012 for a three-year Extension of Time for SDP23008.
2. Provide alternative direction to staff.
3. Denying MA25012 for the three-year Extension of Time for SDP23008.
Prepared by: Submitted by:
Joe Perez for: Rod B. Butler
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Assistant City Manager/Community
Development Director
Reviewed by:
s�
Director of Finance
Reviewed by:
Peter M. Thorson
City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No. 2025-99
City Manager
Reviewed by:
Michael Flad
Assistant City Manager
2. Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-28 (no exhibit)
3. Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-29
a) Exhibit A. Conditions
4. Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-32 with only Exhibit A
5. Adopted City Council Ordinance No. 2023-06 with Exhibit A Change of Zone map
6. City Council Staff Report for MA20219 on May 4, 2023 (without Attachments)
7. Approved Set of Plans
8. Applicant's Justification for Extension of Time
9. Previous Environmental Determination
www.jurupavalley.org
Page I 6
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
City Council Resolution No. 2025-XX
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CC Reso. No. XXXX-XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-99
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY APPROVING AN EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23008 TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 98,157 SQUARE
FOOT GATED MINI-STORAGE FACILITY WITH FIVE (5)
STORAGE BUILDINGS, A MANAGER’S OFFICE,
CUSTOMER PARKING, PERIMETER WALLS , AND
LANDSCAPING ON APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES OF
REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN
BUREN BOULEVARD, NORTH OF CLAY STREET, (APN:
163-400-046), AND TO DETERMINE NO FURTHER
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
REVIEW IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CEQA
GUIDELINES SECTION 15162(A).
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project.
(a) Corona South Main Development LP (the “Applicant”) has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 20003, Change of Zone No. 21002, Setback Adjustment No. 23001, and Site Development Permit No. 23008 (collectively, Master Application No. 25012 or “MA” No. 25012) to permit the construction of a 98,157 square foot gated mini-storage facility with five (5) storage buildings, a manager's office, customer parking, perimeter walls, and landscaping on approximately 4.73 acres of real property located on the east side of Van Buren B oulevard north of Clay Street ( APN: 163- 400- 046) in the Manufacturing Heavy (M - H) Zone and de signated Business Park (BP) with a Pedley Town Center overlay (the “Project.”) (b) On May 4, 2023, the City Council approved the Project and adopted Resolution No. 2023-29 which granted the approval of Site Development Permit No. 23008. Site Development Permit No. 23008 was approved for two years with an expiration date of May 4, 2025. During this period, the Applicant failed to commence the Project and Site Development Permit No. 23008 has now expired.
(c) The Applicant has now submitted an application (Master Application No. 25012 or “MA” No. 25012) for a one , three-year extension of t ime for Site Development Permit No. 23008.
Section 2. Extension of Time.
(a) The Applicant is seeking approval of a one, three-year extension of time for Site Development Permit No. 23008 to permit the construction of a 98,157 square foot gated mini- storage facility with five (5) storage buildings, a manager's office, customer parking, perimeter Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CC Reso. No. XXXX-XX
walls, and landscaping on approximately 4.73 acres of real property located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street (APN: 163- 400- 046). (b) The Site Development Permit No. 23008 expired on May 4, 2025. On January 14, 2025, the Applicant applied for an Extension of Time (“EOT”) prior to the expiration date. An approval of the submitted EOT application would extend the approval period for three (3) additional years to May 4, 2028.
(c) Section 9.240.330.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that no site development permit shall be approved unless it complies with the following standards:
1) The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the City of Jurupa General Plan and with all applicable requirements of State law and the ordinances of the City of Jurupa Valley.
2) The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into account topography and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof.
3) All site development plans which permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parcel shall, in addition to all other requirements, be subject to a condition which prohibits the sale of any existing or subsequently constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, as adopted by the City of Jurupa Valley pursuant to Chapter
1.35 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code, in such a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
(d) Section 9.240.330(7) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code requires that a site development permit be used within two (2) years of the effective date or within such additional time as may be set in the Conditions of Approval which shall not exceed a total of five (5) years.
Otherwise, the permit shall be null and void. An extension of time for a site development permit may be granted upon determination that valid reason exists for the applicant not using the site development permit within the required period. Within thirty (30) days following the filing of a request for an extension, the application shall be considered by the hearing body or officer that originally approved the site development permit. If an extension is granted, the total time allowed for use of the site development permit shall not exceed a period of five (5) years, calculated from the effective date of the issuance of the site development permit. The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction of the use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be pursued diligently to completion, or the actual occupancy of existing buildings or land under the terms of the authorized use. The effective date of a site development permit shall be determined pursuant to Section 9.240.330.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CC Reso. No. XXXX-XX
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby make the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the proposed one , three-year EOT application for Site Development Permit No. 23008.
(a) Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Pub.
Resources Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the City’s CEQA Guidelines, City staff has considered the potential environmental impacts of the proposed application of a one three-year extension of time for Site Development Permit No. 23008. City staff has also reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Project that was adopted by the City Council on May 4, 2023. CEQA allows a previously adopted MND to be used as the environmental assessment for a project, including one with a request for an extension of time, if it is determined that the project currently under review is “within the scope” of the earlier MND pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (a).
(b) Based on that review, the City of Jurupa Valley City Council has determined that there are no changes to the previously approved entitlement, and the Project does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts. The Project is considered “within the scope” of the adopted MND. (c) The City Council has independently reviewed the previous Environmental Document Review Determination, and based upon the whole record before it, the Previous Environmental Document Review Determination, and its independent review and judgment, finds that that the proposed one three-year Extension of Time application for Site Development Permit No. 23008 is not subject to further environmental review pursuant to the CEQA Guideline. (d) The cus todian of records for, and all other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council’s determination is based on, is the Community Development Department of the City of Jurupa Valley. These documents are available for public review in the Community Development Department located at 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, California 92509.
Section 4. Findings for Approval of Extension of Time for Site Development Permit No. 23008. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine, and declare that the proposed one three-year Extension of Time for Site Development Permit No. 23008 should be granted because:
(a) The proposed one , three-year Extension of Time application for Site Development Permit No. 23008 is in conformance with the General Plan and the Municipal Code of Jurupa Valley because it continues to meet all requirements of Title 9 (Planning and Zoning) and the proposal is to extend the approval period.
(b) The subject site is physically suitable for the Project and, as conditioned, is not expected to cause substantial environmental impacts, nor a decrease in public health, safety, and welfare, as demonstrated in the Initial Study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) previously adopted for this Project.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CC Reso. No. XXXX-XX
(c) The Applicant has cited unpredictable market conditions and design changes to the Project as the primary reasons for not moving forward with the Project and the reason for requesting an extension of time for Site Development Permit No. 23008. The City Council has determined this is a valid reason for not using the site development permit within the required period. The Applicant is now ready to move forward with the Project. (d) Approval of Master Application No. 25012. Based on the foregoing, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley hereby approves a one three -year Extension of Time application for Site Development Permit No. 23008 to permit the construction of a 98,157 square foot gated mini -storage facility with five (5) storage buildings, a manager's office, customer parking, perimeter walls, and landscaping on approximately 4.73 acres of real property located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street ( APN: 163- 400- 046). The approved Site Development Permit No. 23008 shall expire on May 4, 2028 unless a further extension of time is applied for and granted.
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this ___ day of __________, 2025.
______________________________
Brian Berkson
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Maria Morris, CMC
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CC Reso. No. XXXX-XX
I, Maria Morris , City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2025-99 was duly adopted and passed at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on the 26th day of June, 2025, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Jurupa Valley, California, this 26
th day of June, 2025
___________________________
Maria Morris, CMC
CITY CLERK
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-28
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 28
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED MINI -
STORAGE FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES OF REAL
PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN
BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY STREET ( APN: 163-400- 046)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project. Platinum StorageGroup (the "Applicant") hasapplied for General Plan Amendment No. 20003, Changeof Zone No. 21002, SetbackAdjustment No. 23001, and Site DevelopmentPermit No. 23008 (collectively, MasterApplication No. 20219or MA No. 20219) to permit the constructionof a ninety-eight thousandonehundredfifty- seven (98,157) squarefoot gatedmini -storagefacility with five (5) storagebuildings, amanager'soffice, customer parking, andperimeterwallsandlandscapingon approximately4.73acresof realpropertylocated on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street (APN: 163-400-046) in the ManufacturingHeavy (M -H) ZoneanddesignatedBusinessPark (BP) with aPedleyTownCenter overlay ( the " Project").
Section 2. Procedural Findings. TheCity Councilof theCity of JurupaValley does hereby find, determineand declarethat:
a) The application for MA No. 20219 wasprocessedincluding, but not limited to apublicnotice, in thetime andmannerprescribedby Statelaw andJurupaValley Ordinances. b) OnFebruary8, 2023, thePlanningCommissionoftheCityofJurupaValley held apublic hearingon MA No. 20219, at which time all personsinterestedin the Project had the opportunityanddid addressthePlanningCommissiononthesematters. Following thereceiptof public testimony, the Planning Commission closedthe public hearing and adoptedResolution No. 2023-02 on a 4-0 vote (with CommissionerNewmanabsent) recommendingapprovalof the Project, subject to conditions of approval.
c) OnMay4, 2023, theCity Councilof theCity of JurupaValleyheld apublic hearingonMA No. 20219, atwhichtimeallpersonsinterestedintheProjecthadtheopportunity anddid addresstheCity Councilonthesematters. Followingthereceiptof public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing.
d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act Findings and Recommendation for Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The City Council of the City of JurupaValley hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of the Project:
1-
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
a) The Project was processed, including but not limited to all public notices, in the time and manner prescribedby Stateand local law, including the California Environmental Quality Act, Public ResourcesCode 21000, et seq. andthe California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs 15000 et seq. (collectively referred to as " CEQA"). b) Pursuantto CEQA, the City is the lead agencyfor the Project c) Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") ( Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the " Guidelines") ( 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project asdescribedin the Initial Study. Basedupon the findings containedin that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (" MND") was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
d) Thereafter, City staff provided public notice of the public comment period and of the intent to adopt the MND as required by law. The public comment period commenced on December 7, 2022, and expired on December 27, 2022. Copies of the documents have been available for public review and inspection at City Hall, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jumpa Valley, California 92509. The City did not receive any commentson the MND during the public review period.
e) Public Resources Code Section 21081. 6 requires the City to prepare and adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for any project for which mitigation measures have been imposed to assure compliance with the adopted mitigation measures, The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is attached hereto as Exhibit " A", and is incorporated herein by reference.
f) The City Council has reviewed the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring andReporting Program ("MMRP"), attachedasExhibit " A," andall commentsreceivedregarding the Final MND. After due consideration of the Final MND and the Project and in the exercise of its independent judgment, the City Council hereby finds and resolves that:
1) All of the above recitals are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated into this section as though set forth in full. 2) Agencies and interested members of the public have been afforded amplenotice and opportunity to comment on the Draft MND, the Final MND, and on the Project.
The Project has been environmentally reviewed pursuant to the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
3) The City Council has independently considered the administrative record before it, which is hereby incorporated by reference and which includes the Final MND, the written and oral comments on the Draft MND, the Draft MND and its Appendices, staff reports and presentations, and all oral and written testimony.
2-
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
4) The City Council has reviewed the Final MND and all comments received regarding the Final MND prior to and at the May 4, 2023 public hearing, and based on the whole record before it finds that: ( i) the Final MND was prepared in compliance with CEQA; ii) there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment; and ( iii) the Final MND reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the Planning City Council.
g) Basedon the findings set forth in this Resolution, the City Council hereby adopts the MND and MMRP for the Project.
h) The Community Development Director is authorized and directed to file a Notice of Determination in accordance with CEQA.
Section 4. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 4th day of May, 2023.
C s Baraj
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko
City Clerk, CMC
511
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jurupa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023-28 was duly passedand adoptedat a meeting of the City Council of the City of JurupaValley on the 4thday of May, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: ALTAMIRANO, BARAJAS, BERKSON, SILVA
NOES: CARMONA
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto setmy hand and affixed the official seal of the City of JurupaValley, California, this 4thday of May, 2023.
Vic ' aWasko, Cityberk
City of Jurupa Valley
me
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 3
Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-29
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 4
Adopted City Council Resolution No. 2023-32
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
RESOLUTION NO. 2023- 32
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ( 1)
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 20003 CHANGING
THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
BUSINESS PARK ( BP) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ( LI) TO
PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED MINI -
STORAGE FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 4. 73 ACRES
OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF
VAN BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY STREET
APN: 163- 400- 046),( 2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.
22008 CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP
FROM BUSINESS PARK ( BP) TO COMMERCIAL RETAIL
CR) FOR THE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF
APPROXIMATELY 3. 86 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD
AND JURUPA AVENUE WEST OF FELSPAR STREET
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 167- 160- 019 AND 167- 160-
020); AND ( 3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22009
UPDATING THE COMMUNITY SAFETY, SERVICES AND
FACILITIES ELEMENT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. GovernmentCode section65358limits the numberof times a city can amend a mandatory element of its General Plan to no more than four amendments per year. In compliance with the GovernmentCode, the City Council is considering GeneralPlan amendments for several projects as part of this Resolution.
Section 2. Proiects.
a) Platinum Storage Group (" Platinum Storage") has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 20003, Change of Zone No. 21002, Setback Adjustment No. 23001, and Site DevelopmentPermitNo. 23008 (collectively, MasterApplicationNo. 20219or MA No. 20219) to permit the construction of a ninety-eight thousandonehundredfifty- seven (98, 157) squarefoot gatedmini -storagefacility with five (5) storagebuildings, amanager's office, customerparking, andperimeter walls and landscapingon approximately 4. 73acresof real property located on the eastsideofVanBurenBoulevardnorthof ClayStreet (APN: 163-400-046) intheManufacturing Heavy (M -H) ZoneanddesignatedBusinessPark (BP) with aPedleyTown Centeroverlay (the Platinum Storage Project"). General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is the subject matter of this resolution. The approval of the remainder of the entitlements for the Platinum Storage Project are being consideredby separateresolutions and ordinance.
b) The City hasinitiated General Plan Amendment No. 22008 and Changeof ZoneNo. 22004consistingof approximately3.86acreslocatednearthenortheastcomerof Van 1-
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Buren Boulevard and Jumpa Road west of Felspar Street ( Assessor Parcel Numbers 167- 160- 004, 167-160-019 and 167-160-020) to change the zoning map from M -SC (Manufacturing - Service Commercial) to C -P -S (ScenicHighway Commercial), and changingthe General Plan Land Use Map from BusinessPark (BP) to CommercialRetail (C-R) to createconsistencybetweenthe underlying zoning designation andthe General Plan. The property is improved with ashopping center that contains JD Steakhouse (" JD Steakhouse Project"). General Plan Amendment No. 22008 is the subject matter of this resolution. The change of zone for the JD Steakhouse Project is being considered by a separateordinance.
c) Government Code section 65302( g)(3) provides that upon the revision of the Housing Element, the Safety Element shall be reviewed and updated asnecessaryto address the risk of fire for land classified as stateresponsibility areas, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public ResourcesCode, and land classified asvery high fire hazardseverity zones, asdefined in Section 51177. The Housing Element was revised when the 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted on December 2, 2021, and therefore the Community Safety, Services and Facilities Element (" Safety Element") needsto be updated consistent with Statelaw. The update to the Safety Element is GeneralPlan Amendment No. 22009.
Section 3. General Plan Amendments.
a) The following General Plan Amendments arebeing processedthrough this Resolution:
1) Platinum Storage is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 20003 to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject parcel ( APN: 163-400- 046) from Business Park ( BP) to Light Industrial ( LI). The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 20003 are set forth in Exhibit " A" and the General Plan amendment is depicted in Attachment A- 1 to Exhibit " A."
2) The City Council initiated General Plan Amendment No. 22008 to change the General Plan land use designation of approximately 3.86 acres located near the northeast corner of Van Buren Boulevard and Jurupa Road. west of Felspar Street (Assessor Parcel Numbers 167- 160- 004, 167- 160- 019 and 167- 160- 020) from Business Park ( BP) to Commercial Retail ( C- R). The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22008 are set forth in Exhibit " B" and the General Plan amendment is depicted in Attachment B- 1 to Exhibit ` B". 3) TheCity Council initiatedGeneralPlanAmendmentNo. 22009to updatethe Safety Element consistent with State law. The findings for approval of General Plan Amendment No. 22009 are set forth in Exhibit " C" and the General Plan amendment is depicted in Attachment C- 1 to Exhibit " C".
Section 4. Approval of General Plan Amendments. Based on the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves:
a) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject parcel ( APN: 163- 400- 046) from Business Park ( BP) to Light Industrial LI) asdepicted in Attachment A- 1 to Exhibit " A. The City Council' s approval of General Plan 2-
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Amendment No. 20003 shall not be effective until the effective date of the ordinance adopting Change of Zone No. 21002.
b) General Plan Amendment No. 22008 to change the General Plan land use designation of approximately 3.86 acres located near the northeast corner of Van Buren Boulevard and Jurupa Road west of Felspar Street ( Assessor Parcel Numbers 167- 160- 004, 167- 160- 019 and 167- 160- 020) from Business Park ( BP) to Commercial Retail ( C- R) as depicted in Attachment B- 1 to Exhibit ` B". The City Council' s approval of GeneralPlan Amendment No. 22008 shall not be effective until the effective dateof the ordinance adopting Changeof Zone No. 22004. c) General Plan Amendment No. 22009 to update the Safety Element of the General Plan as shown in Attachment C- 1 to Exhibit " C".
Section 5. Certification. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valleyonthis4`hdayof May, 2023.
Chris Bar
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko
City Clerk
3-
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUN' T'Y OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
I, Victoria Wasko, City Clerk of the City of Jumpa Valley, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2023- 32 was duly passed and adopted at a meeting of the City Council of the City of JurupaValley on the 4s' day of May, 2023, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: ALTAMIRANO, BARAJAS, BERKSON, SILVA
NOES: CARMONA
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of JurupaValley, California, this 4h day of May, 2023.
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of Jurupa Valley
H
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Exhibit " A"
General Plan Amendment No. 20003
Section 1. Proieet.
a) Platinum StorageGroup ("Platinum Storage") hasapplied for GeneralPlan Amendment No. 20003, Change of Zone No. 21002, Setback Adjustment No. 23001, and Site DevelopmentPermitNo. 23008 (collectively, MasterApplicationNo. 20219orMA No. 20219) to permit the construction of aninety-eight thousandonehundredfifty- seven (98,157) squarefoot gatedmini -storagefacility with five ( 5) storagebuildings, a manager's office, customerparking, and perimeter walls and landscaping on approximately 4. 73acresof real property located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street ( APN: 163-400- 046) in the Manufacturing Heavy (M -H) Zone and designatedBusinessPark (BP) with a Pedley Town Center overlay (the Project").
b) Platinum Storage is seeking approval of General Plan Amendment No. 20003 to change the General Plan land use designation of the subject parcel ( APN: 163- 400- 046) from Business Park ( BP) to Light Industrial ( LI). The change to the General Plan land use designation is depicted in Attachment 1.
c) Section9.30.010.A. of the JurupaValley Municipal Codeprovides that any amendmentto any part of the JurupaValley GeneralPlan, shall be adoptedin accordancewith the provisions of Section65300et seg. of the GovernmentCode, asnow written or hereafteramended, and Chapter 9.30 of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code.
d) Section 9.30.010.B. of the JurupaValley Municipal Codeprovides that the initiation of proceedingsfor theamendmentof anypartof theJurupaValleyGeneralPlanshallbe conductedin accordancewith the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the JurupaValley Municipal Code. e) Section 9.30.100.(1) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that proposals to amend any part of the Jurupa Valley General Plan shall be heard by the Planning Commission during a public hearing on the matter. Further, Government Code Section 65353 provides that when a city has a Planning Commission authorized by local ordinance or resolution to review and recommend action on a proposed general plan, the commission shall hold at least onepublic hearing before approving arecommendationon the adoption of a generalplan. f) Section 9.30.100.(2) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation for approval or disapproval within areasonabletime, by resolution, including therein its findings, and transmit it to the City Council with acopy mailed to the applicant. A recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not lessthan a majority of the total membership of the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission cannot reach a decision within a reasonable time after closing the hearing, that fact shall bereported to the City Council and shall be deemed a recommendationto deny the proposal. Further, GovernmentCode Section 65354provides that the Planning Commission shall make a written recommendation on the adoption of a general plan, that a recommendation for approval shall be made by the affirmative vote of not less than a 511
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
majority of thetotal membershipof the commission, andthat the Planning Commission shall send. its recommendationto thelegislativebody.
g) Section9.30.100.(3) of the JurupaValley Municipal Codeprovidesthat upon receipt of a recommendation of the Planning Commission on an amendmentof the General Plan, the City Clerk must setthe matter for public hearing before the City Council at the earliest convenient day and, give notice of public hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearingbefore the Planning Commission.
h) Section9.30.100.(4) of the JurupaValley Municipal Codeprovidesthat after closing the public hearing, the City Council must renderits decisionwithin areasonabletime.
A decisionto amendthe GeneralPlan, or anypart or elementthereof, must be madeby resolution, which resolution must be adopted by the affirrnative vote of not less than the majority of the total membership of the City Council. The City Council may approve, modify or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any substantial modification of the Planning Commission's recommendation not previously consideredby the Commission shall first be referred to the Commission for its recommendation. i) Section 9.30. 100.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that a proposal to amend any part or element of the General Plan may not be approved by the City Council until all procedures required by the Jurupa Valley CEQA implementing proceduresto approve a matter have been completed.
Section 2. Procedural Findines for General Plan Amendment No. 20003. The City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley doesherebyfind, determine anddeclarethat:
a) Platinum Storage' application for MA No. 20219 wasprocessedincluding, but not limited to apublic notice, in -the time andmannerprescribedby Statelaw andJurupaValley Ordinances.
b) On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission ofthe City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on MA No. 20219, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did addressthe Planning Commission on thesematters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closedthe public hearing and adoptedResolution No. 2023-02, on a 4-0 vote ( with Commissioner Newman absent), recommending approval of the Project, subject to conditions of approval.
c) On May 4, 2023, the City Council of the City of JurupaValley held apublic hearingonMA No. 20219, atwhich time all personsinterestedin theProjecthadtheopportunity and did addressthe City Council on thesematters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closedthe public hearing.
d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 3. California Environmental Ouafity Act Findings for General Plan Amendment No. 20003. The City Council of the City of Jurapa Valley hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of General Plan Amendment No. 20003:
ME
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Q
a) Pursuantto the California Environmental Quality Act (" CEQA") ( Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the StateGuidelines (the "Guidelines") ( 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.), City staff prepared an Initial Study of the potential environmental effects of the approval of the Project as described in the Initial Study. Based upon the findings contained in that Study, City staff deterniined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (" MND") was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
b) On May 4, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023- 28, adopting the MND and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program CMM"") for the Project. Resolution No. 2023- 28 is incorporated herein as if set forth in full.
Section 4. Findings for Anoroval of General Plan Amendment No. 20003. The City CounciloftheCity of JurupaValleyfindsanddeterminesthatGeneralPlanAmendmentNo. 20003 should be adopted because:
a) The Project is consistent with the Light Industrial ( LI) land use designation, as amended by General Plan Amendment No. 20003. The LI land use designation seeks to allow for industrial, service -commercial, and related uses, including warehousing/distribution centers within the Mira Loma Warehouseand Distribution Center Overlay, in restricted areas, research anddevelopment, assemblyandlight manufacturing, repair facilities, and supporting retail uses. b) The density of the Project (0.47 FAR) is consistent with the proposed LI land use designationfor the Project site, which permits a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.25 — 0.60. c) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 3.12 — Industrial and Business Park Development of the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan, which requires that the City accommodatethe continuation of existing andthe development of new industrial, manufacturing, researchand development, and professional offices in areas designatedby the General Plan, specific plans, community and town center plans. The Project representsthe addition of anew mini -storagefacility with manager's office, adjacentto an existing mini -storage facility to the south and an industrial park use to the east. The Project would allow for constructionof amodemfacility with newstreetimprovementsfor Van BurenBoulevardand Clay Street, with a public entranceandpublic parking accessedfrom Clay Street. d) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 3.14. Encroachmentof the 2017 JurupaValley General Plan, which requires that the City protect industrial designatedareasfrom encroachmentby incompatible or noise -sensitiveuses that could be impacted by industrial activity, suchas housing and schools. The Project site abuts the Union Pacific Railroad along the northern property boundary, which forms a physical barrier to futureresidentialusesto the north, andthe siteis surroundedto the east, south, andwestby commercial and industrial uses that would not introduce noise - sensitive uses. e) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 3. 15. Locations of the 2017 JurupaValley General Plan, which requires that the City concentrateindustrial usesnearmajor transportationfacilities andutilities andalong public transit bA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
corridors. Avoid siting such uses close to residentially zoned neighborhoods or where truck traffic will be routed through residential neighborhoods. The subject site fronts on Van Buren Boulevard andClay Street, which areamajor arterial andcollector roadway, respectively, that servethe larger commercial and industrial sector of the vicinity, and maintain the established truck routes without encroaching onto residential neighborhoods.
f) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 3.17. Toxic Materials of the 2017 JurupaValley General Plan, which requiresthat the City prohibit the development of industrial uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxic substances, or that generate unacceptable levels of noise or air pollution. The Project does not introduce the storage, production, or transport of anytoxic substances. The mini -storagefacility is for storageof householdpersonalitems only andtherewill beno storageof hazardousmaterials allowed.
g) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with Land Use Element Policy LUE 3.18. Infrastructure of the 2017 Jurupa Valley General Plan, which requires that the City require that new industrial developers provide adequateparking, transportation facilities, including sidewalks and trails, streettrees, water resources, sewer facilities, and other utilities to serve new industrial businesses in addition to meeting the needs of existing residents and businesses. The Project will bring substantial street improvements along Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street where there are existing blighted conditions, and does not introduce the storage, production, or transport of any toxic substances. The mini -storagefacility is for storage of householdpersonal items only andthere will be no storageof hazardousmaterials allowed. h) General Plan Amendment No. 20003 is consistent with the Pedley Town Center overlay. The goals and objectives of the overlay are to preserve the City' s historical heritage and establish a downtown environment that attracts locals to shop, dine and socialize. The vicinity of the Projectsite is a gatewayinto the PedleyTown Center, andcould includefuture special mommmentationon street medians, wayfinding signage, decorative lighting, or similar amenities as part of future capital projects for Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street. The Project will provide new street improvements that will enhance the public realm, and the new storage buildings facing the streetswill have attractive architectural treatments that are compatible with the adjoining uses, creating a cohesive gateway entrance into the City' s downtown area.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
Adopted City Council Ordinance No. 2023-06
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OFFICIAL ZONING MAP
CHANGING THE ZONE OF APPROXIMATELY 4. 73
ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST
SIDE OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY
STREET ( APN: 163400- 046) FROM MANUFACTURING
HEAVY ( M - H) TO INDUSTRIAL PARK ( I - P)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project. Platinum Storage Group ( the " Applicant") has applied for General Plan Amendment No. 20003, Change of Zone No. 21002, Setback Adjustment No. 23001, and Site Development Permit No. 23008 (collectively, Master Application No. 20219 or MA No. 20219) to permit the construction of a ninety-eight thousand one hundred fifty- seven (98,157) squarefoot gatedmini -storagefacility with five (5) storagebuildings, a manager'soffice, customer parking, and perimeter walls andlandscaping on approximately 4.73 acresof real property located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street ( APN: 163-400- 046) in the ManufacturingHeavy (M -H) ZoneanddesignatedBusinessPark (BP) with aPedleyTown Center overlay ( the " Project"). Change of Zone No. 21002 is the subject of this Ordinance.
Section 2. Chance of Zone.
a) The Applicant is seeking approval of Changeof Zone No. 21002 to rezone approximately 4.73 acres of real property located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street (APN: 163-400-046) from Manufacturing Heavy (M -H) Zone to Industrial Park (I- P) Zone as depicted in Exhibit " A."
b) Section 9.285.010. of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that amendmentsto Title 9 of the JurupaValley Municipal Code must bemadein accordancewith the procedures set forth in Government Code Section 65800 et seq., as now enacted or hereafter amended, and with the requirements of Title 9. Government Code Section 65853 provides that an amendment to a zoning ordinance, which amendment changes any property from one zone to another, shall be adopted in the manner set forth in Sections 65854 to 65857, inclusive. c) Government Code Section 65854 provides that the Planning Commission must hold a public hearing on the proposedamendment to a zoning ordinance, with notice of the hearing given pursuant to Government Code Section 65090 and, if the proposed amendment to a zoning ordinance affects the permitted uses of real property, also given pursuant to Government CodeSection65091. Additionally, Sections9.285.040.(1) and (2) of theJurupaValley Municipal Code provide that the Planning Commission shall hold a noticed public hearing on a proposed amendmentto Title 9 of the JurupaValley Municipal Codethat proposesto changeproperty from one zone to another.
1-
12774. 0007n787448v2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
d) Government Code Section 65855 provides that after the hearing, the Planning Commission must render its decision in the form of a written recommendation to the legislative body, which must include the reasonsfor the recommendation, the relationship of the proposed amendment to applicable general and specific plans, and must transmit the recommendation to the legislative body in such form and manner as may be specified by the legislative body. Additionally, Section 9.285. 040.(3) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that, after closing the public hearing, the Planning Commission must render its decision within a reasonable time and transmit it to the City Council in the form of a written recommendation, which shall contain the reasons for the recommendation and the relationship of the proposed amendment to 2017 General Plan. A copy of the recommendation shall be mailed to the applicant and proof thereof shall be shown on the original transmitted to the City Council. e) Government Code Section 65856( a) provides that upon receipt of the recommendation of the Planning Commission, the legislative body must hold a public hearing.
Additionally, Section9.285.040.(4)(a) of the JurupaValley Municipal Codeprovidesthat upon receipt of a recommendation for approval by the Planning Commission, the City Clerk shall set the matter for public hearing before the City Council at theearliest convenient day, and give notice of the time and place of the hearing in the same manner as notice was given of the hearing before the Planning Commission.
f) GovernmentCodeSection65857providesthat the legislativebody may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided that any modification of the proposed ordinanceor amendmentby the legislative body not previously consideredby the Planning Commission during its hearing, must fust be referred to the Planning Commission for report and recommendation, but the Planning Commission shall not be required to hold a public hearing thereon. Additionally, Section 9.285.040.(5) of the Jurupa Valley Municipal Code provides that after closing the public hearing the City Council must render its decision within a reasonabletime and may approve, modify, or disapprove the recommendation of the Planning Commission; provided, however, that any proposedmodification of the Planning Commission' s recommendationnot previously consideredby the Planning Commission must first be referred back to the Planning Commission for a report and recommendation.
Section 3. Procedural Findings. The City Council of the City of JurupaValley does herebyfind, determine, and declarethat:
a) The application for MA No. 20219 was processed including, but not limited to, a public notice, in the time and mannerprescribedby Statelaw and JurupaValley Ordinances. b) On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearingon MA No. 20219, at which time all personsinterested in the Project hadthe opportunity and did addressthe Planning Commission on thesematters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closedthe public hearingand adoptedResolution No. 2023- 02 on a 4- 0 vote ( with Commissioner Newman absent) recommending approval of the Project, subject to conditions of approval.
c) On May 4, 2023, the City Council held apublic hearingon MA No. 20219, at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did addressthe City 2-
12774. 0007/ 2787448v2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Councilon thesematters. Followingthereceiptof publictestimonythe City Council closedthe public hearing.
d) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
Section 4. California Environmental Ouality Act Findings. The City Council hereby makes the following environmental findings and determinations in connection with the approval of proposed Change of Zone No. 20219:
a) Pursuantto theCaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct ("CEQA") (Cal. Pub.
Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines ( the " Guidelines") ( 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000et seq.), City staff preparedan Initial Studyof the potentialenvironmentaleffectsof the approval of the Project asdescribedin the Initial Study. Baseduponthe findings containedin that Study, City staff determined that, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, there was no substantial evidence that the Project could have a significant effect on the environment and a Mitigated Negative Declaration (" MND") was prepared by the City in full compliance with CEQA.
b) On May 4, 2023, the City Council adoptedResolutionNo. 2023-28 adoptingthe MND andthe Mitigation Monitoring andReportingProgram ("MMRP") for the Platinum StorageProject. Resolution No. 2023-28 is incorporated herein asif setforth in full.
Section 5. Findings for Approval of Changeof Zone. TheCity Councilof the City of JurupaValley herebyfinds anddeterminesthatChangeof ZoneNo. 20219shouldbe adopted because:
a) The proposed Project will comply with the development standards applicable to mini warehouses (self -storage facility) on premises in the I -P Zone as set forth in Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Sections 9.145.050 and 9.240. 470 with the approval of Setback Adjustment No. 23001.
b) The proposed I -P Zone is consistent with the Light Industrial land use designation of the City' s GeneralPlan, asproposedunder GPA No. 20003 for the Project, and the I -P zoneland useregulationsarecompatiblewith existingandproposedpatternof development in the immediate vicinity of the site.
Section 6. _ Approval of Changeof Zone. Basedon the foregoing, the City Council of theCity of JurupaValleyherebyadoptsChangeof ZoneNo. 21002, andrezonesapproximately
4. 73acresof realpropertylocatedontheeastsideof VanBurenBoulevardnorthof ClayStreet APN: 163-400-046) from ManufacturingHeavy (M -H) Zoneto IndustrialPark (I -P) Zone as depictedinExhibit "A," anddirectstheCityManagertorevisetheofficialCityofJurupaValley ZoningMapto designatethepropertyasbeingin thisnewzone.
a)
TheCity Council's adoptionof this ordinanceis contingentuponthe City Council approving GeneralPlan Amendment No. 20003.
Section 7. Severability. If anysentence, clauseor phraseof thisOrdinanceis for any reasonheldto beunconstitutionalor otherwiseinvalid, suchdecisionshallnotaffectthevalidity 3-
12774. aoo7/ 2787448v2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
of the remaining provisions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declaresthat it would havepassedthis Ordinanceandeachsentence, clauseor phrasethereof irrespective of thefact that any one or more sentences, clauses or phrases be declared unconstitutional or otherwise invalid.
Section 8. Effect of Ordinance. This Ordinance is intended to supersede any ordinanceor resolutionof theCountyof Riversideincorporatedby the City of JurupaValley that may in conflict with the terms of this Ordinance.
Section 9. Certification. TheCity Clerkof the City of JurupaValley shallcertifyto the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted in the manner required by law.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on the date provided in Government Code Section 36937.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley on this 18thday of May, 2023.
C araj
Mayor
ATTEST:
Victoria Wasko, CMC
City Clerk
4-
t2r74. 0007n7874t8v2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY )
1, VictoriaWasko, CMC, City Clerkof theCityof JurupaValley, doherebycertifythat theforegoingOrdinanceNo. 2023-06wasregularlyintroducedataregularmeetingof theCity Councilheldonthe4`hdayofMay, 2023andthereafterataregularmeetingheldonthe18`hday of May, 2023, it wasdulypassedandadoptedbythefollowingvoteof theCityCouncil:
AYES: ALTAMIRANO, BARAJAS, BERKSON, CARMONA, SILVA
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I havehereuntosetmy handandaffixed the official sealof theCityofJurupaValley, California, this181hdayofMay, 2023. i.
Victoria Wasko, City Clerk
City of JurupaValley
5-
12774. 0007/ 2787448vz
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
EXHIBIT A
CHANGE OF ZONE 21002
A- 1
12774. 0007/ 2787448v2
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ZONING EXHIBIT
I -P ( FROM M -H)
I— P: INDUSTRIAL PARK A- 1: LIGHT AGRICULTURE
M— H: MANUFACTURING, W- 1: WATER COURSE, WATER
HEAVY SHED, AND CONSERVATION
M— SC: MANUFACTURING,
SERVICE COMMERICAL
R— R: RURAL RESIDENTIAL
I
R- 2: MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS 500 0
R- 4: PLANNED RESIDENTIAL
SCALE: 1"= 500'
500
DRAWN BY: JC
TEL. 909 885- 3806 ZONING EXHIBIT
sHi. No.
CHECKED BY: EJB
BWADIMAN 2ANORTHARROWHEADAVE. SANBERNARDINO,CAG2403 CLAY STAT VAN BUREN BLVDDATE: 03- 25- 2021 JOB NO.: 184548 JOSEPH E. BONADINAN 8 AB SOCIATES. INC. FAXl800 3314721 CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY OF LENGINEERS • G. I. B. - SURVEYING • PLANNING www, aElmen. wm Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 6
City Council Staff Report for MA20219 (without attachments) Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 1
STAFF REPORT
DATE: MAY 4, 2023
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 16.A (1)
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER MASTER APPLICATION NO. 20219 (MA20219): GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FROM BUSINESS PARK TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL,
CHANGE OF ZONE FROM M -H (MANUFACTURING -HEAVY) TO I -P (INDUSTRIAL PARK), SITE DEVELOPMENT P ERMIT, SETBACK
ADJUSTMENT, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING & REPORTING PROGRAM TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 98,157 SQUARE -FOOT, GATED MINI - STORAGE FACILITY WITH FIVE (5) STORAGE BUILDINGS ON A 4.73- ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN BLVD. AND NORTH OF CLAY ST. (APN: 163 -400-046); (APPLICANT: PLATINUM
STORAGE GROUP)
RECOMMENDATION
1) That the City Council conduct a public hearing, receive public testimony, and:
A. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-28, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO PERMIT
THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED MINI -STORAGE FACILITY ON
APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAS T SIDE OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY
STREET (APN: 163-400-046)
B. Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 2023-06, entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY
OFFICIAL ZONING MAP CHANGING THE ZONE OF APPROXIMATELY
4.73 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY STREET (APN: 163 -400- Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
046) FROM MANUFACTURING HEAVY (M-H) TO INDUSTRIAL PARK (I- P)
C. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-29, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING SETBACK ADJUSTMENT NO. 23001 AND SITE
DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 23008 TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED MINI -STORAGE FACILITY ON APPROXIMATELY 4.73
ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF VAN
BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY STREET (APN: 163-400-046) D. Adopt Resolution No. 2023-32, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA
VALLEY APPROVING (1) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 20003
CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM
BUSINESS PARK (BP) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL (LI) TO PERMIT THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED MINI -STORAGE FACILITY ON
APPROXIMATELY 4.73 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON
THE EAST SIDE OF VAN BUREN BOULEVARD NORTH OF CLAY
STREET (APN: 163 -400-046), (2) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22008 CHANGING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM
BUSINESS PARK (BP) TO COMMERCIAL RETAIL (CR) FOR THE
PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 3.86 ACRES
LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAN BUREN
BOULEVARD AND JURUPA AVENUE WEST OF FELSPAR STREET
(ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 167-160-019 AND 167-160-020); AND (3) GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 22009 UPDATING THE
COMMUNITY SAFETY, SERVICES AND FACILITIES ELEMENT
NOTE: There will only be one action taken on Resolution No. 2023 -32. The findings for approval of GPA No. 20003 can be found in Exhibit A to Resolution No. 2023-32.
BACKGROUND
Project Site . The site , see Exhibit B, was previously disturbed and used as the Robertson’s Ready Mix concrete batch facility from the mid -1970’s until the late 2000’s when the use was vacated. Although there is no evidence of any prior structures constructed on the site, historic aerial photo s show that the entire site was graded and stockpiled with sand, gravel, and concrete batch implements. The Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project (“Phase 1 ESA – Jurupa Self-Storage” prepared by Lilburn Corporation, March 2020) states that no Recognized Environmental Conditions (REC’s) are present, which includes no evidence of the presence of hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum projects in to the ground, groundwater, or surface of the property.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
Planning Commission’s Recommendation . On February 8, 2023, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of MA No. 2 0219 (this project) to the City Council by a vote of 4-0. In their deliberations, the Planning Commission recommended that the Applicant continue to work with the City to improve the architectural detailing for the building facing Van Buren Boulevard. This building must be designed to be more consistent with the Pedley Town Center historic them e.
Additionally, the Commission made minor revisions to two of the Engineering conditions of approval, at the request of the Applicant.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Applicant, Platinum Storage Group, is seeking approval for a new self-storage facility on 4.73 acres of vacant land. The project includes the construction of approximately 98,157 square feet of new self-storage buildings (four 1 -story buildings, one 2 -story building, including a manager ’s office), six customer parking spaces, and perimeter landscaping and fencing improvements. A General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Business Park to Light Industrial, and a corresponding Change of Zone from M-H (Manufacturing – Heavy) to I-P (Industrial Park) is proposed. A setback adjustment is needed to reduce the required 50-foot rear yard setback from 50 feet to 23 feet along the rear property boundary (adjacent to the Railroad). And, a Site Development Permit is required to allow a self -storage facility in the IP zone (§9.145.020(A)1(g)viii).
See Exhibit A for a site plan of the proposal.
EXHIBIT A – PLATINUM STORAGE SITE PLAN
There will be five self-storage buildings with a total of 763 individual storage units ranging in size from 25 square feet to 300 square feet. The predominant units consist of the 50 square foot and 100 square foot units. One of the internal buildings will have a two-story N
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 4
portion, and the remainder buildings are all one-story buildings. The public entrance into the facility would be from Clay Street where a manager’s office will be open during normal business hours. A parking lot with six parking spaces is proposed in front of the manager’s office. There will be two gated entries into the storage unit buildings from the front parking lot, as shown in the blow-up exhibit below:
The proposed project would require the following entitlements and plan:
1. General Plan Amendment: To amend the land use designation of the project site from Business Park to Light Industrial.
2. Change of Zone : Change the zoning from M -H (Manufacturing -Heavy) to I -P (Industrial Park).
3. Setback Adjustment: To reduce the required rear yard setback from 50 feet to a range of 23 - 35 feet.
4. Site Development Permit: To authorize the development of a 98,157 square foot self-storage facility in the I-P zone.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA
The property is located on the east side of Van Buren Boulevard, and north of Clay Street.
Surrounding land uses include the Union Pacific Railroad and vacant land to the north, a mini-storage facility and restaurant buildings to the south (old Sizzler’s Restaurant, In-n- Out Burger), Riverside County Animal Shelter to the west/southwest across Van Buren Boulevard, light industrial /business park uses to the east, and vacant heavy industrial / vacant land to the south across Cl ay Street. Nearby projects include the “Appaloosa Springs” residential development (under construction), “Rexco Townhomes” site, and the “General Drive Industrial Park ” site. Existing buildings in the immediate vicinity include the “De -Anza Self -Storage” facility, former “Sizzler” building, “In -N-Out” burger, See Exhibit B for site location with surrounding projects.
Clay Street
N
NTS
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 5
EXHIBIT B – SITE VICINITY
N
Appaloosa
Springs
Residential
Development
General Drive
Industrial Park
De-Anza Self
Storage
In-N-Out
Burger
Serrano
Oaks
Town
Homes
Former
Sizzler
Restaurant
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 6
ANALYSIS
I. GENERAL PLAN. The project, as proposed, is consistent with the General Plan.
Light Industrial Land Use Designation . The proposed Light Industrial land use designation allows for industrial, service -commercial, research and development, assembly and light manufacturing, repair facilities, and supporting retail uses.
The General Plan ’s Light Industrial land use designation allows a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.25 – 0.60 and the proposed project has an FAR of 0.47. Some of the other applicable General Plan policies, and the project’s consistency with these policies, are listed below.
LU 3.12 Industrial and Business Park Development. Accommodate the continuation of existing and the development of new industrial, manufacturing, research and development, and professional offices in areas designated by the General Plan, spe cific plans, community and town center plans.
Project: The project represents the addition of a new mini -storage facility with manager ’s office, adjacent to an existing mini - storage facility to the south and an industrial park use to the east. The proje ct would allow for construction of a new mini -storage facility with street improvements for Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street, and a public entrance and public parking accessed from Clay Street.
LU 3.14 Encroachment. Protect industrial and business park designated areas from encroachment by incompatible or noise-sensitive uses that could be impacted by industrial activity, such as housing and schools.
Project: The proposed project site is abutting the Union Pacific Railroad along the northern property boundary, which forms a physical barrier to future residential uses to the north, and the site is surrounded to the east, south, and west by commercial and industrial uses that would not introduce noise-sensitive uses.
LU 3.17 Toxic Materials. Prohibit the development of industrial and business park uses that use, store, produce, or transport toxic substances, or that generate unacceptable levels of noise or air pollution.
Project: The proposed project does not introduce the storage, production, or transport of any toxic substances. The mini - storage facility is for storage of household personal items only and there will be no storage of hazardous materials allowed, as regulated by the owner’s rules for mini -storage and the City ’s Fire Departmen t for this type of building occupancy.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 7
LU 3.18 Infrastructure. Require that new industrial and business park developers provide adequate parking, transportation facilities, including sidewalks and trails, street trees, water resources, sewer facilities, an d other utilities to serve new industrial and business park businesses in addition to meeting the needs of existing residents and businesses.
Project: The proposed project will bring substantial street improvements along Van Buren Boulevard north of Clay Street where there are existing blighted conditions, and does not introduce the storage, production, or transport of any toxic substances. The mini- storage facility is for storage of household personal items only and there will be no storage of hazardous materials allowed.
Pedley Town Center Overlay
The site is located on the southern boundary of the General Plan ’s “Pedley Town Center Overlay.” The Pedley Town Center Overlay includes the location of City Hall and the Jurupa Valley/Pedley train station. The goals and objectives are to preserve the City ’s h istorical heritage and establish a Downtown environment that attracts locals to shop, dine and socialize. A Town Center plan for Pedley Town Center will be developed over the next 9 to 12 months, in anticipation of creating a development guide for a cohesi ve center that will anchor the City and help solidify its internal identity with its citizens.
The vicinity of the project site is a gateway into the Pedley Town Center, and could include future special monumentation on street medians, wayfinding signage, decorative lighting, or similar amenities as part of future capital projects for Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street. The project will provide new street improvements that will enhance the public realm, and the new storage buildings facing the streets will have attractive architectural treatments that are compatible with the adjoining structures and uses, creating a cohesive gateway entrance into the City’s Downtown area. A recommended condition of approval to enhance the architectural elevations for Bui lding A, facing Van Buren Boulevard, is included in the resolution. The condition would require the incorporation of additional tower elements with standing seam metal roofing, faux wood brackets and exposed rafter tails, for improved compatibility with the architecture of the Western Riverside County/City Animal Shelter building located on the west side of Van Buren Boulevard.
II. ZONING CODE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. The project
complies with all development standards of the I -P (Industrial Park) zoning district, and Section 9.240.470 of the Zoning Code as shown in Table 2 below.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 8
TABLE 2: APPLICABLE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Standards Does The Project
Comply with the
Standards?
Supporting Information
Height Requirements
35 feet maximum, if near planned
residential districts
Yes Elevation drawings show
buildings no taller than 27
feet
Building Setbacks
Front – 25 feet
Side – 10 feet for both side yards
combined
Rear – 50 feet (when I -P zone is
abutting a residential zone)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site plan shows a 25 -foot
setback along Clay Street
and 35-foot setback along
Van Buren Boulevard,
measured from the
ultimate street right -of-
way
The site plan shows a 5 -
foot and 20 -foot side
setbacks (25 feet
combined)
Complies with the
approval of a Setback
Adjustment. The UPRR
land along the north
boundary is zoned R -R
(Rural Residential). The
site plan shows the
storage buildings with a
rear-yard setback ranging
from 23 feet to 35 feet
along the north property
line
Maximum Storage Unit Size
500 square fe et for an individual
storage space
Yes
The floor plan/unit mix
plan shows the largest
individual storage unit is
300 square feet
Roofing Materials
Roofing materials shall be compatible
with area development
Yes
The site is abutting a large
mini-storage facility which
has flat roof buildings with
parapet walls, as
proposed for the Project
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 9
Table 2: Applicable Development Standards (continued)
Standards Does The
Project Comply
with the
Standards?
Supporting
Information
Perimeter Walls
Minimum 6 -foot-high decorative
masonry wall with earthen berm or
landscaping to provide an 8 -foot-
high screen around the entire use
Yes
The plans show
buildings along the
street and return walls
with an 8 -foot-high
height
Landscaping
25 feet of landscaping along street
frontages
15% of overall site to be landscaped
Driveway encroachments into 20 -
foot rear yard planter area OK if a
row of trees is approved
Yes
Yes
Yes
Site plan shows a 25 -
foot building setback
along both street
frontages
Total landscaping of the
site is proposed at 15%
of the total site
A row of trees is
proposed and
recommended for the
rear yard setback area
due to the narrow, linear
configuration of the site,
and driveways may be
located within the rear
setback area
Setback Adjustment. The applicant has requested a Setback Adjustment (SBA) to reduce the minimum 50 -foot setback required along the rear (north) property line, to 23 - 35 feet, as shown in Exhibit C.
The Zoning Code requires a 50 -foot rear setback in the I-P zone when adjacent to a “residential” zone. The Railroad property is currently zoned R-R (Rural Residential), triggering this requirement. The subject site has an irregular shape and a sloping terrain in the rear. Additionally, the railroad property cannot be used for residential uses, and any future residential uses north of the railroad will have a substantial separation from the mini-storage buildings. Strict application of the 50-foot setback would reduce the buildable area on the site to an un reasonably small Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 10
area on the site. For these reasons, findings for approval of the SBA are made and included in the attached Resolution.
EXHIBIT C. SETBACK ADJUSTMENT
III. PROJECT DESIGN.
a. Site Design. The property has an irregular shape (“dumbbell shape”) and has street frontages on Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street. Accordingly, the site envelopes the side and rear lot lines of an existing mini -storage facility that fronts on Clay Street. There is an existing abandoned restaurant build ing, former Sizzler’s, at the northeast corner of Clay Street and Van Buren Boulevard that is south of the project along Van Buren Boulevard. The proposed site plan shows the main entry drive at Clay Street, giving public access to six parking spaces and t he manager’s office. Behind the public parking, there are two tubular steel security gates that give access to the storage buildings. An EVO (emergency vehicle only) driveway is proposed on the Van Buren Boulevard frontage.
Future residents in the “Appaloosa” development by D.R. Horton, to the north, would have a view to the south of the perimeter decorative masonry wall on the south side of the railroad. The storage buildings would be largely screened from view to the residents, except for two story wi ndows which would have a view of the top portion of the storage buildings.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 11
EXHIBIT D. LANDSCAPE PLAN
b. Architecture & Floor Plans. The proposed architecture for the new buildings is a contemporary industrial design with a parapet wall system and flat roofs, with gable -roof tower elements. The exterior walls use a combination of painted (gray) split -face masonry walls and ribbed metal panels with horizontal and vertical ribbed patterns. The metal panels would have a gray and natural patina finish color. The manager’s office would have aluminum-framed storefront glazing and a metal awning on two sides of the building facing, visible to Clay Street. The floor plans show a total of 763 individual storage units ranging in size from 25 square feet to 300 square feet. The predominant units consist of the 50 square foot and 100 square foot units. Building A would be enhanced in accordance to a recommended condition of approval.
EXHIBIT 2. ELEVATIONS
BUILDING E – SOUTH ELEVATION (Facing Clay St.)
Former
Sizzler
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 12
* Enlarged Architectural Renderings to be provided at the public hearing.
c. Landscaping. The Conceptual Landscape Plan shows perimeter landscaping along all street frontages, in the rear yard setback area, and at the customer parking area near Clay Street. The plant palette includes 24 -inch box shade trees including “Coast Live Oak,” and “California Sycamore” trees. Accent trees include “Crape Myrtle” and “Eastern Redbud” trees. Additionally, there are eight (8) water-efficient shrub species with a variety of color including “Blue Hibiscus”, “Red Tiger Paw”, “Texas Ranger”, “Dwarf Callistemon”, “Fortnight Lily”, two trailing shrubs including “New Gold Lantana” and “Creeping Myoporum”, on e “Agave” succulent plant, and perennial grasses/sedge species including “Regal Mist” “Autumn Moor Grass”, “California Gray Rush” and “Clustered Sledge”.
Staff has included a condition of approval requiring all street trees to be 36-inch box trees, decora tive up -lights on entrance trees, and decorative pavers at entrances.
d. Public Right -of-Way Improvements. The project would be conditioned to BUILDING E – NORTH ELEVATION (facing Railroad)
BUILDING A – SOUTH ELEVATION-Part 1 (Facing Van Buren Blvd.) BUILDING A – SOUTH ELEVATION-Part 2 (Facing Van Buren Blvd.) * Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 13
improve the public right -of-way along both street frontages to include new curb/gutter sidewalks (where missing), ADA ramps, street lights, and perimeter landscaping. There is a recommended condition of approval requiring all street trees to be 36-inch box trees.
• Van Buren Boulevard. Van Buren Boulevard along the project’s frontage is currently substandard in dimension and design. This project is conditioned to improve Van Buren Boulevard to an 80-foot, half-street, Expressway Corridor with 6 lanes of traffic and landscaped median, six- foot sidewalk and 19 -foot landscaped parkway, per the City’s General Plan. This proje ct would provide connecting roadway, new curb/gutter/sidewalk, street lights, and parkway landscaping improvements. A landscaped setback of 61.5 feet, measured from back of sidewalk to the buildings/perimeter fence will be installed along Van Buren Street. The northerly portion of the site’s frontage on Van Buren Boulevard would be improved with a pavement transition from new 6 - lane improvements to the existing 4-lanes.
• Clay Street. The street along the project’s frontage would be improved as a Major Roadway, per the City’s General Plan, with an ultimate half right-of-way width of 59 feet. New road and parkway improvements including a 32-ft paved section from edge of raised median to curb, and a 27-ft landscaped parkway with 6-ft sidewalk. A landscaped setback of 45 feet, measured from back of sidewalk to the buildings/perimeter fence will be installed along Clay Street.
e. Operations. The self-storage facility offers the convenience of key -code entry for customers who rent a storage unit. Each renter is responsible for providing their own lock for their unit. The manager’s office will operate between the hours of 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturday, with two on-site employees.
The security gates can be opened by customers to access their storage unit only between the hours of 5:00 am to 9:00 pm daily. No late -evening hour use (between 9:00 pm and 5:00 am) of storage units is allowed and security gate keys will be disabled during these times . Additionally, there will be 24 -hour recorded video sur veillance and outdoor wall pack lighting facing the internal driveways on all buildings.
IV. Interagency Review. The project was circulated for Interagency Review. This included reviews by other City departments, service providers (County Fire Department, Riverside County Sheriff Department, Jurupa Unified School District, etc.) and utility companies, allowing each entity the opportunity to review the proposal and determine the impacts of the development relative to their services. The project was also reviewed and approved by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission on October 13, 2022 with recommended conditions of approval. Comments from these agencies have been considered and incorporated as modifications and/or conditions to this project.
V. TENTATIVE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE. The landowners are eager to start construction as soon as entitlements and construction drawings are approved Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 14
and in effect. If approved, the project is tentatively scheduled for commencement of construction in late fall 2023, with an expected 12 to 15 months of construction, and completion on or about December 2024.
VI. WATER UTILITY AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. The Jurupa Community Services District (JCSD) would provide water service to the project site. The JCSD issued an initial water and sewer availability letter dated August 10, 2020.
Additionally, the District provided fire flow calculations on October 13, 2022 based on the existing infrastructure modeling, to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal’s Office. The hydraulic analysis for the fire flow test was performed using JCSD’s water modeling software which simulated the existing fire hydrant located about 60 feet south of the subject site, on Clay Street. The analysis indicated that the water system could provide at least 2,875 GPM for 2 hours at a minimum of 20 psi, as required by the Fire Marshal’s office.
The Project’s proposed drainage improvements include a series of storm drains and pipes with bioretention basins, for water quality and stormwater basin located at the southwest and southeast corners of the site. Storm water conveyance would be through the storm drain system to the bioretention basins with high flows conveyed to an existing storm drain and system located within the Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street right-of-ways. The eastern portion of the property drains to Clay Street via a proposed 18-inch storm drain, while the western portion of the site drains to an existing 48 -inch corrugated metal pipe.
Each of these outlets has mechanical filters installed to mitigate for water quality.
VII. REQUIREMENTS FOR GRANTING OF A SETBACK ADJUSTMENT. A setback adjustment shall not be granted unless all of the following items are determined in the affirmative:
(a) That the adjustment is consistent with the intent and purposes of the Zoning Code;
(b) That there are special circumstances applicable to the property, including such factors as size, shape, topography, location or surroundings that justify the approval of the adjustment of the setback requirement; and, (c) That the adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to property in the vicinity of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested.
The Zoning Code requires a 50-foot rear yard setback because the site abuts the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) which is zoned R -R (Rural Residential). The B - P Zone is intended to provide for research and development, light manufacturing, business sales and services and other business -supporting commercial uses.
Accordingly, this adjustment would allow a new mini -storage facility which is a service use for community. The proposed buildings within 23 to 35 feet of the railroad right-of-way are consistent with the intent and purpose statements of the I-P zone, and not i n conflict with the intended separation between residential uses and business park uses because no residential uses can be developed on the railroad.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 15
The site has an irregular shape (“dumbbell”) with sloping topography towards the street. The central portion of the site is too narrow to accommodate any buildings.
Additionally, the site fronts on two major streets which require substantial street dedications. There is a need for flexibility in the 50 -foot rear yard setback requirement for any development on the subject site because strict application of the Code would reduce building size to an unreasonably small portion on the site.
The adjustment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the community or be detrimental to pr operty in the vicinity of the parcel for which the adjustment is requested. The proposed development site is adjacent to an existing mini-storage facility and abuts a railroad on the rear. The project will be designed to comply with all current building and fire codes making it safe for the public. The project will include solid masonry walls and buildings along the perimeter of the site with adequate exterior lighting making it a secure place of business for the public.
VIII. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPROVAL O F A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT (SDP). A site development permit shall not be granted unless the project complies with the following standards:
(a) The proposed use must conform to all the requirements of the Jurupa Valley General Plan and with all applicable re quirements of state law and the ordinances of the city.
(b) The overall development of the land shall be designed for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare; to conform to the logical development of the land; and to be compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The plan shall consider the location and need for dedication and improvement of necessary streets and sidewalks, including the avoidance of traffic congestion; and shall take into acco unt topographical and drainage conditions, including the need for dedication and improvements of necessary structures as a part thereof.
(c) All site development permits which permit the construction of more than one structure on a single legally divided parce l shall, in addition to all other requirements, be subject to a condition which prohibits the sale of any existing or subsequently constructed structures on the parcel until the parcel is divided and a final map recorded in accordance with Title 7 in such a manner that each building is located on a separate legally divided parcel.
As explained above in this staff report, the proposed mini-storage facility project is consistent with the policies and objectives of the City’s General Plan, based in part on the proposed General Plan Amendment from a Business Park to a Light Industrial land use designation. The site plan shows compliance with all zoning ordinance regulations with a Setback Adjustment.
The proposed development of the land is designed for the pro tection of the public health, safety and general welfare, in that the site will have new buildings Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 16
that conform to the latest building and fire codes. There will be solid masonry walls and new storage buildings erected around the perimeter of the site with adequate exterior lighting, making it a secure and safe place of business for the public.
The project conforms to the logical development of the land and is compatible with the present and future logical development of the surrounding property. The site is irregular in shape and abuts the UPRR on the north. There is an existing mini-storage facility that abuts the subject site on two sides of the site. Based on these circumstances, the proposed use of a mini -storage facility, having its main entry from Clay Street represents a logical and compatible use for the vicinity.
The subject site is proposed on a single parcel of land and there is no intention by the owners to subdivide or sell the property. The owners intend to own and operate the facility.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is supported by an Initial Study that evaluated potential effects with respect to Aesthetics, Agriculture Resources, Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Energy, Ge ology and Soils, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, Tribal Cultural Resources, Utilit ies and Service Systems, and Wildfire. The proposed MND determines that although the proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been required or revisions in the Project have been made or agreed to by the Applicant.
Public Review Period. The public review period started on December 7, 2022 and ended on December 27, 2022. The Mitigated Negative Declaratio n was published on December 7, 2022 and is available for review at City Hall and on the City’s website. There were no comment letters received from any agencies or interested parties during the public review.
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet from the boundaries of the project site . Additionally, legal advertisements were published in the Press Enterprise on Sunday, April 23, 2023. No comments have been received at the time of this report.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
The cost to process these applications are paid by the applicant.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 18
a. Exhibit A - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program B. Ordinance No. 2023 -06, approving Change of Zone No. 21002 from M -H to I -P zone
a. Exhibit A: Map of CZ21002
C. Resolution No. 2023 -29, approving setback adjustment and site development permit
D. Project Plans ( Site Plan, Floor Plans/Unit Mix, Roof Plans Colored Elevations, Colored Landscape Plans, Conceptual Grading Plan, Conceptual Grading – Easements)
E. Adopted Resolution No. PC-2023-02 (without exhibits) Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 7
Approved Set of Plans
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 8
Justification Letter for Extension of Time
(Dated 1.8.25)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
PLANNING • PROJECT MANAGEMENT • CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT T 213.422.1450 F 323.662.3262
CGR DEVELOPMENT
Planning • Development • Construction
January 8, 2025
Jurupa Valley Planning Department
Attn: Jesus Huerta
8930 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Re: MA 20219, 6619 Clay Street
Please accept this letter as a request for a three-year extension to the time limit of Master Application 20219 (MA 20219), extending the time limit to May 4
th, 2028. On May 4th, 2023, the City Council approved
MA 20219. Condition 6, of the Conditions of Approval, see attached, set a development time limit of two years; meaning substantial construction had to start within a two-year period or an extension would be required. The original case will expire on May 4
th, 2025. However, the condition allows the applicant to request a three-year extension, if substantial construction cannot start by May 4, 2025.
Due to market conditions and design changes, the project has been on hold and in plan check for three years but is now at a point where the developer is eager to start construction. Therefore, if this extension is granted, the developer will start construction as soon as the city issues the grading and building permits.
There will be no further delays in the development of the plans or processing plan check. In this climate, it is imperative that approved projects be allowed to continue without expiring to allow development to move forward in cities.
Therefore, the developer asks that the city grant the three-year extension, facilitate the plan check necessary to issue permits, and allow the developer to start construction as soon as possible. Then, construction can start, and the developer will meet the substantial construction requirement well in advance of the new expiration date.
Please feel free to contact me at 213-422-1450, if you have any questions or require ay addition documentation.
Thank you in advance for your consideration,
Terri Dickerhoff
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 9
Previous Environmental Determination
(dated: April 3, 2025)
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Previous Environmental Determination
Platinum Storage
Master Application 25012
Site Development Plan 23008EOT1
Lead Agency
City of Jurupa Valley
8390 Limonite Avenue
Jurupa Valley, CA 92509
Contact: Jesus Huerta, Associate Planner
(951) 332-6464 ext.128
[email protected]
Project Proponent:
Corona South Main Development, L.P.
1370 Jetstar, Suite 100
Henderson, NV. 89052
April 3, 2025
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
2 1.0 DETERMINATION
Based on the evaluation in Section 4.0 of this document, I find that all potentially significant effects have been avoided or mitigated according to the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2022120147), City of Jurupa Valley Master Application (MA) 20219 , adopted on May 4, 2023, by City Council Resolution 2023-18. Therefore, the Project is “within the scope” of the previously adopted MND. According to PRC §21166 and CEQA Guidelines §15162, CEQA does not require the preparation of any further environmental review.
City of Jurupa Valley
Signature Lead Agency
Joe Perez, Community Development Director April 3, 2025 Printed Name/Title Date
2.0 PREVIOUS ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (PED)
Once an environmental impact determination under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been approved or certified for a project, no further action is required unless further discretionary approval for that project is required. CEQA Guidelines §15162 Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations , allows a previously certified EIR or adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) to be used as the environmental assessment for a project requiring further discretionary approval if it is determined that the Project currently under review does not propose substantial changes to the previously adopted or certified CEQA documentation that would:
1) Create one or more new significant impacts.
2) Create impacts that are more severe.
3) Require major revisions to the CEQA document.
This PED has been prepared to determine if the request is within the scope of the analysis contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), State Clearinghouse (SCH) #2022120147), City of Jurupa Valley Master Application (MA) 20219, adopted on May 4, 2023, by City Council Resolution 2023-18, and to ensure that by approving the request for Master Application (MA) No. 25012 and Site Development Permit (SDP) 23008EOT1, the Project does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts as compared to those identified previously. (See Table 2: Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures)
The previously adopted MND is on file with the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department, 8930 Limonite Avenue, Jurupa Valley, CA 92509, and is hereby incorporated by reference according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15150.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
3 3.0 PROJECT LOCATION & DESCRIPTION
Location
The Project site is located on approximately 4.73 acres on the northeast side of intersection of Van Buren Boulevard and Clay Street. The Project site is identified by the following Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 163-400-046. The Project is mapped on the U.S. Geological Survey Riverside West, California. 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle in Section 25, Range 6 West, Township 2 South.
Approved Project Description
The approved Project included a General Plan Amendment (GPA), Land Use from Business Park (BP) to Light Industrial (LI), a Change of Zone (CZ) from Manufacturing, Heavy (M-H) to Industrial Park (Industrial Park), Setback Adjustment, Site Development Permit, and a Conditional Use Permit. The approved Project included the development of 5 buildings totaling 94,592 square feet with 763 storage units. The facility will have a combination of climate-controlled storage units and exterior roll-up door units. The project includes a manager’s office with public access, and a gated entry into the facility.
Proposed Project Description
This is the 1st request for a one-year extension of time (EOT) for the SDP through May 4, 2026.
The extension of time request does not propose to amend boundaries, change the number of parcels, or propose any changes to structures, infrastructure or utilities that are different than the previously approved SDP.
4.0 ANALYSIS
Previously Identified Environmental Impacts
The MND determined that the previously approved Project would result in no impacts or less than significant environmental impacts under the following issue areas: Agricultural Resources Aesthetics, Air Quality, Energy, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Land Use and Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation, and Wildfire.
The MND determined that the previously approved Project would result in potentially significant impacts to, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources (archaeological), Geological Resources (paleontological), Tribal Cultural Resources, and Utilities and Service Systems. With mitigation each issue area impacts were determined to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
The MND determined that the previously approved Project would not result in significant and unavoidable impacts.
Current Environmental Impacts
When the Project was approved in 2023, the Project site was vacant land with the Union Pacific Railroad adjacent to the north, Clay Street adjacent to the south followed by commercial and vacant land, commercial and vacant land to the east, and Van Buren Boulevard followed by the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
4 Riverside County Department of Animal Control Facility and residential to the west. and single- Because construction has not occurred the physical conditions identified the 2023 MND remain the same.
Exhibit 4.0-1 Aerial Photograph March 2023
Source Google Earth Pro
Exhibit 4.0-2 Aerial Photograph March 2025
Source Google Earth Pro
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
5 Applicability of the 2023 Adopted MND
If the request for MA25012 and SDP 23008EOT1 is approved, the Project will incorporate the following as required by the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted with the MND for the Platinum Storage Project.
Plans, Policies, or Programs (PPP) These include existing regulatory requirements such as plans, policies, or programs applied to the Project- based on federal, state, or local law currently in place, which effectively reduce environmental impacts. The PPPs are listed in the MMRP attached to the MND.
Mitigation Measures (MM) These measures include requirements that are imposed where the impact analysis determines that implementation of the proposed Project would result in significant impacts; mitigation measures are proposed in accordance with the provisions of CEQA. The MMs are summarized below in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Environmental
Topic/Threshold
Mitigation Measures (MM) Required to Reduce Impact Level of Significance
Biological Resources
4.4(a): Would the Project: Have a
substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species
identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
MM – BIO-1: Pre-construction Western Yellow Bat
Survey/Protection: Prior to construction, the one palm that is present on the Project Site and an appropriate survey buffer shall be surveyed for the presence of bat roosts by a qualified bat biologist. Surveys are recommended as follows:
− (1) Initial surveys are recommended to be conducted at least six months prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities, ideally during the maternity season (typically March 1 to August 31), to allow time to prepare mitigation and/or exclusion plans if needed, and
− (2) Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities.
Surveys may entail direct inspection of the trees/suitable habitat or nighttime surveys.
BIO-1.a: If active bat roosts are present, a qualified bat biologist shall determine the species of bats present and the type of roost (i.e., day roost, night roost, maternity roost). If the biologist determines that the roosting bats are not a special-status species and the roost is not being used as a maternity roost, then the bats may be evicted from the roost by a qualified bat biologist experienced in developing and implementing bat mitigation and exclusion plans.
BIO-1 a.i: If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present, but no direct removal of active roosts will occur, a qualified bat biologist shall determine appropriate avoidance measures, which may include
Less than
significant
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
6 implementation of a construction-free buffer around the active roost.
BIO-1 a.ii.: If special-status bat species or a maternity roost of any bat species is present and direct removal of habitat (roost location) will occur, then a qualified bat biologist experienced in developing bat mitigation and exclusion plans shall develop a mitigation plan to compensate for the lost roost site. Removal of the roost shall only occur when the mitigation plan has been approved by the City of Jurupa Valley and only when bats are not present in the roost. The mitigation plan shall detail the methods of excluding bats from the roost and the plans for a replacement roost in the vicinity of the project site. The mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval prior to implementation.
The plan shall include: (1) a description of the species targeted for mitigation; (2) a description of the existing roost or roost sites; (3) methods to be used to exclude the bats if necessary; (4) methods to be used to secure the existing roost site to prevent its reuse prior to removal; (5) the location for a replacement roost structure; (6) design details for the construction of the replacement roost; (7) monitoring
protocols for assessing replacement roost use; (8) a schedule for excluding bats, demolishing of the existing roost, and construction of the replacement roost; and (9) contingency measures to be implemented if the replacement roosts do not function as designed.
BIO-1.b.: Pre-construction surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of vegetation removal and ground disturbing activities. If no active roosts are present, then trees/suitable habitat shall be removed within two weeks following the pre-construction survey. If active roosts are present, then follow BIO-3.a.
BIO-1.c.: All potential roost trees shall be removed in a manner approved by a qualified bat biologist, which may include presence of a biological monitor.
BIO-1.d.: All construction activity in the vicinity of an active roost shall be limited to daylight hours.
Cultural Resources
4.5 (b): Would the Project: Cause
a substantial adverse change in
the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5?
MM – CR-1: Archaeological Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Project Applicant shall provide evidence City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department that a qualified professional archaeologist (Professional Archaeologist) that is listed on the City of Jurupa Valley Cultural Resources Consultant List or the Cultural Resource Consultant List maintained by the County of Riverside Planning Department, has been contracted to implement Archaeological Monitoring for the area of impact for the Project.
Monitoring shall be conducted in coordination with the Consulting Tribe(s), defined as a Tribe that initiated the tribal consultation process for the Project as provided for in Public Resources Code Less than
significant.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
7 §21080.3.1(b) (“AB52”) and has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City. Monitoring shall address the details of all ground-disturbing activities and provides procedures that must be followed to avoid or reduce potential impacts on cultural, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources to a level that is less than significant.
A fully executed copy of the Archaeological Monitoring Agreement shall be provided to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this measure. If the resource is significant, Mitigation Measure CR-2 shall apply.
MM – CR-2: Archaeological Treatment Plan: The Project
Archaeologist shall prepare and implement a treatment plan to protect the identified archaeological resource(s) from damage and destruction. The treatment plan shall be per CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(f) for historical resources and Public Resources Code Section 21083.2(b) for unique archaeological resources. Preservation in place (i.e., avoidance) is the preferred manner of treatment. If preservation in place is not feasible, treatment may include implementing archaeological data recovery excavations to remove the resource and subsequent laboratory processing and analysis. If historic Native American tribal cultural resources are involved, the Treatment Plan shall be coordinated with the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through TCR-3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA20219.
MM – CR-3: Treatment and Preservation Plan for Archaeological Resources: A final report containing the significance and treatment findings shall be prepared by the Project Archaeologist and submitted to the City of Jurupa Valley Community Development Department and the Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside. If a historic tribal cultural resource is involved, a copy shall be provided to the Consulting Native American Tribe(s) as described in Mitigation Measure TCR-1 through 3 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA20219.
Geology and Soils
4.7 (f): Would the Project:
Directly or indirectly destroy a
unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic
feature?
MM – GEO-1: Paleontological Monitoring: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to conduct monitoring as necessary during ground-disturbing activities such as vegetation removal, grading, and other excavations related to the project. The Paleontologist shall be present at the pre-grade conference and shall establish a schedule for paleontological resource surveillance based on the nature of planned activities. The Paleontologist shall establish, in cooperation with the lead agency, procedures for temporarily halting or redirecting work, if any is ongoing, to permit the sampling, identification, and evaluation of cultural resources as appropriate. If the paleontological resources are found to be significant, the Paleontologist/Monitor shall determine appropriate actions, in cooperation with the lead agency, for exploration and/or salvage. Significant sites that cannot be avoided will require data recovery measures and shall be completed upon approval of a Data Recovery Plan.
Less than
significant.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
8 MM – GEO-2: Paleontological Treatment Plan: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, a qualified Paleontologist shall be retained to observe ground-disturbing activities and recover fossil resources as necessary when construction activities will impact the older Quaternary Alluvium. The Paleontologist will attend the pre-grade conference and establish procedures and protocols for
paleontological monitoring and to temporarily halt ground- disturbing activities to permit sampling, evaluation, and recovery of any discovery. Substantial excavations below the uppermost layers (more than 3 feet below surface) should be monitored. Sediment samples should be recovered to determine the small-fossil potential of the site. If a discovery is determined to be significant, additional excavations and salvage of the fossil may be necessary to ensure that any impacts to it are mitigated to a less than significant level.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Threshold 4.18 (b) Would the
project cause a substantial
adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public
Resources Code section 21074 as
either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms
of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe,
and that is: A resource
determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth
in subdivision (c) of Public
Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider
the significance of the resource
to a California Native American
tribe?
MM – TCR-1: Native American Monitoring Agreement: Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Permit Applicant shall enter into a Monitoring Agreement with the Consulting Tribe(s) for Native American Monitor(s) to be onsite during ground disturbing activities allowed by the grading permit. A Consulting Tribe is defined as a tribe that initiated the AB 52 tribal consultation process for the Project, has not opted out of the AB 52 consultation process, and has completed AB 52 consultation with the City as provided for in Public Resources Code §21080.3.1(b). Ground disturbing activities include excavation of each portion of the project site including clearing, grubbing, tree removals, grading and trenching.
The Monitoring Agreement shall include, but is not limited to, the following provisions:
a) Provide a minimum of 30 days advance notice to the
Consulting Tribe(s) of all ground disturbing activities. b) In conjunction with the Archaeological Monitor(s) required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1 under Section 4.5, Cultural Resources, of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA20219, the Native American Monitor(s) shall have the authority to temporarily divert, redirect, or halt the ground disturbance activities to allow identification, evaluation, and potential recovery of cultural resources.
c) The onsite monitoring shall end when all ground-disturbing activities on the Project Site are completed, or when the Native American Tribal Monitor(s) have indicated that all upcoming ground disturbing activities at the Project Site have little to no potential for impacting Tribal Cultural Resources.
The Project Proponent shall submit a fully executed copy of the Monitoring Agreement to the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department to ensure compliance with this mitigation measure. If there are multiple Consulting Tribes involved, a separate Monitoring Agreement is required for each. The Monitoring Agreement shall not modify any condition of approval or mitigation measure.
MM – TCR-2: Unanticipated Discovery: The Permit Applicant or any successor in interest shall comply with the following for the life of the grading permit. If, during ground disturbance activities, .
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
9 unanticipated cultural resources are discovered, the following procedures shall be followed:
a) Ground disturbing activities shall cease in the immediate vicinity of the find (not less than the surrounding 100 feet) until the find can be assessed. Ground disturbing activities are allowed on the remainder of the Project Site.
b) The Consulting Tribe(s), the Project Archaeologist (retained by the Permit Applicant under Mitigation Measure MM-CR-1,
Retain Professional Archaeologist, of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration document for
MA20219, and the City of Jurupa Valley Community
Development Department shall meet and confer, and discuss the find with respect to the following:
1. Determine if the resource is a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined by Public Resources Code §21074, if so:
2. Determine if the resource is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register on a “Local register of historical or resources” pursuant to Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k); or
3. Pursuant to Public Resources Code § 5024.1 (c) as it pertains to the Consulting Tribe(s): (1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage, (2) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past, (3) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an
important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values, or (4) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield,
information important in prehistory or history.
c) If the resource(s) are Native American in origin [and not a historical resource as defined by Public Resources Code §5020.1 (k) or §5024.1 (c)], the Consulting Tribe will retain it/them in the form and/or manner the Consulting Tribe (s) deems appropriate, for educational, cultural and/or historic purposes. If multiple Consulting Tribes (s) are involved, and a mutual agreement cannot be reached as to the form and
manner of disposition of the resource(s), the City shall request input from the Native American Heritage Commission and
render a final decision.
d) If the resource(s) is both a tribal cultural resource and a historic resource, the Project Archaeologist, the Consulting Tribe (s), and the City of Jurupa Valley Planning Department shall meet and confer and discuss the appropriate treatment
(documentation, recovery, avoidance, etc.) for the cultural and historic resource. Treatment, at a minimum, shall be consistent with Public Resources Code § 21084.3 (b). The appropriate treatment shall be prepared in conjunction with the
Archaeological Treatment plan required by Mitigation
Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA20219. Further ground disturbance shall not resume within the area of the discovery until the
appropriate treatment has been accomplished.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
MA 25012
Previous Environmental Determination
April 3, 2025
10 MM – TCR-3: Final Report: If a Tribal cultural resource is also a historic resource defined above, the resource shall be included in the Final Report required by Mitigation Measure MM-CR-2 of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for MA20219.
Utilities and Service Systems
4.19 (a): Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural
gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause
significant environmental
effects?
Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, CR-1, CR-2, GEO-1, GEO-2, and TCR 1 through TCR-3 are required.
Less than
significant.
Conclusion:
The Project site is vacant, undeveloped land that remains substantially in the same physical condition as it was in 2023.
The approval of MA25012 and SDP23008EOT1 would not result in any new significant environmental impacts, substantially increase the severity of previously identified effects, or necessitate implementation of additional or considerably different mitigation measures than those identified in the adopted IS/MND and Addendum. The effects associated with the proposed Project’s SDP extension of time would be substantially the same as those reported for the adopted IS/MND, and thus no Supplemental or Subsequent Environmental Review (IS/MND) is required.
The Project is required to comply with the existing PPPs and MMs contained in the MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) adopted May 4, 2023, by City Council Resolution 2023-18.
Based on the preceding analysis and the Interagency Development Review Process the request for MA25012 and SDP23008EOT1 and is within the scope of the analysis contained in the adopted MND and the Project does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously analyzed impacts than anticipated in the adopted MND.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 26, 2025
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: ROD BUTLER, CITY MANAGER
BY: JOE PEREZ, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NO. 12.C
A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER APPEAL (MA25133, AP25002) TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION TO
UPHOLD THE MINISTERIAL STAFF DENIAL OF CAMINO TERRACE
APARTMENTS (MA24164, SDP24074), AN 80- UNIT AFFORDABLE
HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 28 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
UNITS, 51 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, ONE MANAGER’S UNIT, A 2,560-SQUARE-FOOT COMMUNITY BUILDING, AND A 6,463 SQUARE-
FOOT CHILDCARE CENTER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER
OF CAMINO REAL AND LIMONITE AVENUE, AND NORTHEAST CORNER OF CAMINO REAL AND CANYON TERRACE DRIVE, ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBERS 185-460-001, 185-470-001, 185-470-002; APPLICANT: WAKELAND
HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 2025-100, entitled:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
JURUPA VALLEY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CAMINO TERRACE
APARTMENTS PROJECT (MA24164, SDP24074) AN 80 -UNIT
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING OF 28
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS, 51 AFFORDABLE HOUSING
UNITS, ONE MANAGER’S UNIT, A 2,560 SQUARE FOOT
COMMUNITY BUILDING, AND 6,463 SQUARE FOOT CHILD
DAYCARE CENTER LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER
OF CAMINO REAL AND LIMONITE AVENUE , AND CAMINO
REAL AND CANYON TERRACE DRIVE, AND MAKING A
FINDING OF E XEMPTION UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES
SECTION 15270 (MA25054, AP25001)
BACKGROUND
Community Development Director’s Action
RETURN TO AGENDA
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 2
On February 13, 2025, the Community Development Director denied Master Application No. 24164 (MA24164) and Site Development Permit No. 24074 (SDP24074), issuing a formal Notice of Decision. The denial was based on the determination that the project did not qualify for ministerial approval as a supportive housing development under State law and failed to comply with the City’s objective development standards. On February 27, 2025, the applicant, Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation, filed a timely appeal in accordance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code (JVMC) Section 9.05.105, requesting review by the Planning Commission. This report provides an overview and analysis of the appeal, including the applicant’s assertions, our responses, and the key findings that guided the Planning Commission’s review and decision.
Planning Commission’s Action
On April 28, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Appeal (AP) No. AP25001 of the Community Development Director’s ministerial denial of the Camino Terrace Apartments project. Following the close of public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. PC -2025-06, upholding the Director’s denial. The Commission found that the project did not meet the requirements for ministerial approval under Government Code Section 65651 due to the absence of required onsite supportive services. The Planning Commission also determined that the project would result in specific, adverse impacts to public health and safety, particularly due to the lack of internal pedestrian connections between the two sites, insufficient external pedestrian connectivity, and the absence of ADA -compliant sidewalks along Camino Real.
Furthermore, the Planning Commission found that the project was inconsistent with General Plan policies, applicable zoning regulations, ADA standards, and California Building Code requirements, including the failure to submit a Site Development P ermit application for the proposed childcare center and deficiencies in accessible parking and pedestrian access. Based on these findings, the Planning Commission upheld the Director’s denial of the project.
Applicant’s Appeal of Planning Commission Action
The applicant submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision. The appeal states that the project complies with applicable State and local requirements, including those related to supportive housing eligibility, objective development standards, and the Housing Accountability Act. The applicant asserts that the project should be considered a by-right use and that the City's findings relied on subjective interpretations rather than objective criteria. The applicant requests that the City Council consider these points and approve the project. Page 17 of this report outlines the applicant’s specific reasons for appealing the denial and includes our responses to various project -related comments raised during the entitlement review process.
Property Ownership
The property is owned by the Riverside County Housing Authority, which acquired it in 2016. The site is currently under an Exclusive Negotiation Agreement (ENA) with Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation. An ENA is a preliminary, non-binding agreement that grants Wakeland exclusive rights to negotiate with the Housing Authority for the potential development of the site. As part of the agreement, Wakeland is Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 3
responsible for securing the necessary entitlements and approvals for any proposed development.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed 80-unit affordable housing development is proposed on two parcels located along Camino Real and north of Limonite Avenue. The proposed project site, total ing
15.53 acres, is bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, dividing it into two separate sites : the
5.88-acre southern portion (south of Canyon Terrace Drive), which includes six multi-story multifamily buildings with 28 supportive housing units, 51 affordable units, and one manager’s unit; and the 9.65-acre northern portion (north of Canyon Terrace Drive), which contains a 2,560- square-foot community building with supportive services, laundry facilities, and outdoor spaces, along with a 6,463-square-foot child daycare center.
The southern portion includes unit sizes ranging from one- to three -bedroom layouts, outdoor amenities (such as a 2,791-square-foot play area and four patios), and 74 parking spaces (including EV and accessible spaces). The northern portion provides additional outdoor spaces, including a pet relief area, play area, and terrace, along with 31 parking spaces. The project features stucco walls, panel accents, and arched entrances . The Applicant sought approval as a ministerial supportive housing development under California Government Code Sections 65650 et seq. See Exhibit 1 Project Site for project location and Exhibit 2 Site Plan for proposed project.
EXHIBIT NO. 1 - PROJECT SITE
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 4
EXHIBIT NO. 2 - OVERALL SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT NO. 3 - NORTH SITE, CHILD CARE CENTER, SUPPORTIVE SERVICES
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 5
EXHIBIT NO. 4 - SOUTH SITE - MULTI-FAMILY AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
APPLICATIONS FOR PROJECT
The proposed project requires several approvals. The Applicant sought approval under the ministerial approval process for qualifying supportive housing projects under California Government Code Section 65650 et seq ., as well as approval of a Density Bonus application.
Key Entitlements Required:
• Site Development Permit – Supportive Housing Application (SDP) – Required for the project’s approval as a by -right development under Government Code Section 65651 and 51 affordable housing units.
• Density Bonus Application – Incentives, concessions and waivers were requested under State Density Bonus Law to modify development standards, including setbacks, parking, and open space requirements. • Site Development Permit - Childcare facility - Required but not applied for by the Applicant.
SUPPORTIVE HOUSING ELIGIBILITY AND STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS Per the Applicant’s request, the application is being processed as a supportive housing project under California Government Code Section 65651, which allows qualifying developments to be approved ministerially in zones that permit multifamily housing. To qualify, the project must meet specific criteria, including:
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 6
• D edicating 100% of its units (excluding the manager’s unit) to lower -income households;
• A t least 25% of the units or 12 units, whichever is greater, are restricted to residents in supportive housing who meet criteria of the target population; • A recorded affordability restriction for 55 years; and • P roviding on-site supportive services for use by the residents in the project.
To receive the ministerial approval process, State law requires that a certain amount of space be included in the project for on -site services [Gov. Code § 65651(a)(5)] and that the “plan for providing supportive services” must include “documentation demonstrating that supportive services will be provided on-site to residents in the project, as required by Section 65651” (Gov. Code § 65652). Additionally, supportive housing developments must comply with objective zoning and development standards that apply to other multifamily developments within the same zone.
Density Bonus Eligibility, Waivers, Incentives, and Concessions As an affordable housing project, the development is eligible for various benefits under California Density Bonus Law ( Government Code Section 65915). This eligibility grants projects that dedicate all units to lower -income households (excluding the manager’s unit), to an automatic 80% density bonus , allowing the developer to exceed the base zoning density. The applicant is not seeking an increase in density.
Additionally, the project qualifies for waivers of development standards if adherence to local development standards would physically preclude the project from achieving its permitted density, including any density bonus. State Density Bonus Law also allows an applicant to obtain concessions or incentives, including regulatory incentives or concessions that result in identifiable and actual cost savings to a project. They are requesting waivers and concessions.
PROJECT LOCATION AND SURROUNDING AREA
The proposed project is located on a 15.53- acre site at the northeast corner of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue in the City of Jurupa Valley. The proposed project is bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, a two lane road, creating a southern portion (5.88 acres) for residential development and a northern portion (9.65 acres) for community and childcare services.
The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Medium High Density Residential (MHDR), which allows for single-family attached and detached residences at a density of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. It is zoned R-3 (Multifamily Residential) and is part of the Mission De Anza Specific Plan (SP123), Planning Area 11, which permits multifamily development.
The surrounding area consists primarily of single- family residential neighborhoods, with commercial (e.g., 123 Smile Dental Care) and open space uses nearby. Additionally, the site is within Zone E of the Riverside Municipal Airport Influence Area , requiring compliance with additional safety regulations.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 7
EXHIBIT NO. 5 - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE, MHDR (5-8 DU/AC)
EXHIBIT NO. 6 - ZONING, GENERAL RESIDENTIAL (R-3 ZONE)
At the time the project was submitted for processing and when the project was denied by the Community Development Director, the project site was designated as being in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. On March 24, 2025, the California Department o f Forestry and Fire Protection released a new Fire Hazard Severity Zone map for Riverside County. The new map no longer identifies the project site as being located in any fire severity zone.
PROJECT DESIGN AND SITE LAYOUT
The proposed 80-unit affordable housing project is structured as a two-part development Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 8
on a 15.53- acre site, with separate residential and community service areas. The southern portion (5.88 acres) consists of six multi-story multifamily residential buildings, including 28 supportive housing units, 51 affordable housing units, and one manager’s unit.
The northern portion (9.65 acres) includes a 2,560-square-foot community building designated for supportive services, laundry facilities, and common areas, as well as a 6,463-square-foot child daycare center intended to serve residents and the surrounding community.
Outdoor features of the southern portion include a 2,791 -square-foot play area and multiple landscaped patios. Outdoor features of the northern portion include a 1,374- square-foot pet relief area and a 2,900-square-foot recreational space.
Parking is located on both sites, with 74 spaces allocated to the residential area and 31 spaces near the community and childcare center, including accessible and electric vehicle parking.
The architectural design incorporates low -pitched gabled roofs, stucco walls, and panel accents, with a layout that includes a combination of indoor and outdoor spaces.
Summary Design and Site Layout Features:
• Southern Portion (5.88 acres) – Residential Area:
o Buildings: Six multi-story multifamily buildings with 80 total units. o Unit Mix: 42 one-bedroom (593 sq. ft.), 20 two-bedroom (690–707 sq. ft.), and 18 three-bedroom (1,012 sq. ft.).
o Outdoor Features:
2,791 sq. ft. play area.
Four landscaped patios.
o Parking: 74 spaces, including accessible and EV spaces. • Northern Portion (9.65 acres) – Community and Childcare Facilities:
o Community Building (2,560 sq. ft.):
Space for supportive services.
Shared laundry facilities.
Terrace (1,844 sq. ft.).
o Child Daycare Center (6,463 sq. ft.):
Proposed to serve both residents and the broader community. o Outdoor Features:
2,900 sq. ft. recreational area.
1,374 sq. ft. pet relief area.
o Parking: 31 spaces, including accessible and EV spaces. • Architectural and Site Features:
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 9
o Building Design: Low-pitched gabled roofs with stucco and panel accents. o Pedestrian Access: Internal walkways connecting residential units to amenities.
o Landscaping: Tree-lined walkways and landscaped areas. o Lighting and Security: Common areas include lighting and other safety measures.
The project’s design incorporates residential, community, and childcare components, with site features.
ACCESS, CIRCULATION, AND PARKING
The proposed project is comprised of two sites that are bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive, creating separate access points for the residential area to the south and the community building and childcare facilities to the north. R esidents would need to cross Canyon Terrace Drive, a two lane road, to access the community services and daycare center.
EXHIBIT NO. 7 - SITE PHOTOS SEC CAMINO REAL AND CANYON TERRACE
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 10
EXHIBIT NO. 8 - SITE PHOTOS NEC CAMINO REAL AND CANYON TERRACE
EXHIBIT NO. 9 - EAST ON CAMINO REAL AND CANYON TERRACE
PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
The applicant is seeking waivers of some pedestrian access requirements, which affects connectivity between the northern and southern sites, as well as between the Project site and the public right -of-way. Specifically, the applicant requests pedestrian access to be provided as shown on project plans and not does not include sidewalks, connection to sidewalk, physical separation between parking spaces and pedestrian paths.
While internal walkways are provided within each of the northern and southern portions of the project (respectively), there are no sidewalk improvements along Canyon Terrace Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 11
Drive or Camino Real, and Wakeland is seeking a concession under State Density Bonus Law to avoid constructing sidewalk improvements.
The lack of sidewalk improvements would make external access to and from the site unsafe where a person needs to access the site using public transportation, by foot / mobility device, or using a stroller for children. The nearest bus stops are located west of Limonite Avenue (at the intersection of Limonite and Camino Real ). Camino Real, is a four-lane road (two lanes in each direction), with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. The situation is made even more dangerous by the fact that the Project is intended to provide housing and services for homeless veterans, some of whom may need to use mobili ty devices, and will need to travel with their mobility devices on the same road where cars are traveling at a high rate of speed.
The image shown below demonstrates the path an individual would need to take by foot or mobility device to reach the nearest bus stop. However, there is not an existing sidewalk on Camino Real and the Applicant has sought to avoid the City’s requirement for installing a sidewalk there as a “incentive” under density bonus law.
A project narrative, dated September 2024, notes that pedestrian access may not fully comply with JVMC Section 9.240.545(B)(9) due to site constraints and the absence of adjacent sidewalks. The narrative indirectly acknowledges challenges and constraints and notes uncertainty about full compliance with JVMC standards due to lack of sidewalks and a divided site. As a precaution, the applicant requests an incentive under State Density Bonus Law for relief from these requirements; however, staff has expressed health and safety concerns regarding the adequacy of the proposed pedestrian circulation.
EXHIBIT NO. 10 - NEAREST BUS STOPS
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 12
PARKING
The project includes a total of 10 6 parking spaces, distributed as 74 spaces in the residential area and 31 spaces near the community and childcare center, including electric vehicle (EV) and accessible spaces. The applicant is seeking a parking reduction under the State Density Bonus Law, which allows projects with 100% affordable units to reduce standard parking requirements. No parking spaces are being allocated to the 28 supportive housing units, while the parking requirements for the 51 affordable unit s are calculated based on SDBL (Gov Code Section 65915(p)) which require a total of 71 spaces.
A waiver is requested to allow parking within 30 feet of the public right -of-way, which is otherwise restricted by JVMC Section 9.240.120.B(6)(a)(i), due to site topography and feasibility concerns
LANDSCAPING, ARCHITECTURE, AND WALLS/FENCES
Landscaping and Private Open Space Modifications
The proposed landscaping plan includes tree plantings, open space areas, and recreational amenities. The applicant is requesting modifications to tree spacing requirements, as some areas do not meet the City’s standard for trees planted at 30-foot intervals.
Additionally, the project does not fully comply with parking lot shading requirements, as it proposes less than the required shading coverage. The applicant is also requesting a waiver for private open space requirements, but the actual dimensions and usability of those spaces are noncompliant.
Landscaped areas include a 2,900- square-foot recreational space, a 1,374- square-foot pet relief area, and multiple patios, but the overall plan seeks to deviate from certain City landscaping regulations.
Architectural Style and Building Heights
The project consists of multi -story residential buildings on the southern site, with some structures reaching two stories and others three stories. The design incorporates low - pitched gabled roofs, stucco walls with panel accents, and symmetrical windows. The building massing is rectangular, with balconies on upper levels and arched entryways on ground floors. The community building and childcare center on the northern site feature similar stucco finishes and neutral color palettes.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 13
EXHIBIT NO. 11 - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND COMMUNITY BUILDING
Walls and Retaining Structures
The project includes a substantial retaining wall along Camino Real, which reaches a height of 18 feet in certain sections. This height exceeds the City’s standard for walls near the right -of-way, and the applicant is requesting a waiver to allow for this deviation.
Additionally, the project does not propose perimeter walls as required by the Municipal Code, particularly along property boundaries adjacent to commercial areas.
The project’s perimeter wall along the commercial property line is unclear. While the applicant's narrative, dated September 2024, states that a 6-foot decorative block wall will be provided along the property boundary shared with the adjacent commercial use, the site and landscape plans, dated August 7, 2024, depict fence lines but do not indicate the required perimeter wall. As a result, it is not possible to confirm compliance with Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545(B)(7)(b). Lack of clarity inhibits ministerial or by- right processing.
REQUESTED WAIVERS, INCENTIVES, AND CONCESSIONS
As an affordable housing project, the applicant is utilizing California Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915) to request concessions/incentives and waivers to modify certain development standards and City requirements. Despite the City identifying that some of the City’s development standards and Zoning Code requirements were not met, the applicant did not request a concession/incentive or waiv er of some of these Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 14
regulations for the City to evaluate, as summarized below . As such, the City retains the ability to enforce the applicable development standards and requirements.
EXHIBIT NO. 12 - WAIVERS, INCENTIVES, AND CONCESSIONS
Ref
#
Category Code Requirement Requested
Modification
Type
(Waiver,
Incentive, or
Concession)
1 Landscaping
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(6)
Trees must be planted
at 30-foot intervals
Tree spacing exceeds 30
feet in some areas
Waiver
2 Landscaping Shading
Sec. 9.240.120(7)(e)(i)
Parking lots must have
minimum 40% shading
Project proposes 29%
shading
Waiver
3 Private Open Space
Sec. 9.240.545.B(1)
115 sq. ft. (ground
units), 75 sq. ft. (upper
units)
Some balconies and patios
are below minimum
Incentive
4 Parking Setback
Sec. 9.240.120.B(6)(a)(i)
Parking must be 30 feet
from right-of-way
Proposed setback is 17
feet 5 inches
Waiver
5 Pedestrian Access
Sec. 9.240.545.B(9)
Sidewalks required to
provide connection
between on-site areas
to public sidewalks
Internal Connections,
ramps at the corner of
Camino Real and Canyon
Terrace, however no
connection to sidewalks.
Incentive
6 Wall Height
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(7)
Maximum height of 42
inches within 20 feet of
a street
Retaining wall along
Camino Real is 18 feet
Waiver
7 Perimeter Walls Along
Commercial Property
Sec. 9.240.545.(B)(7)
6-foot walls required
along commercial
properties
Unclear, narrative states
compliance however plans
do not demonstrate
feature.
None
8 Unit Sizes
Sec. 9.240.110
Minimum 750 sq. ft. per
unit
42 one bedroom units that
are 593 sq. ft. in size; 20
two bedroom units that are
690-707 sq. ft. in size
Waiver
9 Laundry Facilities
Sec. 9.240.545.(B)(3)
Washer/dryer hookups
required in units
Shared laundry facility
instead of in-unit at 8
communal washers and
dryers in lieu of 1 per unit.
Incentive
10 Parking Reduction
Sec. 9.240.120.
(B)(1)(b)(ii)
Comply with JV
multifamily parking
ratios.
Provide parking per Sec.
6591.5 Density Bonus Law
provide 105 total.
Allowed parking
ratios per
Density Bonus
11 Accessible Parking
Location
Sec. 9.240.120(6)(c)(ii)
Accessible parking
spaces must provide
direct access to primary
building entrances.
Accessible spaces do not
have direct access to
building entrances
None
12 Landscaped Berm
Requirement
Sec. 9.240.120(7)(f)(i)(j)
A 3-foot-high berm or
planter with shrubbery is
required around parking
perimeters
Landscaped berms are not
proposed in required
locations
None
13 Accessory Storage
Sec. 9.240.545(B)(4)(b)
60 cubic feet outside
unit
0 cubic feet Waiver
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 15
As part of its density bonus application, Wakeland did not submit a request to deviate from the requirement to provide accessible parking spaces with direct access to building entrances or from the landscaped berm requirements. As such, the project is required to comply with these requirements.
DIRECTOR’S ACTION ON PROJECT
On February 13, 2025, the Jurupa Valley Community Development Director issued a Notice of Decision denying Master Application No. 24164 (MA24164) and Site Development Permit No. 24074 (SDP24074). The denial was based on the project's failure to comply with objective development standards and State law requirements to be approved under the ministerial process for supportive housing projects.
The primary justifications for the denial include:
• Failure to Meet State Law Requirements
o To receive the ministerial approval process under state law, California Government Code Section 65651 requires supportive housing developments to provide a certain amount of on-site supportive services.
The proposed project locates its supportive services on a separate parcel across the street, failing to meet the statutory requirement that services be provided on-site.
o While California Government Code Section 65651 does not define the term “on-site” in relation to supportive services, it does require that such services be provided on-site. In the absence of a statutory definition, interpretation is left to local jurisdictions. When residential units and supportive services are located on separate parcels divided by a public street , the services cannot reasonably be considered “on- site,” as they are not integrated with the housing component. To meet the intent of Section 65651, supportive services must actually be provided “on-site.”
o To provide context on the issue, the applicant submitted a Letter of Technical Assistance from HCD related to a different project, intended to illustrate HCD’s position on “on -site” configuration. Staff has reviewed the letter and notes that, while HCD guidance encourages cities to treat parcels separated by a street as contiguous for purposes of Density Bonus Law eligibility, this interpretation does not extend to supportive housing requirements under Government Code Section 65651, which specifically requires supportive services to be provided “on-site.”
o The applicant applied for a supportive housing project through a specific State law and was processed accordingly. Compliance with the supportive housing requirements set forth in Government Code Section 65651 et seq. is a requirement for any ministerial project approval. As the project does not provide onsite supportive services, it cannot be approved under the ministerial process identified in Government Code Sections 65650 et seq., and therefore the project was denied.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 16
• Non-Compliance with Objective Zoning and Development Standards o Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.80.0202(A)(25) provides that a childcare center is allowed in the R-3 zone with a Site Development Permit.
The applicant did not submit an application for a S ite Development Permit for the child care center and, therefore, the Project does not comply with the City’s zoning ordinance.
o The project does not meet multiple C ity zoning and development requirements, including:
Perimeter Walls – No required 6-foot wall along commercial property boundaries;
Parking Setback – Parking spaces encroach into required setback areas;
Pedestrian Access – No right-of-way improvements connecting the residential and supportive services parcels;
Landscaping and Shading Requirements – Does not meet tree spacing, shading, and landscaping berm requirements;
Obtaining a Site Development Permit approval for the child daycare center; and
Accessible parking location requirements.
o The project does not meet multiple objective development standards established by the City’s zoning and development code. While the State Density Bonus Law allows for waivers, concessions, and incentives to address such deviations, a request must be submitted to the City for review and approval. As part of its density bonus application, the applicant did not request to deviate from the requirement to provide accessible parking spaces with direct access to building entrances or from the landscaped berm req uirements. Therefore, the City retains authority to require compliance with these objective standards.
• Specific, Adverse Impact on Public Health and Safety
o The lack of sidewalks connecting the Project site to the public transportation stop at the corner of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue poses a specific , adverse impact on public health and safety, particularly for residents requiring accessible pathways or residents who are children. Residents traveling from the bus stop to the Project site will be forced to travel in the roadway along Camino Real, a four -lane highway with a speed limit of 40 miles per hour. This creates a dangerous situation for those residents, especially those that must use mobility devices and/or strollers. The City has a clear objective requirement that new development provide accessible pathways between a project on the one hand and public streets / sidewalks and bus stops, on the other hand. The a pplicant’s refusal to construct sidewalk improvements, therefore, means that the Project does not meet Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 17
this objective standard, which creates a clear impact on public health and safety.
• Fire Safety
o When the project was denied by the Community Development Director, the project site was located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection recently released the 2025 Fire Hazard Severity Zones for Riverside County and these updated maps no longer identify the project site as being located in any fire severity zone. The updated Fire Hazard Severity Zones are required to be adopted by jurisdictions by June 19, 2025. While a Fire Protection Plan may be conditioned with an approval, the pending comments from the Fire Department require site plan modifications to ensure compliance with F ire Department access standards, including driveway widths that meet the 24- foot clear width requirement, and driveway grades that do not exceed the 14% maximum allowable slope per RVC Fire Guideline OFM -01A.
Additionally, roadside tree placement must be adjust ed to maintain the required 24- foot clear width and 13.5- foot clear height for fire apparatus access. The project cannot be approved without a new submittal of the site plan that addresses all of the Fire Department’s comments.
The denial of the project wa s based on these deficiencies, particularly its failure to meet the qualifications for ministerial approval of a supportive housing project and its non - compliance with objective City development standards. The applicant appeal ed the Community Development Director’s decision within 15 calendar days, in accordance with the City’s procedures.
Because the Applicant sought approval under the ministerial process for supportive housing created by State law and the project consists of more than 50 units, the City was required to process the application within 120 days, as mandated by Government Code Section 65651. The Notice of Decision denying the project was issued on February 13, 2025, ensuring compliance with the 120-day statutory deadline.
Prior to the denial, the C ity provided several comment letters, first addressing completeness of the application and then outlining the project’s inconsistencies with the City’s standards. An incompleteness letter was issued on July 19, 2024, followed by a letter on October 16, 2024 advising the applicant that the project application was deemed complete. On November 15, 2024, the City issued a Zoning Compatibility Letter, which identified the project’s inconsistencies with the City’s objective standards. These included the absence of onsite, or accessible, supportive services as required by S tate law, the lack of a site development permit application for the childcare center, the lack of right-of- way improvements and pedestrian connectivity, missing perimeter walls, deficiencies in pedestrian access, and landscaping non-compliance.
APPEAL OF DIRECTOR’S ACTION TO PLANNING COMMISSION
On February 27, 2025, Wakeland submitted an appeal of the Director ’s denial of the project. The Community Development Department, Engineering and Public Works Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 18
Department, and City Attorney’s Office have reviewed the appeal and provide the following comments on issues relevant to the project denial:
• Pedestrian Access to and from Public Streets – While Wakeland is proposing a path- of-travel across Canyon Terrace, Wakeland is seeking a concession to avoid constructing any sidewalk improvements along Camino Real or Canyon Terrace which front the Project site. The Mobility Element of the General Plan requires that all new developments construct sidewalk improvements. Specifically, Mobility Element Policy ME 2.11 states that the City “[r]equire[s] street improvements as a condition of new developments, including undergrounding of utility lines, installation of fiber optic cable and other utilities, sidewalk, curb, gutter and street pave- out, bicycle and equestrian facilities, street lighting (where appropriate), street trees and landscaping.” ME 3.21 states that the City “[r]equire[s] safe pedestrian walkways that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements within commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.” ME 8.10 states that “Developers shall be responsible for right -of-way dedication and improvements that provide access to and enhance new developments. Improvements include street construction or widening, new paving, frontage improvements like curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, trails and parkways, installation of traffic signals, pavement markings and annunciators, and other facilities needed for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians, bicyclists, equestrians, and motor vehicles.” The Project is not meeting these objective standards set forth in the General Plan.
Moreover, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) mandates that public facilities, including sidewalks, must be accessible to individuals with disabilities.
The Project does not comply with a number of ADA regulations and standards.
According to ADA Standards for Accessible Design Standards, Section 206.2.1, at least one accessible route must be provided within the site to accessible facility entrances from these site arrival points, where provided: (1) accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, (2) public streets and sidewalks, and (3) each public transportation stop. Wakeland is seeking a concession to not construct any sidewalks adjacent to the Project site. This results in there being no accessible unobstructed route to the Project site and, therefore, none of the buildings are accessible from a public street, a public sidewalk, or public transportation stop.
The only way to get to the site is by driving which prevents an individual who uses a mobility device from having an accessible route between the public streets and sidewalks in nearby neighborhoods or from the public bus stops.
The Project also does not comply with the requirements set forth in California Building Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Section 1114B.1.2, which states that “when a building, or portion of a building, is required to be accessible or a daptable, an accessible route of travel complying with Sections 1102B, 1114B, 1124B, 1133B.3, 1133B.5, 1133B.7, and 1133B.8.6 shall be provided to all portions of the building, to accessible building entrances, and between the building and the public way. . . At least one accessible route within the boundary of the site shall be provided from public transportation stops, accessible parking and accessible passenger loading zones, and public streets or sidewalks, to the accessible building entrance they serve. The accessible route shall, to the Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 19
maximum extent feasible, coincide with the route for the general public. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible buildings, facilities, elements, and spaces that are on the same site. At least one accessible route shall connect accessible building or facility entrances with all accessible spaces and elements and with all accessible dwelling units within the building or facility. An accessible route shall connect at least one accessible entrance of each accessible dwelling unit with those exterior and interior spaces and facilities that serve the accessible dwelling unit. Where more than one route of travel is provided, all routes shall be accessible.”
Moreover, California Building Code, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations Section 11B-206.2.1 provides that at least one accessible route shall be provided within the site from accessible parking spaces and accessible passenger drop- off and loading zones; public streets and sidewalks; and public transportation stops to the accessible building or facility entrance they serve. The Project is not providing an accessible route from a public transportation stop or from any public street or sidewalk to any of the buildings on the Project site.
Compliance with these requirements are essential to ensuring safe and accessible pathways for individuals who need to access the various buildings on site including the housing on the south site, the supportive housing services, child care, and laundry facilities on the north site, as well as transit services at the intersection of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue. As no sidewalks are proposed, the Project fails to meet the ADA and California Building Code requirements set forth above.
The Mobility Element of the General Plan requires the construction of sidewalks and Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545(B)(9) requires pedestrian access from public streets. In addition, the ADA and CBC require that accessible routes of travel. The lack of connectivity and an accessible route of travel creates a public safety issue, especially for residents with mobility needs, and supports the denial under applicable standards and the Housing Accountability Act. • Sidewalk and Infrastructure Requirements – Wakeland argues that the lack of sidewalks does not create a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, and that the City did not provide substantial evidence to justify requiring them. Not having sidewalks will force pedestrians, including children and people using mobility devices to travel in the roadway along Camino Real to access the closest bus stop located on the corner of Camino Real and Limonite Avenue. This is specifically concerning with motorists traveling at high speeds along Camino Real.
The speed limit on Camino Real is 40 miles per hour. The absence of sidewalks would create an unsafe environment for pedestrians coming from nearby streets such as Limonite Avenue, Canyon Terrace Drive, and Lakeside Drive. The only way to mitigate this danger is for the project to construct ADA-compliant sidewalks so that pedestrians and persons using mobility devices to travel from the bus stops to the Project site (and from the Project site to the bus s tops), can travel on a sidewalk rather than in the vehicle right-of-way on a busy street. • Supportive Housing Eligibility – Wakeland claims the City subjectively interpreted State law by determining that on- site supportive services must be on the same parcel as the residential units. There is no authority to support Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 20
Wakeland’s position that onsite supportive services may be located across the street from the residential component of the project. The City has not found any case interpreting Government Code section 65650 et seq. as providing that “on- site” services can be provided on a parcel across a two-lane street. • Ministerial By -Right Approval Project for Multifamily Housing P rojects - Wakeland claims that the project should be processed ministerially, as the City’s Housing Element states that multifamily housing with at least 10% affordable units qualifies for by-right approval. Wakeland did not, however, apply for a multifamily housing project but rather is seeking approval of a supportive housing project through the ministerial process created by Government Code Section 65650 et seq. Therefore, this argument is not relevant to whether the Community Development Director properly denied Wakeland’s application for a ministerial approval of a supportive housing project with a childcare center.
On April 28, 2025, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the matter and following the close of public testimony, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No.
PC-2025-06, upholding the Director’s denial of the project.
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO CITY COUNCIL
On May 9, 2025, Wakeland submitted an appeal of the April 28, 2025 Planning Commission decision. The Community Development Department, Engineering and Public Works Department, and City Attorney’s Office have reviewed the appeal request and provided the following comments on issues relevant to the project denial:
• Appeal Comment: The applicant argues the project meets all eligibility requirements for ministerial approval under Government Code Section 65651 and JVMC Section 9.240.555. The City’s denial relied on a subjective interpretation of “onsite supportive services” due to the site being bisected by Canyon Terrace Drive. The applicant contends this interpretation is inconsistent with objective standards and state law
o Response: The physical separation of housing and services by a public street (Canyon Terrace Drive) raises valid questions of integration. There is no explicit statutory provision that provides that two separate parcels separated by a road qualify as a single “site” under Government Code Section 65651. While the applicant asserts the City’s interpretation is subjective, the determination is based on an objective reading of the statutory requirement that supportive services be provided “on s ite” and reflects a reasonable application of state law in the absence of clear legislative or judicial guidance to the contrary. HCD’s letter to the City states that “there is nothing in [Government Code Section 65651] that would prohibit a site that is divided by a roadway from serving as a single permanent supportive housing development” but it is equally true that there is nothing in Government Code Section 65651 that would compel the City to make a finding that providing supportive housing services across a two lane street qualifies as providing supportive housing “on-site.” • Appeal Comment: The applicant argues that the project complies with all objective zoning standards, ADA, and CBC requirements or is eligible for waivers Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 21
and concessions under SDBL. The claim is that sidewalk requirements cited by the City are off -site obligations not imposed by objective standards applicable to private developers.
o Response: The General Plan’s Mobility Element requires the construction of sidewalk improvements. Moreover, Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.240.545(B)(9) requires pedestrian access from public streets.
The ADA and CBC require accessible routes from public rights -of-way and transit stops to building entrances. The project does not provide an accessible connection from Camino Real or Limonite Avenue. The applicant claims that such improvements are not their responsibility but ignore that these requirements are set forth in objective standards to provide b asic accessibility within and to the project site.
• Appeal Comment: The applicant asserts that the project complies wit h CBC and ADA accessibility requirements within the boundaries of the site, including an internal 5-foot-wide ADA-compliant pedestrian path and proposed ADA curb ramps at the intersection of Canyon Terrace and Camino Real. They contend that off-site improvements (such as sidewalks along Camino Real) fall outside the Planning Division’s purview and should not be used as grounds for denying the project based on zoning consistency. They argue that any unresolved accessibility issues could be addressed during permitting and do not justify denial at the entitlement stage.
o Response: In compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) , the City may deny the project due to the lack of accessible pedestrian connections between the site and surrounding public infrastructure, particularly along Camino Real, as this will have a specific, adverse public health and safety impact that cannot otherwise be mitigated. The absence of offsite ADA-compliant access disproportionately affects the intended supportive housing population, including residents wi th disabilities .
Additionally, the review process includes evaluating whether the project meets objective development standards and does not present unmitigable health and safety concerns. Therefore, the Community Development Director and the Planning Commission had the authority to consider these deficiencies in their decision to deny the ministerial approval of the project. • Appeal Comment: The applicant states that the City’s findings include “clear misreadings” of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Building Code (CBC).
o Response: The City respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s assertion that it “clearly misread” the ADA and CBC. The City’s concern is that the project’s configuration does not ensure access between the housing units and supportive services. For a supportive housing project serving individuals with disabilities, both internal site circulation and external pedestrian connectivity are essential to achieving physical and practical integration. The City’s interpretation has been carefully reviewed and validated by City staff, confirming its consistency with applicable Municipal Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 22
Code provisions and its alignment with objective accessibility and zoning standards.
• Appeal Comment: The applicant contends that the City’s General Plan policies requiring frontage improvements such as sidewalks are not enforceable on private development. As such, the City cannot rely on these policies as objective standards to require off-site improvements or to deny the project. o Response: The General Plan Mobility Element Policy ME 2.11 expressly “[r]equire[s] street improvements as a condition of new developments, including undergrounding of utility lines, installation of fiber optic cable and other utilities, sidewalk, curb, gutter and street pave- out, bicycle and equestrian facilities, street lighting (where appropriate), street trees and landscaping.” ME 3.21 states that the City “[r]equire[s] safe pedestrian walkways that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements within commercial, office, industrial, mixed use, residential, and recreational developments.” ME 8.10 states that “Developers shall be responsible for right -of-way dedication and improvements that provide access to and enhance new developments. Improvements include street construction or widening, new paving, frontage improvements like curb, gutter, sidewalks, street trees, trails and parkways, installation of traffic signals, pavement.” This language is objective and mandatory. The applicant does not cite to any authority that stands for the proposition that the City cannot impose the objective standards set forth in its General Plan.
Moreover, the City’s zoning code includes codified, objective development standards that are also enforceable on private development. For example, JVMC Section 9.240.545(B)(9) requires pedestrian connections from residential units to public sidewalks and other site elements. The lack of ADA-compliant sidewalk connectivity along Camino Real and inadequate site integration with the public right-of-way prevent the project from meeting these objective standards. Therefore, the City’s denial of the project was based on specific, objective standards that apply to ministerial housing projects.
• Appeal Comment: The applicant cites to HCD’s Notice of Potential Violation (dated April 24, 2025) to argue that the City’s denial is inconsistent with state law.
They contend that HCD has confirmed a site divided by a roadway may still qualify as a single supportive housing development under Governm ent Code Section 65651, and that denial based on the location of supportive services or ADA access is improper.
o Response: The City acknowledges HCD’s Notice of Potential Violation but maintains that the City’s interpretation of “on-site” supportive services under Government Code Section 65651 is a reasonable application of the law as further discussed above.
• Appeal Comment: The City failed to meet the HAA’s threshold for denial, which requires a preponderance of evidence showing a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated. The applicant asserts the City’s Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 23
cited concerns (e.g., lack of sidewalk) are existing conditions or speculative impacts—not specific adverse impacts caused by the project. o Response: The City identified lack of access, particularly for residents with mobility devices, and failure to provide pedestrian safety improvements along Camino Real. These are legitimate health and safety concerns under the HAA (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)(2)), especially when no mitigation (e.g., sidewalks) is proposed. The applicant’s argument that the conditions are “existing” may not overcome the fact that new residents will rely on unsafe, non-accessible infrastructure. Responding to Fire comments at this stage of review is also important since Fire comment letters have identified revisions that would require changes to site plan exhibits. To focus on the HAA Standards, the City’s findings focus on the following:
Specific Impact: The project will house 80 new residents, including formerly homeless veterans and individuals with disabilities, who will rely on unsafe, non- ADA-compliant infrastructure for daily mobility and access to services.
Adverse Health and Safety Risk: The lack of sidewalk s, safe crossings exposes residents to vehicle conflicts along Camino Real with no dedicated pedestrian pathway.
Lack of Mitigation: The applicant has not proposed any off -site improvements (e.g., sidewalks, curb ramps, lighting) to address these access deficiencies.
Cumulative Risk: The interaction between the project and existing infrastructure deficiencies creates a foreseeable and substantial health and safety hazard that cannot be mitigated through on- site design alone.
Unresolved Emergency Access : Comments from the Fire
Department remain outstanding and may necessitate plan revisions affecting emergency response routes and site circulation, further compounding safety risks.
• Appeal Comment: Wakeland contends that concerns raised by the City do not warrant denial, and asserts that any unresolved issues could have been addressed through conditions of approval rather than rejecting the project outright. o Response: Wakeland’s position is acknowledged but the City maintains that the project, as submitted, did not demonstrate compliance with key objective standards, and fire comments that impact the design of the site.
While the City is open to resolving such issues through conditions of approval, no specific revisions or commitments were provided at the time of decision.
• Appeal Comment: The City’s Housing Element commits to by -right approval of multi-family and supportive housing projects on the site, but the Zoning Code still requires a discretionary Site Development Permit (SDP), creating a barrier to Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 24
approval. The City is also alleged to be out of compliance with Housing Element law due to delayed rezoning and failure to implement SB 35 streamlining. o Response: If the project w as determined to be eligible for by -right processing, it would remain subject to applicable objective development standards. City staff has identified several areas where the current project design does not appear to meet these standards, and these issues are not automatically resolved through a claim of by-right eligibility.
Additionally, while the City continues to work toward Housing Element implementation, including rezoning, individual projects must still be reviewed based on the objective standards and laws in effect at the time of application. The City’s review and denial of this project was based on those applicable standards. Moreover, while the applicant applied for a SB 35 project in 2021, that project was deemed ineligible for SB 35 streamlining.
The current application that is being appealed is not a SB 35 project. • Appeal Comment: The appeal argues that denial of the project undermines the City’s ability to meet its Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), especially for lower income households. The project site is identified in multiple Housing Elements as a suitable site for affordable housing, and the project would help address the City’s significant RHNA shortfall.
o City Response: The City's denial of the project does not under mine its ability to meet its RHNA . While the project site was identified in prior Housing Elements, it is currently designated for above- moderate income units in the City’s 6th Cycle inventory and is not relied upon to meet lower - income RHNA targets. The City has demonstrated surplus capa city for lower-income housing on other suitable sites, and denial of one project does not constitute noncompliance with RHNA.
The applicant’s appeal, including the basis for the appeal, is included as Attachment 4.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA COMPLIANCE)
The project is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15270, CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves. Nevertheless, the applicant has submitted environmental technical studies for the record, including a Biological Resources Report (dated May 30, 2024), a Cultural Resources Report (dated October 2022), a Fire Protection Plan (dated March 17, 2022), and an Airport Land Use Commission Director’s Determination (dated December 30, 2024).
NOTICING REQUIREMENTS
Public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners within 1,000 feet from the boundaries of the project site on June 16, 2025. Additionally, legal advertisements were published in the Press Enterprise on Sunday, June 16, 2025 . At this time, no additional responses have been received. Comments that were received prior to the Planning Commission hearing are included in Attachment 6.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th e applicant paid for the processing of the project appeal. It will have no effect on City costs or revenues.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2025-100 to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to affirm the ministerial denial of Camino Terrace Apartments (Master Application No. 24164, Site Development Permit No. 24074), an 80-unit affordable housing project located at the southeast corner of Camino Real and Canyon Terrace Drive, and deny the Applicant's appeal; or
2. Direct staff to prepare a resolution that grants the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision approving the proposed Camino Terrace Apartments; the resolution will be returned for City Council consideration at a future date; or Prepared by:
'r�
Joe Perez
Assistant City Manager/ Community
Development Director
S n Paragas
Finance Director
Michael Flad
Assistant City Manager
www.jurupavalley.org
Submitted by:
for: Rod Butler, City Manager
Reviewed by:
Peter Thorson
City Attorney
Page I 25
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Page | 26
ATTACHMENTS
1. City Council Resolution
2. Adopted Resolution No. PC-2025-06
3. Project Plan Set (Architectural, Civil, and Landscape Plans)
4. Appeal of Director’s Action to Planning Commission
5. Appeal of Planning Commission Decision to City Council
6. Project Review Correspondences
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
City Council Resolution
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
RESOLUTION NO. 2025-100
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF JURUPA VALLEY UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF CAMINO TERRACE
APARTMENTS PROJECT (MA24164, SDP24074) AN 80 -
UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT CONSISTING
OF 28 SUPPORTIVE HOUSING UNITS , 51 AFFORDABLE
HOUSING UNITS, ONE MANAGER’S UNIT, A 2,560
SQUARE FOOT COMMUNITY BUILDING, AND 6,463
SQUARE FOOT CHILD DAYCARE CENTER LOCATED
ON THE NORTHEAST CORNERS OF CAMINO REAL AND
LIMONITE AVENUE AND CAMINO REAL AND CANYON
TERRACE DRIVE, AND MAKING A FINDING OF
EXEMPTION UNDER CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION
15270 (MA25054, AP25001)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Project. Wakeland Housing and Development Corporation (“Wakeland”) applied for a Site Development Permit (SDP24074) to construct an 80- unit affordable housing project consisting of 28 supportive housing units and 51 affordable housing units, a 2,560 square foot community building, and 6,463 square foot child daycare center at the northeast corner of Camino Real and Limonite avenue, identified as Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 185 -460-001, 185- 470-001, 185-470-002 (the “Project”). Wakeland also submitted a Density Bonus Application to seek a waiver of certain development standards including a waiver of landscaping, private open space, parking setback, pedestrian access, retaining wall height, perimeter walls, and unit size requirements. Wakeland also sought an incentive to provide a shared laundry facility instead of washer/dryer hookups. Wakeland sought approval as a ministerial supportive housing development under California Government Code Sections 65650 et seq.
Section 2. Appeal.
(a) Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.105 provides that 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 provided 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 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.
(b) On February 27, 2025, Wakeland submitted a timely appeal of the Community Development Director’s denial of the Project.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025
Error! Unknown document property name.
(c) On May 28, 2025, the Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the appeal of the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the Planning Commission closed the public hearing, and adopted Resolution No. PC-2025-06, upholding the Community Development Director’s denial of the Project. (d) On May 9, 2025, Wakeland submitted a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s denial of the Project.
(e) Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.105(c) provides that 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. Jurupa Valley Municipal Code Section 9.05.100 provides that City Council shall hear the appeal de novo; however, the documents and the minutes of the hearing before the Planning Commission shall be a part of the City Council's record at its hearing on the matter. The City Council to sustain, reverse or modify the decision of Planning Commission. The City Council shall hear relevant testimony and receive written comments from interested persons prior to or at the hearing. Within a reasonable time after the close of the hearing, the City Council shall make its decision sustaining, reversing or modifying the decision of the Planning Commission. The decision of the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall require three (3) affirmative votes of the City Council. In making its decision sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission or sustaining the decision of the Planning Commission with modifications, the City Council may adopt by reference the findings of the Planning Commission.
In making its decision reversing a decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council shall make the findings required by law and this Code and shall approve, conditionally approve or disapprove the applications appealed. The decision of the City Council shall be final.
Section 3. Procedural Findings . The Planning Commission of the City of Jurupa Valley does hereby find, determine and declare that:
(a) The application for the Project was processed including, but not limited to a public notice, in the time and manner prescribed by State law and Jurupa Valley Ordinances. (b) On June 26, 2025, the City Council of the City of Jurupa Valley held a public hearing on the appeal of the Project at which time all persons interested in the Project had the opportunity and did address the Planning Commission on these matters. Following the receipt of public testimony, the City Council closed the public hearing. (c) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
Section 4. California Environmental Quality Act Findings . The City Council , based on its own independent judgment, does hereby find, determine and declare that the Project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) (Cal.
Pub. Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State Guidelines (the “CEQA Guidelines”) (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) pursuant to Section 15270(a) of the CEQA Guidelines because CEQA does not apply to projects which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
Adjourned Regular City Council Meeting - June 26, 2025